Prisons for Profits

Privatization of the American penal system: A great debate 1

Privatization of the American Penal System

Aaron Easter

Research Statement

This report will assess the advantage or disadvantage of the privatization of the American

penal system on the American criminal justice system.

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to develop an idea of who is benefiting from the

privatization movement of the American prison system, show the negative effects of a private

prison system, and describe the impact on the American Criminal Justice system.

Background and Significance

Privatization is defined as the act of removing (something) from government control and

placing it in private control or ownership. The privatization of the American penal system has

been an ongoing process since the mid 1800’s when the relatively well-known California prison

San Quentin, was deemed the first for-profit prison in the United States. After San Quinten was

returned to the state, the American prison system stayed public until the mid-1980’s when the

Corrections Corporation of America CCA was given a contract to take over a prison in Hamilton

County, Tennessee (Cheung, 2011, para.1).

The penal system in America is an off-shoot of the Judicial Branch of the United States

government, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics points out that there are roughly 7 million adults

circulating on the other side of the bars throughout the correctional system (Bureau of Justice

Statistics, 2014). It is estimated that there are now approximately 130 private prisons operating in


the United States with roughly 157,000 beds total between all private prisons (Cohen, 2015, para.

1). This means that privately owned beds make up about 2.24% of the American correctional

system, and while that may not seem like much, it was estimated in a report by the Justice Policy

Institute that the two largest companies involved in private prisons, Corrections Corporation of

America, and GEO Group make a combined $3.3 billion in annual revenue since entering the

private prison scene. The report also pointed out that the private federal prison population has

more than doubled between 2000 and 2010 (Ashton and Petteruti, 2011).

The upcoming presidential elections have put a spotlight on private prisons, as they have

become a topic for debate among candidates. According to data collected by the Sunlight

Foundation, Marco Rubio, a U.S. senator who has placed a bid for presidency, the GEO Group

has donated $39,000 to Rubio’s campaign (Sunlight Foundation, 2015). Rubio has been a

supporter of the privatization of prisons in America, and thus has been rewarded by one the

largest companies in the business. It is not an uncommon practice for private organizations to

support politicians, and with a billion dollar business, the private prison sector is something

many politicians will be turning their eyes to. The amount of money in the private prison system

could have a significant impact on the upcoming elections, and could cause politicians to

overlook the negative aspects of private prisons.

Privatizing prisons carries several risks including; the safety of the prisoners themselves,

the workers, and the preservation of the standard penal system of the United States government.

When a private organization is given control of anything, it has taken this control from the

government. The American penal system was never intended to be a business, but as private

organizations have taken control of a small percentage of American prisons, more money is

moving through these companies than some major businesses. There is also an inherent danger to


allowing private companies control any prison population, as there is limited control and

regulations within the prisons on a daily basis. An Annual Privatization Report done in 2010 by

the Reason Foundation on the Corrections system in America highlighted an incident in Arizona

in which three highly dangerous inmates escaped and murdered a couple in New Mexico. After

the incident the Arizona State Prison-Kingman was put under close scrutiny and “ inadequate

patrols and prisoner movement, excessive false alarms, a lax culture and inconsistencies in

visitor screening procedures” (Gilroy and Kenny, 2010) were discovered.

The American criminal justice system has been expanding greatly since the 1980’s due to

the war on drugs, anti-terrorism actions, and prison over-crowding. Private prisons have given

certain organizations that previously had zero experience with criminal justice, an influencing

part in the field. The standard State and local governments are supporters of private prisons as

the private prisons can help cut the costs of housing inmates, and putting up the costs that come

with prisons, such as food, medical aid, and staff salary. Every year the number of federal and

state prisoners increases making it an easy decision for governments to lean on private

organizations to help house prisoners. That isn’t to say that state governments are not regulating

the private prisons and checking their security. After the prison break at Arizona State Prison-

Kingman, the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC), who had been procuring several

bidders for other private prison sights, threatened to shut down prisons that did not comply with

the ADOC new departmental security standards. ADOC stated that failure would result in the

loss of the state contract to operate the prison (Gilroy and Kenny, 2010).

