prison privatisation in south africa issues, challenges and ...

disrupting democracy in order to further their own ends. The point remains, however, that
private prison companies are more likely to contribute to these distortions of policy than they are
to correct them.
Flexibility
In any field, the private sector is much more likely to experiment with new practices and
introduce new advances. This is because private companies are rewarded financially for
successfully taking risks and innovating, but public entities are motivated only to avoid risk and
remain inert. The lack of competition reinforces the status quo and a climate of extreme caution.
Also, public officials are concerned with political survival, which means steering clear of bad
publicity.
In the field of correctional services, contracting with the private sector provides a degree of
flexibility in the provision of public services. A contract allows an agency to experiment with new
programs without the long-term commitment of funds or accumulating the vested interests of
tenured civil servants. The flexibility allowed by having a choice of contractors and the services
they provide is in sharp contrast to the bureaucracy and politics that makes public programs
difficult to change, let alone discontinue. This flexibility becomes important for public policies
where decision making is centrally concentrated, otherwise bad policy decisions become
magnified and entrenched.
Security
To ensure the safety of the prisoners, the personnel, and the greater community, security is a
top priority in any prison system. One concern regarding the security of private prisons is that
cost cutting will lead to understaffing and poor training. This lack of appropriate supervision will
then result in prisoners harming each other, attempting to escape, or a general loss of
management control. There is also a concern that strikes or insolvency could result in a
disruption of operations. Public sector employees in many prison systems are forbidden by law
from going on strike due to the nature of their work, and governments are somewhat insulated
from bankruptcy.
The issue of propriety also factors in concerns about security when considering the use of
deadly force by a prison employee. Traditionally, only the government is permitted to use force
against its citizens, and transferring this licence to a private company is not something which
should be considered lightly. The use of deadly force by an entity which operates for profit, as
opposed to an organisation which ostensibly draws from the will of the people, is a significant
point of discussion in the debate over private prisons.
Liability
Governments can be held liable for their actions through lawsuits, and the same is true for
private companies. Proponents of private prisons claim that the prison companies, by bearing
the responsibility for the operation of the prison, also bear the liability and thus free the
government from expensive lawsuits. Opponents point out that the private prison companies
serve only to add another defendant in law suits, and that their substandard service and
questionable ethics actually increase the government’s liability because of the greater risk that
something will go wrong.
The role of private contractors in deflecting or attracting lawsuits cannot be easily determined,