Correctional Goals and Prison Privatization 1
Article Critique: Correctional Goals and Prison Privatization
Liberty University
CJUS 500: Criminal Justice Integration
Correctional Goals and Prison Privatization
Abstract
America’s correctional facilities are complex systems that hold people convicted of a varied list
of crimes, each having different needs that take different amounts of resources and supervision.
The criminal justice system is the mechanism through which we supervise this group of people
and it is imperative that we do so in a thoughtful and deliberate way. Although recent trends
show a decrease in the population in most national figures, fluctuations remain, and the situation
is a major issue. Prison privatization is not a new concept; it began to surface in the 1980’s as a
solution to the surplus of offenders. But the social ramifications of private prisons and our
perceptions of them are often poorly discussed. Still, the fact that current literature, fully
assembling a range of initiative, is essential to continuing discourse regarding national
acceptance and opposition to private prison facility presence and operation.
2
Correctional Goals and Prison Privatization 3
Article Critique
The United States criminal justice system is composed of three main components: law
enforcement, the court system, and the correctional system. These pieces serve separate purposes
but are also mutually dependent (Masters et al., 2024). Interactions with law enforcement can
lead to involvement with the judicial system, and following a conviction, the corrections system
becomes the dominant system individuals encounter. Corrections is described as a formal,
ordered, statutory process undertaken by society institutionally to punish offenders, protect the
community, and rehabilitate offenders. To align all this with those goals, the corrections system
is operated based on four main objectives: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and
incapacitation (Masters et al., 2024). All objectives serve a purpose related to the mission of
corrections.
Governments all over the world face the challenge of providing adequate care to millions
of people, including the 2.3 million currently behind bars in the US, a nation of 326 million
(Baffour et al., 2023). Moreover, as of 2014, according to Enns and Ramirez (2018), about
131,000 offenders were being held in privately managed facilities, in addition to those held in
government-operated facilities. This fact has created great national debate in the country over
whether the vast American incarceration system should be owned and operated by government
entities or private industry. This article critique evaluates current studies and analyses examining
popular perceptions of the existence and operation of private correctional facilities in the country
as a whole.
Correctional Goals and Prison Privatization
Article 1-Background
The article "The Politics of Correctional Privatization in the United States" by Burkhardt
(2019), examines the different factors shaping prison privatization in the U.S. It contends that
the privatization decision is not only a matter of ideology or economics but is also shaped by the
legal standards and administrative costs of inmate litigation. Private prisons are actively working
the political scene to produce a favorable environment for themselves. They are also influenced
by the political forces that surround them, such as political parties, social movements, and public
opinion (Burkhardt, 2019). The study provides a new database and argues that state correctional
systems’ options for privatization were limited by legal constraints and state governments’
direction toward privatization can be better explained in this light than by the ideological
orientation of state governments.
Article 1 - Critique of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article
Strengths
Several things make the article "The Politics of Correctional Privatization in the United
States" strong. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the reciprocal relationship
between politics and the private correctional sector. The methodical nature of data collection
ensures that analysis captures multiple dimensions of the problem, delivering a holistic
understanding of how political forces affect, and are affected by, the private prison industry
(Burkhardt, 2019). The article discusses different implications for practitioners and policymakers
based on the review of previous research. Through its findings, the article provides practical
guidance to practitioners and policymakers to enable them to make informed decisions about
4
Correctional Goals and Prison Privatization 5
correctional privatization while keeping the broader political and social context in mind. It is
based on empirical research, and hence its conclusions are founded on well-founded facts
(Burkhardt, 2019). They lend appeal to the claims when the findings have been derived
empirically as opposed to theoretically validated through justifications. The strengths of this
article underscore its unique significance for understanding the dynamics of penal privatization
in the United States.
Weaknesses
Nonetheless, the article has several minor drawbacks: it garnered data from some states
during particular time frames, which could limit its reflection on the total dynamics of
correctional privatization nationally. Consequently, its findings lacked relevance in other
contexts, missing significant regional differences and trends. The article was right to emphasize
legal pressures as a primary cause of privatization but failed to address other key drivers:
economic incentives, political lobbying, and public opinion (Burkhardt, 2019). This cursory
review of what was already known excluded basic components of an integral equation with
consequences across the board and left their relative importance in making decisions about
privatization underestimated.
