*Views over private prisons can range anywhere from constitutional private industry to illegal, draconian atrocities. The controversy over private prisons in the United States has been raging since 1983, when Corrections Corporation of America [CCA] received its first contract from the U.S. Department of Justice (“CCA - Our History,” 2013). Supporters of private prisons believe they save taxpayers money, but opposers claim that private prisons consistently have worse conditions than their public counterparts. Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) and Congressman Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) lead the charge to end private prisons in the house, while private corporations like CCA and The Geo Group continue to insist that their prisons help communities and
…show more content…
However, these bonds were expensive, and eventually voters began to say no to them. Soon, many States’ prisons were overcrowded, which the Supreme Court found to be in violation to the U.S. Constitution, classifying “prisons overcrowding” as “Cruel and Unusual Punishment.” These States were ordered to end the overcrowding, but the States had no more prisons or prisons bonds. Some States then began to decarcerate, moving inmates out of prison, but others were in too deep with their tough-on-crime politics, so they chose different routes. These states discovered two loopholes; revenue bonds and privatization. The first loophole, revenue bonds, are, as Ashley Hunt puts it, “used for projects that will generate revenue, or ‘pay for themselves,’ like a toll bridge and many public works projects.” However, the difference between these bonds and prison bonds is that revenue bonds don’t have to be voted on by the public. The second loophole, privatization, is not paid for with public money upfront, but “sometimes through a ‘construction’ subsidiary or ‘real estate trust.’” Like revenue bonds, this process is also not voted on by the public (Hunt,
However, these bonds were expensive, and eventually voters began to say no to them. Soon, many States’ prisons were overcrowded, which the Supreme Court found to be in violation to the U.S. Constitution, classifying “prisons overcrowding” as “Cruel and Unusual Punishment.” These States were ordered to end the overcrowding, but the States had no more prisons or prisons bonds. Some States then began to decarcerate, moving inmates out of prison, but others were in too deep with their tough-on-crime politics, so they chose different routes. These states discovered two loopholes; revenue bonds and privatization. The first loophole, revenue bonds, are, as Ashley Hunt puts it, “used for projects that will generate revenue, or ‘pay for themselves,’ like a toll bridge and many public works projects.” However, the difference between these bonds and prison bonds is that revenue bonds don’t have to be voted on by the public. The second loophole, privatization, is not paid for with public money upfront, but “sometimes through a ‘construction’ subsidiary or ‘real estate trust.’” Like revenue bonds, this process is also not voted on by the public (Hunt,