PURPOSE. THE COURT BASED THAT CONCLUSION ON SEVERAL FACTORS: PRISONS ARE STATE INSTITUTIONS MAINTAINED BY THE STATE; THE PUBLIC, THROUGH TAXATION, SUPPORTS PRISONS; AND PRISONS ARE INDISPENSABLE TO STATE GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE PENAL LAWS. BECAUSE OF THESE "PUBLIC" CHARACTERISTICS OF PENAL INSTITUTIONS AND BECAUSE THE COURT BELIEVED THAT EMPLOYMENT FOR INMATES IN THOSE PRISONS WAS NECESSARY, THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT CONTRACTS MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING EMPLOYMENT FOR PRISONERS WERE FORMED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES. THE COURT EXPLAINED THAT THE FACT THAT SUCH EMPLOYMENT MAY PRODUCE A MARKETABLE PRODUCT WHICH COMPETES WITH THE FREE MARKET DOES NOT TRANSFORM THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF SUCH CONTRACTS INTO A PRIVATE PURPOSE. IT FOLLOWS THEN, THAT THE FACT THAT SOME CONTRACTS MAY PROVIDE FOR INMATE SERVICES WHICH COMPETE WITH SERVICES PROVIDED ON THE FREE MARKET DOES NOT MAKE THE PURPOSE OF THOSE CONTRACTS A PRIVATE ONE.
BASED ON THE RICE COURT'S ANALYSIS, CONTRACTS FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING INMATES WITH EMPLOYMENT ARE FORMED FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE. SUCH CONTRACTS, THEN, ARE SANCTIONED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE STATE.