Skip to main content

Law & Morality 3600:327: Group 3

Group 3 Bibliography

Private Prison Industry.

Aman Jr., Alfred C. "Privatization, Prisons, Democracy, and Human Rights: The Need to Extend the Province of Administrative Law." Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 12.2 (2005): 511.
http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=18087132&site=eds-live
Argues that domestic administrative law potentially offers a means for addressing human rights problems arising from privatization, particularly privatization in the U.S. dealing with prisons. Key relationships involved in administrative and regulatory law scholarship; Intrastate delegations from the public sector to the privatization of prisons; Democracy problem in globalization.

Anderson, Lucas. "Kicking the National Habit: The Legal and Policy Arguments for Abolishing Private Prison Contracts." Public Contract Law Journal 39.1 (2009): 113.
http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=47636483&site=eds-live
The article discusses the legal and policy arguments for abolishing the privatization of prison contracts in the U.S. It provides a historical account of the emergence of private prisons in the country and claims that prison privatization is unsuitable for the goals of an effective and humane penal system. It also presents an analysis of serious problems taking place in private prisons.

Blakely, Curtis R., and Vic W. Bumphus. "The Print Media's Portrayal of the Private Prison." Probation Journal 52.1 (2005): 69.
http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=20696280&site=eds-live
This article draws on a study of the print media's portrayal of prison privatization, primarily in the USA. Findings reveal that privatization is portrayed as a practice closely associated with profit, efficiency, and overcrowding. Currently, the print media focuses on privatization's external characteristics rather than on those internal traits more closely associated with inmates, staff, and issues of operational quality. Furthermore, the print media is portraying prison privatization more negatively now than at any time since its re-emergence nearly two decades ago. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; Copyright of Probation Journal is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.).

Camp, Scott D. "Private Prisons & Recidivism." Criminology & Public Policy 4.1 (2005): 55.
http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=16389193&site=eds-live
The article focuses on private prisons and recidivism in the United States. Private prisons have been a factor in American corrections since their reintroduction in the 1980s. Private prison companies usually claim that they operate prisons both more efficiently and effectively, saving taxpayer dollars while increasing public safety. Most studies undertaken to assess the cost or operational effectiveness of private prisons have been part of legislative initiatives to ensure the proper expenditure of public funds. Many early studies were submitted as reports to appropriate government agencies, but more current studies have often appeared in peer-reviewed publications. Early reports focused largely on cost issues, although attention was usually given to quality concerns. The hypothesis often advanced, at least by proponents of prison privatization, is that inmates released from private prisons have a better chance of adopting a crime-free lifestyle when released. Although little specific information is provided about why this hypothesis should be the case, the presumption is that the greater efficiency of private prisons in delivering services better prepares inmates.

Chang, Tracy F. H., and Douglas E. Thompkins. "Corporations Go to Prisons: The Expansion of Corporate Power in the Correctional Industry." Labor Studies Journal 27.1 (2002): 45.
http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=6456764&site=eds-live
Over the last two decades, the U.S. prison population has quadrupled, with some 1.9 million people behind bars in federal and state prisons, and local jails by the year 2000. Corporations are seeking profit-making opportunities from this prison population. In this paper, we examine two major areas through which corporations are capitalizing on prison labor: prison privatization and prison industry. We briefly review key explanations of incarceration, report on the current state of prison privatization and prison industrialization, examine the impact they have on organized labor, and propose union strategies in fighting against the expansion of corporate power in the correctional industry. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; Copyright of Labor Studies Journal is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.).

Culp, Richard F. "The Rise and Stall of Prison Privatization: An Integration of Policy Analysis Perspectives." Criminal Justice Policy Review 16.4 (2005): 412-42.
http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=19325004&site=eds-live
This article examines prison privatization policy in the United States from 1984 to the turn of the century by integrating several policy analysis perspectives. Kingdon's theory of multiple streams provides an overarching context, and elements of the advocacy coalition framework, the subgovernment perspective, and disjointed incrementalism explain steps along the way. The private prison industry expanded in the midst of rapidly increasing inmate populations and widespread federal court oversight of public prisons. Serious incidents in private prisons prompted the development of an extensive regulatory framework that essentially molded private prisons into mirror images of their public sector counterparts. By the turn of the 21st century, the incentive for privatization began to fade as prison population growth leveled off and federal court oversight of prisons declined. Concurrently antiprivatization advocacy efforts gained strength particularly within the faith-based community, limiting the prospect of broader expansion of prison privatization policy. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; Copyright of Criminal Justice Policy Review is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.).

