The Privatization of Prisons: A Rhetorical Analysis

The private sector of the United States detainment industry is an economic powerhouse that produces five billion dollars annually. (Eisen) However, this wasn’t always the case. The privatization of prisons in the U.S. picked up in the 1980s, and was originally not a very profitable venture. (Binder) However, it was viewed by the U.S. government as a cheaper and easier solution to help moderate the rising crime rates of the Reagan era. And for prison owners, the U.S. was also a reliable source of income. Over the years, the private sector of this industry continued to grow, both in size and in controversy. In the last decade, the validity of privatizing prisons has become a hot button debate, especially between the media and political party lines. In this essay we will review what these groups have to say, analyze their motivations, as well as their impact on the big picture of our culture and social environment.

There are primarily three vocal groups involved in this debate. The first group are those like Sue Binder of the Algora Publishing Company who believe that private prisons should be reformed and improved upon, but not abolished. The next group involved are those who believe private prisons need to be fundamentally changed or abolished; such as and Timothy Williams of the New York Times, Lauren-Brooke Eisen of Time magazine. And the final group consists of those like Alexander Volokh of the Stanford Law Review, who believes that issues such as the increasing rates of detainment can not be solved by the abolishment of private prisons.

One of the biggest topics of debate among the varying groups, are the rates that people are being imprisoned. In her book, “Bodies in Beds: Why Business should Stay Out of Prisons” Sue Binder stated that in 2014, along with crime rates, the total amount of people detained in U.S. prisons had dropped down to 1,561,000; around the same numbers as they had been in 2005. (Binder, 29) However, she also said that according to research from the group Prison Policy, 2.4 million people had been detained in the U.S in 2017. (Binder, 16) This number includes not only criminals in private prisons, but also illegal immigrants who have been collected and detained by private prison corporations for profit. Binder provides this information to support her claim that private prisons subsidize their loss of growth from lower crime rates with government funds collected for detaining and corralling illegal immigrants. Her continuous anecdotes about inhumane treatment of prisoners succeeds in portraying CoreCivics’ practices as morally bankrupt and gives her book a strong antagonist viewers can rally against. This is useful, as the introduction of a controversial character or organization is useful in generating publicity about the book’s content, which generates more sales for the publisher. While sales are not the ultimate of Binders’ book, she still benefits financially from increased sales, and she has the opportunity to deface the company she’s learned to hate over the years.  In contrast to this position, Alexander Volokh is a staunch believer in the idea that rising rates of imprisonment are due to the efforts of correction officer unions from public sector prisons. (Volokh, 1203) Before going further, it’s important to note that Volokh had previously worked as a clerk under the moderate, right wing, supreme court justice, Sandra Day O’Connor and her staunchly conservative successor, Samuel Alito. Both justices are members of the republican party, which tend to hold stances that support law enforcement and encourages imprisonment. In fact, Alito had previously allowed the loser of a civil court case to be detained in prison for 14 years despite never committing a crime. It is reasonable to assume that Volokhs’ early work would be influenced by his employers and predecessors. He claims that the financial benefits gained through lobbying for pro-imprisonment legislation has diminishing returns when private prisons exist because they can absorb some of the benefits without contributing any funds towards lobbying.(Volokh, 1204) Meanwhile, in a scenario without private prisons, public prisons would have more incentive to lobby for pro-imprisonment policies since they would receive all the benefits. Volokh diligently supports his statements with graphs that detail the correlation between the two situations and also provides a statistical analysis of critical thresholds to explain his hypothesis. The very scientific approach of his argument helps give his statements a sense of validity. However, it’s important to note that Volokhs’ argument of diminished returns is based almost entirely on conjecture and theory. While correctional officer unions may still be the source of the rising detainment rates, Volokhs’ explanation has not been proven and should be considered with a grain of salt. It does not take the influence any other factors into account and fails to provide concrete numbers or statistics on the issue. Overall, it seems as though Volokh used the prestige and credibility of the Stanford Law Review to legitimize the claims in his unproven scholarly article. He may have been trying to trying to persuade judiciary or future law students to change their stance on privatized prisons.     

Another topic in discussion between these groups is the unlawful mistreatment of prisoners. Both Eisen and Binder provide anecdotes of prisoners experiences while under CoreCivic. In an article for Time magazine, Eisen cites a brawl that occured in a former CoreCivic run prison. The guards had allowed inmates to fight and failed to end the brawl, resulting in one of the inmates getting permanently handicapped.(Eisen) This anecdotal evidence is used to shock and inform her audience of young intellectuals who likely have no experience in prison life. Time magazine has always been known for challenging the status quo in magazine articles and providing new perspective on current culture. An article that exposes corruption and has a lot of shock factor is perfect for generating views and subscriptions. And the fact that Time Magazine allowed a guest writer to create her own piece shows the amount of support Time magazine has for Eisen and her objective to inform people of injustice. Meanwhile, Binder continually cites her experience working for CoreCivic. At one point, she describes how a prisoner with schizophrenia had been verbally abused, misunderstood and isolated to the point where he attempted to hang himself. (Binder, 24) During this account, Binder provides accounts of how her distress and frustration as a professional in that situation, allowing her to humanize herself, relate with the audience and withdraw herself from the association of working for CoreCivic for 12 years despite knowing full well the injustices they were committing against inmates. The New York Times provides a anecdote as well, this one from a former inmate who said that he was chained down and assaulted by another prisoner with a 4 ft pipe while two guards had at first ran away from the situation, then came back with reinforcements to break up the assault. The assaulted inmate was only given distilled water to rinse multiple puncture wounds that continued to bleed until the prisoner was rushed to a hospital days later. (Williams) The author of the newspaper article then provided evidence of the claims, showing an image of a cell room that was scratched up and bloodied all over. The visual imagery helps give readers a sense of realism. Newspaper articles tend to be very formal and straightforward in their reporting. However, in this article, Williams and the New York Times provide images with captions, videos of assault, a user response, and stories of neglect and abuse to inform their generally young audience the horrors of privatized prisons. Their use of media and selected user responses is a creative way Williams and the New York Times entertain and inform their audience with a more interactive experience.

Overall, The New York Times, Time Magazine and the Algora Publishing Company utilize the gruesome and provocative nature of private prisons to promote their sales and subscriptions. However, despite their different audiences and mediums, Williams, Brooke and Binder all still advocate for private prison reform in their works. They cite a lack of employees, resources, principles, discipline, and accountability for both the decline of prison quality and the increase in recidivism rates. And through Volokh’s article, we understand that despite the need for private prison reform, other outside factors may play key roles in our current problems with  incarceration in a private industry.

 

Works Cited

 

Binder, Sue. Bodies in Beds: Why Business Should Stay Out of Prisons. Algora, 2017,

Academic Search Complete

 

Volokh, Alexander. “Privatization and the Law and Economics of Political Advocacy”

Stanford Law Review vol. 60, no 4, 2008, pp. 1197-1253, Academic Search Complete

 

Williams, Timothy. “Inside a Private Prison: Blood, Suicide and Poorly Paid Guards” The

New York Times, 3, April 2018, p. A1, Academic Search Complete

 

Eisen, Lauren-Brooke. “Private Prisons Lock Up Thousands of Americans With Almost No

Oversight” Time, 8 Nov. 2017, http://time.com/5013760/american-private-prisons-donald-trump/. Accessed 29 Sept. 2018.