This paper will inspect the shortcomings of private prisons, and who exactly benefits

from this process. It will also discuss the impact a private penal system has had on the American

criminal justice system.


Review of Literature

Private companies have significantly increased their space in the prison business as

politicians have begun to back this practice. Private prisons are seen as a good way of cutting

costs for local and state governments, as well as providing more jobs in rural areas where the

prisons are set up. However many of these private companies are not qualified enough to run an

entire prison facility on their own, which causes problems for both the inmates and workers. The

balance of risk and reward is an important topic in the debate of private prisons.

When a private prison is created, it is typically developed with the plan to aid a local or

state government that may be struggling with housing a high number of inmates, or the cost of

maintain the prison itself. Occupy Theory, an online magazine that focuses on topics covering

the environment, and human rights, pointed out that governments can save up to 50% of their

expenses when transitioning their prisons to the private sector (“Advantages and Disadvantages”,

2014, para. 2). This is a benefit that is hard to ignore and is a large reason why private prisons

have grown more commonplace in present time.

The reward of lower expense rates does not come without a cost. Private prisons typically

cut costs because they do not employ professionals in every position that would require higher

salaries. David Shapiro, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union National Prison

Project, explained some studies have found that the level of violence is actually higher in private

prisons. Shapiro (2011) pointed out that "Private prisons have incentives to make money [and] to

cut costs, one of the ways they do that is by slashing pay for staff, which leads to much higher

rates of turnover" (p. 27). That high rate of turnover and guards who lack the experience to

properly respond to situations like escape attempts is dangerous.


Many would argue that severe cases of escape attempts and inmate violence in private prisons

are rare and do not outweigh the benefits of outsourcing penal system responsibilities to private

companies. In a study done by Richard J. Kish and Amy F. Lipton of the academic journal

Economic Affairs the costs of private and public prisons were compared.

The consensus in the US literature is that private firms have an advantage in building new

prison facilities, both in cost and in time. Private contractors also have a slight operating-

cost advantage. Cost savings are typically reported on the labor side, because of reduced

non-wage benefits and increased efficiency from technology. The private sector also has

an advantage in procurement. (Kish and Lipton, 2013, p. 11)

Due to a lack of cost reporting and hidden costs in most private facilities, a straightforward

comparison between public and private is very hard.

With the increase in private prisons across the country, private facilities have begun to

handle prisoners outside of what would normally be found in a local or state controlled facility.

Several private prisons now house detained illegal immigrants. In a post September 11th, 2001

society, illegal immigrants are being detained and held in far greater numbers than ever before.

Alissa Ackerman and Rich Furman who do research for the University of Washington under the

Universities Social Work Program have found that “Various states’ policies, including

particularly stringent laws in Arizona and Alabama, have criminalized key aspects of the daily

lives of undocumented immigrants” (Ackerman and Furman, 2013, p. 2). This is especially

important as “immigration laws, are likely to increase the number of individuals housed in

federal detention centers, many of which are run by CCA and The Geo Group” (Ackerman and

Furman, 2013, p. 2), both are groups previously examined in this report. Both groups have


benefitted from increased prison population sizes, and with additional prisoners being thrust into

the system resulting from new immigration laws, the GEO group and CCA will see increasing

revenue streams.

The problem that becomes apparent from the new immigrant laws is that groups like

GEO and CCA will lobby for politicians to push for these immigration laws, which will bring

about fundamental changes to the American criminal justice system. Ackerman and Furman

(2013) pointed to one specific new Act that has shown up in Arizona that looks to directly affect

illegal immigrants.

