I think the best argument against for-profit prisons deals with recidivism. It’s not just about housing and securing criminals, it’s about rehabilitating them (hence the term “correctional” facility). I would agree with those who argue that some criminals probably can’t be rehabilitated, but for-profit prisons have absolutely no financial incentive to successfully rehabilitate prisoners- in fact, it’s the opposite. There’s no quick or easy way to measure whether a prisoner is rehabilitated.
Considering that recidivism rates vary widely in prisons across the country, I’m forced to conclude that there are many prisoners out there who could be rehabilitated, but aren’t. Not even mentioning the ethical problems I have with this, this costs the taxpayers and society as a whole a lot more money- money that goes to the private prisons.
Right. Prison corporations just call up the governor and tell him to kneel before Zod.
And now a little reality.
No state has ever turned over its entire prison system to any corporation. No corporation wants an entire prison system. Corporations only want to handle minimum security prisoners. The highest percentage of private imprisonment is New Mexico and even there over half the prison population is still in government run prisons. So prison corporations do not have a monopoly on prison space they can hold over the government.
But there is a monopoly involved. Because let’s say you’ve built a big prison in New Mexico. Who are you going to have as a customer? The state of New Mexico and who else? You’ve got a business that only has one customer. You can’t threaten to move your prison to another state. You can’t bring in prisoners from another state with New Mexico’s permission. You can’t resell a prison for condominiums. So you do whatever New Mexico tells you to do. It’s the government that holds all the power and dictates the terms of any agreement.
Just to nitpick, power in my part of California has been private long before this. The brownouts had nothing to do with the number of power plants (the electric companies were given the opportunity to build more and refused) but instead was the result of Enron gaming the system. Remember the taoed conversations about screwing granny?
Right. Because private corrections companies keep their money to themselves during campaign cycles.
There is no monopoly involved here. Part of the problem Texas has with having so many private prisons built is that the revenue that municipalities were counting on would come from accepting prisoners from other jurisdictions within Texas, and in some cases, from other states. The competition to attract these prisoners was so fierce that some prisons sought to underbid others. That’s hardly dictating the terms of an agreement.
Is incarceration an inherently governmental activity?
Exercise of police powers (the legal use of force) seems to be a pretty inherently governmental activity.
I would almost rather privatize the fire department than the prisons. If the private sector can run prisons at a prfit for less than it costs the government to run prisons then the government was either being wasteful or the private prisons are cutting corners.
Is this a typo? Because private prisons do, in fact house out-of-state prisoners.
The terms of the agreement are, AFAIK in place before the first ground is broken for the prison. The terms are agreed to by both parties and are fully as binding on the state as on the operator. It isn’t like the state has carte blanche to arbitrarily lay on new rules.
I’m not sure that I buy your monopoly argument. The operator can go outside the state for business and as long as the rules are followed, has a fair degree of autonomy in how the place is run. The operator is certainly free to move the operation to another state, although he may take a loss in doing so. The property still holds salvage and real estate value.
I think we’ve already established that a private prison cannot save any real money and still turn a profit unless they are providing an inferior service. So the question is still about the propriety of prison operators using their political power to write or change criminal law in such a way that it makes them money, without any real regard for the public good, which is supposed to be the basis for criminal law. FWIW, police and prosecutorial organizations have been known to do the same thing, in order to justify more positions, more equipment and higher salaries. And it is just as reprehensible when they do it as when the private sector does.
SS
No, but some people here are attributing godlike power to a lobby that’s actually very small and weak. And I’m pointing out that lobbies a hundred times bigger exist and they don’t have the kind of power you’re imagining.
Maybe I’m not understanding what you’re saying. If prisons are reduced to competing against each other for the sole supply of prisoners, isn’t that exactly what I was saying?
Here’s the central issue. Private prisons would like more prisoners. So they’d like more laws so more people go to prison.
But the leap that people are making is that prisons can get what they want. Prison corporations are completely dependent on the government which has almost complete power over them. So why would the government agree to change laws that will end up making the government pay prison corporations millions of dollars?
According to the NPR report this morning, this isn’t true. The actual prison is usually owned by the local city and will have been financed by a bond issue. The prison corporation runs the thing and trickles money back to the city. If the prison stands empty, then the city is in the hole for $250,000 a month.
Is anyone else reminded of the Monorail episode from the Simpsons?
You and I are talking about two different things, then. What you mean by “monopoly” is that only the state or local government can send people to prison, and you’re right about that. What I meant is that the provision of prison services is governed somewhat by competition between privately- and publicly-owned prisons that is based on cost. That’s not a monopoly, although, because relatively few private prison companies exist, it may be an oligopoly. Whatever “opoly” it is, it’s not a monopoly.
I’m assuming your answer is bribery and campaign donations (two concepts which are similar).
So let me ask you this. Is drinking Coca-Cola mandatory where you live?
The Coca-Cola Company has a thousand times the money that any prison corporation has. But somehow they haven’t been able to pay enough money to make the government do whatever they want.
You didn’t ask if the government does this. You asked the presumably rhetorical question why would the government do this. The answer to that question is so simple it’s not even worth responding to.
Economically the whole situation makes no sense. If the city is paying some corporation to run its jail (A nitpick, cities don’t operate prisons - they operate jails. Only states and the federal government operate prisons.) then the city is paying money to the corporation not receiving a trickle of money from them.
The claim that some people are making is that the CEO calls up the mayor and tells him, “You’re paying me $250,000 a month to run your jail. That’s not enough. I want you to arrest more people so I get more prisoners. And then you have to pay me $500,000 a month.”
And the mayor responds, “Yes, that’s one possibility. Here’s another. We don’t do that and we keep paying you $250,000 a month.”
CEO: “Do that and my corporation will leave your city.”
Mayor: “Bye. We own the prison after all. We’ll just operate it ourselves.”
CEO: “Oh yeah? Well, if you do that then we’ll … leave … and not take your money anymore … and probably go bankrupt.”
Mayor: “Did that sound more threatening in your head?”
Because the people who make the laws like to get re-elected. In comes a lobbyist for a prison. He goes to a law and order legislator, and provides research and some scare words about the crime rate. The conversation is not on the cost or on the profits for the prisons, it is on how extending sentences will make the streets safer for our womenfolk. The bill gets introduced, and who wants to vote for criminals? And who is going to object to spending a few million or tens of millions of dollars to keep our streets safe? (Especially because the budget hawks are usually the law and order hawks.) Voila. No brainer.
Many states don’t have large contingents of lobbyists from one place, but lots of lobbyists from various places. My daughter interned for a legislator, and she ate for free thanks to the lobbyists nearly every day. All legal and on the up and up too.
Hint: Coca-Cola drinkers are not considered scum by the rest of society. Plus there is no non-prison lobby with the power of Pepsico to stand in the way.