Prisoners in the US are part of a hidden workforce linked to popular food brands(english.elpais.com)
english.elpais.com
Prisoners in the US are part of a hidden workforce linked to popular food brands
https://english.elpais.com/usa/2024-01-29/prisoners-in-the-us-are-part-of-a-hidden-workforce-linked-to-hundreds-of-popular-food-brands.html
255 comments
Discussed 7 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39187236
I grew up in a prison town, adjacent to their corn and cattle fields. It began about 1910 as a reformatory where Wash DC convicts would be sent to rural Lorton and taught working trades, from brick making to farming.
I've been reflecting how this and similar prisons all (AFAIK) elapsed into the same dismal hellholes that 19th century sanitariums did. Eventually reformers die and are replaced by politically driven, officious beancounters.
I've been reflecting how this and similar prisons all (AFAIK) elapsed into the same dismal hellholes that 19th century sanitariums did. Eventually reformers die and are replaced by politically driven, officious beancounters.
This would be different, with a different incentive. Like if the reform is working, the instituation gets the taxes on the wages paid to a reformed prisoner after prison.
My country abolished forced prison labour in 2021 and I'm happy with that.
So what do voluntary prison laborers get paid?
95 eurocents per hour, which can be used for the prison shop, to rent a TV or radio. You can buy a can of coke, phone cards, condoms, cigarettes or a packet of crisps.
>You can buy a....
Are these standardized exchange rates, Labor for [product]?
Does a South Carolina Felon have more buying power than a Nebraska Felon?
Whats their labor exchange?
Are these standardized exchange rates, Labor for [product]?
Does a South Carolina Felon have more buying power than a Nebraska Felon?
Whats their labor exchange?
What does it cost for the prisoner's family to give them a radio they don't need to rent?
Which country?
The Netherlands. Since July 1 2021 we abolished the work duty for prisoners. It is now voluntary.
Perhaps a solution could be requiring them to be paid full wages? Then there is no incentive to hire prison laborers vs others
There was a meeting about Electronics Recycling in California, long ago.. A new California law was going into effect regarding E-Waste. Many companies, media outlets, smart people and activists were gathered.
A particular guy stood up and pitched his company solution. That company was called Unicor. The spokesman was well-spoken, had clear points, and was African American. The pitch essentially was, use prison labor for E*Waste, contracted via Unicor.
A second person stood up in the audience and called it what it was, in front of everyone. Privately, the two nearly came to blows back stage out of sight, shortly afterwards.
this is not fake in the USA, and even more not fake elsewhere in the world.
A particular guy stood up and pitched his company solution. That company was called Unicor. The spokesman was well-spoken, had clear points, and was African American. The pitch essentially was, use prison labor for E*Waste, contracted via Unicor.
A second person stood up in the audience and called it what it was, in front of everyone. Privately, the two nearly came to blows back stage out of sight, shortly afterwards.
this is not fake in the USA, and even more not fake elsewhere in the world.
I heave heard of Unicor, when I lived in CA. My best friend used to haul for them to e-waste distros.
https://resource-recycling.com/e-scrap/2016/12/01/federal-pr...
https://resource-recycling.com/e-scrap/2016/12/01/federal-pr...
yes, true story. The anti-humor follow-up is .. that same "prison labor objector" gave a rousing and heartfelt speech to Googlers in Mtn View around the same time.. more than 200 engineers and others at a meeting.. Googlers did nothing.. Apple did (almost) nothing.. it never was solved really.. much worse going on now
I wonder what those competing with the prisoner made products in the US market but subject to stricter rules and higher cost say about all that. And about Unfair Methods of Competition or Unfair Trade Practices.
This is not a 'food brand' thing. And has been going on for ages. It's awful exploitation. From Microsoft getting their packaging for Windows '95, to Victoria's Secret,Nintendo, and Starbucks.Just to name a few. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2002/mar/15/prison-coff...
> it’s been going on for ages
“All day long they work so hard Til the sun is going down Mending all the highways and byways And wearing, wearing a frown You hear them moaning their lives away Then you hear somebody say: That’s the sound of the men Working on the chain / gang.”
