For-profit prisons in the United States should be banned.
In this debate, will be argued "For-profit prisons in the United States should be banned." I being Pro, my opponent being Con.
As Pro, I will be convincing you as to why U.S prisons should be banned.
Banned: To prohibit (an action) or forbid the use of (something), especially by official decree.
Prison: A place for the confinement and punishment of persons convicted of crimes, especially felonies.
The BoP is shared.
Round 1 : Acceptance/Argument
Round 2: Rebuttal's and Argument's
Round 3: Rebuttal's and Argument's
Round 4: Conclusion.
I wish my opponent good luck!
Prison facilities run by private prison corporations whose services and beds are contracted out by state governments or the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
or can be defined as
"A private prison or for-profit prison is a place in which individuals are physically confined or interned by a third party that is contracted by a government agency. Private prison companies typically enter into contractual agreements with governments that commit prisoners and then pay a per diem or monthly rate for each prisoner in the facility. The privatization of prisons refers both to the takeover of existing public facilities as well as the building and operation of new and additional prisons by for-profit companies."
The main problem with profit and non-profit prisons are : One of the main differences between publicly run and privately run prisons in the U.S. is the level of violence that occurs. Taking a look at the four privately run prisons in the state of Mississippi as an example, the assault rate was three times higher than that of state-run prisons.
In this 1st argument will be that "Private prisoner's have to much freedom, thus causing more violence"
Private Prisoner's have allot more freedom then a regular prison in a non private prison.
Here are just a few examples:
The ACLU recently filed a lawsuit against the East Mississippi Correctional Facility (EMCF), a privately run prison, on behalf of the inmates. According to this lawsuit, the number of abuses include rampant rapes, prisoners placed in poorly supervised solitary confinement for months at a time, stabbings, beatings, and other acts of violence occurring on a regular basis (whether the guards are involved or turning a blind eye).
In a non- profit prisons, there is much more protections, such as video camera's and having security guard's on each level patrolling and keeping an eye out for the inmates making sure peace is maintained. While in a regular prison, there is much more security. There are 4 types of securities. Maximum Security, Close Security, Medium Security and Minimum security. As you can tell there is much more protection in a non-profit.
Another example: Juveniles are put in cells with adults, where they are oftentimes sexually (or otherwise) assaulted. Malnourishment and chronic hunger are also reported as facts of life at the EMCF. At least one mentally ill prisoner was maced so severely that after the officers finally went in to his cell (after waiting nearly 20 minutes), he was taken to the hospital and pronounced dead. Yet medical staff still continued to document his status in their daily records as being in 'good health and mood' for several days after his death.
Now, prison's aren't suppose to be a happy go-lucky place, but you should be able to have you're medical conditions taken care of and you're safety should be put in perspective. This is why we have a Juvenile hall, to put kids whom are under the age of 18 in. It's very unsafe to put them with adult's whom have committed worse crimes then they have, then these kids get taken advantage of. This is a huge violation to the 4th amendment when it states that "No person shall be deprived of life" which in this case, inmates are being deprived by non having their illnesses' taken care of.
I will not expand anymore on this, I think you get the point.
I look forward to con's argument!
Thanks to Lee01 for some great points!
A few issues, though. Firstly, Pro should hold the BoP, since this is a policy debate; but I can't really dispute that, now that I've accepted. Secondly my opponents use of sources and their format is questionable. Typically, one should assign a source number and refer to each number as you back a particular point, rather than lumping all the sources at the end. This leaves me, and the voters, confused as to what points she has actually backed up. I'll lay off the sources for this round, so my opponent has chance to rectify this structure.
Essentially, my opponent raises a single argument - that there is more violence in private prisons, due to the freedoms afforded to the prisoners. She raises a two cases in which abuses have occurred in private prisons, but this does not actually support her premise. She needs to provide objective proof that private prisons have greater levels of violence than state prisons, and also that this occurs because they are private.
She then goes on to assert that Juveniles are put in cells with adults, which is unjust. I concede this. It's not really relevant.
C1: Private prisons should not be banned because P1: they save the government money and P2: they prevent overcrowding.
P1: Cost Savings
When barriers to entry and regulations are removed, competition and enterprise drive innovations and promote market efficiency. This market efficiency is not found within state prisons because there is a lack of competition, and thus here exists no incentive to innovate. This is not just speculation, a 2007 analysis of state prison management concluded that there have been "widespread problems and deficiencies in many public prisons." 
This laissez-faire model was also affirmed by a 2002 report which analysed 28 studies noted that: "Following along the lines of the capitalist model of competition previously suggested as a benefit of private prisons, show that the introduction of privatization urges managers (both from public and private facilities) to implement cost-effective strategies while maintaining quality of services to remain competitive," and finally concluded "privatization saves money without reducing quality." 
P2: Overcrowding Solution
SP1: Overcrowding is a problem
In recent years, due to the American obsession with incarceration, prison populations that skyrocketed, and the US has one of the world's largest. Because of this, a number of overcrowding incidents have occurred in state prisons, often resulting in early release.  In California, a group prisoners actually sued a state prison, claiming that overcrowding was preventing them from receiving adequate health care and thus violating their rights. 
