Who really controls the justice system in America? Free Essay Example

Is it the courts, judges and lawyers, or perhaps politicians with the radical laws that they pass? When the covers are pulled back, and the individuals who pull the strings get exposed, the answer may surprise a lot of people. In new millennium America, private prisons have become a big business. The days of inmates being rehabilitated and reintegrated into society are gone. In place is a justice system where people are sent to prison for petty non-violent crimes, all to boost the profits of private corporations.

The private prison industry is no longer about rehabilitation, but about controlling prison policy and the criminal justice system to boost profits for large prison corporations.

The very existence of private for-profit prisons creates a justice system centered on sending people to prison (Ashton, 2011). When prisons are operated for profit, these corporations are then in need of prisoners to generate that profit. This causes the ingredients for corruption, since prisons are no longer about rehabilitation, but about boosting profits for corporations.

If private prison institutions do not have inmates, their profits will dwindle. This forces these companies to orchestrate agreements that guarantee them prisoners. For example, in 2011, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) was able to secure a deal with the state of Ohio. In this deal, the state of Ohio agreed to sell state prisons to Corrections Corporation of America. Part of their contract included the state providing the company with a constant supply of inmates. The state of Ohio agreed to a mandate that would keep the private prison, now wholly owned by Corrections Corporation of America, 90% full at all times (Johnson, 2012).

The decision to send an individual to prison should be made because the individual has committed a serious crime and needs rehabilitation, not to fulfill a quota set forth by a mandate.

Unfortunately, this is just one example of the business deals between state governments and private corporations that are becoming more common. These types of deals put state governments in a position which requires them to keep private prisons 90% full. So how can the state governments promise to keep these prisons at 90% occupancy? One way to keep these prisons full is to send individuals to prison for lesser crimes. Analyzing the incarceration trends of the past is one way to understand this concept. In 1972, the prison population was around 330,000 individuals (King, 2005). {Since 1972, the number of people incarcerated has increased 5-fold without a comparable decrease in crime or drug use} From 1925 to 1972, the incarceration rates were relatively flat (Prison, 2012). Over the past 30 years, the incarceration rate skyrocketed to 2.2 million Americans (King, 2005). The results directly correlate to the privatization of prisons, which started in the early 1980’s (Correction, 2012). After examining these results, it is clear that the privatization of prisons has caused the incarceration rate to increase dramatically. State policy and law makers are under tense scrutiny by private prison corporations to keep prison sentences as long and tough as possible to satisfy the 90% occupancy mandates. These types of mandates create unjust sentencing practices. For example, there was a case in Maryland where a gentleman was sentenced to 30 years in prison for passing bad checks (30-year, 2007). Sentences carrying this severity should be reserved for murders and rapists, not people who pass bad checks. It’s criminal that state judges must take such extreme measures to keep prisons at 90% occupancy.

As more prisons become either privately managed or privately owned, the industry has turned into a pay-to-play business. The company that donates the most in campaign contributions will be rewarded with big government contracts (Krugman, 2012). Conduct of this sort should be illegal. The reason this type of quid pro quo is not illegal is the government officials who in act policy and laws are the same individuals who accept “campaign contributions” and sell state prisons to private corporations. As stated earlier, in September 2011, Ohio became the first state to sell a state prison to a private company (Corrections Corporations of America) (Johnson, 2012). However, no one questioned that just 9 months earlier, the governor of Ohio John Kasich, had appointed Gary Mohr to director of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation. The reason this is significant is because prior to the appointment, Gary Mohr was the managing director for Corrections Corporations of America (Spinelli, 2011). As the director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation, one of the first measures Mr. Mohr helped implement was the sale of Ohio state prisons to his old company, Corrections Corporations of America. The mission of all publicly traded companies is to boost profits for their shareholders. So, if Mr. Mohr is a shareholder for Corrections Corporations of America, in essence, he constructed a deal where he would sell Ohio state prisons to himself. This is an example of the blatant quid-pro-quo that goes on between the private prison industry and the government.