Arizona’s SB 1070, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, is

considered the first of the more restrictive policies which seek to compel law

enforcement officials to ascertain immigration status. This law makes it a misdemeanor

for disrupting the flow of traffic if hiring a day laborer; illegal for a day laborer to get into

a car if traffic flow is interrupted; and unlawful to ‘transport, move, conceal, harbor, or

shield from detection any unauthorized immigrant’ (Immigration Policy Center, 2011, p.

4). It also provides for the impoundment of vehicles that transport unauthorized

immigrants and notes that officers can detain a person who cannot produce valid

documents of immigration status. Additionally, the law mandates law enforcement

officers to keep individuals in custody until their immigration status is verified and

prohibits any local law that limits the investigation of federal immigration laws, for

instance, community policing practice. Finally,

SB 1070 permits private citizens to sue state law enforcement if the private citizens

believe local law enforcement is failing to enforce federal immigration law. These and


other state laws have led to a social context in which immigrants are more likely to be

arrested and detained for acts that have not been traditionally viewed as illegal. As such,

undocumented immigrants are now more likely to come into the criminal justice system

and wind up in immigration detention centers, which are proliferating to meet the

increase in demand. (Ackerman and Furman, 2013, p.4)

Being in the USA as an “illegal” is a criminal act but is typically not followed up by jail time,

and Ackerman and Furman said that “According to federal law, the crossing of the US border

and entering without proper documentation is an administrative violation, in the same category

of offense, for example, as filing taxes late” (Ackerman and Furman, 2013, p. 3).

Private companies like the GEO Group and CCA actively lobby various state legislatures

and the US Congress (Ashton and Petteruti, 2011), and the companies tend to “focus specifically

on bills related to corrections and law enforcement” (Ackerman and Furman, 2013, p. 6).

According to the Center for Responsible Politics (2011), CCA alone has spent almost $1 million

a year, every year since 2003 on federal lobbying efforts. In Florida, up to 30 lobbyists have been

hired to lobby for contracts with private prisons and policies that promote their use (Ashton and

Petteruti, 2011). Philip L. Torrey (2015) of the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

said that “The Fifth Amendment requires immigration proceedings to be “fundamentally fair”,

but statutes and regulations— not the Constitution— provide specific due process protections

because Congress has plenary power concerning federal immigration policy” (p. 881). Thus

lobbying to members of Congress can be an effective way for private companies to influence law

making.


These private companies view the American Penal System as a business which can lead

to cost cutting in guards on duty, inmate healthcare, and sanitization maintenance. Interior

problems such as those are not the only concern though as these private companies also lobby for

new laws that affect those in America, but also benefit the companies in question. In a recent

NPR investigation, it was found that CCA executives believed that immigration detention would

bring an increase in revenues (Ackerman and Furman, 2013, p.7). Lobbying for increased

immigration law would bring more inmates into immigrant detention centers which would then

benefit companies like the GEO Group and CCA in the long run. This is a questionable tactic as

many would argue private companies should have little say in laws regarding immigration in

America. The Associated Press recently showed that the top three private prison companies spent

at least $45 million between 2001 and 2011 on campaign contributions and lobbyist fees. A year

after those expenditures began, officials sent approximately 3,300 noncitizen detainees to CCA

detention facilities pursuant to two federal contracts worth $760 million (Torrey, 2015, p.904).

These private companies that have been discussed throughout this report are in no way

small either with the company CCA reporting housing for over 75,000 inmates in over 60

facilities. Of the facilities operated by CCA, 44 of them are company owned. The company

currently holds contracts with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, The US Marshals Service,

Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement (ICE), half of the US states, and several local

municipalities (Ackerman and Furman, 2013, p.4). Ackerman and Furman (2013) pointed out

that “Many speculate that private prison corporations focus more on generating a profit than on

the safety and security of the inmates they house; those that are employed by such companies

fiercely deny this accusation” (p.4). While a group like CCA is lessening the responsibilities of


hard pressed local governments, the desire for a profit over the wellbeing of the prisoners

themselves is a problem worth stating.

