Inside Private Prisons

Eisen, Lauren-Brooke

doi:10.7312/eise17970

Cited by 28 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The historical and comparative nature of this analysis contributes to literature on the evolution of monetary sanctions as revenue (Beckett and Harris 2011; Harris 2016; K. D. Martin 2018), on pay-to-stay fees (Eisen 2014, 2015, 2017; Gipson and Pierce 1996; Levingston 2007; Plunkett 2013), and on reimbursement lawsuits against prisoners to recoup these fees (see Friedman, Fernandes, and Kirk 2019; Fernandes, Friedman, and Kirk 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Pays for the Welfare State? Austerity Politics and the Origin of Pay-to-Stay Fees as Revenue Generation

Kirk

Fernandes

Friedman

2020

Sociological Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a comparative historical analysis of legislative transcripts and primary and secondary historical documents in Illinois and Michigan, we trace the adoption of a largely understudied form of monetary sanction: pay-to-stay fees. Pay-to-stay fees are financial commitments imposed by the state on incarcerated individuals for the day-to-day cost of their incarceration. Our study identified two mutually constitutive bureaucratic motivations for the adoption of these fees—austerity as the primary rationale and deservingness as a secondary rationale. This analysis highlights an earlier conceptualization of monetary sanctions as a means of revenue generation than has previously been explored. Our findings suggest that pay-to-stay fees originated in these states from broader debates about who is ultimately fiscally responsible for the welfare state and the soaring costs of maintaining the rehabilitative ideal. During periods of fiscal crisis, state legislators have consistently looked toward this type of monetary sanction as a means to fund the correctional system.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Pays for the Welfare State? Austerity Politics and the Origin of Pay-to-Stay Fees as Revenue Generation

Kirk

Fernandes

Friedman

2020

Sociological Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The result is a commodification of traditional government functions with a dehumanizing effect on detained persons, which has already been a considerable concern in the criminal justice context (Taylor-Grover et al 2012; Cummings, Pond, and Lamparello 2016). As public policy goals lose sway to economic interests, vulnerable human beings are treated as commodities traded for profit (Eisen 2018, 46–7). Private prison companies bid to house migrants, and the government then pays for the migrants’ care and custody at a price that profits the company mightily.…”

Section: The Problem Of Economic Inequality and Immigration Detentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Privately run facilities have a profit motive for cutting costs on food, health care, and staffing to maximize profit, and they are sometimes able to avoid accountability because of their private for-profit nature (MRS/USCCB and CMS 2015, 185–6). Unfortunately, though, publicly run detention centers, particularly those run by local sheriff’s offices, also regularly fail to ensure proper health, food, and sanitation conditions (Hamilton 2017; Eisen 2018, 177).…”

Section: The Influence Of Private For-profit Prisons On the Us Immigrmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Immigration Detention, Inc.

Gilman

Romero²

2018

Journal on Migration and Human Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article addresses the influence of economic inequality on immigration detention. The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detains roughly 350,000 migrants each year and maintains more than 30,000 beds each day. This massive detention system raises issues of economic power and powerlessness. This article connects, for the first time, the influence of economic inequality on system-wide immigration detention policy as well as on individual detention decisions. The article begins with a description of the systemic impact that for-profit prisons have had on the federal immigration detention system, by promoting wide-scale detention. The resulting expansion of detention has led to ever-increasing profitability for the private for-profit prison sector, which allows the companies to exercise even more influence over policymakers to achieve yet higher levels of detention. The influence of wealthy private prison corporations also affects the very nature of immigration detention, leading to the use of jail-like facilities that are the product offered by the private prison industry. The article then describes the mechanisms by which economic inequality dictates the likelihood and length of detention in individual cases. The detention or release decisions made by DHS in individual cases must account for the need to keep numerous detention beds full to satisfy the contracts made with powerful private prison companies. DHS regularly sets bond amounts at levels that are not correlated to flight risk or danger, but rather to the length of time that the individual must be held in detention to keep the available space full. The article presents data, obtained from immigration authorities, regarding detention and bond patterns at a specific detention center that demonstrate this point. The research finds an inverse relationship between the number of newly arriving immigrants in the detention center and the bond amounts set by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). During times when new arrivals were few, the amount required to be released from detention on bond was high; during times when there were many new arrivals, bond amounts were reduced or set at zero. The article also presents another way in which economic inequality affects the likelihood of detention at the individual level. Release and detention are largely controlled through the use of monetary bond requirements, which must be paid in full. The regular use of financial bonds as the exclusive mechanism for release means that those migrants who are most able to pay are most likely to be released, without regard to their likelihood of absconding or endangering the community. Wealth thus determines detention rather than an individualized determination of the necessity of depriving an individual of liberty. The article urges that the role of economic inequality in immigration detention raises troubling issues of democratic governance and the commodification of traditional governmental functions. The current system also leads to an unjustifiable redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. Looking at immigration detention through the lens of economic inequality offers new lines of theoretical inquiry into immigration detention. It connects the discussion of immigration detention to scholarly critiques of for-profit prisons and the privatization of state security functions more generally. It also brings a new perspective to prior work in the immigration and criminal justice contexts, questioning the fairness and utility of requiring payment of monetary bonds to obtain liberty from detention. The article concludes with recommendations for reform. These reforms would help to sideline the influence of economic inequality in immigration detention decision making.

show abstract

“…Another area that has received considerable attention centers on the ethics of privatizing prisons. Published accounts focus on arguments about whether it is ethical for profit to be made from the administration of punishment (e.g., Eisen, 2017; Sparks & Gacek, 2019). A frequent critique is that profit incentives contribute to net-widening.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simplifying Reality: The Media’s Portrayal of the Private Prison Debate

Montes

Mears

Gricius

et al. 2020

Crime & Delinquency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the media gives considerable attention to prison privatization, there have been few assessments of how newspapers portray the debate about it and how that portrayal aligns with what is known empirically about private prisons. This study addresses this gap in the literature by undertaking a content analysis of newspaper articles ( N = 131) about private prisons and private Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, respectively. The results show that few news stories discuss the broad range of factors that scholars highlight as important aspects of the privatization debate. It is also uncommon for news reports, especially those that discuss private immigration facilities, to refer to empirical research or its importance. The implications of this limited portrayal of private facilities are discussed.

show abstract

Inside Private Prisons

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

Who Pays for the Welfare State? Austerity Politics and the Origin of Pay-to-Stay Fees as Revenue Generation

Who Pays for the Welfare State? Austerity Politics and the Origin of Pay-to-Stay Fees as Revenue Generation

Immigration Detention, Inc.

Simplifying Reality: The Media’s Portrayal of the Private Prison Debate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About