PUBLIC IMPRISONMENT BY PRIVATE MEANS

Abstract

Although privately operated imprisonment facilities were commonplace in previous centuries in England and the United States (Holdsworth 1922-4: 397; Crew 1933: 50; McKelvey 1977: 197-216; Feeley 1991), by the twentieth century, governments had assumed responsibility for nearly all imprisonment and most other criminal justices functions. Indeed, the principle of public responsibility for the administration of justice—and especially for imprisonment—has become so well established that impri sonment is seen by many as an intrinsic function of government (American Bar Association 1989: 3; Dilulio 1990: 172—7; Robbins 1988: 44; Howard League for Penal Reform 1990: 3). Beginning in the mid-1980s, however, a debate emerged in the United States, Britain, and in some other English-speaking countries over the propriety of governments contracting with private firms to operate and even own prisons, jails, and other places of imprisonment. This has gone beyond talk, for governments in the United States, Britain, and Australia are now contracting with private, for-profit firms to operate penal facilities of various types, and a private imprisonment industry has emerged (or, taking a longer historical view, re-emerged). This essay surveys developments in the United States, Britain, and Australia, the only countries that have so far moved to delegate operations of imprisonment facilities to private entities. The first section provides a thumbnail sketch of developments in these countries since the early 1980s, followed with a discussion of why private imprisonment emerged during this period. Some of the principal issues raised by private imprisonment, including some of the important research questions, are identified and discussed briefly.