The Yes case was strongest where it insisted the state cannot outsource responsibility for taking away someone’s liberty. Its most-respected argument came from a voter “queasy with the idea that private companies can run prisons”, who wanted “no blurred lines” over accountability—even while conceding that private operators might be more efficient.
Other Yes voters cast profit itself as the problem: “Prisons are correctional facilities not for making profit.” Some warned that cutting costs could mean thinner staffing and poorer care; one argued the state should “own the problem and deal with it effectively”, rather than leave a third party to answer when things go wrong.
The most-respected No cases made a direct challenge to that reasoning: if a private operator can provide the same service more cheaply, “that option should be taken”. One voter who said they had worked in a contracted prison described a “clean, safe environment” and opportunities to work or study; others argued that governance and inspection, not ownership, determine standards. Yes voters countered with claims of corner-cutting and danger, but the debate did not settle which system delivers safer prisons.
That left the argument centred on a specifically difficult kind of public service: the state’s power to deprive people of liberty, and who should be answerable for how that power is exercised. Some No voters accepted the need for accountability while arguing for better purchasing or closely supervised private providers, rather than a single public model.
Yes won on the principle of who should hold responsibility; No kept alive the question of whether that settles who can run prisons well.
40 Opinions
An apprehensive 'yes', only because prisons should not be a business run for profit; however, running prisons needs some expertise so giving that to a government that can't run a country is questionable.
Prisons should not be run for profit, also with a lot of the stories of prisoners being released accidentally, clearly standards are not good. So renationalise them or make their contracts based on targets such as with the NHS. If they're failing they lose the contracts.
Prison shouldn't be allowed to be a profit making entity. That's not what it's for
This isn't about the money for me. It's just about the need for the justice system to be under one roof, with direct feedback and control linked to those with the power to rob us of our freedom. Accountability. No third party to blame. I realise I've made the opposite argument for the NHS using private treatment centres. But that's using excess capacity from a parallel marketplace. There is no BUPA for prisons.
Private companies rely on making large profits for their shareholders. If it was state run hopefully the staffing ratio would increase
State run, get the prisoners working and then the money made goes into paying for the prisons.
Prisons are correctional facilities not for making profit.
I agree that for once state is probably better than privately run prisons.
I don't agree that private prisons run for profit and with costs cut to the bone will deliver efficiency and savings and fairness and safety. Invest in the state system, and run it properly.
I believe in free markets but I am queasy with the idea that private companies can run prisons. For me the State cannot abrogate the responsibilities it has assumed & palm them off to save money. Prisons are already underfunded & not run well but whilst the private sector will be more efficient is it right they do the State’s dirty work. I think not. I want no blurred lines in holding the State to account for failings - no bucks waiting to be passed.