Private industries operating within federal, state, and local facilities stand to generate

substantial profit from subsidiary industries. Private organizations like CCA and the GEO group

have looked to take a commanding hold over those subsidiary industries.

For example, CCA states that it specializes in the ‘design, construction, expansion and

management of prisons, jails and detention facilities, as well as inmate transportation

services …’ (CCA, 2012). The GEO Group not only builds, designs, operates, and

finances correctional institutions, detention centers, and residential treatment centers, but

also provide services for secure inmate transport, pretrial and immigration custody

services, correctional health care services and behavioral health and residential treatment

services for both adults and juveniles (Ackerman and Furman, 2013, p. 5).

When these private corporations begin to dominate the prison industry in all facets, State and

Local governments have little choice but to use the subsidiary items created from the GEO group

and use their transportation and treatment services. Treatment and rehabilitation which was once

part of the American criminal justice system is being outsourced to private companies, which

may or may not be using the right professionals for the job.

Between 1980 and 2012, the total number of state and local prisoners in the United States

rose from 501,886 to 2,228,400—a 344% increase (Aviram, 2014, p. 413). This is an

unprecedented increase in the corrections population, an undertaking that any government would

struggle to keep up with. Hadar Aviram (2014) writing for the Fordham Urban Law Journal

wrote that “Most recently, the Supreme Court found the physical and mental health care in


California prisons appalling—one inmate dying needlessly from iatrogenic causes every six days

—indeed, so appalling that they could not be improved without considerable population

reduction” (p. 413). This brings up the point that at times states have little choice than to reach

out to private corporations for help in housing inmates. Aviram (2014) said that “critical prison

literature commonly takes on private prison companies, assuming that private incarceration is, by

definition, worse than public incarceration, both for philosophical-ethical reasons and because its

for-profit structure creates a disincentive to invest in improving prison conditions” (Aviram,

2014, p.416). He also communicated that while “these concerns are reasonable and

understandable”, “focusing on private prison companies as the source —or even the salient

representation—of all evil in American incarceration is misguided and myopic” (Aviram, 2014,

p.416).

Aviram (2014) described the “focus on private actors as the bogeymen of American

incarceration” as “a gross underestimation of the extent to which everyone—private and public

actors alike—responds to market pressures and conducts his or her business, including

correctional business, through a cost/benefit prism” (p.416). State and local governments as well

as the federal government, typically practice cost cutting. This is not an exclusive action to

private corporations running private prisons.

A large form of cost cutting practiced by both public and private prisons has had life and

death implications. The privatization of the prison health care system has, as Aviram pointed out

“public and private prisons have narrowed their healthcare offerings to ‘bare life’ sustenance”

(Aviram, 2014, pg. 435). Aviram cited Wil Hylton, an American journalist and contributor for

The New York Times Magazine, who prepared an investigation into private healthcare in prisons


Wil Hylton has noted, many practitioners working for private companies reportedly have

had their licenses revoked in other states. Hylton’s investigation of the prison’s approach

to hepatitis revealed a strong motivation to save money at the expense of providing

inmates with hepatitis treatment, which led to noncompliance with the Centers for

Disease Control’s protocols for treating the epidemic. (Aviram, 2014, p. 435-436)

The problem of healthcare mismanagement is huge as inmates are protected under the Eighth

amendment which grants them the provision of healthcare. Brittany Bondurant (2104) of the

New England Journal on Criminal & Civil Confinement defined the Eighth Amendment right as

“The constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment within the Eighth

Amendment derives its meaning from the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress

of a maturing society" (p.408).

In a society where the criminal justice system is built on the groundwork laid by the

Constitution and bill of rights, any violation can compromise the system. Aviram (2014)

wrapped his study into healthcare management in prisons with a specific example

One recent example of medical misconduct occurred when Nicole Guerrero, a pregnant

inmate in a public prison in Wichita County, Texas, called for help when her water broke

in solitary confinement. A nurse working with a private prison provider, who was later

found to have had an expired license, did not heed Guerrero’s plea for medical assistance

and the baby died shortly after its birth. Guerrero is suing the nurse and Correctional

Healthcare Management, the private firm, for medical malpractice. (p.436)

This example speaks of a public, government owned prison that failed to provide a United States

citizen with basic human rights granted by the Eighth Amendment.


