The private prisons more often are penalized more

The most fundamental flaw in privatizing prisons is that the element of social welfare promotion is compromised and profit and/or revenue maximization takes place as the primary objective of the service provider. Prisons are made not only for the idea of social isolation but also for correction and rehabilitation of prisoners; but when run by private corporations who are accountable to shareholders and promoters. This often results in cost cutting which leads to compromise of security of both inmates and society, increased number of incarcerations and unfair conviction of innocents for torts at most which are criminalized by the system. How effective a prison is at rehabilitating inmates is the major important aspect of its quality. Because of unavailability of data of privately operated prisons, a comparison between public and private prisons can not be drawn, however Mississippi’s Walnut Grove correctional center is used for comparison. Mississippi Department of Corrections data shows that inmates that leave Mississippi government prisons commit crimes again at approximately the same frequency as inmates in private facilities. However those imprisoned in private prisons more often are penalized more severely and serve a longer prison sentence. Another metric for measuring to what extent a prison reduces the likelihood of recidivism is by scrutinizing the programs targeted at improving a prisoner’s chances at rehabilitation and acquiring the ability to be socially inclusive, for example inmate job training. The graph depicts the the availability of job training programs for every 100 prisoners for all Mississippi prisons. Private prisons are better than public facilities if just the ratios are compared. But there are demographics of inmates differ between individual prisons, and differences between prisons amongst sectors are more profound than the inter-sector differences. This comparison does not distinguish between composition of prisoner populations in consideration with prison ownership. As inmates in private prisons are mostly in for petty crimes and non serious offences, they are more likely to benefit from job training and are also a lot less dangerous. Private prison populations also include high ratios of women, children and juveniles making them more suitable and easier to conduct training. The idea that availability of training opportunities leads to employment is also flawed; the capacity itself is seldom equal to enrolment. Despite prison contracts requiring minimum levels of inmate enrolment into programs, prisons face enforcement execution issues therefore minimum requirements and the desired results_of_improved_prisoner_reentry_are met. Not taken into account for effectiveness of training programs is the frequency of shutdowns due to understaffing and inmate violence; for instance in the recently-closed Walnut Grove, prisoners could not participate in skill enhancement programs. Hence the capacity of ┬áprograms depicted is an overestimation of availability Walnut Grove’s inmate training.