IndexCasePurpose / logic of the case studyLead body ResponsibilityMoralityConclusionBibliographyCaseThere are currently a total of 117 prisons in England and Wales. Of these, 104 are publicly owned, the remaining 13 are privately owned. The purpose of this case study is to determine whether punishment should remain a government duty. To do this, the study will focus on whether prison privatization benefits the criminal justice system, comparing the pros and cons of privatizing prison systems. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Privatization of prisons occurs when the government contracts with a non-governmental third party to oversee and manage the prison. Due to the high costs of running and maintaining prisons, governments are turning to the private sector. Privatization is a rapidly growing movement throughout the criminal justice system and primarily in the prison system. Purpose/Rationale of the Case Study Due to the emergence of the New Public Management (NPM) reforms in the 1980s, there has been an increase in interest in private management and ownership of all public services. During this period, the privatization of prisons was used in an attempt to contain the rising costs of services and address the problem of overcrowding. This may provide insight into why there has been a dramatic increase in private prisons in recent decades. Mennicken (2013), argued that from the 1980s the Prison Service of England and Wales launched a regime to renovate prisons, so that they reached their peak. In this sense it was the privatization of prisons. In 1991, the Criminal Justice Act was passed, allowing the government to contract prisons to the private sector. The first private prison in England opened in April 1992, called Wolds Remand Prison. The purpose of this prison was to determine whether the private sector could make improvements to the conditions of prisoners, especially those in pre-trial detention. While there is an urgent need to privatize public services, governments need to think critically about whether this will deliver better quality and be more efficient. advantageous for the public service. While prison privatization has had many favorable reports, there has been some controversy. Some have expressed concern and argued that since punishment is one of the primary functions of government, it should only be carried out by government agencies. Private prisons do not abide by the same standards as public prisons. In this regard, private prisons are exempt from the conditions put in place by the Freedom of Information Act (2000), which states that the public has the legal right to obtain documents from public agencies (Vilher, 2017). Principal body Public and private prisons have numerous areas in which they can be compared and contrasted, including; legitimacy and their accountability structure, standards and conditions, cost assessment and performance measurement. It is also important and useful, within this case study, to consider ideological and theoretical concerns, in particular, motivation and morality. This study will establish a critical analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of prison privatization within the prison system by gathering information in relevant areas. This critical analysis, which will describe both advantages and disadvantages, attempts to conclude how effective the privatization of the prison service has been in England and Wales.AccountabilityGenders (2002) stated that the privatization of prisons was opposed by the vast majority of citizens. reasons, including the constitutional thesis that the State should have the duty to carry out the sentence and should not be entrusted to private individuals. During the early debates on the privatization of prisons Sir Leon Rodzinawicz made the following statement: "It is one thing for private companies to provide services to the prison system, but it is an entirely different matter for entities whose motivation is primarily commercial to have coercive powers over prisoners. Sparks (1994), Harding (1997) and Moyle (2001), argued that Rodzinawicz's statement lacked merit as it does not identify the difference between the distribution of punishment and its administration. They further argued that, with or without privatization, responsibility still lies with the independent judiciary and secondarily with the executive. Consequently, even if the executive can delegate tasks, it must be accepted that the state is still responsible for the way in which these tasks are carried out. by the representative and that they are completed to the correct standards However, the state can never be entirely responsible for the management of privatized prisons, which has led to Genders (2002), which illustrates the concern about the accountability and legitimacy of private prisons. . Garland (2001), explained that the new public management was effective and great value for money, "about the use of 'portable and all-purpose' techniques for accountability and evaluation". Developments in public prisons were introduced in the form of mechanisms for establishing and evaluating performance, these mechanisms were; Key performance objectives, key performance indicators and model regime (Generi, 2002). However, the government has also recognized that, where privatized prisons are concerned, mechanisms to ensure