The problem of mass incarceration in the United States presents more problems than just

whether the American penal system should involve private companies. Mike Tartaglia (2014) of

the Boston University Law Review said that “Preserving human rights in prison is valuable both

as a distinct goal and as it relates to reducing recidivism, improving public health, and providing

meaningful opportunities for former prisoners to reintegrate” (p.1690).

Richard P. Seiter worked for over thirty years in corrections administration—in four

federal prisons (warden of two), as director of corrections in Ohio, as the first director of the

National Institute of Corrections, National Academy of Corrections, and as head of a $400

million in annual sales prison industry program. He was also part of the Corrections Corporation

of America (CCA), as chief correctional officer. Seiter (2014) pointed out that federal, state, and

county governments that use privatization think of it as a partnership, one by which the private

sector provides specific services that that are needed by public corrections agencies (p.419).

There are instances where public correction agencies do not have the resources necessary

to deal with overcrowding in prisons. Seiter (2014) said that “CCA’s business model is to

provide bed capacity when states need it by building, owning, and operating correctional

facilities that can be provided to government customers” (p.419). He pointed to three specific

functions that a private company like CCA can provide faster or greater than a State government.

1. Speed/bringing beds on line quicker: According to Austin and Coventry, “governments

take five to six years to build a facility, whereas some private companies claim they can

do it in two to three years (or less).”

2. Access to capital: Part of the problem with building new government projects is the

need for capital. The state may fund a project in the single year operating budget, but


more likely they have a capital budget for which they may seek financing, such as

through selling government bonds. The private sector can provide funding that is

calculated into the per diem costs to the government customer so they do not have to

extend their own lines of credit.

3. Flexibility: Many would argue that the state should seek non-prison alternatives to

managing their offender populations, and I would agree with that. But the bottom line is,

they may truly need or believe that more prison beds are necessary at that time.

Contracting with the private sector allows them the flexibility to change their minds, to

create community corrections options, or to establish other ways to divert offenders from

prison without committing millions of dollars to bricks and mortar. Few government-

private sector contracts have long-term guarantees, so they can cancel the contract when

they no longer need it. (Seiter, 2014, p. 419-420)

There is no denying that in specific instances the public sector can be beneficial for the American

Penal system, though some would argue that profits will always be more important to the private

companies than assisting local governments chiefly based off the statistic that in 2012 private

prisons held federal contracts worth approximately $5.1 billion (Torrey, 2015, p.904).

Public or private loses its meaning when American citizens are being mistreated. It is

difficult to judge exactly which side may be to blame for the crumbling penal system in America.

The American criminal justice system has been stretched thin by the increase in corrections

populations and relying on private companies has become all but absolutely necessary. Deciding

a right and wrong is next to impossible, but maintaining the Constitution and granting basic


human rights should always be at the forefront of the American criminal justice system, no

matter how many private companies become involved.

Expectations/Conclusions

The debate between private and public prisons is not going away anytime soon. Both

share aspects that can be frowned upon, and both have advantages that cannot be ignored. Private

prisons offer a cheaper alternative to the public counterparts. This advantage is stymied by the

poor background checks on prospective employees, and the lack of health care in the private

prisons. Private prisons also tend to be supported by politicians who want to benefit from having

the private companies that work the prisons, becoming those politicians’ constituents. Public

prisons have better healthcare offered for inmates, and in general tend to take better care of those

in the system. The employees that work in public prisons are subjected to far better and thorough

background checks. Without private companies attempting to profit from the prisons, public

prisons become more focused on staying within guidelines and not cutting corners.

