|
Emerald Corrections
March 4, 2008 Haaretz
The cost of incarceration at the private jail nearing completion in Be'er Sheva
will be at least 30% more than in a government facility. The figures are in
clear contradiction of the Finance Ministry's position, which stated that
operating a private jail would save the government 20% in the cost of prisoner
maintenance. The report is according to figures calculated recently by a senior
Israel Prison Services official. ALA Management and Operations, a subsidiary of
Lev Leviev's Africa Israel, won the government tender to run Israel's first
private prison, which is due to open in the coming year beside the existing
Be'er Sheva prison. The new prison is still awaiting a ruling from the High
Court of Justice. The main argument in the petition is that transferring a
prison to a private enterprise infringes on the sovereignty of the state. The
state is supposed to have a monopoly on the use of force and punishment, and the
petition alleges that a private facility contravenes the Basic Law on
Government. The petitioners further claim that privatization could lead to a
violation of a prisoner's rights, thus contravening the Basic Law on Human
Dignity and Liberty. The tender states that the treasury will pay ALA 220
shekels per day per inmate. But the calculation by the IPS official indicates
that, among other things, the per diem cost of the salaries of the 18 wardens
provided by IPS will increase inmate maintenance costs by NIS 15 a day. This
expense was not taken into account when the tender was signed. It also turns out
that the cost of keeping prisoners in an IPS facility has declined since the
original tender calculation was made, and now stands at NIS 155 per day - NIS 80
less than the daily cost at the private jail. "The treasury's calculation was
not based on a budgetary figure," responded a source at the Finance Ministry,
"but was rather made from the tender winner's perspective. Without agreeing to
the analysis presented here, it should be noted that the goal is not to save
money, but rather to improve conditions for the prison inmates." The state
refused to disclose the calculation used in the drafting of the tender, citing
commercial confidentiality.
January 1, 2008 Globes
Most of the Israeli public supports the privatization of government companies
and public services, including Israel Electric Corporation (IEC), the Israel
Airports Authority and the seaports, according to a survey by Maagar Mochot.
However, the public rejects the privatization of the Prisons Service, water and
sewage infrastructures, and the education and health services. The survey was
conducted ahead of today's debate sponsored by the Israel Democracy Institute on
private prisons. The survey found a clear correlation between people's level of
income and support for privatization. 70% of high income-earners support
privatization of IEC the Airports Authority, and the seaports, compared with
46-47% of persons earning less than the average national salary.
July 7, 2007 Haaretz
The Knesset will ask the High Court of Justice today to postpone by a year
its deliberations on a petition that seeks to annul a law allowing private
companies to operate prisons in Israel. The Knesset will seek to convince a
panel of nine justices that it intends to hold a public discussion on the
overall implications - economic, social and administrative - of the general
processes of privatization in the country. A petition was filed by the Ramat Gan
Law School, which argued that the license given to the billionaire Lev Leviev to
build and operate a private prison contravenes the Basic Law on Government. The
petitioners say the licensing gives a private firm clear powers of governance,
including the use of force and the denial of liberty. Leviev's prison is being
constructed near Be'er Sheva and is expected to receive inmates in June 2009. A
year ago the Knesset asked to participate as a respondent to the petition, and
asked to postpone the deliberations - which were scheduled to take place in late
August 2006. The justices accepted the Knesset's argument that two bills against
privatizing prisons, by MK Shelly Yachimovich (Labor) and Dov Hanin (Hadash),
were pending and it was necessary to allow the legislators to deliberate and
then vote. In late February, the state and the Knesset asked the court for yet
another delay, arguing that although the two bills were rejected in votes,
another bill was still pending. The situation was complicated by the fact that
MK Nadia Hilu and MK Michael Melchior, who had propsed the bill, withdrew after
the two previous bills were voted down. In mid-March, Knesset Speaker Dalia
Itzik called on the general public to present the Knesset with position papers
on the implications of privatizing prisons, which would be discussed during the
summer session. But the explanation filed by the Knesset legal counselor, Nurit
Elstein, to the High Court last week said that a discussion of dozens of
position papers sent to the Knesset has not been possible due to the
legislature's busy agenda in recent months. Elstein said the Knesset plans to
hold a series of discussions during its winter session that are expected to be
concluded by March 2008. "The Knesset request is not an innocent one," says
attorney Gilad Barnea, representing the petitioners. "Its purpose is to bring
the court in direct confrontation with the Knesset over the right to legislate
laws." Yachimovich added: "Each day that goes by bolsters Lev Leviev's hold on
the prison he owns and creates an irreversible situation in which the power to
jail, punish, supervise and rehabilitate are in the hands of tycoons."