public sector accountability, such as contracts, also need to be in place. Because of the realization that the state can never be held fully accountable for the operation of privatized prisons, there are multiple regulations in place designed to hold private organizations accountable. Genders (2002) confirms that there is constant monitoring of the services provided by private organisations, thus recognizing a certain level of responsibility. In order to contain control over private prisons, the state issued a contractual agreement to ensure accountability. Genders (2002) further states that these state-designed contracts had to be respected and expectations regulated by standards to be met, leaving limited space for independent objectives by the private organizations in control. Privatized prisons are responsible for enforcing these contracts, and if violated, the consequences are severe. Sanctions such as fines, loss of contract and return to the public sector are the usual consequences for breach of contract. Due to the severity of these sanctions, private sectors respect contracts, ensuring accountability to the state. Genders (2002) argues that existing contractual policy is effective in maintaining a higher level of accountability within the private sector compared to the public sector. In order to monitor privatized prisons regarding their performance, contractual arrangements and accountability, Liebling and Crewe (2012) highlight that in every privatized prison there is a state-appointed monitor. However, due to the fact that it is physically impossible to monitor every area of ​​the prison at all times, some circumstances may allow discretion when public prisons must make choiceswithout state support. Therefore, it can be argued that accountability is discredited. Private and public prisons are regulated within the same legal framework "The Prisons Act 1952", so we must recognize that both are held to the same legal obligations. Furthermore, it can be appreciated that private sectors running prisons are held accountable through evaluation and numerous other mechanisms. However, there is a question of how effective these mechanisms are. Morality According to Pollock (1994), "what is good is determined by the consequences of the action." Ergo, (Shichor, 1998, p. 83) states that the concept behind prison privatization is that if prisons are built more quickly and penal costs decreased, "then the public will be served well." However, prison privatization has encountered multiple objections to its moral legitimacy (Burkhardt, 2014). Many critics dispute that incarceration is the government's sole responsibility and should not be left to the private sector. Other critics argue that private prisons will be scrutinized and viewed differently than public prisons, resulting in individuals having little respect for the legal system. To argue further, it has been said that the profit motive is incongruous with justice. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Conclusion The fundamental basis for the argument against privatization is that punishment is, and should remain, a duty of the state; this is particularly relevant when considering imprisonment as punishment since it involves the deprivation of liberty. Supporters of state control would argue that the private sector is ill-suited to fulfill this role and that the very act of taking these tasks away from the state is immoral. This argument of immorality is further extended when one considers the fact that profit is made from the operation of private prisons; the general consensus among critics of privatization is that these private companies are "morally repugnant", as they earn profits in accordance with the pain inflicted in the form of punishment. These critical moral arguments build a strong argument against privatization on the basis that it is unethical to profit from a role that is inherently and fundamentally about providing a public service. Bibliography Burkhardt, B., 2014. Private Prisons in Public Discourse: Measure Moral Legitimacy. Sociological Focus, 47(4), pp.279-298.Garland, D. (2001) The culture of control: crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University PressGenders, E. (2002). Legitimacy, responsibility and private prisons. Punishment & Society, 4(3), 285-303.Harding, R., 1997. Private Prisons and Public Accountability. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Hirsley, Michael. 1985. “Tennessee tempted by prison plan.” Chicago Tribune, November 17, p. 3Hodge, G. A. (2000) Privatization: an international performance review. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Hough, J., Allen, R., & Padel, U. (2006). Reshaping probation and prisons. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. pp. 69-73James, A. L, A. K. Bottomley, A. Liebling and E. Clare (1997), Privatizing Prisons: Rhetoric and Reality, Sage: LondonJewkes, Y and Bennett, J (2008). Dictionary of prisons and punishments. Devon: Willan PublishingKettl, D. (2000) The Global Public Management Revolution: A Report on the Transformation of Governance, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Kettl, Donald F. and Louis Winnick. 1995. “Privatize City Jails? Here's the problem." New York Times, August 22, p. 15Liebling, A and Crewe, B (2012). Chapter 30: Prison life, penal power and effects. 213–240.