Table of contentsCasesPurpose/justification of the case studyMain body ResponsibilityMoralityConclusionBibliographyCasesCurrently, across England and Wales, there are a total of 117 prisons. 104 of them belong to the public sector, the remaining 13 belong to the private sector. The purpose of this case study is to determine whether punishment should remain a duty of government. To do this, the study will focus on whether the privatization of prisons is beneficial for the criminal justice system, by comparing the advantages and disadvantages of privatizing prison systems. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayPrison privatization occurs when the government enters into a contract with a non-governmental third party to oversee and manage the prison. Due to the high costs of operating and maintaining prisons, governments are turning to the private sector. Privatization is a growing movement throughout the criminal justice system and primarily in the prison system. Purpose/Rationale of the Case Study Due to the emergence of New Public Management (NPM) reforms in the 1980s, there was a growing interest in the private sector. management and ownership between all public services. During this period, prison privatization was used in an attempt to contain the rising costs of services and address the problem of overcrowding. This may give some idea of ​​why there has been a dramatic increase in the number of private prisons in recent decades. Mennicken (2013) stated that since the 1980s, the Prison Service in England and Wales has embarked on a regime to reorganize prisons, to reach its peak. Prison privatization was one way to achieve this. In 1991, the Criminal Justice Act was passed, allowing the government to contract out prisons to the private sector. England's first private prison opened in April 1992, named Wolds Remand Prison. The aim of this prison was to determine whether the private sector could make improvements to the conditions of prisoners, mainly those on remand. Although there is an urgent need to privatize public services, governments need to think critically about whether this will provide better quality and be more efficient. beneficial to the public service. Although prison privatization has attracted many favorable reports, it has generated some controversy. Some expressed concern and argued that because punishment is one of the primary functions of government, it should only be carried out by government agencies. Private prisons do not follow the same regulations as public prisons. In this regard, private prisons are exempt from the conditions put in place by the Freedom of Information Act (2000), which states that the public has the legal right to obtain documents from public agencies (Vilher, 2017) . Main body Public and private prisons have many areas in which they can be compared and contrasted, including: their legitimacy and accountability structure, their standards and conditions, their costing and performance measurement. It is also important and beneficial, within the context of this case study, to consider ideological and theoretical concerns, particularly motivation and morality. This study will provide a critical analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of prison privatizationwithin the prison system by collecting information in the relevant areas. This critical analysis, which will depict both the pros and cons, attempts to conclude how effective the privatization of the prison service has been in England and Wales. AccountabilityGenders (2002) stated that prison privatization had been opposed on a large majority of grounds, including the constitutional argument that the state should have a duty to enforce sanctions and should not be entrusted to private parties. private. During the early debates on the privatization of prisons, Sir Leon Rodzinawicz made the following statement: "It is one thing for private companies to provide services to the prison system, but it is quite another thing for organizations whose motivation is to any commercial use to exercise coercive powers over detainees. Sparks (1994), Harding (1997) and Moyle (2001) argued that Rodzinawicz's statement lacked value because it did not identify the difference between the distribution of sanctions and their administration. They further argued that, with or without privatization, the responsibility still lies with the independent judiciary and, secondly, the executive. Therefore, although the executive can delegate tasks, it must be accepted that the state remains responsible for how these tasks are carried out by the representative and that they are carried out to the appropriate standards. However, the state can never be fully responsible for the management of privatized prisons, leading to Genders (2002), illustrating the concern for accountability and legitimacy of private prisons. Garland (2001) explained that the new public management was effective and a great value for money, "on the use of 'portable and versatile' techniques of accountability and evaluation". Developments in public prisons were introduced in the form of mechanisms to establish and evaluate performance. Key performance objectives, key performance indicators and model regime (Genders, 2002). However, the government has also recognized that when it comes to privatized prisons, mechanisms must also be put in place to ensure public sector accountability, such as contracts. It being understood that the state can never be held fully responsible for the operation of privatized prisons, multiple regulations are in place to hold private organizations accountable. Genders (2002) confirms that there is constant monitoring of services provided by private organizations, thus recognizing a certain level of accountability. To contain control over private prisons, the state signed a contractual agreement to ensure accountability. Genders (2002) further argues that these state-designed contracts regulated compliance with standards and the fulfillment of expectations, which left limited room for the independent objectives of the private organizations that controlled the sector. Privatized prisons are responsible for upholding these contracts and, if violated, there are serious consequences. Sanctions such as fines, loss of contract and return to the public sector are the usual consequences for breach of contract. Due to the severity of these sanctions, the private sector respects contracts, thus ensuring its accountability to the state. Genders (2002) argues that the contractual policy in place is effective in maintaining a higher level of accountability within the private sector compared to the public sector. In order to monitor privatized prisons regarding their performance, contractual agreement and accountability, Liebling and Crewe (2012) point out that itThere is a state-appointed controller in each privatized prison. However, because it is physically impossible to monitor every area of ​​the prison at all times, certain circumstances may allow for some discretion when public prisons must make choices without state support. Therefore, it can be argued that accountability is discredited. Private and public prisons are regulated under the same legal framework “The Prisons Act 1952”, so we must recognize that both are held to the same legal obligations. Furthermore, it is understandable that the private sectors that manage prisons are held accountable through evaluation and many other mechanisms. However, it is a question of questioning the effectiveness of these mechanisms. MoralityAccording to Pollock (1994), “what is good is determined by the consequences of the action”. Ergo (Shichor, 1998, p. 83) states that the concept behind prison privatization is that if prisons are built faster, penal spending will be lower, "then the public will be well served." However, prison privatization has faced multiple objections to its moral legitimacy (Burkhardt, 2014). Many critics dispute that imprisonment is solely the government's responsibility and should not be left to the private sector. Other critics argue that private prisons will be subject to increased scrutiny and viewed differently from public prisons, leading to a lack of respect for the legal system. To go further, it has been said that the pursuit of profit is incongruous with justice. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Conclusion The fundamental basis of the argument against privatization is that punishment is and must remain a duty of the state; this is particularly relevant when considering imprisonment as a punishment, as it involves deprivation of liberty. Proponents of state control would argue that the private sector is unfit to assume this role and that simply removing these responsibilities from the state is immoral. This argument of immorality is further extended when we consider the fact that the operation of private prisons allows for profit; The general consensus among critics of privatization is that these private companies are "morally repugnant", because they make profits based on the pain inflicted as punishment. These critical moral arguments constitute a strong argument against privatization on the grounds that it is not ethically reasonable to profit from a role that is inherently and fundamentally about providing a public serviceBibliographyBurkhardt, B., 2014. Private Prisons in Public Discourse : Measurement Moral Legitimacy. Sociological Focus, 47(4), pp.279-298.Garland, D. (2001) The culture of control: crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press Genders, E. (2002). Legitimacy, accountability and private prisons. Punishment & Society, 4(3), 285-303. Harding, R., 1997. Private Prisons and Public Accountability. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Hirsley, Michael. 1985. “Tennessee Tempted by Prison Plan.” Chicago Tribune, November 17, p. 3Hodge, GA (2000) Privatization: An International Performance Assessment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Hough, J., Allen, R. and Padel, U. (2006). Reshaping probation and prisons. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. pp. 69-73James, A. L, AK Bottomley, A. Liebling and E. Clare (1997), Privatizing Prisons: Rhetoric and Reality, Sage: LondonJewkes, Y and Bennett, J (2008). Dictionary of Prisons and Punishments. Devon: Willan.. 213–240.