Pros and Cons of Prison Privatization Essay

Pros and Cons of Prison Privatization Essay.

Prisons are institutions that have specifically been designed to handle the members of the society who are under conviction of different crimes. The people who reside in the prisons are referred to as inmates or prisoners and the time they spend in the prisons depends on the imprisonment period. This period is dependent of the intensity of the crime committed. Once in the prisons, the inmates undergo rehabilitation, incapacitation, retribution and deterrence which are elements for considered appropriate for the provision of justice to the society.

In the past, it has been the responsibility of the government to manage these institutions on behalf of the society. The increased debate on the privatization of different institutions has seen a debate being launched in regard to the privatization of prisons.

This implies that the main purposes of these institutions to the society are shifting from not just maintenance of justice but also as a source of financial wealth. The new advancement is directed at allowing the straightening out of the contemporary faults that exist within the public prisons such as recidivism and overcrowding but there are some people who are opposed to this due to some possible negative results.

In short, the process of privatizing the prison industry has both negative and positive effects and this paper seeks to address some of the pros and cons of this exercise. Privatization though a new concept to be applied in prison department in most of the countries across the globe, there are a few countries who used it in the past.

For example during the mid 18th century, the United States government entered into a treaty with a number of private investors to manage a number of its institutions and these investors went ahead to contract inmates to some of their private enterprises as a source of labor. Some of the institutions that were contracted included ‘New York Auburn and Louisiana’ penal colonies. However, this did not last for long based on the fact that there was rampant corruption that was carried out as well as vicious resistance from other businesses who termed this as some kind of ‘unfair’ competition that was caused by these workers who were unpaid. Contemporary private prisons are however not the same as these because they operate on new models that are more promising.

The Pros on the Prison Privatization Industry

One of the major benefit that privatization of prisons would bring about is cost saving. The cost of crime depends upon relative increase in the rate of crime. The government in different countries spends billions of dollars every year on construction of prisons so as to be able to handle the increasing rates of crime. This is not the only cost based on the fact that guards to guard these inmates need to be recruited as well as other expenses that include; administration, food, health and education costs. It is argued by the majority of proponents of this idea that private companies can operate the prisons at a cost that is far much low than what the government uses and still maintain the quality services that are required. Some of the major reasons that these proponents give in regard the reduced cost are the elimination of bureaucracy, red tape, and the numerous laws that usually makes the costs of managing the prisons to rise in the case of public prisons.

Allowing the private sector to manage these institutions will imply that some of the costs that are involved in learning the jail will not be generated from the tax payer’s contribution directly and as a result the money may be diverted to other government projects. This will facilitate better utilization of the government’s funds to develop the areas that are in serious need of development. Due to the issue of competition privatization there will be increased productivity as well as reduced waste in terms of resources. Studies have revealed that the boarding cost in the private owned prison to reduce to half that of the government owned prisons. There have been other studies some institutions saved more than twenty percent of the cost incurred in terms of the construction expenses and management costs reducing by 5-15% Sloane, 1996). The cutting down on cost is something that has been criticized heavily by the lobby groups who think that this will lead to the deterioration of the conditions inside these prisons.

This is an economical plan that aims at giving back to the society as it serves to preserve justice to the community. According to the economic theory, the problem of financial support towards the running of the prison facilities would go down if there are more available, renting and selling prison cells, the challenges in terms of the funding and efficient allocation of prison space. Privatization of prisons is based on this factor of trying to exploit the opportunities by the introduction of factories adjacent to bars, cost reduction of the costs and give the prisoners the freedom to earn some pay as they give back to the society through the provision of labor. By this, they will be making peace with the society that they infringed some pain in the initial time through committing of crime. Though the public prisons try as much to carry out this exercise, this cannot be compared to the private sector that expresses this in a more profound manner.

One way of demonstrating this is what was demonstrated in the United States sometimes ago. There was a time when there were more than one hundred private firms that with more than two thousand prisoners in the manufacturing industry. These inmates used to manufacture goods with the range of bird feeders, circuit boards, and other related equipments and from the money that was earned through this method, about 56% of it was used to cater for the room and boarding facilities, restitution of the victim, and support of the family. The process also left the inmates with some acquired skills that they could use during their re-integration process that welcomed them back to the society.

Having some skills that they could use to earn a living put them in a better position in the society based on the fact that these people were liable of being treated by the community as ex-convicts that may rerun back into crime. It is also worth noting that the process of privatization may lead to some other new methods of criminal control other than the use of jail to detain people there by denying them freedom. One method can involve methods of detaining criminals within their dwelling by the use of new technology such as surveillance through small devices worn on the body such as bracelets or the electronic monitoring. It is however worth to note that such methods would cause some greater concern of the general public based on the fact that some would question whether the method would be effective in ensuring that crime is contained in the society.

In short the privatization of the prison industry would have a lot of benefits as mentioned in the points that have been stated above. The financial benefits, well being of the prisoner, security gains, and answerability among other factors might be used by the proposers of this system to ensure that the majority of the prisons are privatized so as to improve this important institution that ensures the execution of justice in a given country. The concept of privatization is indeed a very bright idea that has so many advantages though the issue needs to be put under more scrutiny to be able to get to the bottom of some of the positive features that have been mentioned in this paper.

This is a concept that has the potential of flourishing if given the attention it deserves to ensure that the social interests come before the urge to maximize profits by the corporations that have been contracted to set up the private institutions. It is also worth noting that each of the positive points that have been presented in favor of privatization, an equal amount of disproof as a means of counteract or frustrate this should be expected as it is the case for the public prisons. This is because in each debate regarding an issue that will touch on the welfare of the society there are those who are behind its implementation and there are those who solidly oppose such an issue; this is a good example of this kind of a topic.

The Cons on the Prison Privatization Industry

It is obvious that the main motive behind privatization is the profit. This is one of the major issues that can lead to a conflict of interest. It should be noted that prisons not only serve to separate the criminal from the rest of the society and give them punishment, it is also the duty and responsibility of the people in charge of the prisons to ensure that the criminals go through a rehabilitation process to ensure that that the recidivism rate is highly reduced based on the fact that it is very risky to relapse to the earlier behavior. Though the private prisons are cheaper than the public, they are not as efficient based on the fact that obtaining profits through the management of a prison would mean that rehabilitation programs, medical care, food and the hiring costs will be reduced at the expense of the welfare of the inmates.