August 31, 2006 Globes
The High Court of Justice today postponed a hearing on a petition filed by the
Academic College of Law, Ramat Gan against the government and Knesset to void a
law amending the prison ordinance to allow the establishment of a privately-run
prison. A seven-judge panel headed by Supreme Court President Judge Aharon Barak
ruled that in six months the government and Knesset will file supplementary
statements for the petition. The High Court of Justice said its decision has no
bearing on the content of the petition, “which raises serious legal problems.”
The decision was given following a discussion on whether there was room, as the
state and Knesset argue, for allowing public debate to be completed, and for the
Knesset to discuss the issue, before the High Court of Justice hearing and
ruling on the case.
July 16, 2006 Globes
A panel of nine High Court of Justice judges has rejected a petition by the
Academic College of Law, Ramat Gan and former Israel Prisons Commissioner Shlomo
Twiser for an injunction against the minister of finance and public security to
continue procedures for the construction of a private prison near Beersheva by
ALA Management and Operations Ltd. The High Court of Justice ruled that there
were no grounds for an injunction, and that a decision on the petition would be
given before the procedures for building the prison were completed, and before
sovereign authority was transferred to a private entity. The court therefore
ruled that no harm would be caused to the petitioners during the interim.
June 18, 2006 Jerusalem Post
An extended panel of seven High Court justices is due on Sunday to hear a
petition by the Ramat Gan Academic College for Law against legislation passed
two years ago allowing for the construction and operation of a privately owned
prison. Since the law was passed, the Prison Service awarded the franchise for
the first such prison to businessman Lev Levayev. Levayev signed a 25-year
contract with the state to build and run a prison to house 800 inmates. The
petition, filed by attorneys Gilad Barnea and Aviv Wasserman, head of the human
rights division of Ramat Gan College, charged that the law violated Paragraph 1
of the Basic Law: Government according to which "the government is the executive
authority of the State." According to their argument, while the government may
delegate some of its executive responsibilities to private agents, there are
certain "core" responsibilities which it must execute itself. Otherwise, it
loses its sovereign power. These responsibilities include enforcement of the
law, including the incarceration of lawbreakers. "Not only is corrections one of
the government's most basic responsibilities, it is probably the most sobering,"
they wrote, quoting from an article written by Prof. Joseph Field. "The ability
to deprive citizens of their freedom, force them to live behind bars and totally
regulate their lives is unlike any other power the government has. The
responsibility for corrections goes beyond issues of cost efficiency and touches
on whether a private company should be able to regulate the affairs of a citizen
deprived of his freedom." The petitioners pointed out that the law granted the
head of the privately owned prison widespread powers, including handcuffing
prisoners in public places, holding prisoners in isolation, search and
confiscation, prohibiting a prisoner from seeing his lawyer, control over the
prisoner's incoming and outgoing mail, disciplinary hearings, and the right to
use firearms when necessary. In its response, the state rejected the
petitioners' allegation that the law released the state from its responsibility
and maintained that it also gave it far-reaching supervisory powers. These
powers included the obligation to appoint a team of Prison Service officials
which was to be physically present in the prison 24 hours a day to oversee that
the owners fulfilled their duties. The state also rejected the constitutional
argument raised by the petitioners to the effect that the law prevented the
government from fulfilling its constitutional responsibility as the executive
authority of the state. It argued that according to Paragraph 33 (e) of the
Basic Law: Government, the government could delegate powers if a law
specifically said it could. The intellectual monthly, Eretz Aheret, devoted its
latest issue to the controversy over the establishment of a private prison in
the hopes of fanning a public discussion which, it alleged, had been almost
totally lacking over an issue it described as crucial. "This edition deals with
a range of journalistic and philosophical questions regarding the legislation to
establish a private prison," wrote the editor, Bambi Sheleg. "Who pushed the
project and why; why was such an important law passed in only three months from
the day it was brought before the Knesset Interior Committee; why weren't the
committee's deliberations covered by the media; why did many MKs vote for a law
without understanding its implications; why did the state refuse to publish the
terms of the public tender... "On June 18, the High Court... will determine a
fateful question. Has the state crossed permissible boundaries in passing a law
allowing a private prison? Did the Knesset not exceed its powers and cause
irreversible damage to Israeli sovereignty?"