Unfortunately, this is not the only example of unethical behavior that goes on behind the scenes with private prison corporations and the government. Corruption is not limited to campaign contributions for favors or to government officials selling themselves state property. Sometimes laws are disregarded or completely broken during these “back office” deals. In Pennsylvania, the corruption was so blatant two judges were actually convicted for their role in a scandal that became known as “kids for cash”, and sentenced to prison for 17 and 28 years (Pa. judge, 2011).

The scandal started with Judge Michael Conahan brokering a deal between himself, Judge Mark Ciavarella, Robert Powell, the owner and co-developer of a private detention center, and Robert Powell’s co-developer and builder, Robert Mericle (Urbina, 2009). The agreement was for the judges to sentence juveniles to Powell’s detention center in exchange for kickbacks disguised as rent payments for a condominium in Florida (Janoski, 2011). Judge Conahan, who was the president judge and had complete control of the court house budget, agreed to pay $1.3 million in annual rent (to Robert Powell), on top of the tens of millions of dollars that the county and the state would pay to house the delinquent juveniles (Urbina, 2009, p. 1). Judge Conahan also eliminated all of the competition when he closed the county-owned detention centers, giving Powell a monopoly on the juvenile detention centers in the county (Urbina 2009). Once the deals were set in place, the judges had to hold up their end of the bargain by convicting and sending juveniles to Powell’s detention center.

Judge Mark Ciavarella wasted no time sending juveniles to the private detention center for extremely petty crimes (Pa. Judge, 2011). Judge Ciavarella would sentence juveniles to detention centers at twice the average rate of the state. If a juvenile showed up in a courtroom facing Judge Ciavarella, chances were the juvenile was would be convicted and sentenced to spend time in a detention center. For example, when Hillary Transue appeared in front of Judge Ciavarella, she was a regular teenage girl who had never been in trouble. Her crime was making a spoof MySpace page that made fun of the vice principle at her high school. Judge Ciavarella’s words to the teenaged girl were, “what makes you think you can do this kind of crap?” The judge then sentenced the teenage girl to 3 months in his buddy’s detention center (Rose, 2011 p. 1). If making fun of a high school vice principal is worth 3 months in a detention center, then some entire high school populations belong locked up. This is exactly why private prisons and private detention centers do not equate to fair justice. When a profit is being made off the justice system, sentencing is no longer for rehabilitation, but about making money and boosting profits for corporations.

The biggest argument for private prisons is they reduce cost for taxpayers and improve efficiency. It is difficult to believe that these companies are able to reduce cost while generating billions in profit at the same time. There must be something else going on here. According to a review conducted by the Department of Corrections in Arizona, they concluded that private prisons offer no cost savings over state prisons. The review also determined in some instances, private prisons actually cost more per inmate than state prisons (Walker, 2012). This determination was made despite the practice of private prisons handpicking inmates to ensure they have prisoners that cost the least amount of money to house. Private prisons will not take prisoners who have special needs or medical problems, since that will drive their cost up (Oppel, 2011). As a result, even with ways for private prisons to tilt cost savings in their favor, they are still unable to prove they are offering any real savings to the government. However, politicians around the country still manage to bamboozle the public into believing that private prisons magically reduce cost for taxpayers.

Private prison corporations should be made illegal. It should be the government’s responsibility to house inmates that are deemed a threat to society, not some private company that is trying to make a profit for housing inmates. However, this may never change. As long as private prison companies are making billions of dollars, they will have the money to continue to influence policy in their favor. The American public is being tricked into believing prisons are here to keep them safe from criminals. Private prisons are here to make a profit. No one feels safer that a guy in Maryland received 30 years in prison for passing bad checks. If the government really wants to cut cost, close all private prisons and focus on locking up individuals who really belong in prison, and stop trying to help friends of government officials make a buck.