How The Pros of Private Prisons Outweigh Its Cons

The debate over private prisons is highly controversial, and most of the opposition is due to transparency, but private prisons offer the government the ability to transfer certain prisoners out of government run public prisons to reduce overcrowding, reduce cost, and provide greater flexibility in the design, modifications, and expansion of the facility. During the 1980’s, the government needed to find a better way to build and maintain prison facilities, so they determined that contracting with companies that built and run prisons would reduce cost, and the overcrowded conditions in the public prisons. They contracted with these private prisons and sent inmates to them through the years, but now better oversight is necessary. Since the government works very slowly to implement change, the public prisons are not quickly reformed, but fortunately private prisons do not require new legislation to produce positive change. They operate based on negotiated contract between the government and the company that runs the private prison. This means that cost, operations, performance measures, prisoner rehabilitation & safety, plus oversight can all be achieved through the negotiated contract. In addition, the private prisons run more efficiently, have lower cost, and obtain better recidivism performance. The government oversight of private prison’s performance should provide transparency and create more pros than cons.

Private prisons are detention facilities where control of people who have been sentenced, is contracted out to a nongovernmental entity, a private company. The private prisons were originally conceived to relieve the severe overcrowding of public prisons and are responsible for maintaining their facility. “They account for 8.4% of the total U.S. prison population, which includes 19.1% being federal prison population and 6.8% of state private prison population”. Although crimes are still being committed, the level of incarceration has decreased due to legislators passing measures to increase probations opportunities and parole, but the actual number of people in U.S. prisons has increased. As of June 2020, there are 2.12 million people in U.S. prisons compared to 1.5 million during 2018.

One reason the private prisons should be kept open is to relieve the overcrowding of prisoners held in public prisons. Overcrowding can create an unhealthy and unsafe environment for inmates which impinges on their civil rights. The overcrowded conditions of public prisons, would require the state and federal government to build new prisons to relieve the overcrowding, but unfortunately, both state and federal government require statutory provisions and budget allocation, which means that it could take a lot of time to build a new public prison. In order to meet the demand for additional prison cells and to respond to court orders concerning overcrowding, the state and federal government has contracted with private prisons and only pay when a prisoner is housed in their facility. Although the private prisons do not facilitate a large number of inmates it does allow both the state and federal government to move inmates to a private prison and relieve the public prison overcrowding.

According to an article by Libbi Vilher in the Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law, the supreme court addressed “prison overcrowding in Brown v. Plata by ruling that prison overcrowding violates prisoners’ Eight Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment”. As a matter of act, in the same article “Private Prisons and the need for greater transparency: Private prison information act” the Department of Justice (DOJ) indicated that “prison overcrowding is one of the most troublesome issues facing the criminal system and the major reason for privatizing prisons”.

Another reason private prisons should be kept open is that they offer a more innovative prison at a fraction of the cost, therefore savings the taxpayer money. State and federal governments have legislation on what cost savings the government should achieve prior to contracting with a private prison. It is up to the state and federal government and their respective department(s) to ensure that the required savings is achieved through the negotiated contract, since payment is based on the terms of the contract. In addition, private prisons are saving the state and federal government by reducing the cases of recidivism in prisoners because of their educational and training programs.

Furthermore, the “Private prisons can help Florida reform its criminal-justice system” article in the Miami Herald indicates that the “Florida Department of Management Services has reported cost savings that ranged from 10% to 27%“ on negotiated contracts with private prisons. In addition, a news article “Private prisons really are cheaper for taxpayers” claim that the “cost of housing a medium-security prisoner was $64.52 in a state-run facility and $ 58.82 in a private prison” (Kavanagh). In a Miami Herald article by Mary Ellen Klas, it showed that the “Florida legislators authorized the Department of Corrections to contract with private prison only if the contract shows a 7% annual savings compared to operating cost of a Florida public prison”.

The final reason private prisons should be kept open in both the State and Federal government is they can offer a change to the criminal justice system through a well-designed contract that achieve reduced cost, and better standards of operations. These contracts should have clauses that guarantee transparency and accountability. The contract will also focus on education, job training and rehabilitation programs that will need to be implemented to better prepare the inmate to re-enter society. It will address standards of operations that will entail monitoring and spot audits to ensure the terms of the contract and the safety and security of the prisoners. Furthermore, it can address maximum occupancy caps, to prevent over-crowding and sections that would allow private prison management to respond quickly to trends and predication, so they can take advantage of innovation. A contract has endless possibilities as to what can be included, since it is a formal agreement, between the government and the private prison that creates a legal obligation. In this case, the contract stands for an offer, acceptance, and promise to perform all the terms and conditions within the contract in exchange for payment. It is obvious that most of the controversial issues the State and Federal government have with private prisons can be eliminated with a well-designed contract.

An article in the Orlando Sentinel substantiated that “new contracts with private prisons have focused on education and rehabilitation” and because of these contracts, the “state has shown declining recidivism rates.” It also said, “Florida has steadily improved it contracts to provide better oversight and monitoring” (Gilroy). Contracts disclose and require compliance with what otherwise might have been ignored in the past. The “need to also detail the processes and outcomes that adopt correction” was disclosed in the article “Strange Bedfellows? Reaffirming Rehabilitation and Prison Privatization”.

Opponents of private prisons think that private prisons should not be kept open to relieve the overcrowded conditions of public prisons. In fact, the federal government have updated the federal sentencing policies which is reducing the federal prison population. Some of these “policies are selective incarceration, emergency early release provisions, home confinement and community correction”. All of these are reducing the federal prison population, in an effort, to “eliminate the need for private prisons” (The benefits of private prisons). Despite prior evidence, there are studies that show private prisons cost more than public prisons. Researchers say that the “costs of private prisons versus public prisons is not easily compared” because of many factors such as “security level, health conditions of inmates, physical characteristics of the facilities, and indirect costs”. Some private prisons only accept medium-security inmates with no health conditions. Not to mention that the “Florida paid private prison operator $16 million too much, legislator’s audit says” article revealed that an “outdated pricing scheme was used that inflated payments, resulting in a higher cost to the State of Florida, than if the public prisons had performed the work” (Klas). The payments were legal because they were negotiated in the contract, so there was no wrongdoing by the private prison. This contract was negotiated by the Florida Department of Corrections, based on an understanding by the Florida legislation that the “State of Florida would achieve a 7% savings over what the cost of the public prison to perform the same work”, yet the State of Florida, over a seven year period, suffered $16 million dollar in overcharges.

Private Prisons can be a part of the solution and should be used more efficiently and effectively to reform the criminal justice system. In other words, it has not been proven, that the government run public prisons, can do a better job of housing, treating, and rehabilitating the prison population. In situations where the private prions have faced challenges, they have taken steps to improve their transparency, by addressing the issues and allowing spontaneous audits to ensure inmate wellbeing and safety. Well-designed contracts can require better standards and performance metrics that will improve these facilities. Contrary to the naysayers, the elimination of the private prisons will not necessarily lead to criminal justice reform but may create higher cost and other ineffectiveness, instead with proper government oversight the private prisons will achieve transparency and improve the criminal justice system.