Ethical Concerns About Private (and Public) Corrections: Extending the Focus Beyond Profit- Making and the Delegation of Punishment

• Published date: 01 May 2020
• Author: Andrea N. Montes
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403419870851
• Date: 01 May 2020
• Subject Matter: Essay

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419870851

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2020, Vol. 31(4) 609 –630

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403419870851

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Essay

Ethical Concerns About

Private (and Public)

Corrections: Extending

the Focus Beyond Profit-

Making and the Delegation

of Punishment

Andrea N. Montes1

Abstract

Common criticisms of privatized corrections are that tying punishment to profits is

unethical and that the administration of punishment should not be delegated to private

entities. Such criticisms are important to consider but other ethical concerns also arise

when privatizing corrections. For example, do private correctional entities protect

individuals’ rights? The focus on profit-making also overlooks ethical considerations

that arise with public corrections. Indeed, focusing only on the ethics of financially

incentivizing punishment or the delegation of punishment obscures important

nuances about the ethics of privatization and corrections generally. To these ends, a

framework is presented that highlights that a range of ethical considerations attend

to private corrections as well as to public corrections. It also reveals that a focus

on ethics, while a good unto itself, could improve the effectiveness and efficiency of

private and public corrections.

Keywords

privatized corrections, ethics, public corrections, private prisons

Introduction

Contemporary governments in America and across the globe frequently contract out or

privatize aspects of corrections. Although such practices are widespread, there have

1Arizona State University, Phoenix, USA

Corresponding Author:

Andrea N. Montes, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University,

411 North Central Avenue, Suite 600, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.

Email: andrea.montes@asu.edu

870851CJPXXX10.1177/0887403419870851Criminal Justice Policy ReviewMontes

research-article2019

610 Criminal Justice Policy Review 31(4)

been persistent debates about the ethical implications of using private entities to

administer state-sanctioned punishments, treatments, and services (Reisig & Pratt,

2000; Sparks & Gacek, 2019; Thomas, 1991; see also The New York Times, 2016;

Sessions, 2017; Yates, 2016). Critics of privatization argue that tying financial incen-

tives to the administration of punishment and justice is unethical and, more specifi-

cally, that service quality will suffer because private entities will prioritize approaches

that maximize their profits (Albin-Lackey, 2014; American Civil Liberties Union,

2011; Logan, 1988, 1990; Stillman, 2014). They also argue that governments should

not delegate the responsibilities of state-sanctioned punishment (DiIulio, 1990;

Robbins, 1989; see also Reisig & Pratt, 2000). Not least, critics argue that privatization

creates opportunities for abuses and harms of individuals under correctional supervi-

sion, corrections systems generally, and society to occur.

These arguments, while compelling and important, focus on a narrow part of the

spectrum of potential ethical issues that may arise when privatizing corrections.

Ethical quandaries in privatized corrections can and do extend beyond the potential

influence of financial incentives and the legal authority of private corrections organi-

zations. For example, how well do private entities protect the legal rights of individu-

als under their supervision? Does the private sector contribute to unnecessary

expansions of formal social control? Are private corrections more likely than public

corrections to spend taxpayer dollars efficiently? Scholars recognize the importance of

such questions (e.g., Feeley, 2002; Gaes, Camp, Nelson, & Saylor, 2004; Lundahl,

Kunz, Brownell, Harris, & Van Vleet, 2009; Robbins, 1989; Sparks & Gacek, 2019).

This broader range of ethical issues, however, is sometimes considered secondary to

the potential influence of profit-making and the delegation of punishment.

The narrow focus of arguments about privatization also gives limited attention to

ethical concerns that can and do arise when using public corrections. To illustrate, if

empirical research were to demonstrate that privatized corrections, as compared with

public corrections, implement higher quality services, achieve better outcomes, and do

so at a lower cost, it could be viewed as unethical not to consider privatizing correc-

tions (Lindsey, Mears, & Cochran, 2016). In addition, public corrections entities and

staff are not immune from engaging in unethical practices. Indeed, some of the same

abuses that occur in private corrections also occur in public corrections (e.g., Allen,

2012; Miller, 2017; Ovalle, 2018).

The goal of this article is to argue that the ethical considerations that attend to priva-

tization go well beyond the notion that for-profit ventures in the punishment arena are

intrinsically problematic. A related goal is to argue that ethical concerns that arise with

privatization can arise too in public corrections. This article does not aim to promote

the use of private corrections or public corrections. Rather, it argues that a balanced

consideration of the diverse array of ethical concerns that arise with private correc-

tions or public corrections may help to reveal practices that contribute to improve-

ments in the implementation of all of corrections, whether public or private. To these

ends, the article starts by defining “ethics” and discussing ethical considerations of

privatization advanced by scholars, policy-makers, and the media. Second, a frame-

work that identifies six ethical concerns that are relevant for comparing private and