June 18, 2006 Globes
The High Court of Justice today issued a show cause order instructing the
state to justify the legality of a private jail within 30 days. The High Court
of Justice issued the order following a petition to the court to void a law
allowing the construction of Israel’s first private jail near Beersheva. A
nine-judge panel will hear the case shortly after the government files its
response to the show cause order. The respondents in the petition are the
ministers of justice and finance. The High Court of Justice also ordered the
parties to file their comments on the petitioners’ request for an injunction to
halt further action on the tender for the private jail. The state must submit
its response within seven days, and the petitioners will then have seven days to
respond. The High Court of Justice will probably rule on whether to allow the
tender to go forward within two weeks. The High Court of Justice also ordered a
review of whether to bring in the Knesset to the discussion, and whether to add
the winner in the prison tender as another respondent to the petition. ALA
Management and Operations Ltd., a joint subsidiary of Africa-Israel Investments
Ltd. (TASE:AFIL; Pink Sheets:AFIVY) and Minrav Holdings Ltd. (TASE: MNRV)
subsidiary Minrav Engineering & Construction (1983) Ltd. won the tender to build
and operate the private jail. Under the tender, the jail will become operational
in three years. The company must allocate 5.2 sq.m. per convict, and the state
will pay the company $49 per convict per day. Academic College of Law, Ramat Gan
and former Israel Prisons Commissioner Shlomo Twiser filed the petition. They
claim that privatizing prisons transfers the state’s sovereign authority to a
private entity, operating out of the profit motive, which is liable to harm the
convicts’ rights. The petitioners’ fundamental claim is that the law permitting
the privatization of prisons contravenes the Basic Law: Human Dignity and
Liberty; and Basic Law: The Government, which bans the transfer of sovereign
authority (law enforcement) to a private entity.
April 30, 2006 Globes
Construction of Israel’s first privately operated prison is expected to
overcome its final obstacle is a few days. Africa-Israel Investments Ltd. (TASE:AFIL;
Pink Sheets:AFIVY) and Minrav Holdings Ltd. (TASE: MNRV), which won the tender
for the prison in November 2005, will have to wait until the High Court of
Justice hears an appeal against the prison filed by Ramat Gan College Human
Rights Department. If the High Court of Justice approves the private prison,
Africa-Israel chairman Lev Leviev and Minrav chairman Avraham Kuznitzky will
become the first individuals in Israel to operate a private prison in the
country. Under the terms of the tender, Africa-Israel and Minrav will build the
prison and operate it for 25 years, under the PFI (private finance initiative)
method. The state will pay the two companies for each prisoner during the
franchise period. The contract will be worth at least NIS 1.5 billion, while the
cost of building the prison is estimated at NIS 250 million. Africa-Israel and
Minrav are expected to make an annual return on investment of 6-10%.
Construction of the prison is scheduled to begin early this year, and end within
three years. Located south of Beersheva, the prison will house 800-1,000 low and
medium-security prisoners. Since this is the first tender of its kind in Israel,
implementation will be monitored, and, if successful, the government might
privatize another prison in northern Israel. The Ramat Gan College Human Rights
Department argues that privatizing prisons grants the franchisee clear governing
authority, including the use of force, including lethal force; restricting
freedom, including the use of solitary confinement; and restricting the privacy
of both prisoners and visitors. These authorities are the nucleus of the modern
state’s sovereignty and authority, and conceding them contravenes Israel’s Basic
Laws, which ban the transfer of prisoners from the state’s authority to a
private entity driven by the profit motive. The petitioners add that privatizing
prisons constitutes a fundamental breach in the legal barriers that prevent harm
to a democratic state’s sovereignty, a process that will begin with the
privatizing of prisons, but end with the privatizing of the police, judiciary,
and armed forces, thereby dealing a death blow to Israel’s constitutional
structure. The State Prosecutor’s Office argues that the privatization of a
prison is a statutory privatization that does not harm fundamental
constitutional rights.
March 1, 2006 Haaretz
The concept of transferring the establishment and management of prisons to a
private entrepreneur has arrived in Israel too. There is a bill on this issue,
and a first corporation, owned by real estate mogul Lev Leviev and others, is
already making an offer to the government to build a prison and run it for 25
years - a deal worth NIS 1.5 billion. The Finance Ministry, which is fanatically
insistent on privatizing everything that moves, is supportive, and the
initiative is making strides in the Internal Security Ministry as well. The
employees of the Israel Prison Service that will be harmed by the privatization
are the low-level workers - who constitute the majority of the employees - as
those who win the concession will prefer cheap and temporary workers. But the
ones who will express the prison service's position in talks dealing with the
questions of whether, how much, and how to privatize will not be the low-level
workers, but the senior leadership. These are the same people who expect to be
integrated into the new owners' business in fat administrative and consulting
positions, free of government salary ceilings, or else are planning to bid on
future tenders with their own companies. The first signs are already in the air:
Orit Adato, the former prison service commissioner, has been recruited as a
professional consultant to Leviev's incarceration corporation. Within the prison
service, quite a few senior officials support privatization, led by the head of
the prison service headquarters. However, privatizing imprisonment raises issues
that are still more fundamental than the conflict-of-interest problems of senior
prison service officials meddling in the privatization or the unstable future of
the low-level workers. Some of these fundamental issues appear in two petitions
that have been filed with the High Court of Justice recently against the
privatization of incarceration. One of the petitions was filed by the human
rights department of the Academic College of Law in Ramat Gan, and the second by
Physicians for Human Rights. The basic question the petitions raise is what the
"core powers" of the state are, which fundamentally cannot be transferred to
subcontractors. There is universal agreement about the existence of such powers.
