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.