Golembeski, Cynthia, and Robert Fullilove. "Criminal (in)Justice in the City and its Associated Health Consequences." American Journal of Public Health 95.10 (2005): 1701-6.
http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mnh&AN=16131637&site=eds-live
The American system of prisons and prisoners-described by its critics as the prison-industrial complex-has grown rapidly since 1970. Increasingly punitive sentencing guidelines and the privatization of prison-related industries and services account for much of this growth. Those who enter and leave this system are increasingly Black or Latino, poorly educated, lacking vocational skills, struggling with drugs and alcohol, and disabled. Few correctional facilities mitigate the educational and/or skills deficiencies of their inmates, and most inmates will return home to communities that are ill equipped to house or rehabilitate them. A more humanistic and community-centered approach to incarceration and rehabilitation may yield more beneficial results for individuals, communities, and, ultimately, society.;.

Gran, Brian, and William Henry. "Holding Private Prisons Accountable: A Socio-Legal Analysis of "Contracting Out" Prisons." Social Justice 34.3 (2007): 173-94.
http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=34207418&site=eds-live
This article examines public concerns associated with a rise in the privatization of prisons. It is stated that private prisons are generally owned by for-profit corporations that may benefit from the imprisonment of individuals, and that these corporations are also not accountable to the public as governments are. Focus is on private prisons established in Australia, Canada, and the U.S., three countries noted to share features of social policy organization, such as federalist governments and common-law systems.

Hallett, Michael A. "Race, Crime, and for-Profit Imprisonment: Social Disorganization as Market Opportunity." Punishment & Society 4.3 (2002): 369.
http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=7899600&site=eds-live
This article explores the racial dynamics of contemporary prison privatization in the USA from the perspective of social disorganization theory. It relies particularly on the concepts of 'social' and 'human' capital to suggest that, due to late 20th-century imprisonment policies, a renewed understanding of prisoners as commodities has emerged. While the nature of prisoners' commodity-value has changed somewhat in modern times — prisoners are no longer profitable solely for their labor, but also now for their bodily ability to generate per diem payments for their private keepers — the historical pattern of racially distinct commerce in imprisoned human beings, most of whom are poor, non-violent, minority offenders, has returned. This article first explains the re-emergence of privatized control over prisoners in contemporary times, then moves on to examine the 'social capital' implications of prison privatization as it relates to public policy. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; Copyright of Punishment & Society is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.).

Jing, Yijia. "Prison Privatization: A Perspective on Core Governmental Functions." Crime, Law & Social Change 54.3 (2010): 263.
http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=55106835&site=eds-live
Prison privatization in the US illustrates the challenge of privatization to the traditional state monopoly over 'inherently governmental' functions. From a perspective on core governmental functions, this paper provides a new logical explanation of this phenomenon and argues that prison privatization demonstrates the political rationality of governments. Conservative social control and economic neoliberalism were two major political reasons for prison privatization in the US. These factors aggravated the instrumental problems of the public prison system and reinforced the urgency to address them. This logic is applied to explain the variation in the magnitude of prison privatization in the 50 states. Drawing on the results of a Tobit analysis, this paper confirms that both political factors and instrumental factors significantly influence the preference of state governments for prison privatization. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; Copyright of Crime, Law & Social Change is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.).

Kang, Susan. "Forcing Prison Labor: International Labor Standards, Human Rights and the Privatization of Prison Labor in the Contemporary United States*." New Political Science 31.2 (2009): 137.
http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=42411024&site=eds-live
This article compares the private use of prison labor in the United States to the protections against forced labor in international law. The United States plays a prominent role in promoting labor rights and standards in its interactions with economic competitors such as China. Despite this, it violates its own international legal commitments both by allowing private companies to use prison labor and by allowing labor to occur within privately run prison facilities. This paper argues that this contradictory phenomenon is a symptom of neoliberal responses to globalization. Global competition increases the economic insecurity of American workers and gives political support to neoliberal economic ideologies, and in turn allows for the ideological construction of vulnerable foreign workers abroad and “rightless” workers at home. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; Copyright of New Political Science is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.).

Kish, Richard J., and Amy F. Lipton. "Do Private Prisons really Offer Savings Compared with their Public Counterparts?" Economic Affairs 33.1 (2013): 93.
http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=85317464&site=eds-live
Private contracting of public services has been alleged to reduce costs. We address the critical question of whether private contracting really saves money, using the US prison privatisation experience as an example. Although the consensus in the literature identifies such savings, we raise economic issues of incomplete contracting, asymmetric information and moral hazard, which complicate matters. We discuss explicit, implicit, and agency costs that show that measuring the savings and quality impact of private contracting is more challenging than the literature suggests, and often inconclusive. This may suggest caution in designing solutions to cost pressures. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; Copyright of Economic Affairs is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.).

