Statistics show that prisons operated by the government behave differently than similar correctional institutions operated by private corporations.

Incidents of injury to prison guards were almost twice as common in private institutions, and the probability of rioting was higher; perhaps a result of a combination of inexperience and profit driven shortcuts.

Inmates in privately owned prison institutions complain of poor food, lack of security between inmates, and abuses to human rights all being more prevalent when compared to the time they served in public correctional institutions.

Allegations against several private facilities include fraud and embezzlement, among other crimes, indicating that individuals within the private prison complex are cutting corners on expenditures and pocketing the savings for their personal gains.

Many compartments of state-run prison operations are privatized, while the central administration may remain controlled by the government.

New trends indicate that fully privately operated facilities will become the rule rather than the exception in the near future, and can become an opportunity for investors to profit.

Despite lucrative investment opportunities, prison privatization in America raises serious questions about the morality and ethical standards of such a system.

Critics of the process of prison privatization in America will often point out the enormous sums of taxpayer money wasted on various correctional institutions, while at the same time crime rates did not alter, nor did inmates receive rehabilitation.

PRISONS FOR PROFIT?

KEEPING THE OVERHEAD HIGH

Private prisons are created by corporations to generate streams of profitable income. So to keep profits high, private institutions will cut corners to avoid necessary costs, which in turn lowers the quality of the service provided.

Government operated institutions cannot as easily seek profits, government oversight and accountability generally ensure they make expenditures oriented toward the interest of the people.

A common example of low quality service at privately run prisons is the dangerous security issue and the lack of trained and experienced law officers. Private corporations are known to have high turnover rates for correctional officers, this keeps the experience and morale of the workforce low, which reduces their performance.

Corporations have been criticized for not having qualified employees or not providing them with sufficient technology and resources.

Food, medical care, and rehabilitation of criminals are other controversies about prison privatization in America. In government facilities, inmates are given the opportunity to continue their education or learn a trade, in order to help rehabilitate them and give them an alternative to crime.

In private institutions, such opportunities are rare and the quality of educational services is generally low due to their exceptionally high costs. Food quality is notably lower and the cost of food increases the incentive to make cuts on food expenditures. So inmates suffer as shareholders profit.

Medical care is also notoriously expensive to provide, and as expected in a profit driven prison, the quality of service erodes as a result.

STAFF SAFETY ISSUES

With incentives to cut costs and increase profits, privately operated prisons have been shown to have statistically higher rates of violence as opposed to government operated institutions. The higher rates of violence are a result of lower quality care, insufficient security, and inept staff, causing inmates to be angry and motivated to commit violent acts.

The lack of experienced officers and the minimal training requirements create an atmosphere of uncertainty, and mistakes can become common. Situations that are not handled properly can quickly erupt and become much larger and far more dangerous, therefore having professionally trained guards is necessary.

The Justice Department report on Emerging Issues in Privatized Prisons reported that there were 49% more incidents of staff assaults when compared to public institutions. There were 65% more prisoner assaults, and they were cited for serious lapses of security on many incidents.

Correctional officers often quit their jobs much earlier in private institutions, citing personal safety as one of their major concerns, and often go back to working in government operated facilities.

Such security concerns would be much easier to solve if profit was not the central factor of operation in a private facility, they could afford the latest technology and gear, provide excellent training, and hire experienced employees, therefore creating a professional secure atmosphere in which to operate.

Prison privatization in America is cheap.

PRIVATE PRISONS ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PUBLIC

When a prison complex becomes owned and operated by a private corporation, the policies and issues are decided by the corporate board of directors, whereas in public institutions the policies and directives are subject to scrutiny by the general voting public. This issue of accountability is a focal point of the controversy surrounding prison privatization in America.

When a prison warden commits an atrocity against inmates in a public institution, they can be subject to punishment by the voting public and in many cases can be voted out of office because many local prisons are operated by county sheriffs. On the state and federal levels the voting public also holds power over policy makers, and voting officials out of office can generate policy change.

But when atrocities are committed in private institutions, the public usually has little knowledge and no say in the situation. The corporate charter clearly states the corporation is liable to its shareholders, not anyone else.

Policies in place by corporate institutions can only be changed with legislation, complicated regulatory actions, and by placing fines. It is more difficult to hold an offender liable for a crime when protected under a corporate umbrella, and holding a private institution or any of its employees accountable can prove a daunting challenge.