WITH THE ADVENT of get-tough sanctions.

WITH THE ADVENT of get-tough sanctions, the demand for prison space is great. As state and federal facilities are forced to operate at or above capacity, solutions are increasingly being sought from the private sector. the same solution that has gained increased popularity is the privatization of the prison. A private prison is a facility that incarcerates felons for profit. Recent figures from the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicate that about 7% (94948) of America's state and federal prisoners are incarcerated in privately operated prisons (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002) on all accounts, this trend is awaited to continue. For example, the U Bureau of Prisons has announced its intention to increase the number of federal prisoners housed in private facilities to an anticipated 20000 within the nearest few years (Camp et al., 2002: 28) This hints that correctional privatization will continue to gain moment (GAO, 1996: 3; Welch, 2000:82)

The increased moment of prison privatization makes it vital to determine if the private sector ascribes to similar or different ideologies than those that have traditionally driven public operations. This determination is valuable since the objectives of the contemporary prison are increasingly ambiguous (Garland, 1990: 3) The lack of a clearly defined ideology is resulting in a growing understanding of doubt and dissatisfaction with recent penal practice. Thus, our nation's prisons and correctional departments adhering to a variety of ideologies that make the connected view appear more philosophically disjointed than in the past. This confusion not no other than exists at the institutional of the same height but is also prevalent among prison employee Garland notes that prison employee have historically been able to justify various practices by dint of placing them within established ideological frameworks. However, those now make use ofed in the prison are left with little direction or steady a widely accepted justification for their efforts. by way of considering prison privatization, insight can be obtained about the part of the contemporary prison (both private and public) as well as the part that a profit ideology may play in the hereafter application of punishment.

Privatization: A History

Prison privatization is historically landed (Cohen, 1985: 63; Lichtenstein, 2001: 189) Similar practices were usual in parts of Europe during the seventeenth centenary having their birth in Amsterdam and Hamburg (Spierenburg, 1998: 66) Simon notices that in Europe, it was possible to "obtain public authority to confine teasing people" in private facilities (1993: 22) The operators of these facilities sought profit and self-sufficiency according to charging fees for admittance and discharge, nutriment and water, and even lodging (Austin & Coventry 2001: 9; Lichtenstein, 2001: 193) Sellin, too, notes that early prisons sought "financial profitability" (1958: 11)

Cohen traces the parents of contemporary privatization to the 1960's when there arose a social desire to "divest[ing] the state of certain curb functions" (1985: 31). This manner of moving is also being fueled by way of a growing dissatisfaction with regulation and its inability to fulfill its correctional responsibilities (Austin & Coventry 2001: 9; Cohen, 1985: 35; Jacobs, 2001: 184; Lichtenstein, 2001: 191) The newly come trend to privatize prisons began in earnest in 1984 when Hamilton shire Tennessee and Bay County, Florida recorded into contracts with the private sector. generally 158 private correctional facilities operate in 31 states (Thomas, 2000)

The shift from a publicly operated correctional theory to one that contains a corporate composing has led to concerns about an inherent conflict between public and private interests (Christie, 2000: 149; Logan, 1990) This make anxious hinges upon the belief that profit will be of greater importance to the private sector than the constitutional, ethical, or fair treatment of its inmates and staff. more [i]or[/i] less scholars have even suggested that the pursuit of profit may be done in consequence of substantial cuts in staffing, training, and ancillary services (Brister, 1996; Logan, 1996; Thomas, 1996;) Since labor accounts for approximately 70% of all prison charges "the secret to low-cost operations is to have "the minimum number of officers watching the maximum number of inmates" (Austin & Coventry 2001: xi & 16; Welch, 2000: 82) Thus, conventional wisdom hints that the private sector will operate at or above capacity and intrust with an agency proportionately fewer staff than does the public sector.

Furthermore, the emotion to privatize prisons is reflective of a larger socio-economic and political mental action occurring worldwide. Referred to as "neo-liberalism," corporations involved in this emotion embrace a capitalistic fervor that look afters the abolition of government intervention and the expansion of economic released enterprise (Martinez & Garcia, 2000: 1; Passas, 2000: 21; Starr, 1988: 8) This desire to expand into modern avenues of profit has lead corporations to consider prison operations. It is the possibility that these corporations will chop wages and employee benefits (Martinez & Garcia, 2000; Passas, 2000) that make prison privatization single of the most significant issues facing contemporary society (Passas, 2000: 16)