Thanks Fellows for such a great discussion yesterday.
Southchester, like many counties across the state (and across the country), is unequipped to deal with the number of individuals they have incarcerated. But the problem doesn't go away.
As we mentioned in class, go ahead and weigh in with a verdict: what should Southchester do? You can be yourself, but I'd like you to consider whether your opinion would change if you lived in Southchester, had a family, were elderly, were unemployed...
_________________________________________________________________
I have so much that I wanted to bring up in class, but there is so little time! (okay, fine, and I was a little nervous). A couple things I will throw out right now are:
- Consider what makes a jail different from a prison- very high inmate turnover, individuals awaiting trial (who are still "innocent" in the eyes of the law???), often more poorly funded, mostly members from that community...
- Who is housed in a local jail? In Dutchess, roughly 1 in 4 were diagnosed with a mental illness, and between 60-70% are non-violent drug offenders (or charged with a non-violent drug offense).
- Tim Joseph, a legislator for Tompkins County, spoke about how state officials use statistics inappropriately to bully county governments into costly expansions. He said, "They get a graph, they look at what it's done in the past twenty years, and they draw a line through it. They go out twenty more years, and they say that's what [the population] is going to be. Now if we project that to continue and continue, well, there won't be anyone left to guard us all."
As learnéd outsiders, the situation might seem silly. (It seems silly to me) But even if we introduce alternative programs, who would run them? How do we leverage political support? What happens if these programs do not achieve the results they are expected to? Will the community support these "soft" solutions? Can Southchester afford the risk?
Octavia raised an important selling point for private (and public) expansions- beds can be sold out to generate revenue for the town. Jobs will be created. Darakshan raised a good point too- no unions may mean we can employ more Southchester-ians struggling in this economy. While philosophically we may not support a private jail, can we sleep at night if we don't invest in a solution that gives our community the most jobs with benefits, saves our town money (potentially) and, perhaps, even generates income that can be reinvested into the community?
P.S. If you want- take a break from all your work and watch this short, totally unrelated youtube clip. I had this in my syllabus also- it is BRILLIANT in its marketing strategy... and I PROMISE you won't regret it. Weigh in on it too if you'd like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POFO0HGrpVE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Hey everyone! Last class was terrific and I really enjoyed our debate. Before reading through Renee’s material, I had no idea that this was such a controversial topic. I always hear jokes about how the government takes forever to do anything; that it’s just better to privatize – but I was completely unaware of the implications behind such a severe action. From the material I reviewed and our class discussion, it seems that the better choice would be to privatize and allow the opportunity to inject some much-needed stimulus into our economy and can help curb what seems to be an endless drain on government money.
While I was reviewing for class I came across a site that brought up an interesting issue that we didn’t touch on in class: does the privatization of prisons weaken the authority of the government? The government and its departments of corrections have always seemed to be an elusive fear that people watch out for. The clients I interact with in C.E.O often describe how they ran away from home or school because they “were running before the government could catch me”. Would having uniforms that say “XYZ Corrections Company” abate the fear that the government tries to instill within inmates? Would it give the impression that the all-mighty government can’t take care of prisons so a corporation has to take over? I don’t have any answer, but the question pointed out how this decision doesn’t only affect our money but it also affects each individual person.
Once again we encounter the always present dilemma between punishment versus rehabilitation/integration in the correctional system. At the local level (such as counties or municipalities) the resources for the correctional system are more limited than they are at the federal or state level correctional system. Indeed in today’s age with a disabled economy many counties are no longer able to meet the necessary budget requirements for a correctional system. It is also proven that in a crippled economy there is a correlation with the increase of certain crimes such as theft, robbery’s, and property crimes. We were asked in this assignment to put ourselves as residents of South Chester County. The first thing that the local government should do is educate the public at large that as it was established by the National Advisory Commission in Criminal Justice standards and goals from 1973 community based corrections is the most promising means of accomplishing the changes in offender behavior that the public expects and now demands of corrections. This will help to convince the public that rehabilitation is the best option because hopefully it will break the criminal cycle of that individual by providing the necessary vocational rehabilitation programs, drug treatments, counseling. It is well proven that community programs or half way programs such as work release are way cheaper than housing an inmate which is an average of $38,000 per year and inmate. South Chester should move to create better outpatient programs and should keep in mind that probably 60 % of those incarcerated are non violent drug users pending trial. These inmates would be better off in rehabilitation programs under the supervision of probation officers and program counselors. These additional services can be payed by renting local prison beds to the state system and the revenue increases will even self finance these programs. Finally, not every single offender should be a recipient of community based corrections such as rapists, murderers, and child molesters.
