Some people are concerned that "prisons for profit" are ethically inappropriate. They may believe that a firm with a financial motive should not be put in control of prisoners. However, it stands to reason that an inmate who has been has been imprisoned does not care who pays the guards, and privatization of prisons does not relieve government officials of their obligation to ensure proper treatment. Therefore, if prisons can be built and maintained less expensively in the private sector, they should be. There is no insurmountable legal obstacle to privatization of prison operation.
Cathy Lazere writing in CFO notes that based on an eight percent annual growth rate, prisons represent a significant opportunity for privatization. However, privatization is not simply a process of cost transfer - privatization results in significant cost reductions. Lazere adds that a side benefit is that government oversight of their contractors ensures that prisoners receive appropriate and humane treatment is privatized prisons (Lazere 40).
Teresa Anderson and Patrick Cannan writing in Security Management note that by 1995, four percent of AmericaÆs prisoners were being managed by private companies. The authors add that these companies provide guards in addition to food, healthcare, education, rehabilitation, and facility management services as well as architectural and design services, construction, and financing. Private contractors also hire, screen, train and manage all prison personnel. Despite initial concerns, there has only been one instance in which the prison contractorÆs ability and willingness to use force to control prisoners has been found lacking (Anderson & Cannan 32).
Les Timar in IPA Review comments that the privatization of prisons can provide savings for government, better conditions for prisoners, and greater public confidence that criminals will not have their punishment reduced because of overcrowding. Fu
...