The problem is that no nation has precisely defined what those powers include -
that is, what the limits of privatization are. And in every country in which the
subject of core powers has come up for fundamental judicial debate - of the kind
that is to be conducted shortly in the High Court - the judges have preferred
not to make a decision on the matter and to wait for the legislators.
Privatization is a process in which the state, which holds assets, resources and
powers as a trustee of the citizens, sells them into private hands. In cases
such as private education or private medicine, those who want to pay money for
them do so if they can afford it, and quality control is by means of demand:
When the service fails, the client votes with his feet, goes back to using the
government service or chooses another provider. Prisons, however, are run
differently. The prisoners are literally a captive clientele that might get the
service, but doesn't want it and certainly doesn't purchase or fund it. The true
client is the public at large, and the service it is requesting is not the
provision of shelter, food and clothing for criminals, but the distancing of
dangerous elements, punishment, education and rehabilitation. In contrast to
other arenas of privatization, the chain reaction of the clients when it comes
to incarceration - that is, the public - will be tangled, fragmented and
weakened. Who exactly will respond if it becomes clear that the prisons are
being run badly, that there is corruption, that the prisoners have a low level
of personal safety, or that the ability to keep them behind bars is hampered by
a constant attempt to minimize costs (such as by cutting down on the number of
wardens) and increase profit? When the entity financing a service and the entity
consuming it are different, who will the professionals - such as those in the
Internal Security Ministry, which is to supervise the entrepreneurs - represent?
These questions become sharper still in light of the tremendous range of new
potential ties between money and power that are being offered by the
privatization of incarceration. Israeli law-enforcement officials have shown in
the last few years that they are increasingly ready to follow in the footsteps
of countries, such as Denmark, that have cut down on imprisonment in cases such
as financial crimes, replacing it with deterrent fines and other punitive
methods that have been shown to be effective. How will a real estate mogul who
runs prisons use his connections with lawmakers when the Knesset debates bills
geared toward cutting down on the number of prisoners, a la Denmark, or other
bills dealing with shortening or lengthening prison terms? It may be that in the
absence of explicit legislation, the High Court justices will choose to refrain
from defining the state's core powers and the limits of privatization. But even
without being required to give such a binding definition, the High Court is
likely to contribute by determining that it is appropriate and reasonable always
to include corporeal restraints, primarily detention and imprisonment, within
the state's core powers. Such a ruling, and the implied order that it is
appropriate only for civil servants to be responsible for all powers of
corporeal restraint, will take the privatization of prisons off the agenda,
thereby granting suitable protection of the public interest, the rights of the
Israel Prison Service workers and the human dignity of the prisoners.
November 28, 2005 Haaretz.com
Ostensibly, the idea behind the process of privatization, in which it was
recently decided that a group of companies headed by tycoon Lev Leviev will
build and operate a private prison, is no different from the idea behind the
processes that during the past decade have led to privatization in the
Employment Service, the seaports and the national airline. But this is
different. The sovereignty of the state, as experts on political science and
political philosophy say, is expressed in its monopoly on applying means of
force on everyone who is within its boundaries. The army, the police, the State
Prosecutor's Office, the courts and the prisons are tools by means of which the
state exercises its authority and implements its sovereignty. Thus the state of
Israel has decided to delegate some of its authority to Leviev in building a
prison near Be'er Sheva. This happened in a process that went on for about five
years and provoked public debate. The idea was imported from abroad by Finance
Ministry officials during Ehud Barak's tenure as prime minister and was frozen
because of the opposition of then-public security minister Shlomo Ben-Ami,
revived when (now Likud MK) Uzi Landau replaced him and gained momentum in 2003
when (now Likud MK) Benjamin Netanyahu, who was appointed finance minister at
that time, started to promote it very energetically. About two weeks ago an
inter-ministerial tenders committee consisting of representatives of the Finance
Ministry, the Public Security Ministry and the Prison Service chose the bidder
who will build and operate, for 22 years, a prison for 800 inmates. In the
winning company, which will receive a state grant of NIS 47 million to build a
prison with an investment of NIS 250 million, the controlling share is in the
hands of Lev Leviev, and the partners in it will be the Israeli Minrav
Engineering Company and the American Emerald Company, which operates small
private prisons in the United States. When the prison begins to operate, the
State of Israel will pay the company for every prisoner incarcerated. The
overall extent of the contract is estimated at about NIS 1.4 billion. When the
idea was first brought up, at the Prisons Service they argued that it was
incumbent upon the state to solve the prison space shortage by building
additional public prisons. Only during the past three years, after Lieutenant
