Skip navigation
Calls 4 Home

Articles by Lucas Anderson

Kicking the National Habit: The Legal and Policy Arguments for Abolishing Private Prison Contracts

By Lucas Anderson *

I. Introduction
II. Background
A. Historical Perspectives and the Growth of the Private Prison Industry
B. The Debate over Prison Privatization
III. Prison Administration Is an Inherently Governmental Function
A. Due Process Requirements and the Nondelegation Doctrine Forbid Private Prison Administration
B. The Office of Management and Budget A-76 Circular and the Federal Acquisition Regulation Prohibit Delegation of “Inherently Governmental Functions:”
C. Delegating Prison Administration Is a Poor Policy Choice
IV. The Profit Motive Detrimentally Impacts Inmate Care, Rehabilitation, and Criminal Sentencing Policy
A. Cost-Cutting Measures Lead to Decreased Quality of Care
B. The Profit Motive Imposes Severe Social and Economic Costs
1. Harsh Criminal Laws Benefit the Private Prison Industry
2. Harsh Criminal Laws Do Not Reduce Crime Rates or Benefit Society
3. Effective Rehabilitation Programs Decrease Recidivisim Rates, Impacting Private Prison Companies’ Revenue
C. The Purported Short-Term Economic Benefits of Prison Privatization Are Offset by Long-Term Economic Costs
V. Statutory Prohibitions on Private Prison Contracts
A. Particularized Contract Terms and Aggressive Monitoring Programs Are Inviable Alternative Solutions
B. Current Legislative Prohibitions on Government Contracts with Private Prison Corporations
VI. Conclusion

Appendix [Note: The appendix is available in the .pdf version of this article on PLN ...


Federal Prison Handbook



Prisoners Self Help Litigation Manual