March 22, 2007
Corporate Responsibility and Private Prisons for Infants
Posted by Seth Chandler

Today's Houston Chronicle contains an editorial supporting closure of the federal Hutto Detention Center located in my home state. The medium security facility, run by Corrections Corporation of America imprisons infants and children who have done no wrong themselves, but whose parents have pending political asylum applications or are subject to deportation. As confirmed by The Chronicle and documented more fully elsewhere, the children are treated essentially as one would treat serious criminals, locked in their small cells much of the day, compelled to wear prison navy uniforms -- even in size one -- not permitted to own toys, and given minimal schooling and recreation. Apparently, during even a mild Texas December, the children were not allowed outside even once. Although it may be that some parents prefer this arrangement to those in which the kids are sent to some sort of foster care pending resolution of their legal cases, these parents were not given that choice.

I will add my voices to those who find this sort of imprisonment of children who have done no wrong and who are not demonstrated to be a threat to anyone to be an absolute disgrace to our government. It is also, as The Houston Chronicle has also reported, at odds with the way we treat at least some children who themselves have entered the United States and who have deportation pending. We do not need to lavish resources on those who have entered unlawfully, or perhaps even on those who are merely alleged to have entered unlawfully, but fostering these children (no panacea, to be sure) may well be cheaper anyway than incarcerating them. Regardless, however, the United States is wealthy enough that it can afford a lot better treatment than Hutto of innocent infants.

The issue I want to raise on this business-oriented blog, however, is what responsibility a private corporation, CCA, bears in this situation. To be sure, running prisons is not a business designed to win friends. It's a dirty business and I'm grateful in most instances that there are people willing to do it. I don't even have a particular problem in privatizing corrections. But surely there comes a point at which a private corporation has to say no. Hutto, in my view, goes way across the line. If the government doesn't shut it down or vastly improve conditions there, the shareholders of Hutto should insist that their management rapidly get out of a profoundly immoral activity that, amongst the least of its consequences, it not likely to improve that company's long run profitability.

| Bookmark

TrackBacks (0)

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Links to weblogs that reference Corporate Responsibility and Private Prisons for Infants:

Comments (3)

1. Posted by Pete on March 24, 2007 @ 8:17 | Permalink

CCA runs the facility as ordered and outlined by the US goverment as conditional to their contact. Any changes would have to be made by the goverment and not CCA. The children issues should be spelled out in policy and procedure by the goverment and followed by CCA. It may sound cruel, but thats the way its done. I feel for the people affected, and it will hurt CCA image's to continue along those lines.

2. Posted by Jane on March 25, 2007 @ 14:59 | Permalink

Pete, you're missing the point of the question posed by this post. It is not asking whether CCA simply ought to change conditions at the facility. It is whether there a point when the policy and procedures spelled out by the government ought to compel CCA to say "No more." Is there a point where the government contract requires CCA to engage in activities that are so morally reprehensible that it should decline the contract?

The government may be the one setting forth the policies and procedures, but CCA is responsible for carrying them out, and for that, the corporation and those who profit from the contract bear moral responsibility.

3. Posted by Pete on March 26, 2007 @ 6:48 | Permalink

Jane, your point is well taken and agreed with. But, and there is alway a but, If CCA does not follow the contract it will be held in violation of the terms of the contract. As ridicusil as it sounds, it happens. Its easy to say CCA should make the move, but thats not the way it works in the real world. I have seen CCA get hit with huge fines for failure to follow contract terms. Case is point, each inmate shall recieve 1 (one) roll of toilet tissue a week, thats the contract verbage, CCA gave as needed, result was a $15,000.00 fine for violation of terms of contract with ICE.

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Recent Comments
Popular Threads
Search The Glom
The Glom on Twitter
Archives by Topic
Archives by Date
January 2019
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Miscellaneous Links