Foundation Briefs

December 2014 PF Brief


Resolved:For-profit prisons in the United States should be banned.

foundationbriefs.comPage 1 of 159

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

A note

Definitions

Private prison as a service contractor. DAT

History

Backgrounder on the public-private shift. DAT

Current incarceration demographic data. DAT

Topic Analysis One

Topic Analysis Two

Pro Evidence

Private Prisons’ Conditions Encourage Recidivism

Basic rehabilitation services are often unavailable. DAT

Strategies to prevent recidivism. DAT

Private prison are sorely lacking rehabilitation curriculum. DAT

Private Prisons and Shocking Truths on their Conditions. PSM

Gang Rules Private Prisons. PSM

The Perverse Incentives of Private Prisons and Inmate Behavior. PSM

Poor Incentives Neglect Rehabilitation, Encourage Recidivism AMS

The impacts of public prisons’ superior training programs. DAT

The economic impacts of discouraging recidivism. DAT

Corporations fully admit their profits depend on recidivism. DAT

Private prisons internally lengthen sentence times.

Private prisons are encouraged to increase sentence times on a per-inmate basis. DAT

Profit-driven practices can deter inmates from getting paroled. DAT

Private Prisons are Legally Unrestrained

Federal prisoners cannot bring civil rights suits against private prisons. DAT

Family Blames Private Prison for Death of Inmate. PSM

Private contractors aren’t held accountable by the government or market forces. DAT

Private prisons’ inmates have unacceptably narrow constitutional rights. DAT

Case study: Eighth Amendment violations in private prisons. DAT

Public prison officials have more legal leeway on whistleblowing. DAT

Overreliance on Private Contractors is Dangerous

Too many agencies are reliant on the same contractor. DAT

States use private system more rapidly than federal system. ASF

The Federal Government relies more on private prisons than State systems. ASF

Gladiator School and Idaho Correctional Centers Contracts. PSM

Prison Privatization and Criticisms of Profiteering from Asylum Reforms. PSM

Private Prisons and Patronage by Governments. PSM

Outsourcing of Prison Health Care to Private Companies. PSM

Quotas Hurt Inmates and Taxpayers

Lockup Quotas AMS

Occupancy Requirements Hurt Economies AMS

Private Prisons Oppose the Public Interest

Private contractors have a vested interest in retaining their own importance. DAT

Private Prison Contracts and Mass Incarcerations. PSM

Criticism of Corrections Corporation of America. PSM

Prison Industry and Big Businesses or New Form of Slavery. PSM

Profitability of Halfway Houses and Prisons. PSM

Larger Inmate Prison is Boon to Private Prisons. PSM

Jailing Americans for Profit. PSM

Prisons are the Problem Not the Solution and Criticisms by ACLU. PSM

Wrongful Imprisonment in California AMS

Private Prison Industry Opposes Taxpayer Interests AMS

Economic Strain of CCA AMS

Growth of Private Prisons Despite Critics

Growth of Private Prisons Despite Criticisms. PSM

Private Prisons Underperform Against Public Prisons

Statistical Data on Performance of Private Prisons in Britain. PSM

Exploring the Purported Cost Efficiency of Private Prisons. PSM

Failed Instances of Private Prisons

Failing Private Prisons in England. PSM

No More Privatization of Ohio Prisons. PSM

CCA Profits from California Taxpayers, Hurts California AMS

Youth Service's International Fails AMS

Prisons Strive to Cut Costs at Inmates' Expense AMS

Florida's Private Prisons Scandal AMS

Money Spent on Lobbying for Private Prisons

Prison Economics and Immigration Laws. PSM

Private Prison Spend Millions on Lobbying to Increase Prison Population. PSM

Private Prisons Lobby for Harsher Sentences. PSM

Prison for Profit May Indicate More Time Behind Bars. PSM

Corruption in Private Prisons AMS

Private Prisons Sway Lobbyists AMS

Private prison companies use economic leverage in smaller elections. DAT

Private Prisons Hurt Non-Citizens

Prisons designed to hold non-citizens (CARs) are sub-par. ASF

Public prisons have stricter regulation, leading to worse conditions in CARs. ASF