It also failed to adequately address the ethical implications of privatizing correctional
institutions. The analysis fails to capture the full picture by ignoring these considerations, since
ethical considerations are integral to the privatization debate (Burkhardt, 2019). Overall, the
identified weaknesses indicate that while the article presents valuable perspectives, it should be
viewed as part of a broader body of research on the topic.
Correctional Goals and Prison Privatization
Article 2-Background
Enns and Ramirez (2018) present their study, "Privatizing Punishment: Testing Theories
of Public Support for Private Prison and Immigration Detention Facilities," which aims to
understand the factors influencing public support for these private enterprises. Other possible
theoretical frameworks are examined as well, including racial animus, data on perceptions of
private sector effectiveness, conflicts of interest, and escalation-of-commitment models (Enns &
Ramirez, 2018). The authors provide an analysis of public opinion data from the 2014
Cooperative Congressional Election Survey.
Their results show that public attitudes toward privatization cannot be easily reduced
down to a linear distribution by party or ideology. Rather, such attitudes are informed by a
complex of interrelated factors racial resentment, corporate ethics, opinions on the scope and
efficacy of private enterprises that do not lend themselves to easy changes in policy (Enns &
Ramirez, 2018). When it comes to understanding the future of private carceral institutions in the
United States, the implications of this research are considerable, suggesting that the complexity
of public attitudes on this issue is influenced by a wide range of nuanced considerations.
Article 2 - Critique of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article
Strengths
"Privatizing Punishment: Testing Theories of Public Support for Private Prison and
Immigration Detention Facilities," offers a compelling analysis of public attitudes toward the
privatization of prisons and jails. Utilizing robust statistical methods, the research ensures that
the findings are both scientifically rigorous and reliable (Enns & Ramirez, 2018).This
6
Correctional Goals and Prison Privatization 7
methodological rigor enhances the study's validity and contributes to the accuracy of its results.
In light of the controversial nature of the topic, the research delivers critical insights for
policymakers by elucidating public sentiment regarding private prisons and immigration
detention facilities. By understanding these public attitudes, stakeholders can make more
informed decisions and engage in meaningful dialogue. The study investigates several
hypotheses such as racial biases, cost-effectiveness, perverse incentives, and issue escalation
models providing a comprehensive framework for understanding the factors that shape public
opinion (Enns & Ramirez, 2018). This holistic approach allows for a nuanced examination of the
complex forces at play. Overall, these strengths underscore the article's relevance and
significance within the realm of criminal justice policy.
Weakness
The Enns and Ramirez (2018) study, "Privatizing Punishment: Testing Theories of Public
Support for Private Prison and Immigration Detention Facilities," has a few deficiencies. The
analysis is largely based on data from 2014 and is thus a single temporal snapshot. Public
opinion is not static; it can and does change and is dependent on evolving political and social
contexts. Utilizing longitudinal data would offer a better understanding of how perceptions
concerning privatization may evolve through time.
The study attempts to explain mass support for privatization through four hypotheses, but
its breadth fails to account for other arenas that could explain attitudes to privatization on this
complex issue (Enns & Ramirez, 2018). Subsequently, the outcomes may result in an ambiguous
analysis of the inherent drivers of prevalent backing or obstruction. Furthermore, survey-based
research is also vulnerable to social desirability bias, whereby respondents provide answers they
Correctional Goals and Prison Privatization
believe to be more socially acceptable than their actual views. This bias may negatively impact
results, for example with an overly positive skew (Enns & Ramirez, 2018).
Summary of Articles
Enns and Ramirez (2018) examine public support for privatizing prisons and immigration
detention centers. Their research focuses on public sentiment toward the privatization of
correctional facilities and immigrant detention centers. Their analysis identifies four sets of
hypotheses to consider in explaining why people favor or oppose privatization: racial animus,
notions of commercial efficiency, conflict of interest, and models of problem escalation (Enns &
Ramirez, 2018). Burkhardt (2019) explores the political processes associated with correctional
privatization in the United States, examining the emergence of private correctional enterprises as
political actors that are both engaged by and contend with political parties, social movements,
and public opinion.
