[mitchellst]

I think there's a meaningful distinction between "privatized prison" and "service provided to prison by private company." The trouble with privatized prisons is that the incentives are all wrong. (Those incentives being: cut costs, cut corners, minimize oversight/hide failures, increase number of inmates.)

On the other hand, privatizing some services makes sense, depending on how you structure the deal. Same reason your tech employer buys some software—you can supply some things at better quality for cheaper price by trading for them. The catch: don't establish a monopoly where the provider can set costs and pass costs directly to inmates.

For example, a lot of jails, especially smaller jails, have a private company run their medical care. The doctor doesn't bill for every visit, they negotiate a rate with the county. It's cheaper than the county employing a doctor directly. One doctor can serve many counties. (I know one who serves 8 plus a few juvenile detention centers.) And if the doctor or nurse quits, the company has enough scale they can make sure somebody else shows up for the next shift. "Privatized?" yes. But also way better than the alternative in practice.

[Tangurena2]

In most states, private prisons get guaranteed minimum occupancy rates in their contracts with the states. If, for some miracle, people stopped committing crimes, and no more got incarcerated, these prisons were guaranteed a minimum profit level.