The BOP renews sup-par contracts. ASF

Undertrained personnel are a liability in private detention centers. DAT

Private Prisons Block Need for Systematic Reform

Private Prisons Block Need for Systematic Change AMS

The financial costs of continued mass incarceration. DAT

The opportunity cost of investing in private prisons. DAT

Private prison quotas run counter to federal incarceration-easing initiatives. DAT

States are already implementing cost-effective measures. DAT

Investing in more prisons is counterproductive, legally and economically. DAT

Horrifying Conditions in Private Prisons

James Slattery's Corrupt Private System AMS

Private Prisons Have Worse Conditions AMS

Private Prisons Hurt Youth AMS

Scandals in Youth Prisons AMS

Dockery v. Epps Case Documents Poor Conditions of Private Prison AMS

Human Rights Violations

Private contractors’ operational paradigms push human rights under the rug. DAT

Private prisons skirt basic services for their inmates. DAT

Private prison operations are contingent on limiting freedom. DAT

Basic medical care in private prisons isn’t legally guaranteed. DAT

Con Evidence

Private Prisons Don’t Provide Worse Services

Recidivism data has yet to link private management with increased relapses. DAT

Research is unlikely to prove private prisons empirically worse. DAT

The Case for Private Prisons by CCA Employee. PSM

Private Prisons are Cost Effective. PSM

Private Prisons are More Cost-Efficiently Run. PSM

Private Prisons are Cheaper for Taxpayers. PSM

Experts from Temple University say Prison Privatization Provide Real Benefits. PSM

All Prisons Should Have Competitive Neutrality

Adding public management to private competitions improves quality. DAT

With competitive neutrality, there is effectively no public-private divide. DAT

Private prisons are not definitively more or less cost-effective. DAT

Overhead operating costs need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. DAT

The best solution is Success-Oriented Funding. DAT

Private Prisons Have Untapped Innovation Potential

Private prison contracts can be used to efficiently reform the American prison system. DAT

Private prisons are a superior setting for rehabilitation. DAT

Private Prisons Succeed in Private Operations. PSM

Private Prisons Implement Beneficial Changes AMS

Better Service of Private Prisons AMS

Private Prisons Outscore Public AMS

Private prisons can still enhance savings by penetrating union-dominated markets. DAT

Private Prison Benefits from Lower Costs and Higher Efficiency AMS

Private Prisons Reduce Operational Costs AMS

Private Prisons are More Efficient

Private Prison Benefits from Lower Costs and Higher Efficiency AMS

Case study: Texas prison savings contracts. DAT

An economic projection of cost savings. DAT

Private prisons often provide superior services at lower prices. DAT

Private Incarceration is Safer

Private prisons have a higher rate of accreditation. DAT

Public and Private Prisons Have Identical Deficiencies

Neither public nor private prisons meet democratic standards. DAT

The systemic problems of public and private prisons are identical. DAT

Pro Counters

Private Prisons Are More Costly

Private prisons rely on the same funding mechanisms and encourage further spending. DAT

Private Prisons Dispute Criticisms on Efficiency. PSM

Private corporations face costly lawsuits which suck taxpayer money. DAT

Private prison contracts can financially wreck rural communities. DAT

Prison development fails to boost local economies. DAT

The promised savings from private prisons are empty. DAT

Market competition doesn’t make private prisons more efficient. DAT

Private Prisons Make Prison System Worse

California's Private Prisons AMS

System Needs Reform AMS

Needless Prisoners AMS

Working in private prisons is demoralizing for prison staff. DAT

The turnover rate at private prisons is too high to maintain security in the system. DAT

Prison contracts incentivize recidivism and mass incarceration. DAT

Corrupt Collaboration

CCA Prisons Maintain Relevance through Congressional Influence AMS

Union and Private Prisons Alliance AMS

Private prisons undermine the democratic principles of the criminal justice system. DAT

