For-Profit Prisons should be Banned

There lies an obvious and fundamental conflict of interest in privately owned prison institutions. The private prisons reason that "it does not make sense to buy superior food, when one could obtain otherwise, for cheaper." Beyond this, why would a for-profit prison enterprise pay extensive rates for a high-end rehabilitation program when it would earn capital through higher recidivism rates? Therein is where a number of the differences lie. Dehumanization is occurring to the prisoners in private prisons; they are used as profit, and nothing beyond, which is a significant ethical dilemma. The last time that people were treated with objectification and used to earn a profit in the United States was the practice of African slavery, before the historical civil war took place. Here, I ask you now: Why are people treating inmates as slaves? Private prisons should be banned because of the dehumanization that they enact. Government-run prisons do not treat people in such inhumane conditions, and are preferable over their privately owned counterparts. My opponent stated, "Many prisoners get raped, beaten, and swallow sharp objects within the walls of government prisons." This may be true, but the vast majority of prisoners that are mistreated in ways to drive them to such extraneous measures are inmates in private prisons. There have been numerous reports of prisoners in private prisons, such as the CCA and the GEO prison corporations, that have "cut themselves and swallowed nails, batteries and shards from plastic eating utensils. ... [it has also been] found that inmates in 'therapeutic seclusion' were often locked in cells for extended periods without being let out for meals, recreation time or to shower" (Lisa Dawson). Inmates in private prisons are abused and mistreated far more than government-owned penitentiary institutions. Beyond that, he stated that "those who bring in the food to prisons also bring in ... unwanted things that they give to the prisoners, [including] maggots." However, he has not supplied any evidence to confirm or prove this. It appears that he used evidence that maggots have been brought to private prisons, to claim that for-profit prisons are superior over government prisons. It has been found that "food workers in Ohio's Marysville prison found a serving tray infested with larvae after a maggot was spotted on a turkey roll" (The Ohio Columbus Dispatch). It has also been reported that "Catering giant Aramark has once again been caught serving maggot-ridden food to prisoners." "Maggot infestations were found in Aramark food." "Maggots [have been found] in the food service areas [of Aramark-provided facilities]." "Maggots in food ... and reports of running out of foods are among new complaints [to prisoners in private facilities]." Aramark is the food provider exclusively to for-profit prisons (not to government-funded detention centers), as they can provide their low-quality food for low prices; however, the food that they present is under-quality and cannot meet the food standards that are mandatory to the most basic and essential human rights. This brings us once again to the ethical dilemma given through private prisons; capital is raised to private corporations at the expensive of people, which is immoral and unjust. He has also stated that prisons provide drugs to their prisoners. However, he failed to supply evidence proving this point. He also failed to address which variety of prisons (for-profit or government) supplied any of such narcotics. When inmates are placed in prisons for "drug-based crimes," that means that they are manufacturing, distributing, or possessing such substances. Giving an inmate drugs will not be similar to having "a guard put a gun in the hand" of a murderer who went to prison. These substances will not empower him to commit murder, unlike the simile given. To address my opponent's analogy about "Cheerios," it is true that one would generally opt to switch to the cheaper brand of breakfast cereal, if every aspect of it is "exactly the same." In the Round 1 cases, it has been stated that government prisons have been found to save larger amounts money than the private prisons save; this contention has yet to be refuted, and the argument remains standing that private prisons are more steeply priced. The fact stands that based on cost-analysis alone, public prisons are the highest beneficial choice. In every aspect mentioned, prisons belonging to the government have been found to be superior over for-profit prisons run by private institutions; the quality of such privately owned prisons have been found to be egregious, and inhumane. Thank you.