So far it seems..?:
1 for Private
1 for rehab/ ATI
Great comments so far! Ridhi, I wonder whether corporations would abate fear, or just shift it. Sometimes I wonder if corporations or the government has more power...
Elizabeth, I love what you have to say, and I think a lot of officials would agree that we need to invest in real solutions. Although when there is an immediate need it seems like our vision gets funneled and more often we implement these short- sighted [unethical?] "solutions" like huge expansion projects.
Renee as I told you before girl the class was amazzzinggggg... When it comes to my personal perspective, I definitely view the privatization of prisons as a dangerous thing; when we turn imprisonment and deprivation of life into profit then we are embarking on a dangerous trend, especially in a political atmosphere where corporations have tremendous power. In addition, the ability for oversight of the practices that happen within the private prisons is taken away. After reading the VERA Report, if inmates treatment within government prisons is inhumane, within private prisons, the situation will definitely be worse.
However, in class, my vote goes to Octavia.
However, in the debate, Octavia definitely gets the vote.
I can tell by the reactions that I missed out on a great session. My apologies.
After reading Blakely’s article on the privatization of prisons, I must say that I agree with Darakshan. This is a dangerous path we are taking with our prison system. Just look at the current prison situation and we can see where this is going. With an overwhelming majority of minorities behind bar, and taking into consideration the influence that racism and prejudice had on many of those convictions, I cannot see how privatization of prisons, which essentially profits from the prison population, is the answer. There is clearly a conflict of interest here. This is capitalism at its worst and minorities are going to pay the price. I will not be surprise if eventually Donald Trump owns his own prison one day.
The transition of prisons to the private sector is unfortunately already in progress, but it is still not the norm, yet the prospects are daunting. According to Blakely, private sectors show a higher employee turnover rate compared to public sector. This means less experienced correctional officers on the job. In addition, although the private sector houses less dangerous prisoners, research has shown that it is more dangerous than public sector that houses more dangerous prisoners—go figure.
Clearly we have a problem with the over-population of prisons and our tax dollars going to the maintenance of these prisons, but there are so many alternatives to choose from: residential community corrections, diversionary treatment programs, community service programs, geriatrics re-entry program and many more.
This is not just an issue about the privatization of prisons, it is an issue about morals.
I’m so sorry I couldn’t make it to class last week!
As I was researching in preparation for my part in the debate I tried to keep an open mind, but at some point I started to feel very disturbed by what I was learning. One of the things I found most striking was how the private prison corporations manipulate the system. I learned that a non-profit lobbyist called ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) was influential in implementing “tough on crime” policies. The troublesome part is, that the major funders of ALEC are some of the private prison companies, including GEO Group. So I, too, wonder if the government or the corporations have more power. Perhaps they share in a sort of symbiotic relationship, in which the neither really represents the interest of the citizens.
The other thing I was curious about was the rate of recidivism of those inmates released from private institutions as compared to public ones. I found one study that showed the private prisons had a lower rate of recidivism. This is complicated by the fact that the populations of private and public prisons are not exactly comparable to the advantage of private prisons in this case. But still, there are some extremely compelling arguments for privatization.
For me there’s just something wrong with advertising, branding and selling prison facilities as if they were college campuses. There was no mention of justice or rights on the websites I looked at, but there was interesting evidence of the “normalization”-“less eligibility” continuum, in the way some of the corporations referred to inmates as “those in our care” while others chose to focus on their security measures to keep the dangerous inmates confined. It is unfortunate that our moral values have be come so polarized and politicized leaving what is arguabley one of the most important powers of the government susceptible to corruption and failure.
Octavia did a fantastic job of pitching a convincing argument for privatization and for going with her corporation.