Faulty Reporting on Private Prison System

Reality of Private Prisons Exposed AMS

Public Prisons Staff are not Paid Large Salaries

Costs in Prison System not a Result of Prison Staffing Salaries AMS

Private prison staff are relatively underpaid and inexperienced, with disastrous results. DAT

Private Prison Accreditation Is Meaningless

Even if a prison is accredited, it doesn’t necessarily follow procedures. DAT

Con Counters

Private Prisons Do Not Promote Overcrowding

Private Prisons Do Not Cause Incarceration AMS

2011 Case Declares Need for Private Prisons AMS

The Economic Savings Are Indisputable

A decade’s worth of studies have a unanimous conclusion. DAT

Case study: Rural economic benefits from private prisons. DAT

Private Prison Conditions Aren’t Worse

Overcrowding isn’t an issue. DAT

The state ties the hands of private contractor. DAT

Prisons’ Problems Trace Back to the Justice System

American incarceration rates are too high for prisons to keep up. DAT

The state fails to set minimum standards for private prisons. DAT

Private Prisons and Legal Constraints

Public and private prisoners alike have identical legal protections. DAT

Private prisons’ lobbies do not dictate prison legislation. DAT

Contentions

Pro Case

Introduction:

Contention One: Private Prisons Encourage Recidivism

Contention Two: Costs

Contention Three: For-Profit Prisons Block Need for Reform

Con Case

Introduction:

Contention 1: Private prisons aren’t deficient

Contention 2: Private prisons are an asset to the criminal justice system

Contention 3: Private prisons enable reform

foundationbriefs.comPage 1 of 159

December 2014Note

A note

The abbreviations after our taglines (DAT, AMS, etc) are the initials of our authors.

foundationbriefs.comPage 1 of 159

December 2014Definitions

Definitions

Private prison as a service contractor. DAT

Lundahl, Brad et al. “Prison Privatization: A Meta-Analysis of Cost Effectiveness and Quality of Confinement Indicators.” Utah Criminal Justice Center. University of Utah. 26 April 2007. Accessed 11/10/2014. Web.

Brad Lundahl is an associate professor at the University of Utah’s College of Social Work.

Prison privatization involves a business contracting with a branch of the government to operate a prison facility. Many of the large businesses operating prisons today are publicly traded companies (Chang & Thompkins, 2002). Private companies generally charge the government a daily rate per inmate to cover investment, operating costs, and profit. Under this rate, private companies supply many or most of the services needed to operate a prison system, including guards, staff, food, program costs, medical care (partial), and other services. Private companies may also build new facilities without direct tax expenditures or public bonds (Lanza-Kaduce et al., 1999).

This is different from what is technically considered privatization, wherein a business or industry dictates the rules of their operation, in addition to building and managing the facilities.

foundationbriefs.comPage 1 of 159

December 2014History

History

Backgrounder on the public-private shift. DAT

Mitchell, Matthew. “The Pros of Privately-Housed Cons: New Evidence on the Cost Savings of Private Prisons.” heartland.org. Rio Grande Foundation. March 2003. Accessed 11/10/2014. Web.

The Rio Grande Foundation is a New-Mexico-based research institute.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, public backlash against soft-on-crime policies delivered a generation of tougher judges to the bench. Levitt noted in 1996 that “the incarceration rate in the United States has more than tripled in the last two decades.”1 Federal and state criminal statutes—particularly those dealing with drugs—were also strengthened and law enforcement budgets redoubled. Between 1982 and 1999, the federal government increased its police expenditure by 485 percent ($35 to $40 billion dollars a year go to the War on Drugs alone).2 Over the same period, states increased their police expenditures by 239 percent.3 Both trends out-paced inflation and overall growth in government spending by a wide margin.

The inevitable result was an explosion in the prison population. Between 1980 and 1999, the U.S. prison population grew fifteen times faster than the population at large.4 By 1986, “all but seven states were operating their prisons in excess of 95 percent capacity.”5

The overcrowded prisons begat quality lapses. In 1983, “Only about one-fifth of all state and federal prisons were accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections.”6 More seriously, courts began to intervene, asserting that states’ old and crowded facilities violated the Constitution.

