Private prisons, the criminal justice—industrial complex and bodies destined for profitable punishment

Author(s):  
Paul Leighton ◽  
Donna Selman
Criminology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Leighton

Privatization refers to outsourcing government functions to a private, usually for-profit, business although the arrangement can be with a non-profit organization. Currently, the most privatized aspect of criminal justice is punishment in general and prisons in particular. Prisons have historically engaged in “nominal privatization,” which includes privatization of services such as the designing and construction of prisons, provision of food services, medical care, and commissary. During the 1980s, contracts expanded to include “operational privatization,” which meant contracting out the day-to-day management of prisons to private, for-profit companies. Operational privatization involves a private company operating a facility owned by the government or managing inmates in a prison that the company owns. In some countries, such arrangements may be called public private partnerships (PPP) or private finance initiatives (PFI). Operational privatization originated during the 1980s in the United States, which was undergoing an unprecedented prison expansion because of ongoing wars on crime and drugs. At the same time, politicians were promising tax cuts, so privatization allowed a resolution to the contradiction by allowing private capital to profit by taking on some traditional responsibilities of government. Despite objections that the privatization of punishment and prison were different in nature than, say, trash collection, the dominant political view was that government kept sentencing authority and business could do the other functions more efficiently. While operational privatization has spread to a handful of countries, the largest private prison corporations are US-based, multibillion-dollar multinational companies that are traded on stock exchanges. As such, private prisons are the tip of a much larger criminal justice (CJ)–industrial complex, which describes a range of business and financial interests whose profit motive can shape criminal justice policy, including in ways that perpetuate current injustices. The CJ-industrial complex, mirroring the military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned of, is comprised of everyone who financially profits from the police, courts, and corrections system. In turn, it is part of a larger security-industrial complex, which includes private security, investigators, intelligence, and technology sold as a response to (real and exaggerated) fear of crime, hackers, terrorists, and youth. Even when considered on its own, though, the CJ-industrial complex is significant because it could also mirror the concerns Eisenhower had: that because of its size and lobbying power, the defense industry could start to make policy based too much on its own interest rather than for the public good.


Author(s):  
Volker Janssen

The chapter considers privatization, private prisons, and prison services outsourcing within a Sun Belt to Global South framework. Eschewing the inclination to frame the Sunbelt as a region that merely modernized the South, the chapter reveals instead a series of contradictions—chief among them neoliberal rhetoric and anti-statist politics alongside the seemingly contrasting policies that were dependent on New Deal–era public infrastructure and government planning. By analyzing such service industries as health care, telecommunications, food catering, and construction within a public–private partnership, this chapter reveals how privatization masks neoliberal anti-statism even when growing the state through mass incarceration. The model for this fusion of public services and private industries was the Cold War’s defense industries, where contractors played a pivotal role in decision making within a symbiotic partnership. The chapter concludes that the modern-day prison industrial complex is more a product of the New Deal state than of a neoliberal conservative ascendency. When the Sunbelt’s private–public partnership partnered with corporate globalization, contemporary prison labor occurs within a “Global South” marketplace more than a framework of “neo-slavery.”


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muriel Adams ◽  
Sonja Klinsky ◽  
Nalini Chhetri

In the United States of America, 2.2 million people are incarcerated in public and private facilities and over 700,000 are released yearly back to their home communities. Almost half are rearrested within a year. These problems have been excluded from mainstream sustainability narratives, despite their serious implications for sustainability. This paper addresses how the criminal justice, prison-industrial complex and foster care systems negatively impact these communities and families. To comprehend the system links, a sustainability lens is used to examine and address interlinking system impacts obstructing achievement of sustainability and the necessary community characteristics for building sustainable communities. Communities characterized by environmental degradation, economic despair and social dysfunction are trapped in unsustainability. Therefore, a system-of-communities framework is proposed which examines the circumstances that bring about prison cycling which devastates family and community cohesion and social networking, also negatively affecting the ability of other communities to become truly sustainable. We contend that a fully integrated social, economic and environmental approach to a major, complex, persistent problem as it relates to poor, marginalized communities faced with mass incarceration and recidivism can begin creating sustainable conditions. Further, we articulate ways sustainability narratives could be changed to engage with core challenges impeding these communities.


2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff Shantz

This review essay examines new works by Hadar Aviram on the political economy of penal policies and Dominique Moran on carceral geographies. It discusses how these works offer significant insights for understanding emerging policies and practices of the prison–industrial complex in conditions of neoliberal capitalism. An assessment of these works, in relation to some pressing real-world issues, suggests that new theorizing around the political economy of criminal justice systems and critical geographies of punitive practices makes important contributions to revitalizing criminological theory in the contemporary context.


2021 ◽  
pp. 104398622110279
Author(s):  
Danielle Wallace ◽  
Jason Walker ◽  
Jake Nelson ◽  
Sherry Towers ◽  
John Eason ◽  
...  

Public organizations, including institutions in the U.S. criminal justice (CJ) system, have been rapidly releasing information pertaining to COVID-19. Even CJ institutions typically reticent to share information, like private prisons, have released vital COVID-19 information. The boon of available pandemic-related data, however, is not without problems. Unclear conceptualizations, stakeholders’ influence on data collection and release, and a lack of experience creating public dashboards on health data are just a few of the issues plaguing CJ institutions surrounding releasing COVID-19 data. In this article, we detail issues that institutions in each arm of the CJ system face when releasing pandemic-related data. We conclude with a set of recommendations for researchers seeking to use the abundance of publicly available data on the effects of the pandemic.


Legal Theory ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alon Harel

Criminal sanctions are typically inflicted by the state. The central role of the state in determining the severity of these sanctions and inflicting them requires justification. One justification for state-inflicted sanctions is simply that the state is more likely than other agents to determine accurately what a wrongdoer justly deserves and to inflict a just sanction on those who deserve it. Hence, in principle, the state could be replaced by other agents, for example, private individuals. This hypothesis has given rise to recent calls to reform the state's criminal justice system by introducing privately inflicted sanctions, for example, shaming penalties, private prisons, or private probationary services. This paper challenges this view and argues that the agency of the state is indispensable to criminal sanctions. Privately inflicted sanctions sever the link between the state's judgments concerning the wrongfulness of the action and the appropriateness of the sanction and the infliction of sufferings on the criminal. When a private individual inflicts punishment, she acts on what she and not the state judges to be a justified response to a criminal act. Privately inflicted sanctions for violations of criminal laws are not grounded in the judgments of the appropriate agent, namely the state. It is impermissible on the part of the state to approve, encourage, or initiate the infliction of a sanction (for violating a state-issued prohibition) on an alleged wrongdoer on the basis of a private judgment. Such an approval grants undue weight to the private judgment of the individual who inflicts the sanction.


Author(s):  
Cassandra D. Little

This chapter will provide a firsthand analysis of one woman's journey through the prison industrial complex. The intent is to bring the readers proximate to how trauma intersects with incarceration, gender, and race. The goal is to challenge our criminal justice system's need to over-criminalize and over-incarcerate women at alarming rates. Since 1980 the number of women in United States prisons has increased by more than 700%. These rates of incarceration of women have outpaced men by more than 50%. By drawing upon lived experience interacting with the United States Criminal Justice System and empirical data, the author will provide evidence that will argue that the experience of being incarcerated is traumatic and dehumanizing for many, but even more counterproductive for women.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document