General Prison Commissioner Yaakov Ganot replaced Orit Adato - and realized how
determined the Finance Ministry was to advance the project - did the service
decide to support the privatization and even made itself a leading force in its
implementation. Prisons Service Commander Haim Glick, headquarters chief of the
Prison Service and the person who is considered one of the leading candidates to
replace Ganot in about a year, is more identified than anyone else now with the
idea of establishing the private prison. Glick, who is both an economist and a
lawyer, played a key role in preparing the tender, in establishing the
professional requirements that are included in it and also in the selection of
the winning bidder. Prisons Service Commissioner (ret.) Adato, upon her
retirement from the service, founded Adato Consulting, Ltd., which is providing
professional advice to the prison managements, both public and private,
internationally. Adato is also the professional consultant to the group that won
the franchise to operate the prison in Israel. More prisoners than China During
the 12 years that have elapsed since the establishment of the world's first
private prison in the United States, a great deal of experience has accumulated,
which mostly is not encouraging. About 30 countries have thus far established
approximately 200 private prisons, in which more than 150,000 inmates are
incarcerated. Most of the private prisons have been established in the United
States, France, Britain and Australia, and a few of them in South American
states and in Eastern Europe; and there is also one country - New Zealand - that
has reversed its decision to privatize prisons. In the U.S., however, private
prisons have become a huge industry: About 14 percent of all federal prisoners
and about 6 percent of the state prisoners are held in private prisons. The
prison industry is already in second place, right after the high-tech industry,
in the ranking of growth: The four leading companies, whose profits came to no
less than $2.3 billion dollars in 2004, are growing at the rate of 5.9 percent
annually. As they grow stronger, so too does their public influence and thus
their lobbying efforts with the aim of making criminal legislation and
punishment policy more stringent. No wonder then that the number of prisoners in
the United States, which a few years before the establishment of the first
private prison stood at 280,000, has burgeoned since then to 2.13 million today.
This monstrous number is higher than the number of prisoners in China, where the
population is four times greater than that of the United States. "Private
prisons are not the only reason for this increase, but there is no doubt that
their lobbying activity is one of the reasons for the increasing stringency of
punishment and the increase in the number of prisoners," says attorney Aviv
Wasserman, the head of the human rights division at the Academic College of Law
in Ramat Gan, whose petition to the High Court of Justice against the decision
to establish a private prison here is still pending. Wasserman believes that
here, too, we will see such lobbying campaigns in the future. "Even now
there is talk about the need for toughness, but today they are discussing this
with the participation of the Justice Ministry, the Israel Bar Association,
academia and the human rights organizations," he says. "From now on
there will also be participation in these discussions, for example in the
Knesset House Committee, of Lev Leviev's representatives, who will want to
increase the number of prisoners. This is a new player who has interests that
are worth billions of shekels and will come with the best lawyers and public
relations people. His weight could prove crucial." A request to interview
Leviev has been unanswered but Ronny Rahav, the public relations person for
Leviev's Africa-Israel Investments, has sent the following response in writing:
"Africa-Israel's vision is to reach a situation in which the work of
rehabilitating prisoners will rehabilitate them for the long term, so that they
will not return to prison again. We do not see any need to intervene in
legislative processes. We trust the state and its laws." There are three
models for prison privatization. In the partial privatization model, the
entrepreneur builds the prison and provides most of the services there (from
equipment and food to medicine, rehabilitation and employment) but leaves its
professional management in the hands of the state; the prison guards and
officers are subordinate to the state and are employed by it rather than by the
entrepreneur. In the full privatization model,in effect mostly in the United
States, the entrepreneur is also responsible for the prison's operational
management and is even authorized to try and punish the prisoners for
disciplinary infractions. All of the members of the staff, including those who
are authorized to try the prisoner and extend his term of imprisonment, are
employed by the entrepreneur. Israel has decided to adopt a third model, which
is implemented mainly in Britain: The entrepreneur manages the prison, as in the
American model, but the authority to try and punish prisoners remains in the
hands of the Prisons Service. Reducing expenditures "This model should not
have been adopted," says Dr. Uri Timor, a lecturer in the criminology
department of Bar-Ilan University, who inspects conditions in the Prisons
Service facilities on behalf of the Israeli Council for Criminology, an
organization of academics. Timor believes that the franchisee must not be
allowed to employ the prison guards because studies done in the private prisons
elsewhere have shown that the entrepreneurs tend to increase their profits by
means of hiring untrained personnel, at low wages and without social benefits.
