The Ethics of Correctional Privatization: A Critical Examination of the Delegation of Coercive Authority

• Author: MICHAEL D. REISIG,TRAVIS C. PRATT
• Published date: 01 June 2000
• Date: 01 June 2000
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0032885500080002005
• Subject Matter: Articles

THE PRISON JOURNAL / June 2000Reisig, Pratt / ETHICS OF CORRECTIONAL PRIVATIZATION

THE ETHICS OF CORRECTIONAL

PRIVATIZATION: A CRITICAL

EXAMINATION OF THE DELEGATION

OF COERCIVE AUTHORITY

MICHAEL D. REISIG

Michigan State University

TRAVIS C. PRATT

University of Cincinnati

Privatization in the correctional setting takes many forms. This article focuses on an

extreme variant of correctional privatization—privately owned and operated facili-

ties—and critically examines the philosophical argumentused to legitimate the prac-

tice. Among the more problematic features identified include a reliance on an inter-

pretation of liberal theory that muddles the distinction between rights and authority,

and confusion regardingthe libertarian conceptions of the ultraminimal and minimal

state. As a result, the attempt to justify the delegation of coerciveauthority from the

state to private agencies is questioned. The authors attempt to advance ongoing

debate by discussing one method for identifying what privatization alternatives are

consistent with liberal theory’sconceptions of the individual and the state’s authority

to punish.

Long-term prison sentences, inmate crowding, and soaring costs have

forced policy makers to seek alternatives to incarcerating offenders in state

and federal correctional facilities. One such option is correctional privatiza-

tion.1A cursory review of the literature reveals that privatization in the cor-

rectional setting is the topic of ardent debate. Much of the discourse has cen-

tered around empirical issues, including the following: Can private

companies provide cheaper correctional services? Do privately operated

institutions offer more meaningful inmate programs? Is an inmate who

served time in a private prison less likelyto recidivate? Supporters of the pri-

vatization movement answer such questions in the affirmative and argue in

Originally presented at the 1997 International Conference on Corrections, Seoul, Republic

of Korea. Special thanks to Christopher E. Smith and Cornell W.Clayton for their helpful com-

ments on earlier versionsof this article. Address correspondence to Michael D. Reisig, School of

CriminalJustice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824; e-mail: reisig@msu.edu.

THE PRISON JOURNAL, Vol. 80 No. 2, June 2000210-222

© 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.

210