Today cases on murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault and workplace violence are among the major crimes cases that hit the news headlines almost everyday. Crime rate is highly increasing robbing off the potential of youths in U. S. Courts have recorded a plethora of crime cases that have still not been assigned a hearing date. Prisons are overcrowded straining the mandate and resources of the federal officials and state governments, as the cost of keeping an inmate in prison is approximately USD20, 000 per year (Gaes et al. , 2004).
Tax payers have held campaigns indicating their resistance to increase of tax and revenue collected by the government to help construct new prison facilities because they are overtaxed. Annually, the government uses approximately USD18 billion from public coffers to be able to manage the correction facilities which is not adequate owing to the growing rate of the prison population (Gaes et al. , 2004). Overcrowding and the emergency of Reagan era lead to the growth of private correction facilities.
The Reagan era reduced the social spending of government and federal officials by decreasing the tax paid by the U. S. citizens, to improve the economic competitive nature of the private sector. This introduced economic freedom to the private sectors and improved the living standards of most middle class U. S. citizens. His era has left a mark into the lives of many U. S. citizens especially those operating their businesses in the private sector. The success of the private sector can be attributed to the market benefit it has achieved due to its expansion.
Private prison facilities have been reported to grow rapidly making a gross profit of more than USD1 billion annually (FDCBRDA, 1998). The private correction facilities also help the government to effectively provide safety, justice and legitimacy to the society (Douglas et al. , 1998). In 1984 the United States Immigration and Naturalization Services contracted the first private prison facility that was managed by Corrections Corporation of America in Hamilton County, Tennessee (Douglas et al. , 1998).
This initiative was later undertaken by the state when the United States Corrections Corporation signed a contract that legalized Commonwealth of Kentucky to operate a private correction facility in 1985 (Douglas et al. , 1998). The U. S. Marshals Service and the U. S. Bureau of Prisons also relied on the initiative to outsource individuals or organizations that had the ability of privatizing federal correction facilities in 1986 (Douglas et al. , 1998). Today most state governments are relying on private prison facilities in an attempt of sharing the cost incurred to managing prison facilities.
In fact over thirty two states have signed contracts with private organizations giving them the authority to establish private prison facilities (Douglas et al. , 1998). Statistics have shown that private correction facilities offer services that are of higher quality than the services offered by state prison facilities. This is because private prison facilities have managed to implement policies which help them to effectively manage the facilities at low costs. The taxpayers also contribute less money as revenue because of this initiative (Douglas et al. , 1998).