LEGAL DEPARTMENT
NA T I ONAL PRISON
P ROJECT

ACLU
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

I

Damon T. Rininger
President and Chief Executive Officer
Corrections Corporation of America
10 Burton Rills Boulevard
Nashville, TN 37215
May 8, 2012

Re:

Invitation to public debate

Dear Mr. Rininger:
AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
PLEASE RESPOND TO
NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT
910 15TH STREET, NW
7TH FLOOR

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, we invite you to participate in a
public debate on the merits of prison privatization. The debate would last ninety minutes
and would occur at a mutually agreeable time and public venue. The ACLU and CCA
would be given equal time. You would represent CCA at the debate, and David Shapiro,
Staff Attorney, ACLU National Prison Project, would represent the ACLU.

WASHINGTON, DC 20005-2112

T/'021934930
F/2 11934931
WWW.ACLU ORG
DAVID C FATHI
DIRECTOR
ATTORNEY AT LAW'

In recent months, CCA has repeatedly criticized the views of the ACLU regarding
for-profit incarceration. If you truly believe that private prisons are right for our country, we
see no reason why you would be unwilling to defend that position in a public debate. As
John Milton wrote, "Let [truth] and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse,
in a free and open encounter?"

NATIONAL OFFICE
12" BROAD STREET, 18TH FL

We believe the following:

NEW YORK, NY 10004 - 2400

T/212549.2500
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS

•

Evidence that for-profit prisons save taxpayer money is mixed at best, and
privatization cannot fix the nation's binge spending on incarceration. Indeed, the
industry's business model depends on extracting as much public money as possible
by locking upthe maximum number of people.

•

Private prisons have incentives to maximize profits by cutting comers at the expense
of decent conditions and public safety. Empirical research supports the view that
private prisons pay correctional officers lower wages, resulting in higher turnover
and less experienced staff.

•

New prisons, whether public or private, deliver few benefits to local communities. A
2010 study by researchers at Washington State University and Ohio State University
examined data on "all existing and new prisons in the United States since 1960,"
reporting findings that "cast doubt on claims that prison building is worth the
investment for struggling rural communities.")

SUSAN N HERMAN
PRESIDENT

ANTHONY D ROMERO
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

ROBERT B REMAR
TREASURER
'NOT ADMITTED IN DC,
PRACTICE LIMITED TO
FEDERAL COURTS

We would welcome the opportunity to defend our views on for-profit incarceration
in a public debate-one that also gives you a full and fair opportunity to express your views.
) Gregory Rooks et ai., Revisiting the Impact of Prison Building on Job Growth: Education,
Incarceration, and County-Level Employment, 1976-2004, 91 SOCIAL SCIENCE Q. 228, 240
(2010).

CCA's recent public criticisms of the ACLU and others make clear that you disagree with
many of our views on privatized incarceration. 2 Your criticism, however, has taken the form
of written statements which, unlike a public debate, do not allow for refutation or further
discussion. For example:
•

CCA told National Public Radio in a written statement that an ACLU report on
private prisons "does not enter the realm of credible discussion" and described the
report as "an exceedingly thin, old mix of dated news, willful bias and unfounded
opinion. It's being advanced by a familiar cast of industry critics and is blind to our
industry's many benefits." Who Benefits When A Private Prison Comes To Town?,
NAT'L. PUB. RADIO, Nov. 5, 2011. If our views are indeed thin, biased, and poorly
supported, a public debate offers CCA a unique opportunity to discredit them.

•

In a written statement given to the Austin American Statesman, CCA
described the ACLU report as "utterly blind or purposefully silent to an
extensive and credible body of evidence that demonstrates the positive
impact of partnership corrections." Mike Ward, Updated: CCA Disputes
ACLU Prisons Report, AUSTIN AMERICAN STATESMAN, Nov . 4, 2011. A
public debate would enable CCA to put forth the "extensive and credible
body of evidence" alluded to in this statement.

•

In response to an ACLU Op-Ed in the Palm Beach Post, CCA wrote a letter
to the editor, which stated, "privatization in the corrections industry has a
track record of taxpayer savings .... We provide safe and secure facilities
and meaningful rehabilitation programs."
Steve Owen, Corrections
Corporation of America Has J6-Year Success Rate in State, PALM BEACH
POST, Feb. 17,2012. The proposed debate would provide an opportunity to
examine the evidence regarding both savings to taxpayers and the quality of
private facilities.

•

When a broad coalition of sixty groups, including the ACLU, churches,
unions, and policy organizations, wrote to governors opposing a CCA
initiative to buy prisons from state governments, CCA responded with a
written statement: "We ... believe that our efforts to offer solutions that
work should be analyzed fairly and objectively without inflammatory
political rhetoric." Jonathan Meador, ACLU, Presbyterians Protest Prison
Privatization, NASHVILLE SCENE, Mar. 1, 2012. We agree that facts and
analysis are more important than rhetoric, especially when it comes to
corrections systems that incarcerate ever more people at ever greater
taxpayer expense. That is why we seek to engage with you in an in-depth
debate that will allow for a careful analysis of competing claims.

AMER I CAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION

CCA's attacks against the ACLU appear to be part of a broader effort to silence criticism of
private prisons. After New York Times columnist Paul Krugman criticized CCA in March,
the corporation sent him a letter demanding a correction. Krugman instead wrote a followup piece noting CCA's failure to identify any error: "A word about this sort of thing: anyone
who steps on the toes of either corporate interests or major conservative institutions (which
are often more or less the same thing) has to expect to run into a buzzsaw. The purpose of
that buzzsaw is not so much to get specific corrections as to intimidate-to deter the
journalist and his or her colleagues from going there again." Paul Krugman, Attack of the
Prison People, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 27, 2012.
2

2

We believe that the taxpayers who fin ance private prisons; the families whose
mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters are incarcerated in these facilities; and the communities
where for-profit prisons are situated deserve more than sound bites. They deserve a full,
fair, and public examination of for-profit incarceration.
We look forward to your response and hope you will
do not hesitate to contact us at the following email address:

David C. Fathi
Director
AMER I CAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION

Q]ri~roject _+------David M. Shapiro
Staff Attorney
National Prison Project

3