They speak roughly once a week in a 15-minute phone call,
and speak for another 25 minutes on a video chat. Jones
says she’d travel to Texas to visit her son in person,
but Hays County Jail, where he is locked up, banned
visitations in November 2013. That happened shortly after
the county jail entered into a contract with Securus.
Since then, all family communication with inmates at Hays
County goes through Securus, which charges Jones about
$10 for a phone call and about $8 for a video visit.
Apparently a large amount of those fees are paid back to the prisons via "commissions", so it's basically governments auctioning off the right to take advantage of prisoners and their families.
I don't think they should be trusted to run anything that constitutes a public service, be it prisons, transport, utilities, health and education.
'For-profit' is the MO of private companies. Service takes a very distant position at the back.
The CCOA even lists marijuana legalization as a potential risk factor that could impact their future financial targets:
> Our ability to secure new contracts to develop and manage correctional and detention facilities depends on many factors outside our control. Our growth is generally dependent upon our ability to obtain new contracts to develop and manage new correctional and detention facilities. This possible growth depends on a number of factors we cannot control, including crime rates and sentencing patterns in various jurisdictions and acceptance of privatization. The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. Legislation has been proposed in numerous jurisdictions that could lower minimum sentences for some non-violent crimes and make more inmates eligible for early release based on good behavior. Also, sentencing alternatives under consideration could put some offenders on probation with electronic monitoring who would otherwise be incarcerated. Similarly, reductions in crime rates could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070985/0000950144060...
But there are different organizational issues. Companies can keep more of their operating details private. This makes it harder for the public to investigate a privately run prison than a publicly run prison.
Private jails also add an extra level of finger-pointing, which makes it hard to determine who is ultimately responsible for operational policies. In a locally run prison, it's easy to figure out who is responsible. But if the jail is run by a large company, then "it's policy" becomes a disturbingly frustrating answer, as any follow-up question will be answered with "take it up with corporate".
Some of these organization issues make it more difficult for a publicly run organization than a private on to achieve the same level of corruption.
This incentives the criminalization of non-violent acts which provide both financial and political advantages.