Strange Bedfellows? Reaffirming Rehabilitation and Prison Privatization

Wright, Kevin A.

doi:10.1080/10509670903435522

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Wright (, p. 74), private prisons, as one of the main areas of privatizing corrections, “are here to stay irrespective of empirical findings for or against their existence in the corrections industry.” Perhaps he is correct in this assertion, and if this is the case, it is not an overwhelmingly positive answer to many of the questions posed in the beginning of the article, or to the existing empirical accounts opposed to privatizing corrections. Yet perhaps Wright is not right that private prisons, as one branch of the correctional tree, are “here to stay,” or not at least forever.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Critics have argued that private prisons are often operated and managed in a manner that is consistent “with the dominant correctional philosophy of incapacitation” (Wright, , p. 76; see also Blakely & Bumphus, ). For example, some leading authorities in the United States have argued that the entire American penal system is currently based on rational choice and issues of cost (Cullen, Pratt, Miceli, & Moon, ) and that privatization became a viable policy choice only under this dominant correctional philosophy.…”

Section: For and Against Privatizing Corrections: The Role Of Ideologmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Persistent puzzles

Sparks

Gacek

2019

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary:In our article, we attend to the implied outlooks ("philosophies" in the sense of operative practical discourses and assumptions) and the competing ethical concerns that animate differing views on privatizing corrections. We consider some normative arguments and empirical observations that have been mobilized for and against privatization since the inception of the modern version of this debate in the late 1980s, and we seek to place these in the context of accounts of penal problems over that contentious period. We argue that a multidimensional approach to understanding the sociology of punishment and in particular how certain forms of punishment persist, survive, and thrive is required when considering the privatization of corrections. In using such an approach, we raise quizzical questions regarding the pairing together of punishment and privatization, and as a result, we seek to sharpen the discussion about future prospects.Policy Implications: Greater attention must be paid toward public involvement, knowledge, and understanding about penal policies. With particular regard to the involvement of private-sector actors and interests, this has implications both at the initial contract negotiation stages of expanding correctional privatization as well as at the rescission of such contracts. The impact of penal arrangements on the dignity and integrity of offenders-especially but not

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: For and Against Privatizing Corrections: The Role Of Ideologmentioning

confidence: 99%

Persistent puzzles

Sparks

Gacek

2019

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Overview Of Private Prison Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is also possible that prisons need to focus on other issues. For instance, Wright (2010) argued that instead of focusing attention on the cost benefits that may exist from private prisons, the focus should be on rehabilitating inmates and the ability of private prisons to do so. A report examining the cost of private prisons in the state of Arizona demonstrated that the prices associated with operating private prisons in that state were either equal to or greater than those associated with operating public prisons (Arizona Department of Corrections, 2011).…”

Section: Cost-effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Rates of Misconduct Between Private and Public Prisons in Texas

Sayed

Morris²,

DeShay

2020

Crime & Delinquency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mass incarceration has led to an increased reliance on private prisons. Yet, there is little evidence regarding the extent to which public safety and misconduct patterns differ across private versus public prisons. Combining data from prisoners in the State of Texas within a counterfactual research design, the current study examines differences in the likelihood of engaging in misconduct among comparable male inmates sentenced to a private over a public prison unit. Findings indicate there are no significant differences in the amount of misconduct committed by inmates in either public or private institutions—with the exception of physical violence. Inmates assigned to private facilities were 10% less likely to engage in institutional violence compared with similarly situated inmates assigned to public facilities.

show abstract

“…Correctional privatization comes in many forms, all of which emphasize questions about costs. These forms of privatization can run the spectrum from providing food and treatment services, to staffing facilities, to collecting fines, all the way to running and managing an entire prison (Reisig & Pratt, ; Wright, ) . But when it comes to cost–benefit analyses in the area of correctional privatization—even in the face of knowledge that it can take on multiple forms—most of what we know is about private prisons.…”

Section: Cost–benefit Analyses and Correctional Privatization: What Wmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost–benefit analysis and privatized corrections

Pratt

2019

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary Privatized corrections and cost–benefit analyses have both been around for a long time in American criminal justice policy and practice. Accordingly, in this article, I review the cost–benefit literature on correctional privatization with respect to three primary issues: (1) what we know from the cost–benefit analyses that have been conducted thus far regarding privatized corrections, (2) the key gaps and challenges that should be addressed if we are to truly understand the “social ledger” associated with privatizing correctional services, and (3) key lessons learned regarding the limited role that cost–benefit analysis plays in policy discussions about punishment policy. Policy Implications The primary implication for policy is that, for the most part, what we know about the cost‐effectiveness of privatized corrections has been confined to studies of private prisons. Alternatively, on balance, we know little about the cost‐effectiveness of privatized corrections more generally. And even if rigorous cost–benefit analyses did exist in larger quantities, they would still have to face the strong ideological commitment that both proponents and opponents of privatized corrections seem to hold.

show abstract

Strange Bedfellows? Reaffirming Rehabilitation and Prison Privatization

Cited by 16 publications

References 75 publications

Persistent puzzles

Persistent puzzles

Comparing the Rates of Misconduct Between Private and Public Prisons in Texas

Cost–benefit analysis and privatized corrections

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About