When in the early 1980s Tennessee’s entire correctional system was found unconstitutional, the state considered contracting with a private firm. The firm, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), had been incorporated in 1983 to contract with the Federal Immigration and Naturalization Service to detain illegal immigrants pending hearings or deportation.7 Tennessee refused CCA’s offer. But not long after, prison privatization began in earnest.

In 1985, Florida’s Bay County contracted with CCA to operate its jail. The next year, CCA contracted with Santa Fe County, New Mexico to run its jail. By 1987, there were about 3,000 people held in private prisons nationwide. This represented little over one half of one percent of the entire prison population.8 By 2001, the private prison population had soared to over 91,000 inmates. Despite such rapid growth, only about seven percent of all prisoners were in private custody in 2001.

Current incarceration demographic data. DAT

Blakely, Curtis, and Vic Bumphus. “Private and Public Sector Prisons--A Comparison of Select Characteristics.” United States Courts. Federal Probation, Vol. 68 #1. Accessed 11/10/2014. Web.

Curtis Blakely is a Truman State University justice systems professor.

Private prisons generally house younger, healthier, less risky populations. Keep this in mind when trying to make apples to apples comparisons between the public and private sectors.

foundationbriefs.comPage 1 of 159

December 2014Topic Analysis

Topic Analysis One

Resolution: For-profit prisons in the United States should be banned.

Background

Post American Revolution: After the American Revolution, Great Britain officials were no longer able to ship convicts to the colonies. Thus Great Britain´s officials began to use private contractors to deal with overcrowding.

1980s: During the War on Drugs United States prisons suffered from huge overcrowding problems. At first public prisons used private contractors for services to help manage the workload of running a prison.

1984: The United States first fully privately managed prison was established with the Corrections Corporation of America in Tennessee.

1992: World´s Prisons in the United Kingdom becomes the world´s first private prison. After the first prison, more contracts were established for privately-managed prisons in the U.K. after the contract had ended, these prisons were subject to re-competition when the public sector was eligible to bid on the operation rights. All private prisons in the UK today are under the strict watch of Government monitors. These monitors keep privately managed prisons in line with UK standards. Any failure to meet these standards leads to financial penalties for the 11 privately managed prisons currently operating in the UK. While United States for-profit prisons are also subject to federal regulation, much of the evidence in the brief will expose the flaws with this system. The Failed Instances of Private Prisons and Horrifying Conditions in Private Prisons sections detail instances of human rights abuse. Pro teams should use this evidence to argue for the banning of for-profit prisons. Con teams on the other hand should acknowledge the need for reform in regulation and use success stories to bolster their cases.

1999: The HM Prison Ashfield prison becomes the first UK for-profit prison to house juvenile offenders. While the focus of this case must remain on the United States—Con teams can use the UK examples to their advantage as a global example of the problems with for-profit prison.

2013: As of 2013 8.4% of United States prisoners are held in for-profit institutions. The Corrections Corporation of America has seen a 500% increase in the last 20 years.

Definitions

“For-profit prisons”

Prison privatization is defined as: “a business contracting with a branch of the government to operate a prison facility. Many of the large businesses operating prisons today are publicly traded companies (Chang & Thompkins, 2002).” For the purposes of this debate, teams may assume that private prisons or privately-managed prisons as for-profit.

“in the United States”

This self-explanatory piece of the resolution is sometimes abused in Public Forum debates. While using another country as an example with the problems or potential for for-profit prisons is fair, be careful. It is easy for teams to discredit any non-United States based evidence by claiming the system is too different. However, Con teams can use successful global for-profit prisons to argue that the United States system, while requiring reform, has great potential.

“Banned”

In legal terms a ban is: “a proclamation or public notice…by which a thing is forbidden…” For the purposes of this resolution, a ban on for-profit prisons would forbid the private management of prisons, but not prevent public prisons from contracting private services in a publically-managed prison.

Sources

In a debate like this calling careful attention to a team´s evidence can make the difference between a loss and a win. One of the biggest controversies surrounding for-profit systems is the validity of statistics and studies done on the subject.