Privatizing Punishment: Testing Theories of Public Support for Private Prison and Immigration Detention Facilities

Abstract

The transfer of authority over the supervision of inmate populations from state and federal governments to private corporations is one of the most significant contemporary developments in the criminal justice system. Yet, the controversy surrounding the private prison industry has occurred in U.S. criminal justice policy circles without any understanding of the public's preferences toward these institutions. In this article, we test several theories that potentially explain opinions toward privatizing carceral institutions: the racial animus, business is better, conflict of interest, and problem-escalation models. These models are tested with original data from the 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. The data show that opinions toward the privatization of carceral institutions do not neatly fall along partisan or ideological divisions but are explained by beliefs about racial resentment, corporate ethics, and the potential ability of private companies to provide services cheaper than the public sphere. The results hold important implications for how we understand the future of private carceral institutions in the United States.

The politics of correctional privatization in the United States

“…In recent work, researchers asked a nationally representative sample of American adults about their level of support for private “operation of prisons.” More respondents opposed private operation of prisons (41%) than supported it (36%; Enns & Ramirez, ). The same scholars found greater opposition to private “detention of illegal immigrants,” with 51% opposed and only 28% in support (Enns & Ramirez, ). This latter finding speaks to a disconnect between public sentiment and public policy.…”

“…Among the general public, there is some evidence that support for privatization of corrections is partially guided by partisan identity. Self‐reported Republicans are more likely than unaffiliated or independent citizens to endorse prison privatization, net of other factors (Enns & Ramirez, ). No partisan difference exists, however, when it comes to endorsing private immigrant detention centers.…”

“…But they may also have other concerns. For example, recent research findings have indicated that citizens are less likely to support prison privatization when they believe that corporations prioritize profits over the public interest or that government contracting produces higher costs (Enns & Ramirez, ). Further public opinion research on private corrections is necessary to understand better public reluctance to high‐risk privatization.…”

Public opinion and correctional privatization

“…Although “the more plausible explanations for the decision to privatize revolve around political and ideological factors such as the overall political and ideological culture of the state” (Price & Riccucci, , p. 232, emphasis added), public opinion on privatization is far less likely to depend on political ideological cultures and more likely to be “explained by beliefs about racial resentment, corporate ethics, and the potential ability of private companies to provide services cheaper than the public sphere” (Enns & Ramirez, , p. 546). There are also significant differences in both punitiveness and support for prison privatization on the basis of gender and race.…”

“…The only comprehensive study of public opinion about privatization of prisons was conducted by Enns and Ramirez () in which they offered a series of theories to explain variation in public support for privatizing prisons and immigration detention facilities and then tested those theories using data from the 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. Enns and Ramirez () contended that variation in public support for private prisons might best be explained through the lens of one of four theories that have been used to explain public opinion in other criminal justice relevant contexts. Three of those theses—the racial animus, the business is better, the problem escalation—were proposed as potential explanations of support for privatization, whereas the conflict of interest theses was offered as an explanation for opposition.…”