As a result, there high chances that the inmates will be underfed, experience poor living conditions, lack the rehabilitation guidance and be supervised by inexperienced and unskillful officers. James Austin who was an analyst conducted a survey in regard to the welfare of the inmates in some of these prisons and the results he obtained spoke volume of the kind of experiences that the inmates had to cope up with. One of the discoveries he made was that there was 49% more assaults on inmates by staff and 65% more assaults by inmates in the private run facilities than in the facilities that were learn by the government. This is one of factor that indicates that these private prisons are not that efficient when it comes to their performance. Another report that was conducted in England indicated that that the privatized prisons had bad scores in terms of the security and management based on the fact that there was failure in containing drugs, severe assaults and intentional criminal activity in the prisons.

In addition, there are poor payments as well as working conditions in the private prisons as compared to the public prisons and this is the reason why there is high turnover in the public prisons as compared to the private prisons. It is also worth noting that privatization brings about lack of transparency in the prisons department. Public prisons have high degrees of transparency as compared to the private prisons. Despite having low transparency, the private prisons are also hard to legalize, scrutinize and bleaching of the contractual agreements are common and hard to detect and resolve. In short, the public prisons can be scrutinized easily by the public unlike the private prisons where public scrutiny cannot be assured due to the operation contracts that are usually confidential causing a serious failure in terms of accountability. Finally, this issue that seems to contradict the traditions that have been used for a long time by different countries in regard to the state responsibility.

There are functions that have been known for a long time to belong to the government and not to private developers since they are considered to belong to the class of the state responsibility to its citizens and one of this is the national defense. This is one thing that goes hand in hand with the protection of the public against crime and one of the major methods of doing this is the prison department and as a result, this department should be managed by the government of the particular country. Furthermore the act of administering punishment needs to be delivered by a body with high authority for it to be effective and this can only be the government towards is citizens who have indulged into criminal activities.

As a result the ruthlessness of the punishment impacted by imprisonment or the denial of freedom needs to be executed by the government which is the sole representative of the society and not some individuals from the private sector. Privatization has also received some critics in regard the issue of ‘low-balling’. This is a system or a trick that played by contractors on the government. They under bid their fellow competitors with the aim of winning the tender and once they have won the tender, the costs are increased to very outrageous figures. The worst thing is that the competitors stand a chance of learning into bankruptcy, a situation that can leave the government in a positional that does not have any correctional capability.

If this is introduced in the prison sector, this would mean that such an important section of the ensuring justice in the country would have some technical hitches and provision of poor facilities, a thing that would make this body loose its purpose. Despite the system having some advantages, there are a good number of disadvantages that may hinder the process of privatization in a given country. Some of the arguments presented by a section of scholars may not hold water but there are some arguments against privatization that should really be put into consideration for the sake of the welfare of the citizens who should be the first priority of any government (Sloane, 1996).

Morality is a very important virtue and based on the fact that there are some aspects of privatization that undermine this value, it is a matter that needs to be deliberated deeply. It is also questionable as to whether the issue of morality and the society peer responsibility as well as the ultimate should be left to the hands of people whose major motive is to maximize profits and search of financial gains. This is an issue that makes the society to appear as if it is no longer guided by morals but rather by greed for money and opportunistic advocacy.

Pros and Cons of Prison Privatization Essay

Roles of Correctional Officers Essay

Roles of Correctional Officers Essay.

Correctional officers play a vital role in the prison system. They are the first line of defense in prisons. They are ultimately responsible for the safety, security, and supervision of inmates that are under their care. They must enforce all the rules and policies that the prison officials emplace in order to maintain good order and discipline. Without correctional officers, prisons would not run and complete ciaos would occur.

Correctional officers and inmates alike, build a close and trusting relationship. With this, the correctional officer does not have to completely trust the inmates, but instead, “they respect the inmate as a man in prison, instead of a criminal who is in prison.

” (Stojkovic, S., & Lovell, R. 2013) Correction officers do this in a couple of different ways. The first is allowing inmates to help them complete their responsibilities that are required of the correctional officer. When the guard does this, it in turns, makes the forces the officer to turn his back on less severe rule violations that an inmate might break.

By doing this, this helps build the relationship between the official and prisoner, while accomplishing the tasks that they are to accomplish on a daily basis.

Another way that correctional officers build social relationships with prisoners is through the reward system. This is exactly what it sounds like. When officers give the inmates rewards, they gain more control over the population of inmates that are in charge of. But when it comes to rewarding prisoners, officers must know to limit the rewards that are given to inmates. If prison officers reward inmates too much or too little for complying, inmates could see this as a sign of weakness, and use it to their advantage. Prison officers must not let their kindness and respect, be a sign of weakness. They must show the prisoners that they are the authoritative figure in the assigned cellblock.

With this working relationship that inmate and prison officers have, it must be strictly professional. Officers must see that they have a job to do and not let their emotions interfere with their job. When emotions get involved, correctional officers judgment can become impaired. If this happens, nothing good can come from it. Inmates can coerce emotionally involved officers to do what they want. The mutual bond that was once built is then thrown out the window.

Correctional officers do not just have a social role with the inmates; they also have certain roles within the prison. These roles are “performing security checks, supervising prisoners, and employing physical control and restraining prisoners when appropriate.” (ACGAS Editors, 2013) They also must be aware of the prisoner’s rights and responsibilities. They must make sure that the prison is a safe and secure place for both, themselves and the inmates under their care.

To make sure that correctional officers are doing their job appropriately, administrators have implemented “watchdogs.” Watchdogs report on a wide range of prison issues, including overcrowding, gangs, security and use of force.” (Johnson, 2014) These people keep everyone on the right side, making sure that they are following all the rules.

Prison officers main job inside is security. They make sure no one that is unauthorized enters, and no one that is unauthorized leaves. They are the first and only real line of defense inside the walls. While being strict but firm with the inmates, they must show that they care about each of them, even if they don’t. They should actively participate in-group activities and refer inmates to specialist if they need help. They also have to investigate any potential problem, no matter how small it might be, to the fullest potential that it could be.

Prison officers by far, have the hardest and most rewarding job in the prison system. They both enforce rules, and can change lives at the same time. By showing prisoners respect and a passion for their job, correctional officers show that they care about the inmate’s well being. Without prison officers, prison systems would cease to run effectively.

Reference:

ACGAS Editors, (2013, October). Prison officers job description. Retrieved from http://www.prospects.ac.uk/prison_officer_job_description.htm

Alan, J. (2014, September 26). Ongoing coverage; Prisons-watchdog official back on the job. Columbus Dispatch, The (OH).

