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

2
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

3
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.

4
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.

5
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

6
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

7
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.

8
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

9
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

10
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

11
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.

12
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

13
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

14
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

15
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.

16
Research Design Report
State Your ResearchStatement
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?

17
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.

18
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.

19
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

20
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.pd
f
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.

Prisons for Profits

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (19)

Semelhante a Prisons for Profits

Semelhante a Prisons for Profits (10)

Prisons for Profits