Table of Contents
Instance
The case study’s aim/justification
Principal component
Original: The article focuses on
Paraphrased: The writing centers on
Responsibility
Ethics
To sum up
Bibliography
Suit
There are currently 117 prisons in England and Wales. The majority of these prisons are publicly owned, while the rest are privately owned. This case study aims to decide whether punishment should continue to be a public duty. This study will evaluate whether privatization can be used to benefit the criminal justice process by comparing the pros/cons of privatisation.
Private privatization refers to the arrangement between the government and a third party, which allows them to run the prison. Because prison maintenance and operation costs are prohibitively expensive, governments are looking to the private market. Privatisation is an emerging trend throughout the criminal justice and prison systems.
The case study’s aim/justification
The 1980’s saw the New Public Management (NPM), which was an attempt to reform public management, lead to a surge in private ownership and management of all public services. In order to manage rising service costs and tackle overcrowding, prison privatisation was implemented. This might help to explain why private prisons have increased in number over the last few decades. Mennicken (2013) states that the Prison Service of England and Wales started a plan to renovate prisons to make them more efficient since the 1980s. The privatization of prisons was one way to do this. 1991 saw the passing of the Criminal Justice Act which allows the government to contract with the private sector to provide prison services. Wolds Remand prison was the first English private prison. It opened in April 1992. This prison was established to see if the private sector could improve the conditions of prisoners on remand.
While there is a strong desire to privatize public services, governments need to consider whether it will be better for the public and more profitable. Despite positive reports of privatization, there has still been controversy. Some people expressed concern that punishment, which is one the most important functions government has, should not be carried out by private agencies.
Private prisons are exempt from the regulations of public prisons. Private prisons do not have to follow the Freedom of Information Act (2000). This law states that the public can legally obtain documents from public authorities (Vilher 2017.
Both main body Private and public prisons have many sections that can be compared. This case study should also consider theoretical and ideological concerns, including motivation and morality. This study will present a critical assessment of the benefits and drawbacks of privatisation in prisons. This critical analysis will highlight both the positive and negative aspects of privatization and attempt to show how effective it has been in England & Wales.
Liability
Genders(2002) stated that privatization had been opposed due to a variety of reasons. These included the constitutional argument in which the state has the duty to enforce punishment and should not have it entrusted solely to private entities. Sir Leon Rodzinawicz stated that while it was one thing for private companies, it was quite another for those whose motivations are primarily commercial to exercise coercive power over prisoners during the first debates on privatisation of prisons. Sparks (1994), Harding (1997), and Moyle (2001) all argued Rodzinawicz’s statement had no value because it did not distinguish between the distribution of punishments and their administration. The executive and the independent judiciary are still responsible, regardless of privatisation. The executive might delegate tasks but it is not up to them to determine how they are done and ensure that they are completed in a proper manner. Genders (2002), which illustrates concern about the legitimacy and accountability in privatised prisons, points out that the state is not entirely responsible.
Garland (2001), stated, “On the useof ‘new public management” that it was both efficient and great value for money.
It is possible to carry multi-purpose and portable methods of accountability, evaluation. In public prisons, there were developments in the form key performance targets, key performance indicators, and the model regime (Genders, 2002). The government recognized, however, that privatized prisons must have mechanisms to ensure accountability, such as contracts.
Multiple regulations are in place to make sure that private prison operators are held accountable. Genders (2002, p. 3) confirms that private organizations are subject to constant surveillance. This enables them to be held accountable for their services. The state made a contractual agreement with private prisons to maintain control. Genders (2002) states that the contracts were created by the state to set standards and meet expectations. This left little room for private organisations to pursue independent goals. These contracts are upheld by privatized prisons, and breaching them can lead to serious consequences. Brute of contracts can result in penalties like fines and loss of contract. The severe penalties imposed on private sector workers ensure that they comply with the contract, which in turn guarantees accountability to government. Genders (2002) claims that the existing contractual policy is more efficient than the public sector’s in order to maintain a higher level for accountability.
Liebling and Crewe (2012) point out that each privatized prison has a state-appointed controller to oversee their performance, accountability, and contractual agreements. Because it is physically impossible for the state to monitor all areas of a prison, there are some situations that allow the public prisons to make decisions without the support from the state. The accountability can thus be discredited.
Public and private prisons operate within the same legal framework known as the Prisons Act 1952. This means that they share the same legal obligations. Furthermore, private prison operators are responsible for evaluations and various other mechanisms. These mechanisms may not be as effective as we think.
MoralityAccording Pollock (1994), what is good depends on what happens’. According to Shihor (1998), p.83, privatized prisons are based on the idea that faster prison construction and lower penal costs will result in better public service. However, many people have raised objections about the privatization process (Burkhardt and others, 2014). Many critics argue that imprisonment should be solely in the government’s hands and should not be outsourced to the private sector. Critics also claim that private prisons can be scrutinized differently to public ones, and thus will lead to individuals showing little respect for law enforcement. Further argumentation is needed. It has been argued that profit motives are incompatible with justice.
To sum up,
The main argument against privatisation revolves around the fact that punishment is, as always, a state duty. This is especially true when it comes to imprisonment, which is a punishment that involves the taking of liberty. Advocates of state controls would argue that the privatization of this function is inappropriate and imprudent. The argument of immorality can be extended to include the fact that private prisons make a profit. Critics of privatisation agree that private prison operators are morally repugnant because they make profit from punishment. These moral arguments support the argument that privatisation is not ethically sound. It is wrong to profit from an inherently and fundamentally public service.