Stojkovic, S., & Lovell, R. (2013). Corrections: An introduction. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Roles of Correctional Officers Essay

Students Should Be Penalized for Missing Class Essay

Students Should Be Penalized for Missing Class Essay.

Nowadays many students still miss classes for no reason. Why do students do like that? Maybe there is no penalty. On the other hands, some students still attend the classes because they know that they can get better grades more easily if they attend the classes. So penalizing students for missing class will increase students go to school and to improve a lot of good things to their lives is better, and the following some benefit will show why student should be penalized for missing class.

The first benefit of penalizing students for missing class is students can get good grades. Teachers who have a wealth of knowledge about specific fields can teach students a lot of useful information and can explain in an easy way to understand. They have to lecture in a limited time, and they may tell students important points of the lecture and may give some tips for exams. If students attended the class, they would be more likely to get good grades easily than other students who didn’t attend the class.

The second benefit of penalizing students for missing class is it may reduce the possibility for students to do bad action. According to a research that the problem of students being absent from school is directly related to crimes of youth people. They said about 80% of the current offenders in youth detention centers in New York have records of being absent more than a month every year, and about 40% of the offenders have records of being absent for more than two months every year. If students attended the class, the possibility of young people committing crimes would be reduced.

The third benefit of penalizing for missing class is that students can learn the way to follow regulations. For example, after graduating school, when they work for a company they will face a lot of regulations, limitations and rules. However, they will easily adapt to them because they already was prepared when they studied in school.

Some students who don’t agree with penalizing students for missing class say that If they didn’t go to school, they could spend the time more effectively and study by themselves. But most of students may waste their time in this case. Although they have a thorough plan to study, they may not follow it. It is difficult to work to the plan spontaneously without any mandatory conditions.

Penalizing students for missing class makes students attend classes, which may affect students’ whole lives. There are many benefits of going to school such as getting good grades, reducing the possibility of committing crimes, and learning the way to follow regulations. Penalizing students for missing class may be an unfair deal when students have unavoidable reasons. In this case, teachers can decide whether they give a penalty or not. I believe that penalizing students for missing class can help students to attend classes, which can help the students acquire something special to better their lives.

Students Should Be Penalized for Missing Class Essay

What I want my words to do to you Essay

What I want my words to do to you Essay.

What I Want My Words To Do To You, offers an extraordinary look into the minds and hearts of the women inmates of New York’s Bedford Hills Correctional Facility. The film goes inside a writing workshop led by playwright and activist Eve Ensler, involving 15 women, most of whom were convicted of murder. Through a series of exercises and discussions, the women examine their pasts and explore the nature of their crimes and the extent of their own liability. The film finishes in an emotionally stimulating prison performance of the women’s writing by acclaimed actors Mary Alice, Glenn Close, Hazelle Goodman, Rosie Perez and Marisa Tomei.

Participants in What I Want My Words To Do To You include:

•Pamela Smart, who agonizes over the affair she had with a high school student who eventually murdered her husband.

• Judith Clark and Kathy Boudin, imprisoned since 1981 for their participation in the robbery of an armored car in Nyack, New York that resulted in the deaths of three men.

•Betty Harris admits to killing her mother after enduring years of abuse.

•Keila Pulinario, convicted of murdering a man she had accused of raping her.

•Donna Hylton, a former track star convicted of murder

•Monica Szlekovics, mid-20’s, who tries, through her writing, to convey to her mother that, with a sentence of 50-to-life, there’s a strong chance she will never leave prison.

•Roslyn Smith, late 30’s, convicted of murder at 17, who writes about the surprising outburst by a man who visited her in the honor housing unit to learn about Bedford’s guide-dog training program.

•Cynthia Berry, ex-drug addict and former prostitute who murdered 71-year-old “john.”

Watching the film I feel repentance for the woman and their stories but at the same time it makes me reflect on the victims and their families. It makes me ask the question, does the end justify the means? Because these stories are so close to home, we tend to overlook the victims and side with the women and say he raped her he deserved it. Is it wrong to feel sorry for these women? No it’s in our human nature to feel compassion for someone. We all know someone who was raped, or in any of these woman’s situations and if it were my daughter, sister or mother I would want to murder that person myself, but in actuality no one deserves their life taken away, for any reason. Which makes me ask another question. What is the difference between them and I? What will make me stop and think not to do it and yet have the next person do it without a thought? Is it something that they’re born with or is it the environment they were brought up in?

For example my sister and I were molested by the same man she grew up not able to recover from it and I did. She uses drugs because for that moment it helps her forget and as for me I steer far away from drugs. Why, if our upbringing (environment) is the same, our choices are different? What forces us to react in different ways? This is a question that is beyond me but I give praise to these ladies to have the courage to explore in depth the sad and unfortunate events that brought them to where they are today. Even though most will endure more years in confinement than they had in freedom, participating in this program gives them hope and an opportunity to have some of life’s most valued experiences.

Life experiences such as develop the discipline to focus on themselves and their past, develop a skill (writing/acting), and gain recognition and approval for work well done. Respect gained for their reflection and hard work, I’m sure has enabled them to feel a renewed sense of self-worth; self-worth that allows them at least an ounce of joy, something they may not have felt for a very long time. We usually see the victims’ side and don’t care to see the other side but thanks to this film it gives us the opportunity and opens our eyes to see that we all have stories wrong or right it’s our story and we have a right to tell it without judgments because we all are human and therefore make mistakes. Don’t judge someone if you haven’t walked a mile in their shoes.

You may also be interested in the following: what makes you want to buy something

What I want my words to do to you Essay

Prison Reform Essay

Prison Reform Essay.

Three inmates could be released from prison today. Two of them will end up right back in the system within three years. This statistic should be enough to conclude that America’s prison systems are failing miserably with the rehabilitation of inmates. How is it plausible for every correctional facility to think isolation, segregation, and overcrowding could possibly benefit the crime rate? Instead of converting these inmates into proper citizens, the system has found ways to hold them down. To suppress their inspiration to change.

For many inmates, those bars do not only imprison their bodies, but their motivation and determination as well. US prisons are breeding grounds for violence. These places are supposed to reform inmates into law abiding people. Instead, they turn even the harmless criminals into the most violent ones. One man is sentenced to one year due to drug trafficking. Another man is sentenced to life without parole for several brutal murders.