Another way of decreasing expenditures entails cutting to the minimum the period
of training for the prison guards. The terrible employment conditions, explains
Timor, leads to a high turnover of prison employees and the lack of training
results in unprofessional work. The combination of the two phenomena turns the
private prisons into facilities with a high rate of violent incidents, in which
the prisoners' rights are violated daily. Timor believes that this will happen
in Be'er Sheva as well. "The cost of the wages of a prison guard in the
Prisons Service, including benefits and pension, comes to NIS 20,000 a
month," he explains. "For a private company whose main interest is
profit this is a very large sum of money. What will they do? They will take
students, train them for a day or two and pay them the minimum wage without
social benefits. This has to have a bad effect on their work. And this is a
pity, because in the Prisons Service there is very professional and skilled
manpower. In the Prisons Service prisons perhaps the walls are crumbling but the
management is quiet and serious, with very little violence." "A prison
guard is not a shopping mall security guard, and we have no intention of hiring
prison guards the way security guards are employed at a mall," responds
Orit Adato. The contract that has been signed between the state and the
franchisee that she is advising does not stipulate the wages or the method of
employment at the prison, but Adato promises that the pay "will be above
the minimum wage," and that "an incentive method" will be used
that will reduce the turnover of prison guards. "The method of employment
will provide incentive for the prison guard to continue to work at the
prison," she says. "The longer he works, the better the social
benefits he will be given. In the Prisons Service, too, they are no longer
granting tenure until pension age and are giving five-year contracts
instead." "We are well aware of the negative phenomena of the high
rate of prison guard turnover," says Commander Glick, who is slated to
supervise the work of the franchisee on behalf of the Prison Service. "As
the state cannot dictate the prison guards' pay to the franchisee, we decided to
stipulate for the franchisee the maximum rate of prison guard turnover that will
be allowed. Every time the turnover is more than what is permitted, we will
impose a monetary fine on him." Glick also says that the Prisons Service
will determine for the franchisee the length of the training that prison guards
will receive ("no less than 250 hours"), and that it will be forbidden
to employ prison guards who have not been approved by the Prisons Service.
"It could be that the franchisee will want to hire pensioners in order to
save expenditures," he says. "It will not be able to do this, because
we will not approve pensioners." "For every deviation the franchisee
will be fined by us," promises Glick. "If a prisoner is murdered, it
will be fined. The same applies if a prison guard is attacked, if there is an
escape, if equipment is broken or if there are many complaints about
insufficient food." He is convinced that supervision through fines, which
has not proven itself against the commercial television franchises, will succeed
against the private prison franchisees. And unlike the practice in the broadcast
industry the rates for the fines here will be kept secret. "We have to
maintain secrecy," he explains, "because if the prisoners know, for
example, how much the fine is for breaking a window or many complaints about the
food, they will be able to blackmail the management and take control of the
whole prison." Dr. Yoav Sapir, the deputy chief public defender at the
Justice Ministry, is opposed in principle to private prisons ("I find a
strong moral discord in the fact that wealthy tycoons will make more money from
people's suffering") and has difficulty believing that the Prisons Service
will indeed manage to prevent the negative phenomena that characterize the
system in the U.S. "The only way that the franchisee can increase his
profits is on the backs of the prisoners and the prison guards," he says on
the basis of the American experience. "The franchisee always tries to give
the minimum and argues about the interpretation of the requirements of the
supervisory body. If the contract requires him to give three meals a day, he
will argue about the interpretation of the word `meals.' And if he is required
to give each prisoner a soup spoon, he will argue about the size of the spoon.
In the U.S. there have been prison guards who were fired because they gave a
prisoner an extra spoonful of soup. At nearly every private prison there is a
shortage of clothing, the medical service is flawed, mental health services
hardly exist, and the rehabilitation programs are minimal." Sapir thinks
that much of this will happen here. Adato promises it won't because the
franchisee will take care to act according to the contract, which "requires
us, for example, to give medical and educational services at a higher level than
in the Prisons Service," and Glick says the Prisons Service will thwart
every attempt by the franchisee to act in this way. Waiting for the High Court
Construction of the private prison, which is scheduled to operate in 2008, will
begin in a few months, unless the High Court decides otherwise. A bench headed
by Justice Dorit Beinisch, which deliberated on attorney Wasserman's petition
about two months ago, issued a show-cause order for the state to explain
"the boundary of appropriate privatization." Wasserman argues that
prison privatization does away with the state's monopoly on the use of force
against citizens. The justices so far refrained from disqualifying his
contention. The state's reply is to be given in the middle of December, with the
justices expected to rule by the end of the month. If the High Court does not
reject privatization outright, the success or failure of the prison will depend
on the quality of the Prisons Service supervision. Glick promises that this will
be "extremely close" and will be "carried out in real time."
However, neither the size of the supervisory team nor its ways of working is yet
clear. "What is already clear at this time," says Glick, "is that
the supervisors will be working on the prison premises and the franchisee will
be obligated to connect all of its computers to the Prisons Service computers.