Morris, John C. "Government and Market Pathologies of Privatization: The Case of Prison Privatization." Politics & Policy 35.2 (2007): 318-41.
http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=25074929&site=eds-live
The recent growth in the number of privately operated and privately owned prisons in the United States focuses our attention on the nature of the privatization arrangements employed in this setting. This article argues that the privatization of correctional facilities is best understood as a combination of government failures, market failures, and political incentives. Using a case-study approach to examine prison privatization in Mississippi, the article concludes that prison privatization not only fails to correct certain government or market failures, but also actually creates additional (hybrid) pathologies that combine elements of both government and market failures. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; Copyright of Politics & Policy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.).

Mulch, Matthew. "Crime and Punishment in Private Prisons." National Lawyers Guild Review 66.2 (2009): 70-94.
http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=52365899&site=eds-live
The article offers information concerning the disturbing trend towards privatization of the prison system in the U.S. It describes the alarming social and ethical faults originating from the artificial union of punishment and profit known as the prison-industrial complex. It examines the society's understanding of punishment and criminal justice theory. It emphasizes the moral and political identity of a nation when its values are compromised when its own government violates its own laws by instituting inhumane military and intelligence programs contrary to the country's foundation on which it stands for.

Perrone, Dina, and Travis C. Pratt. "Comparing the Quality of Confinement and Cost Effectiveness of Public Versus Private Prisons: What we Know, Why we do Not Know More, and Where to Go from here." Prison Journal 83.3 (2003): 301.
http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=10821413&site=eds-live
Presents a systematic review of evaluation literature comparing the costs and quality of confinement among public and private prisons in the U.S. Problems caused by major methodological inconsistencies; Potential advantages and disadvantages of prison privatization; Implications of the evidence-based movement in corrections.

Ryan, Mick, and Tony Ward. "Privatization and the Penal System: Britain Misinterprets the American Experience." Criminal Justice Review (Georgia State University) 14.1 (1989): 1-12.
http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=14245338&site=eds-live
The building and management of penal institutions by private corporations has been adopted by governments in both the United States and Britain as a possible solution to the problems of their overburdened prison systems. British advocates of privatization have looked to the United States to demonstrate the success of privatization, but they have seriously distorted the evidence and have paid scant attention to the constitutional, administrative, and political differences between the two countries. The authors examine these differences and conclude that many of the practical incentives to privatization which exist in the United States are absent in Britain, and so too are some of the legal protections which prisoners in American private jails enjoy. While not advocating the privatization of penal institutions in either country, the authors are critical of those opponents of privatization particularly in Britain, who assert that there is, or should be, a fixed relationship between the state and the penal system. They contrast this with the earlier attitude of progressives in both countries who saw the expansion of private, nonprofit involvement in noncustodial forms of punishment as an important means of promoting change. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; Copyright of Criminal Justice Review (Georgia State University) is the property of Georgia State University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.).

Vardalis, James J., and Fred W. Becker. "Legislative Opinions Concerning the Private Operation of State Prisons: The Case of Florida." Criminal Justice Policy Review 11.2 (2000): 136.
http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4578954&site=eds-live
Examines the factors affecting legislative opinions concerning the privatization of prison operations based on a survey of Florida state legislators in 1998-1999. Reasons behind the objections of some legislators to the privatization; Attitudes of legislators toward privatization; Efficiency and effectiveness concerns of legislators on the issue.

Wray, L. R. "A New Economic Reality: Penal Keynesianism." Challenge (05775132) 43.5 (2000): 31.
http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=3566442&site=eds-live
The American criminal justice system today focuses to an unprecedented degree on incarceration as a means to punish transgressors. As the author will see, this practice deviates substantially from practices of other Western nations, and, indeed, from Western justice tradition. Incarceration is expensive, which has led to attempts to reduce costs by relying on the discipline of the marketplace through "privatization" of prisons and, more importantly, by putting prisoners to work for private firms. These largely complementary movements are generating what might be termed a "prison-industrial complex," or a form of "penal Keynesianism." In the article, it will be argued that while penal Keynesianism does replicate some of the features of military Keynesianism, it is not likely to generate as many supply-side and demand-side benefits, and thus cannot be seen as a replacement for the old military-industrial complex. Most importantly, while military Keynesianism tended to enhance the employability of many young, lowly educated males who were able to enter military service, imprisonment does not generally do so. Indeed, even if full employment were attained within prison walls, it is not clear that this result would generate net benefits to society as a whole.