Despite the different levels of their crimes, they could possibly be bunked together in the same cell.

This right here is a prime example of what the DOC will do to hold an inmate down. By involving non-violent criminals with heinous ones, they are creating a situation of fear and defense. The man who is in for excruciating violent behavior could easily try to hurt his cell mate. He has nothing to lose. Is the man with minor charges expected to not defend himself? No. That’s where the violence sets in. When you mix completely different criminals together on purpose, there is going to be an outbreak of violence. Everybody has those weeks where you just feel like you need to get out of the house. As if staying home doing nothing one more day would just make you rip your hair out. Imagine having to do that for anywhere up to six months or longer. Not just in a wide open house, but in a small, confined cell. No human contact, nothing to keep you busy, sometimes even going hours without food. This happens daily in the American prison systems. Solitary confinement has been a method used for years in the US.

Such isolation can take a huge toll on anybody’s mental stability. Often these inmates are thrown into a single cell, and basically forgotten about. These prisoners are treated like dogs instead of human beings. Do these officers realize that each one of those men have someone who cares about them? For every inmate in that facility there is someone who loves them. Another flaw of the DOC is the hiring process of correctional staff. I have a great deal of thanks for those who have put their safety on the line to control inmates. However, I also believe they have much to do with the violent outbreaks. For some officers, this position is like a power trip. While there are many honorable officers, you can tell they love the future of the inmates riding in their hands. I have witnessed first hand CO’s getting inmates all wired up knowing the inmate will get themselves in trouble. Often these officers act just as childish as the prisoners!

The only difference is the uniforms they’re wearing. The requirements to become a correctional officer is to provide security and to enforce the rules, not to contribute to the chaos! As a new inmate entering the system, there is one factor that everybody recognizes about you…The color of your skin. Instead of providing a place where segregation is at a minimum, prisons all across America are dealing with gang violence and race issues. These issues are known as “Prison Politics” to some. No matter who you are, or where you’re from, when entering prison you become identified by your skin tone. The level of gangs and cultural groups are so high, that often inmates have no choice but to follow the crowd. Sure, they could choose not to cooperate in the gang life, but where does that leave them? Then they will become the targets with no defense. The pressure to become accepted is so important in prison survival, that some inmates will throw away their morals just to protect themselves. Prison officials often condone the promotion of racial segregation. If one person of a specific race was found suspicious, they have the right to lock down every person of the same nationality.

They often bunk same races together to cut down the risk of altercations. This is probably for the best at the time being, but it makes you wonder why they don’t attempt to do something about gang involvement. You hear about classes on drug intervention, schooling, and religion. Why don’t they have a class on racial acceptance? I’m sure it wouldn’t convert the beliefs of many inmates, but it would at least show some effort to bring down the segregation rate. The release of an inmate should be one of the most exciting moments of their lives. It should be a time where they finally get to put all of the knowledge and inspiration they have gained to use. It should be a new stepping stone for them to create a new lifestyle without their past lagging behind them. Sadly, this is hardly ever how it works out.

In the past generation, the process of parole and release has started lacking structure. It is very rare that an inmate is individually prepared to face the real world. Instead of carefully considering ways to provide help upon release, they often just let them go on their own with no support from the inside. I understand these are grown adults, but when you are facilitated for so long, there is a need for preparation for the outside world. When these inmates are faced with the outside realities all at once, they just go back to their old ways. They are not given the support they need to make it through life on their own. These prisons confine these inmates for years, harboring their every move.

Yet when they are released, they do not help them along one bit. Something is obviously wrong here. The prison system has a long way to go before it becomes effective. More people need to start paying attention to these correctional departments. The cause seems so minuscule until someone you love becomes the victim. These prisons are inhumane, chaotic, and lacking necessary resources. Until prison systems of America reach a solid stability of rehabilitation, the inmates will continue to involve themselves in crime. These places should be for improvement, not corruption.

Prison Reform Essay

Aboriginal Cooking Methods Essay

Aboriginal Cooking Methods Essay.

The traditional ways to cook for aboriginals used to involve roasting their food on hot coals, baking in the ashes & steaming in ground ovens. But today theses things have changed & the aboriginals have easier ways to cook using ‘technology’ from today. They have adapted to make the process easier by boiling & barbequing.

Roasting;

When cooking meat, this was the basic technique, which was almost always used. They cooked most meat, fish & small turtles.

To make sure the meat was cooked through, it was also covered by ashes & coals, which also made tough meat softer.

The meat would be eaten quickly after roasting.

Shellfish were also cooked on the coals on the outside of the fire, this way when they started to froth, they could be removed quickly.

Baking

Bread & damper was cooked in the ashes. When aboriginals made fires, they made sure they used the right kind of firewood, so that after the fire was out, the ashes could be used for cooking their bread.

They were very careful as to which wood they used because some woods made to bread taste bad & some caused irritation & discomfort. Over time, it was the wattle seed that was found to be the most successful for cooking. It gave no bad taste, gave no one irritations & produced a fine ash.

Witchetty grubs only needed to be quickly rolled over the ashes to be cooked. Then damper was put beneath the ashes & then covered. To cook yam, or vegetables, they would dig a small hole, place the vegetable in it, and then cover it with ash.

Steaming;

In the Wiradjuri areas, steam ovens still exist. The ovens were made by digging a hole in the ground, they were about 90cm long, & 60cm deep. The clay left over from digging was then made into smooth lumps & then would be placed on top, once the hole was filled with selected firewood. While the wood burned, the clay became hot. The clay would then be removed with tongs. The pit would be swept out & then lined with still green leaves & grass. Then meat such as possums (because they were small enough) would be lain inside, covered with more leaves & then the clay would be placed on top.

To stop the steam escaping, the ground that was originally taken out when the hole was dug covers the clay.

Wrapping;

Wrapping is still used in places like Arnhem Land. Vegetables are wrapped in the moist paper bark from Melaleuca trees & then placed in ground ovens.

Today Aboriginals use more advanced methods of cooking. They have adapted their old ways to make them easier.

Boiling;

Aboriginals have now learned to boil foods in galvanized cans, tins, steel drums or whatever items are available. Because of this, ground ovens are being used less & less.

Barbequing;

Although the Aboriginals don’t have top of the range barbeques, they have got their own version. It is simply a piece of wire to hole pieces of meat or dough over red coals.

