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

The combination of sentencing trends, increasing prison populations, and generally flawed
criminal justice policies has been attributed to a collection of political and economic interests
referred to as the prison industrial complex. In psychology, the term complex refers to an
overreaction to a perceived threat. The prison industrial complex describes the misguided and
ineffective reaction of using imprisonment in response to crime. The plain truth is that American
voters are easily misled to believe that prisons are the answer to crime, and politicians at both
ends of the spectrum have used, or even falsely generated, a fear of crime to gain votes.8
The motivation for the perpetuation and propagation of the prison industrial complex is both
political and economic. A political candidate can win an entire election simply by providing
evidence that portrays an opponent as ‘soft on crime’. Few politicians will risk speaking out on
the behalf of drug addicts and criminals, preferring a Clint Eastwood image to the challenge of
explaining basic tenets of penology to the voting public. Equally important to politicians is the
provision of jobs and economic growth, and the provision of correctional services is an attractive
growth industry. Prisons are labor intensive, and are often located in rural areas where they
provide jobs in otherwise depressed economies.
Building a prison is expensive, and private contractors are not unaware of the US$35 billion
spent each year on prison construction.9 Prisons are big business, and at least two private
prison companies are listed on the stock exchange in the United States. It is not hard to imagine
that the convergence of interests which benefit from increased spending on imprisonment can
be powerful enough to have an immeasurable, if not overt, impact on criminal justice policy.
Just as powerful business and political interests are in favor of prison privatisation, there are
equally powerful groups who are opposed to it, most notably the labour unions. Unions were a
major force behind legislation in Pennsylvania which imposed a one year moratorium on new
privatisation of prisons or jails. The American Federal, State, County, and Municipal Employees
union (AFSCME) got involved and provided support to two candidates for county commission
who ran on a ‘take back the jail’ platform. The result was a non-renewal of a jail management
contract in the state.
Public employee unions and organisations have consistently supported the campaigns of those
who promise to halt prison privatisation, and often accuse the private companies involved of
greedily promoting their own self-interest. However it should be noted that public employee
unions are also promoting their self-interest in opposing prison privatisation in that increasing
privatisation results in a loss of membership dues and bargaining power. There have even been
charges that correctional employee organizations in several states have blocked any attempt at
penal reform, including the use of prison alternatives or community based corrections. Clearly
the interests of those employed by the public prison sector are just as much aligned with the
increasing use of prison sentences in criminal justice policy–an accusation often aimed at
private prison companies. The unions have charged that private prison companies seek out
profit by cost cutting and exploitation of labour, including lower wages, lower pensions, and less
employee benefits.
Unions are not the only powerful organisations which are opposed to prison privatisation. The
American Bar Association (ABA) is also against prison privatisation. In February 1986, the
House of Delegates of the ABA passed a resolution recommending that "jurisdictions that are
considering the privatisation of prisons and jails not proceed... until the complex constitutional,
statutory and contractual issues are satisfactorily developed and resolved."10