> It would be interesting if we genuinely tried prison as a reform institution. Stop the violence, stop the drugs, provide real meaningful work, and ... err.
Where is the money in that? Your "clientele" numbers might actually go down - less prisoners == less money.
The money explanation is phat, but there isn't much to it. The vast, vast majority of prisoners in the U.S. are housed in public prisons, which cost taxpayers tons of money. Moreover, the explosion in incarceration rate predates the use of private, for-profit prisons.
It's always convenient to lay the blame on some corporation, but the fact is that voters wanted long sentences and got them. They would rather spend large amounts of money keeping convicts locked up than have those people walking around in public.
Note the political change that happened in the 1990's. Prior to the 1990's, democrats talked a lot about prisoners rights. Republicans crucified them as "soft on crime" and countered with "victims rights" which was much more popular. As a result, today there is almost no difference between the two parties when it comes to the criminal justice system, except maybe when it comes to the death penalty. Being "soft on crime" is a political non-starter in the U.S.
Where is the money in that? Your "clientele" numbers might actually go down - less prisoners == less money.