You seem to have two thesis's about privatization of prisons. First, that they are inherently corrupt, and secondly, they don't do what they are sold to do: save money.
wait, you mean I can't have two reasons why I dislike this idea.
huh.. I didn't know that.
I don't know why privatization of prisons would be any more corrupt than than the privatization of any other service, or any State government purchase. It seems all of the same circumstances would apply whether the State is shopping for contractors for prisons, or contractor's for janitorial services. Or, for that matter, purchases, such as fleet vehicles. What is it about prisons that make their privatization more susceptible to corruption than any other good or service that the state purchases?
answered..
repeatedly already.
As far as saving money, I can easily believe that a state can either make a bad deal, choose a bad contractor, or have poor oversight, and end up spending more money for few services. I didn't discount your studies, but that's not the rule with privatization. Privatization has been going on at the state level for decades, and while every contract isn't a winner, overall it's performed well and has been a boon to the taxpayers. So is every contract a bad deal that hurts the taxpayers in your opinion or is this just an ideological thing?
obviously not every contract is a bad deal.. but when it comes to privatizing prisons, the majority of them are... and since it's not just money, but also humans we're talking about.. taking the risk just isn't worth what little, if any, reward.. since in some cases you're talking about a saving of only a few pennies per prisoner.. but with that saving you lost security and prisoner's escaped..
it's just not worth it.. for
many reasons..
