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

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has gained a reputation for championing the rights of
individuals against encroachment by the state. The concern of the ACLU is that prisoners’ due
process rights are more likely to be jeopardized in privately-run prisons than in public-sector
prisons. A substantial part of the ACLU’s position against private prisons, however, is based on
its position against prisons in general. The ACLU has long charged that there is too much
incarceration and the fear is that privatisation will only lead to more.
The United States remains at the forefront of prison privatisation. As of 2000, at least 223,000
adult inmates are in private prisons: more than 10% of the prison population. The number of
prisoners in private prisons is increasing at four times the rate of the increase in inmates in
public sector prisons.11 The two largest private prison companies in the world are based in the
US: Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC).
CCA is the largest provider of prison services in the world, and currently holds 42,000 prisoners
in 52 prisons.
One of the first advantages cited in favour of prison privatisation is cost savings. However, the
General Accounting Office (GAO) examined five studies which compared cost savings at public
and private prisons in the United States. The GAO report, "could not draw any conclusions
about cost savings or quality of service, since the four studies that assessed operations costs
indicated little difference or mixed results, and the two studies that addressed quality of life
reported either equivocal findings or no differences between private and public facilities."12
A faster and more decisive response to mistreatment and
maladministration in private than in public prisons?
In March 2000, The US Justice Department filed a lawsuit against both the
State of Louisiana and Wackenhut Corrections Corporation after reports of
excessive force and appalling conditions in the Jena Juvenile Justice
Centre. After negotiations and a court injunction were unsuccessful, the US
District Judge ordered that the state assume control of the facility. When the
contract was officially terminated on 30 June 2000, the facility remained the
property of Wackenhut and the state relocated the juveniles to other stateowned
facilities. Understandably, State Corrections Secretary Richard
Stalder commented that contracting with Wackenhut, "was an experiment
that I will not characterise as a success".
This incident could be construed as evidence of the poor quality of private
prisons. However, this is not simply about a private prison which failed so
dismally that it had to be seized by the state. When newspapers covered the
story, they invariably failed to mention that the lawsuit filed in March 2000
was not a new case. In 1998, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against
four state juvenile facilities in Louisiana for failure to provide adequate care.
When the Jena facility opened shortly afterwards, it was immediately
subjected to close scrutiny from the Justice Department. As a result of a
monitoring visit in January 2000, the Justice Department submitted a report
which found that conditions at Jena were equally appalling and
recommended that the original 1998 complaint be amended to include the
Jena facility as well.
Within three months of the amendment to the suit, the management of Jena
was terminated and the state assumed control. Nearly three years after the
original suit was filed against the public facilities, very little has changed.
Thus, the Jena incident should read as an example of the viability of private
prison contracts rather than an indictment of them. The Jena facility could