In that way we will know about everything that happens inside the prison."
Timor is skeptical. "The Israeli experience in the area of supervising
franchisees is not really encouraging," he says. "It suffices to read
the state comptroller's reports about the TV franchisees, the gas companies that
maintain containers in hazardous conditions, the old age homes and the
psychiatric hospitals. I do not have many reasons for believing that the Prison
Service will know how to supervise any better than all the other supervisory
bodies in the country."
November 16, 2005 IDEX
Israel's best known diamantaire, Lev Leviev, will soon own a private jail. His
Africa-Israel real estate firm won a bid to build and operate Israel's first
private jail. Leviev and Minrav, another Israeli real estate firm, will build
the 200 million NIS ($42.25 million) and operate it for 25 years before turning
it over to the state. The state will pay the jail according to the number of
prisoners being held at any one time. In a release, the companies said they
"consider themselves financial organizations with a social mission."
The successful bidders will operate rehabilitation projects, though they might
not include diamond polishing. Leviev privately owns the LLD Group, which
incorporates all his diamond related enterprises - mining, polishing plants, and
various wholesaling and retailing joint ventures. Africa-Israel, a publicly
traded company which Leviev controls, owns real estate in Israel and Eastern
Europe, a large 7-Eleven franchise, an Israeli toll road, energy projects,
fashion companies and several media operations.
November 16, 2005 Globes
Minrav Holdings Ltd. (TASE:MNRV) and Africa-Israel Investments Ltd. (TASE:AFIL;
Pink Sheets:AFIVY) will set up Israel's first private prison, announced an
inter-ministerial committee responsible for the matter today. Minrav and
Africa-Israel beat a consortium comprising Solel Boneh Building and
Infrastructure, Dankner Investments, and GEPSA of France. Lev Leviev controls
Africa Israel, and Abraham Kuznitsky is chairman and CEO of Minrav. Minrav and
Africa-Israel will build the prison and operate it for 25 years, during which
period the state will pay an annual sum for each prisoner, under the private
finance initiative (PFI) method. The contract is worth NIS 1.4 billion,
including NIS 250 million in construction costs. Minrav and Africa-Israel will
be paid NIS 64 million a year, amounting to NIS 1.6 billion over the period of
the contract. They will also receive a NIS 47 million set-up grant, to be paid
when construction of the prison is completed and the state authorizes its
operation. Minrav and Africa-Israel are expected to get an annual return of
6-10% on the investment. Construction of the prison is scheduled to begin in
early 2006, and to be completed within three years. Located south of Beersheva,
the prison will house 800-1,000 low to medium-risk inmates.
October 28, 2005 The
Jerusalem Post
The High Court of Justice on Thursday gave the state 60 days to explain which of
its responsibilities regarding the imprisonment of criminals could be farmed out
to a private entrepreneur and which it was bound by the country's constitutional
system to reserve for itself. The decision came at the end of a hearing on a
petition against a Knesset amendment to the Prison Ordinance allowing for the
establishment of a private prison. The petitioners, the Human Rights Division of
the Netanya Academic College of Law and retired Gundar Shlomo Tweezer, called on
the court to overturn the law on the grounds that it violated the Basic Law:
Government and the human rights granted to prisoners by the Basic Law: Human
Freedom and Dignity. The tender for the prison has already been issued and the
state's representative at the hearing, attorney Yochi Gnessin, told the court
the winner was to be chosen within the next few weeks. At the beginning of the
hearing, Justice Dorit Beinisch, who headed the panel of three justices,
interrupted the attorneys for the petitioners, Gilad Barnea and Aviv Wasserman,
and appeared to be hostile to the petition. The court's policy, in general, is
to not overrule Knesset legislation because of the constitutional principle of
separation of powers. But as the hearing proceeded, she seemed to tone down her
comments. Barnea charged that the amendment marked the first time the government
is privatizing prerogatives belonging to the core of its responsibilities."
Beinisch interrupted Barnea and told him it was not the first time and that the
government had already privatized other crucial services. The question Barnea
continued was where to draw the line. "Until what point can the state make
itself smaller?" he asked the court. "In this case the government has
given up all its prerogatives and allowed a private company to implement them
and make decisions generally reserved for the government." According to the
amendment the prison will be run entirely by the private company. Prison
officials will be empowered to punish prisoners for misconduct deprive them of
benefits and strip search them. Beinisch replied that the government had still
not worked out the details of how the prison would be run by the government. The
current law called for a single pilot project to see how it worked she added.