Aboriginal Dreaming

Although the Dreamtime was in the past, it is the Aborigines religion & culture that rules them today. The saying, ‘As it was done in the Dreamtime, so it must be done today,’ dominates all aspects of the Aboriginals lifestyle & actions. According to some Aboriginals, the Rainbow Serpent made the world. It is their belief that that is true. Religion is some peoples’ way, spiritualism is theirs.

The Rainbow Serpent came from the Northern Territory while Australia was still in its dreaming stage. It traveled over the country, creating the mountainous locations by pushing the land into many ranges & isolated areas.

The Great Dividing Range is a creation of the rainbow serpents movements. Throughout its journey over & under the land, it created rivers, valleys, & lakes. It was also careful to leave many areas flat.

Once it was satisfied with its creation of Australia, spirit people came from inside it & moved all over the country to form many different lifestyles, languages & different stories.

When the land was finally finished, it was ready for people, but there were none .Walya-Nam-Adiki was the woman who walked out of the sea & met up with a tribal man. Seen as there were no people, they talked about the problem with having such a wonderful land, but no people to live there. To fix this problem, they had many spirit children together. Walya-Nam-Adiki told all her children to go to all different places across the country & to speak new languages, make & keep land & water management. They were to stay in their chosen areas, & to make social & kinship systems which would make sure that there would always be people within their tribal boundaries.

Other Aboriginals believe that when the world first existed, that giant semi-mortal beings that resembled plants & animals rose up from the flat land where they had been sleeping for countless ages.

These beings wandered the land aimlessly. As they roamed around, they performed the tasks that Aboriginals do today. These included camping, making fires, digging for water, fighting each other & performing ceremonies. When they became tired of carrying out these rituals, the dreamtime ended. Wherever the creators had been, a natural landform now marks the place. The creators made everything which Aboriginals are in contact with everyday & from which they gain their living. Apart from forming the land, they also created the laws that govern the aspects of everyday life, which some Aborigines still live by.

Aboriginals in Jail & Custody

The idea of over-representation of Aboriginal adults in prison is set down early for the younger generation to understand. In Juvenile Detention centers, aboriginals aged 10-17 were 24.2* times more likely to be in custody than non-aboriginal children. For aboriginals aged 18-21 the over-representation rate was 9.6*

Indigenous rates of imprisonment in adult prisons varied between about 4* times the non-indigenous rate in Tasmania & up to over 20* times in Western & South Australia.

At almost any time, up to 80% of inmates in Northern Territory ‘Correctional Facilities’ are of aboriginal descent. Whatever the intent, mandatory sentencing has more effect on aboriginals than any other ethnic group in the NT.

Also Police custody rates for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders was 26.2* times more likely than people of other races. Aboriginals are 25% of people that are arrested & 15% of people who are in jails are also Aboriginal.

From data collected, aboriginals are over-represented in offences involving violence, breaking & entering, breaches of justice procedures & driving offences.

Aboriginal people are 12 times more likely than others to be in prison for homicide and 16 times for breaking and entering.

One principle factor is that of the low status of the indigenous side of Australia in socio-economy & culture.

In 1988, Commissioner Muirhead stated that “humanity and our country’s reputation demand a vigorous approach and new initiatives”. Years later, Aboriginals still continue to die in police cells & prisons.

On 10th February, 2000 a 15 yr old boy committed suicide in the Don Dale Correctional Facility in Darwin. He had a mandatory 28jail sentence for petty theft of pens, pencils & paint. He was due for his release 4 days after his death. The Northern Territory Chief Minister simply swept aside the death & gave a statement “There will always be deaths in custody.”

The death of the boy & the Country Liberal Party refused to even consider the re-appeal of the mandatory sentencing laws sent a break of outrage through many leading Australian, International & Aboriginal groups.

Two weeks previous to the death, a Federal Senate traveled to Darwin, to make a report on the laws. None of the Country Liberal Party’s officials was prepared to give evidence at the hearing.

The United Nations blasted Australia over these laws, & the treatment of the indigenous people to this land. Also saying that Canberra could be in breach of the UN Convention to Eliminate Racial Discrimination.

*Based on records in 1998

Aboriginal Cooking Methods Essay

Capital Punishment Essay

Capital Punishment Essay.

The death penalty has been around for many centuries and will probably be around for many to come. Although some citizens feel capital punishment is ethically wrong, it is necessary in today’s society for various reasons.

Society must be kept safe from the barbaric acts of murders and rapist, by taking away their lives to function and perform in our society. Most criminals don’t take into account the results of their actions. If a person intending to commit a crime, sees another criminal put to death for the same crime he or she is going to carry out, the person might think before executing the crime.

Edward Koch, who has been district leader, councilman, congressman, and mayor says, “human life deserves special protection, and one of the best ways to guarantee that protection is to assure that convicted murders do not kill again” (323).

A person, who has been affected by a criminal’s work, would probably feel that the death penalty is fair.

It’s hard to imagine how it would feel if one of your loved ones were murdered. Personally I would want the person who took my loved one’s life to suffer. In addition, most mother’s views would be quite similar. If a criminal was to rape a child the mother would more than likely want the death penalty for the rapist. Koch makes a similar point by saying, ” Life is indeed precious and I believe the death penalty helps to affirm the fact” (322).

Most countries in the world do not use the death sentence as a form of punishment. However, most countries have stiffer penalties for crimes. If the United States were to make a law like this it would be too harsh. Nonetheless, if on a person’s third offense of stealing, their hand were cut off then this would be more appropriate.

Capital Punishment also has its negative effects. Life imprisonment without parole serves the same purposes as capital punishment at less cost without the debate of whether it’s right or wrong. Also, with capital punishment there is the chance of killing an innocent person. The poor and minorities have less money to spend on a good lawyer, so they are more at risk for an unfair trial.

In comparison the Bible also says that capital punishment is not morally correct. The Ten Commandments in the Bible states, “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20.13). Steve Hux the pastor at Cedar Creek Free Will Baptist Church says, “capital punishment is biblically wrong and one human life should not be put in the hands of another.” Still capital punishment’s benefits outweigh the negative effects. It’s very important to help keep crime off the streets and this is a firm way to do it. Capital punishment shows criminals that they will have to suffer their consequences.

In conclusion, capital punishment is a just way of punishment. It allows victims families to have somewhat of a consolation, by knowing that vicious murders are off the streets. Finally, capital punishment provides a powerful way to make the statement: crime is wrong. The death penalty has been around for many centuries and will probably be around for many to come. Although some citizens feel capital punishment is ethically wrong, it is necessary in today’s society for various reasons.