SP2: Private prisons can solve it
Building state prison facilities is a slow and bureaucratic process involving lots of needless paperwork. It's undeniable that private prisons can be used sensibly to alleviate stresses and demand on state prisons, even if one is principally against using an entirely privatised system.
Even with the BoP as shared, banning aprivate prisons is a tough burden to fill, and Pro certainly has not done it yet, my opponents contentions being largely unsupported. I've provided convincing evidence that supports premises crucial to the debate. Private prisons can be effectively employed as the tool of an effective government in order to limit overcrowding and other cost issues pertinent to incarceration.
Thank you for your well written response.
Before I begin my argument and rebuttal's I must inform you of something first : Con say's that "Typically, one should assign a source number and refer to each number as you back a particular point, rather than lumping all the sources at the end" Technically it's not a requirement to number your sources, but I'll do as you wish.
Rebuttals: P1: Cost Savings
Con in this round dosen't specifically speficy as to how a "private prison" is cost effective. So I'm unsure as how to rebutt this but i'll try.
Con states that: "Following along the lines of the capitalist model of competition previously suggested as a benefit of private prisons, show that the introduction of privatization urges managers (both from public and private facilities) to implement cost-effective strategies while maintaining quality of services to remain competitive,"
This is infact, not true. It has been proven multiple times that "private prisions" do cost much more then a public prison. Let's use the Airizona public prison for example. Instead of saving money, they are actually loosing money. It cost's " $3.5 million a year — by turning their inmates over to for-profit corporations."  "According to the Tucson Citizen’s analysis of Arizona’s three oldest private prison contracts, the rate to hold one prisoner for one night has increased 13.9% since the contracts were awarded. Compared to the cost of state-run prisons, Arizona overpaid for its private prison beds by $10 million between 2008 and 2010." As you can see, keeping an inmate in a private prison has increased by 13.9% and overpaid prison bed's by $10 million. This is way much more then an actual public prision would cost and spend. ""the state's own data indicate that inmates in private prisons can cost as much as $1,600 more per year, while many cost about the same as they do in state-run prisons." As you can see, private prisons dont save any money.
Rebuttals: P2: Overcrowding Solution
State Prisons may have been overcrowded, but what prison isn't with the amout of inmate's we have in the U.S. Private prisons are not only just "overcrowded" but they are infact far more dangerous. They also have way to much freedom.
Con states: "Building state prison facilities is a slow and bureaucratic process involving lots of needless paperwork. It's undeniable that private prisons can be used sensibly to alleviate stresses and demand on state prisons, even if one is principally against using an entirely privatised system.  " According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the quantity of state and federal prisons increased by almost ten percent, primarily because of the increase in private prisons. In 2008, nearly eight percent of all prisoners were housed in private prisons, according to the bureau. Utilizing private prisons may seem like a panacea for the struggling U.S. prison system, but the evidence shows that the risks outweigh any potential benefits." As you read, not is there just overcrowding in the provate prison's, but there is great risk's in building theese private prisions. They hardly have any room for more inmates, just like a regualr state runned prison.
New argument: Violence, Abuse and Death
Like I said in R1, a prison isn't suppose to be fun, you are there to learn a lesson and pay your time. This dosen't give ANYONE the right though to abuse the prisoner's, it's no-one's job.  "When comparing for-profit prisons with public, a nationwide study found that assaults on guards by inmates were 49 percent more frequent in private prisons than in government-run prisons." It's no-one's right to abuse theese prisoner's. If a guard or someone has something against them, then they shouldn't be wroking on the same floor as them, it's not only common knowledge, but you're violationg their right's as human's as well.
Not only is there abuse and violence, but many death's take place by the lack of supervison.
Jury Awards Over $40 Million to Family of Inmate Killed in Beating –  "Gregorio De La Rosa, an honorably discharged former National Guardsman, was serving a six-month sentence for drug possession at a prison in Raymondville, Texas operated by GEO Group (then known as Wackenhut). The details of the case are laid out in a damning 2009 Court of Appeals ruling that upheld most of a $40 million dollar jury verdict against the company and Warden David Forrest. See ruling here (PDF). A few days before his expected release in 2001, Gregorio was beaten to death by two other inmates using a lock tied to a sock, an incident that prompted officers and wardens to smirk and laugh, as well as allegations of a cover-up and destruction of evidence. After the Court of Appeals ruling, the case was settled for an undisclosed amount."
That isn't the ony case but here are more. *Note that all of theese cases are from the same source.
*GEO Settles Suit with Family of a Woman who Committed Suicide after Reporting Rape
*State of Texas Fines Company $625,000 and Terminates $12 Million Contract for Mismanagement of Jail; 12 Employees Charged with Sexual Assault
*Widespread Abuse and Sexual Assault at GEO-Operated Juvenile Prison Results in "Groundbreaking" Settlement and Consent Decree
Conclusion: Private prisons are not only very expensive and dangerous, but allot of cruel things go on, not my just the inmates but by the worker's as well. How is this okay?