"A pilot is an experiment using human beings retorted Barnea. The amendment
is not a provisional law and the idea of building one experimental private
prison will get lost. There is no precedent for this in terms of the breadth and
depth of the prerogatives granted to a private company regarding people whose
human rights must be protected." According to Gnessin the Knesset had not
forcibly deprived the executive of its prerogatives to run prisons. On the
contrary it was the state that willingly yielded the prerogatives. Therefore the
petitioners were wrong in maintaining that the law violated the Basic Law:
Government. Furthermore he said the amendment did not deprive the government of
all its rights and responsibilities regarding the imprisonment of criminals; the
details still had to be worked out. At this point in the proceedings Justice
Ayala Procaccia asked the state attorneys to list the prerogatives the state
felt it could give up and those which it could not transfer to private hands.
The court turned her question into a decision ordering the state to provide the
list within 60 days and giving the petitioners 30 days to respond.
April 14, 2005 Jerusalem
Post
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel appealed to the Supreme Court against
a decision by the Tel Aviv District Administrative Court, rejecting its petition
to disclose the details of the tender for the first privately run prison in
Israel. Attorney Dori Spivak said he submitted the petition to the district
court after the government refused his request to read the more than 1,000 pages
of the tender. "The authorities are trying to avoid public supervision of
their activities and make a fait accompli by choosing the winner and signing a
contract before the public has the chance to realize its right to examine the
details of the tender," charged Spivak.
March 16, 2005 Jerusalem
Post
The Human Rights Division of the Academic College of Law in Ramat Gan and a
retired prison commander on Wednesday petitioned the High Court of Justice
against a law paving the way for establishing a private prison in Israel. The
petitioners charged that the law contradicts the Basic Law: Government and the
Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom. The government law went into effect on
March 31, 2004. It grants the Israel Prison Service the right to allow a private
company to "build, administer and operate" a prison. In initiating the
law, the government explained that state prisons were badly overcrowded, lacked
minimal hygienic conditions and provided poor medical services and that it did
not have the money to improve the existing ones or build new ones. The
petitioners also wrote that even though prisoners have lost some of their
personal freedoms, they continue to have basic rights guaranteed by the Basic
Law: Human Dignity and Freedom. They warned that these rights will be
jeopardized by the fact that the private company will have so much power over
them, that the manpower in these prisons can be expected to be of low quality
and that the state will not be able to closely supervise the affairs in the
prison.
November 24, 2003
Gunmen killed two civilian Israeli security guards near Jerusalem last night as
they were keeping watch near the West Bank barrier that Israel is building,
Israeli security officials said. In other violence, Israeli soldiers shot
dead two Palestinians, one an 11-year-old boy, in separate confrontations in the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Palestinians and the Israeli military said.
The two security guards were gunned down near Abu Dis, a suburb on the eastern
edge of Jerusalem, where part of the barrier is under construction. The guards,
who were traveling in a car when they were shot, were employed by a private
security firm. (The Seattle Times)
July 10, 2003
Four proposals were submitted yesterday, in the early stages
of the tender, for establishing a new prison in Be'er Sheva. The
interministerial tender issued a tender for the planning, establishment and
operation of the prison as part of the state's efforts to privatize the prisons.
The tender has two stages. The early phase is
when the committee decides which bodies are eligible to bid for the project. The
second phase, which will need to be accompanied by Knesset legislation granting
the rights for the private franchise, will determine which bid wins the project.
The winner of the bid will be responsible for planning, building and operating
the prison, and will be similar to the British model of privatized prisons.
(Haaretz.com)
October 10, 2002
The security conglomerate Group 4 Falck, which pioneered the private contracting
of detention facilities and prisons in Britain, has decided to withdraw the
private guards employed by one of its offshoots at Israeli settlements in the
West Bank after the Guardian raised questions about their behavior and the
legality of their role. The company, the world's second biggest security
firm, took a controlling stake earlier this year in an Israeli security company,
Hashmira, which employs at least 100 armed guards at settlements. A
Guardian investigation in the settlement of Kedumim showed that Hashmira's
guards work closely with Israel's military and security apparatus. In the
name of "security" the guards, many of whom are settlers, routinely
prevent Palestinian villagers from cultivating their own fields, traveling to
schools, hospitals and shops in nearby towns, and receiving emergency medical
assistance. With prisons in the United States, Australia and South Africa,
as well as the UK, Group 4 Falck has earned a reputation for pushing private
security into new domains. With 230,000 employees in more than 80
countries, Group 4 Falck is at the vanguard of a globalising private security
industry projected to earn revenues of $200 bn by 2001. Group 4 Falck,
based in Denmark, paid $30m in March for a 50% stake in Hashmira, Israel's
largest private security company. But reports last month in the Danish
newspaper Politiken that Hashmira, its new acquisition, was operating in the
West Bank sparked outrage among Danish MPs and human rights experts.
"They are making money off people's misery and are complicit in the
maintenance of settlements which the UN has with absolute clarity deemed
illegal," said the Danish Socialist MP Soren Sondergaard. (Guardian
Unlimited)
|