Drawing on data from the 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, Enns and
Ramirez use statistical analyses to test a range of theories behind public sentiment, largely taking
a quantitative approach that emphasizes the relationship between select variables and support for
privatization. With the exception of Burkhardt (2019), who works through qualitative vectors
and draws heavily from existing studies, analyzing the conditions under which private security
institutions and their activities affect, anticipate, or modify the political environment. He
highlights the importance of political lobbying and the ways in which policies are crafted
Burkhardt (2019). This summary emphasizes the interrelationship between the two studies: Enns
and Ramirez illuminate what drives public support, while Burkhardt locates the political context
that makes that support matter.
8
Correctional Goals and Prison Privatization 9
Conclusion: Personal Reflection, Position, and Christian Worldview
What penalty should be imposed on the guilty? This has been a deep area of study by
government agencies for years. American prisons are varied, and upkeep is expensive as much as
$80 billion each year to care for an incarceration rate of roughly 1 percent of the general
population (Mamun et al., 2020). The bulk of the proposals call for privatizing prison
management. Supporters of private prisons say they can provide more affordable operational
expenses and possibly more effective programs of rehabilitation. Corporations, on the other
hand, typically respond more quickly and effectively to such measures, which ultimately saves
taxpayers money. Public prisons are often grim, and private facilities can relieve the congestion
of excess inmates. Not only that, but private prisons typically offer much better living conditions,
as well as larger infirmaries, which makes for a much easier life overall than the one they would
have if remanded to a public prison (Mamun et al., 2020).
Private prisons must be economically efficient to reduce re-offense and recidivism rates.
These can be converted into immigration detention centers or repurposed due to changing
community needs. Likewise, private prisons can act as economic engines for the surrounding
environment by creating jobs and providing money to local economies (Mamun et al., 2020).
They are much more than a potentially taxable source of income; they are an opportunity to build
community. They might not just save taxpayers money but could actually increase the odds of
inmates rehabilitating.
I advocate for the utilization of private prisons because of the benefits they offer. They
may offer financial savings for taxpayers while enhancing inmates prospects for rehabilitation.
The verse that resonates is Galatians 6:10 (KJV), "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do
Correctional Goals and Prison Privatization
good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." It motivates us to do
good whenever occasion allows, underlining the necessity of helping all that cross our path.
Although kindness should be extended to all, a greater consideration is due to fellow believers. It
expresses the call to love our community and care for one another so that fellow believers get the
help they need. Galatians 6:10 promotes an active stance on kindness and community support,
urging believers to be mindful of others' needs and to respond with compassion and generosity.
Despite their transgressions, inmates are still entitled to adoration and concern.
10
Correctional Goals and Prison Privatization 11
References
Baffour, F. D., Francis, A. P., Chong, M. D., & Harris, N. (2023). Prison overcrowding and
harsh conditions: health and human rights concerns to persons in custody, staff, and the
community. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 51(3), 375–400.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231219803
Burkhardt, B. C. (2019). The politics of correctional privatization in the United States.
Criminology & Public Policy, 18(2), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12431
Enns, P. K., & Ramirez, M. D. (2018). PRIVATIZING PUNISHMENT: TESTING THEORIES
OF PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR PRIVATE PRISON AND IMMIGRATION DETENTION
FACILITIES. Criminology, 56(3), 546–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12178
King James Version. Bible Gateway, www.biblegateway.com
Mamun, S., Li, X., Horn, B. P., & Chermak, J. M. (2020). Private vs. public prisons? A dynamic
analysis of the long-term tradeoffs between cost-efficiency and recidivism in the US
prison system. Applied Economics, 52(41), 4499–4511.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2020.1736501
Masters, R., Way, L. B., Gerstenfeld, P. B., Muscat, B. T., Hooper, M. K., Dussich, J. P. J., &
Skrapec, C. A. (2024). CJ: Realities and Challenges.