Society must be kept safe from the barbaric acts of murders and rapist, by taking away their lives to function and perform in our society. Most criminals don’t take into account the results of their actions. If a person intending to commit a crime, sees another criminal put to death for the same crime he or she is going to carry out, the person might think before executing the crime. Edward Koch, who has been district leader, councilman, congressman, and mayor says, “human life deserves special protection, and one of the best ways to guarantee that protection is to assure that convicted murders do not kill again” (323).

A person, who has been affected by a criminal’s work, would probably feel that the death penalty is fair. It’s hard to imagine how it would feel if one of your loved ones were murdered. Personally I would want the person who took my loved one’s life to suffer. In addition, most mother’s views would be quite similar. If a criminal was to rape a child the mother would more than likely want the death penalty for the rapist. Koch makes a similar point by saying, ” Life is indeed precious and I believe the death penalty helps to affirm the fact” (322).

Most countries in the world do not use the death sentence as a form of punishment. However, most countries have stiffer penalties for crimes. If the United States were to make a law like this it would be too harsh. Nonetheless, if on a person’s third offense of stealing, their hand were cut off then this would be more appropriate.

Capital Punishment also has its negative effects. Life imprisonment without parole serves the same purposes as capital punishment at less cost without the debate of whether it’s right or wrong. Also, with capital punishment there is the chance of killing an innocent person. The poor and minorities have less money to spend on a good lawyer, so they are more at risk for an unfair trial.

In comparison the Bible also says that capital punishment is not morally correct. The Ten Commandments in the Bible states, “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20.13). Steve Hux the pastor at Cedar Creek Free Will Baptist Church says, “capital punishment is biblically wrong and one human life should not be put in the hands of another.” Still capital punishment’s benefits outweigh the negative effects. It’s very important to help keep crime off the streets and this is a firm way to do it. Capital punishment shows criminals that they will have to suffer their consequences.

In conclusion, capital punishment is a just way of punishment. It allows victims families to have somewhat of a consolation, by knowing that vicious murders are off the streets. Finally, capital punishment provides a powerful way to make the statement: crime is wrong. The death penalty has been around for many centuries and will probably be around for many to come. Although some citizens feel capital punishment is ethically wrong, it is necessary in today’s society for various reasons.

Society must be kept safe from the barbaric acts of murders and rapist, by taking away their lives to function and perform in our society. Most criminals don’t take into account the results of their actions. If a person intending to commit a crime, sees another criminal put to death for the same crime he or she is going to carry out, the person might think before executing the crime. Edward Koch, who has been district leader, councilman, congressman, and mayor says, “human life deserves special protection, and one of the best ways to guarantee that protection is to assure that convicted murders do not kill again” (323).

A person, who has been affected by a criminal’s work, would probably feel that the death penalty is fair. It’s hard to imagine how it would feel if one of your loved ones were murdered. Personally I would want the person who took my loved one’s life to suffer. In addition, most mother’s views would be quite similar. If a criminal was to rape a child the mother would more than likely want the death penalty for the rapist. Koch makes a similar point by saying, ” Life is indeed precious and I believe the death penalty helps to affirm the fact” (322).

Most countries in the world do not use the death sentence as a form of punishment. However, most countries have stiffer penalties for crimes. If the United States were to make a law like this it would be too harsh. Nonetheless, if on a person’s third offense of stealing, their hand were cut off then this would be more appropriate.

Capital Punishment also has its negative effects. Life imprisonment without parole serves the same purposes as capital punishment at less cost without the debate of whether it’s right or wrong. Also, with capital punishment there is the chance of killing an innocent person. The poor and minorities have less money to spend on a good lawyer, so they are more at risk for an unfair trial.

In comparison the Bible also says that capital punishment is not morally correct. The Ten Commandments in the Bible states, “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20.13). Steve Hux the pastor at Cedar Creek Free Will Baptist Church says, “capital punishment is biblically wrong and one human life should not be put in the hands of another.” Still capital punishment’s benefits outweigh the negative effects. It’s very important to help keep crime off the streets and this is a firm way to do it. Capital punishment shows criminals that they will have to suffer their consequences.

In conclusion, capital punishment is a just way of punishment. It allows victims families to have somewhat of a consolation, by knowing that vicious murders are off the streets. Finally, capital punishment provides a powerful way to make the statement: crime is wrong.

You may also be interested in the following: punishment

Capital Punishment Essay

Obediance and Deindividuation Essay

Obediance and Deindividuation Essay.

Most, if not all humans, have some ethics and morals, which help the individual make distinctions between right and wrong. Therefore, in most situations human beings behave in accordance with their morality. Studies on notions such as obedience to authority and deindividuation have shown that in some cases, an individual can be made to act in direct opposition to their morals and ethics. Studies conducted by Milgram (1963) on obedience have shown that if an individual is ordered to do something by someone who is perceived to be in power, it is possible that they will do it, even if it is something the person does not believe is right.

Also, studies conducted by Zimbardo (1973) on deindividuation have shown that a normally healthy, intelligent person can lose their identity in a crowd, and commit acts of violence and aggression which they would not normally commit. According to the deindividuation theory, this is because the individual feels that they can no longer be singled out and held personally responsible for behaviour.

The studies conducted by Zimbardo (1973) and Milgram (1963) have been examined and compared in this essay.

The notions of obedience and deindividuation have been the subject of some very informative and sometimes disturbing research by social psychologists. Obedience is defined by Moghaddam (1998) as: “changes in behaviour that arise when people follow the instructions of persons in authority.” Our tendency to comply with authority figures can be surprisingly strong (Bourne & Russo, 1998). Experiments on the subject, particularly those conducted by Milgram (1963) have shown that though obedience is, in many forms positive, it can also be extremely negative, instigating individuals to commit acts of violence or aggression, of which they would not normally partake.

Deindividuation is defined by Moghaddam (1998) as: “The loss of one’s sense of self identity as an individual person, associated with lower self awareness and decreased personal responsibility in group settings”. This can often lead to acts of aggression or violence, by a normally placid person. This notion, as well as the notion of obedience to authority, has been examined in this essay, by looking at, and comparing the studies conducted by Milgram (1963) and Zimbardo (1973),

Milgram looked to explore the notion of obedience by using the cover story that he was conducting research on the effects of punishment on learning. He advertised for volunteers aged twenty to fifty who would be paid four dollars an hour plus fifty cents petrol money. It is important to note though, that the participants were told that the money was theirs simply for coming to the laboratory no matter what happened after their arrival. A wide range of occupations, ages and backgrounds were represented in the chosen sample. The selected participant was introduced to a person (a forty-seven year old accountant, whom most observers found mild mannered and likeable [Milgram, 1963]) who pretended to be another participant, but was actually a confederate of the experimenter.

