A Blow to Privatization in Israel (and Perhaps Beyond)
Is there something inherently wrong with entrusting a private company
to run a prison? Might this even be unconstitutional? As far as I'm
aware, no court in Europe or the United States has entertained this
question. When and if one does, there will now be a precedent to cite:
a potentially historic 8-1 ruling just handed down by the Supreme Court
in Israel that overturned a 2004 Knesset amendment permitting the
establishment of such prisons.
In an opinion rightly hailed as a "bombshell" in Haaretz,
Israeli Supreme Court President Dorit Benisch did not deny that
privatizing prisons might potentially save money. She simply determined
that incarceration infringes on such fundamental liberties that only
the state should carry out this function, not least since the
alternative is to turn prisoners into a means of extracting profit.
"Economic efficiency is not a supreme value, when we are dealing with
basic and important rights for which the state has responsibility,"
ruled Benisch.
The ruling is not without its ironies, among them the fact that Israel
doesn't actually have a written constitution, only a set of Basic Laws
that are supposed to serve as a guideline for legal rulings. There is
also the fact that, as Yonatan Preminger noted in this fine article in the magazine Challenge
a year ago, the conditions in Israel's state-run prisons have often
been abysmal, with prisoners and security detainees (mainly
Palestinians) crowded into cramped, squalid cells bereft of adequate
beds and toilet facilities.
But the proper way to improve conditions in squalid prisons is to
expose the shortcomings and demand that the state address them, not to
contract out responsibility to for-profit companies that will then be
responsible for authorizing whether adequate bedding might hurt the
bottom-line. For several decades, the ideologues (and special
interests) singing the virtues of privatization have gone largely
unchallenged. It's about time this changed, and that the terms of
debate shift from what is efficient to what is right and permissible.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Is there something inherently wrong with entrusting a private company
to run a prison? Might this even be unconstitutional? As far as I'm
aware, no court in Europe or the United States has entertained this
question. When and if one does, there will now be a precedent to cite:
a potentially historic 8-1 ruling just handed down by the Supreme Court
in Israel that overturned a 2004 Knesset amendment permitting the
establishment of such prisons.
In an opinion rightly hailed as a "bombshell" in Haaretz,
Israeli Supreme Court President Dorit Benisch did not deny that
privatizing prisons might potentially save money. She simply determined
that incarceration infringes on such fundamental liberties that only
the state should carry out this function, not least since the
alternative is to turn prisoners into a means of extracting profit.
"Economic efficiency is not a supreme value, when we are dealing with
basic and important rights for which the state has responsibility,"
ruled Benisch.
The ruling is not without its ironies, among them the fact that Israel
doesn't actually have a written constitution, only a set of Basic Laws
that are supposed to serve as a guideline for legal rulings. There is
also the fact that, as Yonatan Preminger noted in this fine article in the magazine Challenge
a year ago, the conditions in Israel's state-run prisons have often
been abysmal, with prisoners and security detainees (mainly
Palestinians) crowded into cramped, squalid cells bereft of adequate
beds and toilet facilities.
But the proper way to improve conditions in squalid prisons is to
expose the shortcomings and demand that the state address them, not to
contract out responsibility to for-profit companies that will then be
responsible for authorizing whether adequate bedding might hurt the
bottom-line. For several decades, the ideologues (and special
interests) singing the virtues of privatization have gone largely
unchallenged. It's about time this changed, and that the terms of
debate shift from what is efficient to what is right and permissible.
Is there something inherently wrong with entrusting a private company
to run a prison? Might this even be unconstitutional? As far as I'm
aware, no court in Europe or the United States has entertained this
question. When and if one does, there will now be a precedent to cite:
a potentially historic 8-1 ruling just handed down by the Supreme Court
in Israel that overturned a 2004 Knesset amendment permitting the
establishment of such prisons.
In an opinion rightly hailed as a "bombshell" in Haaretz,
Israeli Supreme Court President Dorit Benisch did not deny that
privatizing prisons might potentially save money. She simply determined
that incarceration infringes on such fundamental liberties that only
the state should carry out this function, not least since the
alternative is to turn prisoners into a means of extracting profit.
"Economic efficiency is not a supreme value, when we are dealing with
basic and important rights for which the state has responsibility,"
ruled Benisch.
The ruling is not without its ironies, among them the fact that Israel
doesn't actually have a written constitution, only a set of Basic Laws
that are supposed to serve as a guideline for legal rulings. There is
also the fact that, as Yonatan Preminger noted in this fine article in the magazine Challenge
a year ago, the conditions in Israel's state-run prisons have often
been abysmal, with prisoners and security detainees (mainly
Palestinians) crowded into cramped, squalid cells bereft of adequate
beds and toilet facilities.
But the proper way to improve conditions in squalid prisons is to
expose the shortcomings and demand that the state address them, not to
contract out responsibility to for-profit companies that will then be
responsible for authorizing whether adequate bedding might hurt the
bottom-line. For several decades, the ideologues (and special
interests) singing the virtues of privatization have gone largely
unchallenged. It's about time this changed, and that the terms of
debate shift from what is efficient to what is right and permissible.