HOWEVER, as Darakshan and several others point out, privatization is a slippery slope. Even if "government" doesn't act in the interests of the people, it is our only hope for such representation. We will have NO say on this issue or any others once these are privatized. That's the definition of privatized: IT's PRIVATE--only the shareholders will know for sure.....
Are we willing to give that up for short-term, narrow gains?
What about true preventative measures to reduce crime, reduce the need for jails and prisons? Why isn't this on the agenda?
If we have trouble with investments in prevention and serving human needs(see Elizabeth's post), we can kiss that baby good-bye once what belongs to the PUBLIC (i.e. WE, the people) goes private (not us, those somebodies who have a vested in interest in crime increasing, in growing crime, not reducing it). That's the conflict of interest that these corporations don't address. Instead they focus on immediate, narrow so-called gains and benefits even though they provide NO EVIDENCE that their way is the better way. (Remember when the corporate reps during the town meeting said "there's some data somewhere but couldn't produce it?").
This is scary stuff.
Look at the private sector today.
It's a mess.
And "government" is bailing it out.
That's who we should trust???!!!
My vote: AGAINST PRIVATIZATION
Oh! I can't resist adding this to what I've said above. This from one of our readings for this week's meeting at Vera:
"...for-profit companies must focus their attention on what is financially best for their owners....the survival of [the] organization is a means to private wealth or shareholder value" (p. 57 in Stone)
Professor Waterston- I was just commenting on that very same section of this week's reading and how it relates to the blog!
"In one case the survival of these organizations is a means to private wealth or shareholder value (meaning the for-profit organizations), in the other case it is a way of doing good or creating public value (meaning the nonprofits)." (pg. 57, Stone.)
From just this perspective it seems clear that keeping prisons “public” would be the best answer. Ah, how easy it would be if these were the only factors we had to base our decision off of in the prison privatization debate. One could argue (or assert) that private prisons, while the primary motivation being economic, manage to “do good” anyway, so they still hold public value. It is scary for me to think about correctional institutions becoming private. As a few of you pointed out, once something becomes private we don’t have a say, and we won’t really know what’s going on. This fact has been incredibly frustrating for me, personally. For the last 3 years I have been looking to obtain data on a juvenile correctional facility that I have been researching. After 3 years of phone calls and e-mails, with the help of some very influential people in the field, I managed to get my hands on a less than mediocre dataset containing little information on this facility. Why does only one data set exist including cases from this facility? And why is the dataset incomplete? Because this facility is private. Their survival doesn’t depend on standards of practice and success rates.
I vote against privatization.
I will not be breaking character much to say that I do not believe there is anything to be gained from the privitization of prisons or jails.
In regard to prisons, I remember learning in my correctional psychology class that aside from what we already know about private prisons, they also tend to visually depressing and dirty to the point where they are unsanitary. In contrast, government run facilities were more inclined to pay inmates to perform general janitoral responsibilities, generating a less violent enviornment through jobs and cleanliness.
Professor Waterston's statement brings to light the harsh reality that is privitization... the people lose their say. While I was researching against privitization, I found an article by Brumback, G.(2007), talking about how the privitization of prisons threatens democracy. I could not find a way to bring this into discussion, but I believe this to be central; this is not how our country should be dealing with this overcrowding.
We instead should focus on being proactive. More women are being incarcerated than ever before; we need to create services that keep them in touch with their children so that they do not grow up mother-less. Exceptions need to be made for immigrants being deported who have children born in America. To me, it appears that there will be (or currently are) more children growing up without guidance than ever before. Having more jail/prison beds in private sectors sends the message that this is O.K., when we could instead be focused on long term solutions like maintaining family ties.
You can count me as a vote against prison privitization, though I agree with Darakshan that Octavia carried the day in seminar.
But if we consider privitization apart from prisons, in education for example, I have mixed feelings generated from my own experiences.
I'm a hard core supporter of public schools, having gone to them and having chosen to send my kids to them. My husband went to private schools and while he had a better college-prep education, I had a better education for life. And a friend was recently denied tenure at a private university and has very little access to the process as a private school is not obligated to produce any documents. The potential for a lack of transparency in the private sector is enormous and dangerous.
