Register to read the introduction…
Private prisons lobby for harsh criminal laws to increase profit at the cost of inmates’ wellbeing. In 1998 election cycle, private prisons contributed $540,000 to 361 politicians (Anderson, 2009). Bribes were also used as method to encourage private prisons. In 2009, two Pennsylvania judges received $2.6 million to oppose alternative and lenient sentences for juveniles (Anderson, 2009) Incarceration negatively affects recidivism rates (Anderson, 2009). To emphasize, on what private prisons have become which is more of private business where the ultimate goal is to make money, by getting inmates that are healthy and would cost the most minimum to care for. For example if a person commits a crime, who may have only suppose to receive a minimal sentence, would otherwise be sent to a private prison where that prison is receiving lots of money for that inmate, and they have no intentions of actually letting them out, because again that would conflict with their whole plan on how to make their
…show more content…
Private prison employees often have stock in their company or receive some type of profit-incentive, and as a result, this profit motive can directly influence their professional decisions (i.e. longer sentences and no goodtime) (Anderson, 2009). Since staffing accounts for 70% of the prison budge, private prisons often cut costs in labor (Blakely & Bumphus, 2004). Private prisons employee 15% fewer guards per prison than public prisoners (Anderson, 2009). As a result, violence among inmates and assaults on correctional officers is more frequent in private prisons. In 2001, a study found private prisons have 65% more inmate-on-inmate assaults and 49% more inmate-on-staff-assaults (Anderson, 2009). With a large turnover of staff, the security of prison operations becomes vulnerable. Private prisons have higher rates of positive detection rates for unauthorized substances compared to public prisons (Camp & Gaes, 2002). This is likely to indicate a pattern of poor security practices within private prisons. Escapes from prison are often a rare occurrence. In 1999, BOP had one escape from their facility while private prisons accounted for 23 escapes. When an escape does occur, it is likely to indicate loopholes in security practices. In Ohio, five
Private prison employees often have stock in their company or receive some type of profit-incentive, and as a result, this profit motive can directly influence their professional decisions (i.e. longer sentences and no goodtime) (Anderson, 2009). Since staffing accounts for 70% of the prison budge, private prisons often cut costs in labor (Blakely & Bumphus, 2004). Private prisons employee 15% fewer guards per prison than public prisoners (Anderson, 2009). As a result, violence among inmates and assaults on correctional officers is more frequent in private prisons. In 2001, a study found private prisons have 65% more inmate-on-inmate assaults and 49% more inmate-on-staff-assaults (Anderson, 2009). With a large turnover of staff, the security of prison operations becomes vulnerable. Private prisons have higher rates of positive detection rates for unauthorized substances compared to public prisons (Camp & Gaes, 2002). This is likely to indicate a pattern of poor security practices within private prisons. Escapes from prison are often a rare occurrence. In 1999, BOP had one escape from their facility while private prisons accounted for 23 escapes. When an escape does occur, it is likely to indicate loopholes in security practices. In Ohio, five