Likewise. Sorry about this late reply, I'm currently in Switzerland and only briefly able to connect to the Internet.
Although it's not a requirement to even use sources, if one wishes to construct coherent contentions you'll find it useful to format sources in a more organised way.
P1: Cost Savings
In my constructive case, I developed an well-founded argument that explained why and how private prisons save money. I initially referred to a simple lassiez-faire framework and cited a comprehensive analysis of the costs in private and state prisons. Pro essentially drops all this and refers only to an analysis of a single state. This is not representative of the other private prison systems in America. The situation in Arizona actually backs up my second argument: private prisons as an overcrowding solution. Arizona faced a serious overcrowding dilemma back in 2003, and this problem was resolved by building of a number of private prisons alongside state ones.
P2: Overcrowding Solution
In Pro's source, the bureau concedes that most of these, aside from the Tennessee study contained: "serious methodlogical flaws that limit their ability to reach firm conclusions." That analysis didn't conclude anything of worth, given these flaws. She then goes on to argue that since only 8% of prisoners are housed in private prisons, they are not making an impact on the overcrowding issue. This does not make any sense: this means ~128,000 prisoners are not clogging up state prisons. Pro declares that prisoners have more freedom in private prisons, and this is bad. There is no evidence for this. But even adopting this premise we come to the same conclusion: the resolution is negated if I can construct a situation in which private prisons are useful, or better than state prisons, since the government is not forced into contracting private prisons, they may choose not to use them. For more minor offenses it is important to ensure sufficient freedoms to prisoners, or unhealthy resentment will occur, so a state might see fit to contract private prisons for minor offenses.
Violence, Abuse and Death
Most of Pro's argument is not relevant, as they refer to individual cases whilst we are analysing a trend/causal link. The remaining section refers to the Bureau analysis, which actually doesn't even mention this 49% figure, never mind comment on it's credibility.
Most of Pro's argument has relied on the assumed premise of a false dichotomy (we either ban private prisons, or all prisons will be private and we will experience their disadvantages) I have referred to a number of instances where private prisons excel (costs, overcrowding, etc) and their is little reason private prisons should be banned. I'm not advocating an entirely privatised prison system, but a moderated mixture of state and private prisons in order to assist the problems within America's justice system.
Rebuttal: P1: Cost Savings
Con says that "In my constructive case, I developed an well-founded argument that explained why and how private prisons save money. I initially referred to a simple lassiez-faire framework and cited a comprehensive analysis of the costs in private and state prisons. Pro essentially drops all this and refers only to an analysis of a single state" I didnt necasarrily deny nor ignore the "lassiez-faire " I simply went around it, but focusing on one state and using that as an example. I used Airizona for example. I created a whole case as to why Private Prisons are a waste of money, and why they are bad at handeling money. If you would like to read more here: http://www.thenation.com...
Rebuttal: P2: Overcrowding Solution
Then Con goes on to say that "Pro declares that prisoners have more freedom in private prisons, and this is bad. There is no evidence for this." When I'm pretty sure that I did give an example of as to how to much freedom causes troubble and why it's bad:
So explain to me how this isn't bad?
Rebuttal Violence, Abuse and Death
"Individual Cases"? Exactly, what was I suppose to do, make a story up about all the different cases. I had to focus on one at a time so people could understand each case. You are right, I did also refer to a link so if people wanted to read more about the case they could.
Conclusion: Note that all Con wants to do is complain as to how or why my point's are "irrelevant" in his eyes, he never fully rebutts them and gives reasoning's as to why or how I am right or wrong, yet he basically judges the sentence, but dosen't tell me as to why it's irrelevant.
P1: "I simply went around it, but focusing on one state and using that as an example. I used [sic] Airizona for example."
This is exactly the issue. My studies reported cost savings within private prisons, relative to state prisons, through analysing a substantial sample. You reported a single instance where cost savings did not occur, but this does not successfully refute my contention that private prisons save the state money.
P2: I apologise for misunderstanding your argument, I had thought 'freedom', in this context, was referring to luxuries and time afforded to prisoners. If freedom is just how easy it is to escape there still isn't any evidence that substantiates your contention that private prisons actually have more 'freedom'. Your source shows all prison escapes regardless of whether they were housed in a state or private prison.
R1: I told you exactly why most of your sources are irrelevant - they refer to individual cases whilst we are analysing a trend/causal link for a policy debate. To support your contention, you should have cited the conclusions made from a comprehensive analysis regarding violence in state and private prisons.
Conclusion: My first contention lies unrefuted and has been well-supported. My second contention has been largely ignored whilst Pro's claims have been weakly supported and not actually representive of real data. Pro has not very little to show that private prisons should be banned, whereas I have shown several instances, situations and qualities where private prisons are resolutely superior. Vote Con!
Thanks for the debate Pro!
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|