An unprecedented 'no' to private enterprise

There are some things that can not be privatized. At least that is what the Supreme Court ruled yesterday in a case that sets an international precedent. An exceptional nine-judge panel headed by Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch - and in an eight-to-one decision, too, with the sole dissenter agreeing in principle - the court ruled the law allowing private prisons was unconstitutional.

Many countries have dealt with the matter of private prisons: Britain, the United States and France all have privately-run lock-ups. No other country has yet to rule such prisons unconstitutional, but then again no other country has held such a deep constitutional inquiry into the question. Until now.

Beinisch's opinion is now the fundamental basis of the question of where the balance between economic efficiency and human rights lies. After a far-reaching philosophical inquiry, her answer is clear: "Economic efficiency is not a supreme value, when we are dealing with basic and important rights for which the state has responsibility."

Israel tried to adopt a middle-of-the-road model for private prisons, with private company guards watched by state supervisors. But even such a moderate model is unacceptable to the Supreme Court. Beinisch wrote that imprisonment is the harshest blow to the right to freedom, and it is forbidden to grant such power to a private body.

Even worse, a prisoner in a for-profit prison is there to make someone money. Beinisch feels imprisonment for profit is a basic denial of such rights, and the forfeiting of such rights can only be required for appropriate and proportional causes.

Beinisch state clearly that saving money through privatization is not proportional as it involves a serious infringement on the prisoner's human rights.

And what about the contractor? The state will most likely have to pay compensation, but the court did not deal with this side of the issue.