Prisoners of privatization

The High Court of Justice's reluctance to deal with the petition against privatizing prisons is liable to transform the issue into a theoretical debate. The privatization law has already passed and construction of the private prison is almost finished. The details of the tender that Lev Leviev won with amazing speed in November 2005, were kept "confidential for security reasons" and published only after a petition submitted by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.

The tender does promise close supervision on the part of the state, but it is a well-known fact that such supervision is limited in most countries. Israelis still remember the wretched oversight of the Bar Lev Line of military fortifications, and had it not been for the media, the state would never have discovered the abuse of elderly patients in private hospitals for the mentally ill.

The reliance on "supervision" by the state sounds a bit ridiculous coming from the mouths of those who heatedly claim that the state is incapable of administering anything. But this is just one of the many absurd claims that they raise.

The situation in the prisons is horrifying: Not exactly. Israeli prisons are not far worse than prisons in the West. The harsh reports that have been published recently deal with holding cells, which are fall under the aegis of the courts. (Let's hope they won't call for the privatization of the courts). The Tsalmon Prison in the North proves that proper investment and a professional approach improve the situation of the prisoners and train the vast majority of them for a life of work and good citizenship.

Public services are unproductive, private services are efficient: Not always. The waiting list for a telephone has grown shorter and various services have been streamlined. This said, the banks exact inflated fees, competition between health maintenance organizations benefits those with money and works against those without and non-profit welfare organizations pay their directors inflated salaries.

The Housing Ministry is inefficient and outdated - but it doesn't leave thousands of tenants without a roof over their heads and flee to Italy like Boaz Yona, the CEO of the Hefzibah construction company.

Prison privatization has been successful abroad: Not really. New Zealand has changed its mind. Decision makers in England concluded that the model failed. Human-rights organizations and politicians in the U.S. are fighting to reduce the influence of the lobby of the prison franchises, which are raking in profits of $3 billion annually and are promoting draconian legislation to allow work practices that exploit prisoners.

The French and German model is only partial: the privatization of services, from the construction of prisons to laundry and catering. Public relations people in Israel have distributed pictures of a spacious prison with a view and flowers in the windowsill. They forgot to note that it is a public prison and it is in Sweden.

Privatization will save money: Not for certain. The cost of the tender to the state is estimated so far at NIS 250 million - indeed a low sum. But studies commissioned on behalf of the U.S. Justice Department, as far back as 1998, have shown there is no proof that privatization saves money. Suits for damages filed by the families of prisoners and dealing with suppressing revolts and escapes have cost the state far more than what was planned.

As in the U.S., here, too, the main savings will be in manpower. Instead of skilled Prison Service personnel who have a contractual commitment to the state, prison guards with little experience will be hired at a high turnover.

An example of this is the Reihan crossing point, which is causing the Palestinians wax nostalgic for the Israel Defense Forces; the State Comptroller's Office recently embarked on an investigation of the security company because of prima facie financial irregularities.

The petition to the High Court of Justice argues far more than all of the above: According to the petitioners, the Prison Privatization Law is contrary to The Basic Law on the Government, the amendment of which requires a special majority of 61 Knesset members, because it damages the government's standing as the executive body of the state. This question of principle is the heart of the matter. Depositing the authority to punish in the hands of a private organization that operates in the name of profit is immoral, just like depositing the authority to restrict a person's freedom of movement at a barrier or the authority over a patient at an institution for the mentally ill in the hands of a private organization.

The question of the state's sovereignty, not the profits or losses from one act of privatization or another, is now before the High Court of Justice. The time has come for the justices to decide what their position is.