The results of the survey would most likely point towards state and local government

workers supporting private prisons as a way to save budget. The state workers would most likely

be more vocal about saving the budget money while local government workers may have issues

with private prisons taking jobs away from county workers. Some state and local workers that

have seen the prison system up close will most likely say they would prefer loved ones to stay at

a publicly run prison. The workers may trust the public sector that they work for more than the

private sector. Most of the former inmates will most likely want to be part of the public sector as


well, or have their loved ones be part of the public prison system. This may stem from private

prisons not offering healthcare that is up to the standards offered by most public prisons. The

trend will then become more skewed towards support for public prisons, and most people

surveyed will likely prefer themselves or loved ones to stay in the public system.

Recommendations

1. Private prisons should be closely monitored by prison experts to make sure all

aspects of the prison meet American guidelines.

Private prisons typically come under scrutiny for attempting to cut corners and save

costs, due to the fact that the prisons are usually being run for profit. Having all

private prisons undergo inspections run by prison experts can help to ensure that the

inmates are being kept well fed, clothed, and clean. This inspection can also confirm

that all employees at the prison are following typical and safe procedures throughout

their daily duties.

2. Public prisons should receive more funding.

Private prisons exist and thrive because of the low funding given to most state and

locally run prisons. Without the funds to properly maintain and house all inmates,

many are sent to private prisons, which can range from excellent to poorly run

institution. Allowing additional funding to be granted to public prisons can help state

and local governments better run their facilities. Additional funding will assist in

keeping prisoners under government control, and reduce the risk of bad situations

occurring in private prisons.


Research Design Report

State Your Research Statement

This report will assess the advantage or disadvantage of the privatization of the American penal system on the American criminal justice system.

What is the purpose of your survey?To find out . . .

Purpose is to find out public opinion on private prisons.

Whom would you survey to find first-hand information concerning your research statement?

State and local government workers as well as those that have been part of the prison system both in private and public prisons.

Why did you choose this group of people to focus on?

This group has people that are impacted by funding for prisons, and also people who have been directly influenced by the prison system, both the private and public system.

What would you ask them about?

Do they support private prisons as a way to save state and local budgets?

List at least three specific questions you would ask.

1. How might a private organization positively affect the American penal system?

2. Would you be alright with a loved one being sentenced to serve time at a private prison vs. a state or local prison?


3. Do you believe State and Local governments have enough funding and resources to properly run their prisons?

4.

5.

What type of survey would you use? (phone, email, etc.) Why would you choose that type?

Paper survey on site because it’s more likely to be completed actively and to the individual’s best ability.

What is the population for your survey?

Government workers of both local and state, and former inmates of both private and public prisons.

Why did you choose this population?

This population has knowledge of how the private and public sectors work, most likely a working knowledge of the penal system, as well as inside knowledge on what goes on behind closed doors in the prisons.

What is your sample size?

Quarter of the population of government workers in America, as well as a quarter of former inmates in America, coming from both private and public prisons.

Explain how your sample will be chosen.

Utilizing staff directories of the local and state government buildings chosen randomly throughout the country, people will then be randomly selected through the directory. Inmates will be chosen randomly from across the country using a convicted felon database.


Explain how the term random in relation to your survey.

The sample is completely randomly chosen, leaving only to make sure that there are an equal amount of former inmates coming from private and public prisons.

Will you need a mathematical formula to choose your sample? Why or why not?

A mathematical formula will be needed because the population size will be so large.

Is there a confidence level associated with your sample?

Yes there is a confidence level to ensure that the sample population is truly representing the overall population. There would be at least a 95% confidence interval used.

How will your data be collected? Provide all necessary details.

Data will be collected through surveys. Yes and No questions will be put into graphs while open ended questions will be specifically highlighted with examples of answers being shown. The different population segments will also be compared and contrasted.

How will your data be analyzed? Why did you choose that format for analysis?

Compared across all surveys and then percentages will be analyzed for each question; open ended questions will be analyzed in a compressed format.

How will your data be interpreted? Will distribution and frequency tables and/or Chi Square play a role in your analysis?