It was explained that as this was a learning experiment, it was required that there be learner and teacher. The participants took a piece of paper from a hat to determine whether he was the teacher or learning. This was rigged so that the participant would always be the teacher (both pieces of paper said ‘teacher’). The teacher was then allowed to watch the learner being strapped into an ‘electric chair’ which was to be used to administer electric shocks. The learner was told that though the shocks could be extremely painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage.

The teacher was then taken to an adjacent room and seated in front of a ‘shock generator’ consisting of thirty switches set in a horizontal line. The switches were marked, increasing from 0 to 450 colts, 15 volts at a time. Each group of four switches was also marked, from lowest voltage to highest, “slight shock”, “moderate shock”, “strong shock”, “very strong shock”, “intense shock”, “extreme intense shock”, “danger, severe shock” with the last two switches simply marked “XXX” (Moghaddam, 1998). The participant was given an example shock of 45 volts.

The learning exercise was a word association task. Each time the learner got an answer wrong, the teacher was instructed to administer a higher level of shock. The teacher was also required to call out the voltage level before administering a shock, to make sure they were fully aware of the shock level. The learner was instructed to give specific response to different shock levels. Between 75 and 105 volts, the learner grunted. At 120 volts, the learner shouted that the shocks were becoming painful, after that the learner complained of a bad heart and shouted that he no longer wanted to be part of the experiment. The cries became more and more distressed until shock level three hundred, when the learner indicated that he could no longer give answers to the memory test. After this, all that was heard from the learner was agonized cries.

The participant was instructed to treat the lack of response as a wrong answer and continue increasing the shock level every five to ten seconds. At different stages of the experiment, the subjects looked to the experimenter for guidance or expressed their wishes not to continue, to which the experimenter’s responses were standardized. A series of ‘prods’ were established, which were to be used each time a participant indicated his unwillingness to go on. These prods were always given in order and were started again each time the participant showed reluctance These were: “Please continue”, then “The experiment requires that you continue”, then “It is absolutely essential that you continue” and finally “You have no other choice, you must go on”. If the participant refused to go on after the last prod, the experiment was terminated.

The participants showed obvious signs of distress throughout the experiment, especially while administering the more powerful shocks. Subjects were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their flesh (Milgram, 1963). Many subjects said they could not go on, but nevertheless they did. Approximately sixty five percent of participants were fully obedient (Moghaddam, 1998), continuing until they reached the most potent shock on the generator, at which point, the experimenter called a halt to the session. Not one participant stopped before shock level 20, which was 300 volts, and the point at which the learner stopped answering questions.

Milgram asked groups of laypeople and experts to predict the outcome of the experiment before it as conducted. As it was predicted that participants would refuse to administer shocks of more than a minimal voltage to learners (Moghaddam, 1998) these results amazed many people. This experiment demonstrated that normal, healthy, intelligent people are capable of carrying out violent and destructive acts, if placed in the right (or wrong) situation. This was also demonstrated by a study carried out by Zimbardo (1973).

The Stanford Prison experiment, as it was known, simulated a prison environment in the basement of the psychology building at Stanford University. The prison was made to be as realistic as possible, with bars, prison uniforms, identification numbers and uniformed guards (who wore mirrored sunglasses). Volunteers for the experiment were screened with clinical interviews and psychological tests to ensure that they were emotionally stable and mature. Participants were to be paid fifteen dollars a day for the two week experiment. The study required two roles, guards and prisoners, which were assigned by a coin toss.

The prisoners were unexpectedly arrested at their homes and brought to the ‘prison’ in a police car. They were handcuffed, searched, fingerprinted, booked, stripped, deloused, given a number and issued a prison uniform. Each prisoner was then placed in a six by nine foot cell with two other inmates (Bartol, 1998). The guards were simply instructed to keep order. They all wore standard uniforms and carried a night stick, keys to the cells, whistles and handcuffs. Guards drew up their own rules for maintaining law and order in the prison.

Before the prisoners were allowed to do anything, they had to obtain permission, and they were required to address the guards as ‘Mr corrections officer, sir’. The participants quickly absorbed their roles. Guards degraded the prisoners in different ways, making them clean toilet with their hands, disrupting their sleep and using physical punishments and solitary confinement for minor infractions (Bourne and Russo, 1998). The prisoners broke down and accepted the brutal treatment. Three had to be released during the first four days because of hysterical crying and severe depression and many others begged to be paroled, willing to forfeit the money they had earned for participating in the experiment (Bartol, 1998).

The experiment was terminated after only six days, well short of the planned two weeks, because of the guards’ brutality (Bourne and Russo, 1998). It is interesting to note some of the remarks made by the prisoners: “I practically considered the prisoners as cattle” and “I was tired of seeing the prisoners in their rags and smelling the strong odours of their bodies that filled the cells” (Moghaddam, 1998).

The experiment prompted Zimbardo to conclude “Many people, perhaps the majority, can be made to do almost anything when put into psychologically compelling situations-regardless of their morals, ethics, values, attitudes, beliefs, or personal convictions” (Zimbardo, 1973, cited in Bartol, 1998). Much the same conclusion had been reached by Milgram (1963) with respect to authority figures (Bartol, 1998).

The results of these studies make statements about human nature and social psychology by demonstrating the importance of situational variables in determining behaviour. Zimbardo’s (1973) experiment illustrated the influence of deindividuation – the process of losing one’s identity and becoming part of a group, as a situational variable (Bartol, 1998), and Milgram’s (1963) study examined the variables involved in obedience to authority.

Deindividuation follows a complex chain of events. Firstly, the presence of many other people gives rise to a sense of anonymity, the individual then loses identity and becomes part of a group. Under these conditions, the person feels that they can be no longer singled out and held responsible for their behaviour. According to the deindividuation theory, this generates a “loss of self awareness, reduced concern over evaluations for others, and a narrowed focus of attention” (Baron & Byrne, 1977, cited in Bartol, 1998). The combination of these things is believed to lower restraints against antisocial or aggressive behaviour. This theory is supported by Zimbardo’s (1973) prison experiment.

