[MUSIC]

So why are we using it?

>> Well that's a good question.

Because the industry has repeatedly shown that it does not necessarily save money,

it's an enormous body of research on that.

The only studies and reports that have found that private prisons save money,

are their government contractors are studies and

reports that have been funded by private prisons companies or their allies.

A much larger body of research conducted by government agencies, auditors,

non-profit organizations and

so on, has found either the cost savings are inconclusive at best.

Or in some cases, that private prisons actually cost more once you factor in all

the applicable issues involved, both long term and short term cost.

So this as well as another body of research that have found that private

prisoners do not have an equivalent quality of service,

that is they have a higher rates of violence.

A number of studies, including some recent ones,

have found that private prisons have higher recidivism rates.

That is, prisoners released from privately operated facilities are more likely to

come back to prison, than those released from public prisons.

So certainly it's a valid question, you look at these issues as research,

the black and

white, information on paper about private prisons going back over 30 years.

And it's my gosh, why do we continue to use them?

And the short answer is because private prisons have something

that government agencies want so badly, that they will continue to contract

with private prison companies regardless of whether they cost more or less.

Or whether they have better or worse quality of service, regardless

of the history of the companies, and the numerous problems that have resulted.

And what these product prison companies have?

This economic incentive is bed space.

They still have the bed space that our government agencies

desperately want and need.

So they can continue to lock up more people than we physically have room

to incarcerate in public prisons and jails.

Now the reason that they want this bed space so

desperately is because the alternative to them is even worse.

And the alternative is since sentencing reform, parole reform,

alternatives to incarceration, reducing our nation's prison population.

All of which is generally deemed to be soft on crime.

And the people making the decisions as to who we're locking up or

how long and for what reasons are politicians, and

politicians do not want to be seen as soft on crime.

On their watch they do not want to be tied

to people being released from prison early, from reducing prison populations,

that endangers criminals out on the street.

This goes back to the Willy Horton mentality, years and years,

decades ago, which is still around.

No politician has lost an election by being tough on crime,

politicians have lost elections by being perceived as soft on crime.

>> Could you just remind us about the Willie Horton commercial and

a bit of the background there for some who don't remember?

>> Some of the players escape me, you might have to help me.

>> It was George W Bush.

>> Was it Dukakis?

>> The father and it was Dukakis.

>> It was Dukakis, all right, so the presidential election.

80s year, yeah, around there.

And there was an attack ad put out by Bush's campaign that

sharply criticized Dukakis for releasing convicted murderers on furlough which had

actually been going on for a number of years without incident or without problem.

But one of these convicted prisoners released on furlough,

Willie Horton, who was black, broke in,

kidnapped a white couple and raped the woman and abused them both.

And it was a terrible crime.

And so the ad was putting the big picture of the dangerous black

criminal on the screen and blaming Dukakis basically.

It was race-baiting and

it was painting him as being soft on crime and coddling prisoners or criminals.

And this is attributed in many cases to potentially him losing the election,

you know, losing the Presidential election.

>> So the important political lesson there was if you're soft on crime,

you will pay a political price.

>> Absolutely.

And that message was taken to heart,

I think, by pretty much every politician in the nation, from there until today.

And even today, no politician wants to be perceived as soft on crime.

So back in the 90s and 2000s,

we actually had lawmakers competing to who could be tougher on crime.

It's not just lock them for 10 years, let's lock them up for 20 years.

Well, 20 years sounds too lenient, let's lock them up for life and so on.

So there's where you had the laws like three strikes and you're out, and

other similar legislation that kind of swept the nation.

And a very much more punitive mindset.

And today, still these alternatives to reduce our prison population

in our country, to find alternatives to incarceration of which there are many.

To maybe move substance abusers into treatment programs rather than just

put them in prison or jail.

To funnel mentally ill offenders

into mental health treatment instead of incarceration.

These notions are still painted as being soft on crime.

And so when politicians look at this politically unpalatable approach

of doing these alternative things for sentencing reform or for role reform,

letting more people out and so on.

The alternative is, well we don't have to do any of that.

All we have to do is contract to private prison companies.

And take all of our excess prisoners that we can't house in our state prisons, for

example, put them in private prisons.

So, for over 30 years, I think the worst aspect of the private prison industry

is that it has stymied criminal justice reform.

Because instead of dealing with those hard issues of sentencing reform, and my god,

we are locking too many people up for

reasons that don't really make a lot of sense.

Politicians or lawmakers or policy makers never had to answer those hard questions,

they simply contracted private prison companies.

Then, and still today.

[MUSIC]

Alex Friedmann: “Why Private Prisons? The Politics of Punishment”

Justice, Mercy and Mass Incarceration

Rencontrer les enseignants