Frequency table, pie charts will be used.


Works Cited

Ackerman, A. R., & Furman, R. (2013). The criminalization of immigration and the privatization of the immigration detention: implications for justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 16(2), 251-263. doi:10.1080/10282580.2013.798506

Aman, A. C. (2014). Prison privitazation and inmate labor in the global econmoy: Reframing the debate over private prisons. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 42355.

Ashton, P., Petteruti, A. (June 2011). Justice Policy Institute. Gaming the system: How the political strategies of private prison companies promote ineffective incarceration policies. Retrieved from http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/gaming_the_system.pdf

Aviram, H. (2014). Are private prisons to blame for mass incarceration and its evils? Prison conditions, neoliberalism, and public choice. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 42411.

BALIGA, S. (2013). Shaping the success of social impact bonds in the united states: Lessons learned from the privatization of U.S. prisons. Duke Law Journal, 63(2), 437-479.

Bondurant, B. (2013). The privatization of prisons and prisoner healthcare: Addressing the extent of prisoners' right to healthcare. New England Journal On Criminal & Civil Confinement, 39(2), 407-426

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Cheung, A. (2011). Prison privatization and the use of incarceration. Retrieved from http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_prisonprivatization.pdf

Cohen, M. (2015, April 28). How for-profit prisons have become the biggest lobby no one is talking about. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/how-for-profit-prisons-have-become-the-biggest-lobby-no-one-is-talking-about/

Gilroy, L., Kenny, H. (2010) Annual privatization report 2010: Corrections. Retrieved from http://reason.org/files/corrections_annual_privatization_report_2010.pdf

Kish, R. J., & Lipton, A. F. (2013). Do private prisons really offer savings compared with their public counterparts?. Economic Affairs (Institute Of Economic Affairs), 33(1), 93-107

Mitchelson, M. L. (2014). The production of bedspace: Prison privatization and abstract space. Geographica Helvetica, 69(5), 325-333. doi:10.5194/gh-69-325-2014

NPR Staff. (2011). Who benefits when a private prison comes to town? Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2011/11/05/142058047/who-benefits-when-a-private-prison-comes-to-town

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/05/142058047/who-benefits-when-a-private-prison-comes-to-town

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/05/142058047/who-benefits-when-a-private-prison-comes-to-town

http://reason.org/files/corrections_annual_privatization_report_2010.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/how-for-profit-prisons-have-become-the-biggest-lobby-no-one-is-talking-about/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/how-for-profit-prisons-have-become-the-biggest-lobby-no-one-is-talking-about/

http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_prisonprivatization.pdf

http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/gaming_the_system.pdf


Advantages and disadvantages of private prisons. (2014). Retrieved from http://occupytheory.org/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-private-prisons/

Private jails in the united states. (2012). Retrieved from http://civilrights.findlaw.com/other-constitutional-rights/private-jails-in-the-united-states.html

Seiter, R. P. (2014). Private prisons: Myths, realities and educational opportunities for inmates. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 33415.

Shapiro, D. (2011). American Civil Liberties Union. Banking on bondage: Private prisons and mass incarceration.. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf

Sunlight Foundation. (2014) [Graph illustrating GEO Group Campaign Finance] Geo Group Campaign Finance retrieved from http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/geo-group/7dfa33488aad4908ac1c75336c20db05?cycle=-1

Tartaglia, M. (2014). Private prisons, private records. Boston University Law Review, 94(5), 1689-1744.

Torrey, P. L. (2015). Rethinking immigration’s mandatory detention regime: Politics, profit, and the meaning of “Custody”. University Of Michigan Journal Of Law Reform, 48(4), 879-913.

http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/geo-group/7dfa33488aad4908ac1c75336c20db05?cycle=-1

http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/geo-group/7dfa33488aad4908ac1c75336c20db05?cycle=-1

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf

http://occupytheory.org/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-private-prisons/

Documents

Prisons for Profits