As was demonstrated by Milgram’s (1963) experiment, individuals are likely to be obedient to people who have power (whether real or perceived) over them. Also, culture teaches people in certain roles to expect to be obeyed. As such, people learn to play authority roles, as well as roles submissive to authority (Moghaddam, 1998). This dominant-submissive relationship was demonstrated in the prison study. Stereotypically, prison guards are perceived as having dominant, possibly even sadistic personalities, whereas prisoners, will tend to be aggressive and socially deviant (Moghaddam, 1998). The results of this study indicate that situational factors have a large bearing on behaviour, regardless of morals, ethics, values, attitudes or beliefs, or in short, the nature of the individual. This is also demonstrated by Milgram’s (1963) study.

Milgram’s (1963) experiment also demonstrates how normal, healthy, intelligent people are quite capable of carrying out destructive acts, in this case, however, the individuals carried out these acts, because they were persuaded to do so by a person whom they perceived to be in authority. This can be seen on a much larger scale in the success of dictators, such as Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the context of the act and without limitations of the conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority (Milgram, 1977, cited in Bartol, 1998).

A lot can be learned from this about human nature. It can be inferred from this study, as well as Zimbardo’s (1973) study that normal, healthy, intelligent human beings are capable of carrying out acts which normally go against their nature, if the individual is placed in the right (or wrong) situation. These studies showed the effects of authority figures and environmental factors involved in behaviour and suggest that in many cases, people engage in behaviour that goes against their very nature, simply because they are told to do so.

The results also show, that under deindividualized conditions, people may do things that they would not normally do, or engage in acts that they did not think they were even capable of. A better understanding of deindividuation could lead to a decrease in violent or aggressive acts committed by individuals in a crowd, for example rioting, and a better understanding of obedience to authority could decrease the possibility of events like those caused by Hussein or Hitler happening again.

References

Bartol, C.R. (1998). Criminal Behaviour. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Bourne, L.E. and Russo, N.F. (1998). Psychology Behaviour in Context. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioural Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67 (4), 371-378.

Moghaddam, F.M. (1998). Social Psychology. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Obediance and Deindividuation Essay

Private Prisons Essay

Private Prisons Essay.

Oct. 18, 2001 Thesis Private prisons can be a profitable and secure alternative to government run Statement prisons. Private prisons are able to be profitable by controlling the administrational cost of operating the facilities. At the same time, they must adhere to high governmental standards to maintain the right to operate.

Background As a nation, we have many issues that we must face. One of those issues is the administration of the, already overcrowded, prison system. This issue is one of the most taxing problems facing our criminal justice system.

According to U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, the prison population at year-end 2000, there were 1,381,892 men and women in State or Federal prison (U.S. Department of Justice). Luckily, the private sector has stepped up to, not only help with this problem, but also take advantage of the profitability in this venture.

Evidence #1 Containing labor costs is a crucial issue of the privatization movement. Approximately 70% of the costs of operating a prison go to staff salaries, fringe benefits, and overtime (Logan 2).

The administration of this cost is difficult to achieve with unionized government workers. In contrast, private institutions use nonunion and contracted labor, allowing for the lowest benefit packages. With nonunion and contracted labor, government restrictions that interfere with efficient personnel management such as hiring, firing, promotion, salary setting, assignment of duties, work schedules, vacations, and overtime can be avoided. Overall, private institutions contend that they can save around 15% in prison operations when labor cost is efficient handled (Logan 2).

Evidence #2 Another way the private sector can control cost is that the private sector has greater flexibility in the procurement process. The private sector contractors are not bound by the same cumbersome and stiff government procurement system. Private vendors can purchase goods and services quicker. They can maintain lower food, supplies, and equipment inventories as well as negotiate better prices for these goods. Competition between contractors, that will supply these goods, will help hold down costs and provide for superior service. Contract renewals are always on the line
if service becomes questionable.

Evidence #3 One of the most asked questions is what happens in the case of a strike? The answer is about the same as for a government-run prison. Contracted prison guards may not have the right to strike but the absence of this right has not prevented guards from participating in strikes, sick-outs, and other job actions. At a private prison in Rhode Island, all but a few contract guards walked off their jobs. On the other hand, all but a handful of guards at New York’s 33 state-run correctional facilities went on a strike that lasted 17 days (Logan 6). Of course, a disruption at a privately run facility could allow the government to terminate a contract. The threat of termination due to loss of a contract or simply being fired from the position is a strong incentive against a strike. In any case, the National Guard and state police will provide the ultimate backup for prison staff, be it private or public.

Evidence #4 Another question is what happens in the case of a riot or escape? In fact, the experience of privately run prisons has been no worse off than that of the government-run facilities. Most contracts require that privately operated prisons conform to the law, rules, and regulations set down by the government. This is, at times, more tightly monitored than the government-run facilities. Keep in mind that the privately operated prison contracts will always include a contingency plan to deal with strikes, riots, or bankruptcy.

Refutation One activist against private prisons said, “private prisons cannot be as safe and secure as a government run prison “¦ they are only interested in the profits” (Yeoman 284). According to report done by the Bureau of Justice Assistance from July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995, violations per 1,000 inmates were 42.3% and deaths per 1,000 inmates were 2.9% for government facilities (Austin and Coventry 48). Compared to the private facilities, violations per 1,000 inmates were 50.5% and deaths per 1,000 inmates were 0.7% between January 1 and December 31, 1997 (Austin and Coventry 48). This would suggest that there are no more problems at a private prison then a public prison.

Concluding With many investors becoming interested in the profitability of investing in the statement private prison system, there seems to be more facilities opening yearly. The government echoes the is happy with this trend, as it has enabled them to keep up with the growing prison thesis population at a reduced cost. As far as the government is concerned, the private prison statement system is a good thing, and they are here to stay.

Berry Yeoman, The Best Business Stories of the Year “” 2001 Edition, Vintage Books, New York, 2001, p. 282-296 Charles H. Logan, http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~wwwsoci/fraser.html, Prison Privatization: Objections and Refutations, University of Connecticut, 1998 James Austin, Ph.D., Garry Coventry, Ph.D., http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/bja/181249.pdf, Emerging Issues on Privatized Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Washington, DC, Feb. 2000 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/p00.htm, Prisoners in 2000, Aug. 12, 2001

You may also be interested in the following: advantages and disadvantages of official statistics

Private Prisons Essay