As a professor, though, I've worked at 2 private schools and 2 public schools. This experience has given me a lot of food for thought and I've learned that private schools do a lot of things right. The bureaucracy of institutions like CUNY exist to support people from being screwed, to insure that all parties get a fair hearing, etc. etc. But for anyone who has ever waited in line at One Stop, tried to get a course through the curriculum committee, or wondered why there aren't better childcare, healthcare or technological facilities here, the answer is that there are so many layers of bureaucracy that even when everyone agrees that there is a Right Thing to be Done, it can be years until things are actually done. The lightness and speed with which decisions are made at the private schools where I've taught is remarkable compared to this place (or the University of Cincinnati). Of course fewer opinions are heard when decisions are made faster. But this does not necessarily mean that the wrong decision gets made. Along the lines of what Sam Roberts said about Herb Sturz, just because self-interest (substitute profit) is part of the equation doesn't mean that it is the only part.
Indeed, in elementary education, my son went to a private pre-K school that had as its mission partnering with the city of St. Louis to provide educational opportunities not available in that woeful public school system. This school had to fundraise tirelessly to keep itself going and it placed a large financial burden on the wealthier families -- it had to focus on profit -- but for all the right reasons.
My thinking is that we need to support public education for all the reasons expressed here in the blog (from democratic principles to transparency of process), but that we need to move away from seeing public/private as a binary opposition. It would be best for public insitutions (schools or prisons) to learn the best practices of privately run institutions (efficiency, leaner administrative structures for ex.) and for private institutions to partner with public institutions to enrich their own missions and relationships with the society in which they function.
What a potent conversation this has been.
I have also had a negative reaction to the privatization of public services, although I try to be wary of knee-jerk justifications for that position. Lack of transparency is not solely the purview of the private; indeed we have learned over time of the massive secrecy that attends much governmental action. However, it may be true that public ownership gives us more recourse to remedy.
Of late, I have become more interested in the idea of public-private partnership that combines public oversight with a kind of enlightened private self-interest model (some charter schools-which I once vehemently opposed-have successfully employed this model.) Vera, although it prefers government partnerships (maybe we can ask them why when we go on Thursday) does partner in the private sector sometimes, when that seems more expedient. Also, not everything private is "for profit" (e.g. Bill Gates's immunization programs) and some for profit organizations (for instance, those that microfinance) are not predatory; we need to make distinctions among these models.
Sorry to jump in so late but it has been a crazy week for me. I am really flattered by some of the comments to my address. Thank you!
Anyway, back to business. Now that I finished the reading for this week I was thinking about the possibility to have a non-profit institution running our prison system. It may reduce the bureaucracy and the overhead from the public sector and the drive for profit from the private sector. Moreover, they will look to create a common good by serving the inmates and work to increase our public safety.
It is also very important to make a distinction between jail and prison. These are two systems very different from each other and the solution we implement for one may not work for the other. According to Bureau of Justice Statistics over sixty percent of the people in jail have not been convicted. This means that we take away from the people their presumption of innocence. Most of these people are in jail because they are unable to post bail. Therefore, instead to expend our jail we can extend our pretrial services. This means that we should have more agencies, such as CJA to interview defendants and recommend them, or not for release on recognizance. Moreover, for small offences, individuals should be sentenced to an alternative to incarceration and allowed to fulfill their sentence in society. This would help reduce recidivism by minimizing institutionalization.
The prison issue is more complicated because people in this institution have already been convicted and they serve their sentence. Little can be done in this case to reduce overcrowding if you don’t want to build more facilities. Programs can be implemented to reduce reentry, but this is a long term solution. Therefore, as an immediate solution I still believe that privatization is a good approach. By renting the beds, we don’t need to pay for what we do not use and reduce our cost. When the beds cannot be occupied no more, we can either convert this into a hospital or other necessary facility or shut it down. Some may argue that this is going to create unemployment, but isn’t the same case if we shut down state institutions? Moreover, if prisons do produce revenue then isn’t the government’s interest to keep these institutions filled to capacity? Private prisons can make a profit as long as crime is high, but if we really work on this issue and help reduce crime, do we want the tax payer take the loss in running empty facilities just because they belong to the public sector?
Post a Comment