Sam Cooke, 1960 https://youtu.be/zBn5aIfZElE
My my my my my my my my my my my my My work is so hard Give me water I’m thirsty
“All day long they work so hard Til the sun is going down Mending all the highways and byways And wearing, wearing a frown You hear them moaning their lives away Then you hear somebody say: That’s the sound of the men Working on the chain / gang.”
Sam Cooke, 1960 https://youtu.be/zBn5aIfZElE
My my my my my my my my my my my my My work is so hard Give me water I’m thirsty
It's pretty appalling the number of people in this thread trying to rationalize and justify slavery.
People always get confused when I say the US should finally get around to banning slavery.
I tried to compute an estimate of the current percentage of the US population that's forced labor vs. at the peak of the pre-abolition slave trade, and from what I can tell, it's currently higher than it ever was back then.
People argue that what we currently have isn't the same or as bad, but present-day prisoners would point out that the current system is a form of eugenics: We keep a large percentage of reproductive-age black males locked up where they can't father or raise children. Back in the slave days, owners often chose who breeded with whom. Both are reprehensible, but you could argue either situation is worse than the other. At least the old policy didn't have the effect of slowly reducing / diluting out the black population.
Anyway, the US should ban slavery.
I tried to compute an estimate of the current percentage of the US population that's forced labor vs. at the peak of the pre-abolition slave trade, and from what I can tell, it's currently higher than it ever was back then.
People argue that what we currently have isn't the same or as bad, but present-day prisoners would point out that the current system is a form of eugenics: We keep a large percentage of reproductive-age black males locked up where they can't father or raise children. Back in the slave days, owners often chose who breeded with whom. Both are reprehensible, but you could argue either situation is worse than the other. At least the old policy didn't have the effect of slowly reducing / diluting out the black population.
Anyway, the US should ban slavery.
you should provide numbers for that for a claim that big
I did some digging because I was curious.
From the 1860 census [1]:
Total Number of slaves: 4m
Total Population: 31.4m
Percentage of population as slaves: 12.7%
From the 2010 census [2]:
Total Population: 309m
Total Incarcerated Population: 7m [3]
Percentage of population incarcerated: 2.2%
OP is absolutely not correct, even if we are generous and assume every incarcerated person is forced into labor.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_census [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_census [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra...
From the 1860 census [1]:
Total Number of slaves: 4m
Total Population: 31.4m
Percentage of population as slaves: 12.7%
From the 2010 census [2]:
Total Population: 309m
Total Incarcerated Population: 7m [3]
Percentage of population incarcerated: 2.2%
OP is absolutely not correct, even if we are generous and assume every incarcerated person is forced into labor.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_census [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_census [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra...
That figure of 7m is not the total incarcerated population. It's the total correctional population, which includes parole and probation.
I missed that, that makes the true number even smaller
>I tried to compute an estimate of the current percentage of the US population that's forced labor vs. at the peak of the pre-abolition slave trade
Wikipedia says
>According to the latest available data at the World Prison Brief on May 7, 2023, the United States has the sixth highest incarceration rate in the world, at 531 people per 100,000
531 people per 100,000 works out to about half a percent. Meanwhile during slavery in the US, wikipedia says
>The slaves of the colonial era were unevenly distributed: 14,867 lived in New England, where they were three percent of the population; 34,679 lived in the mid-Atlantic colonies, where they were six percent of the population; and 347,378 in the five Southern Colonies, where they were 31 percent of the population.
Even in low slavery areas, the slavery rate is higher than current incarceration rates by several fold.
Wikipedia says
>According to the latest available data at the World Prison Brief on May 7, 2023, the United States has the sixth highest incarceration rate in the world, at 531 people per 100,000
531 people per 100,000 works out to about half a percent. Meanwhile during slavery in the US, wikipedia says
>The slaves of the colonial era were unevenly distributed: 14,867 lived in New England, where they were three percent of the population; 34,679 lived in the mid-Atlantic colonies, where they were six percent of the population; and 347,378 in the five Southern Colonies, where they were 31 percent of the population.
Even in low slavery areas, the slavery rate is higher than current incarceration rates by several fold.
Looking at the Colonial era is looking at slavery ~300 years before it peaked just before the Civil War. Therefore, the numbers you give for the Colonial times don't have anything to do with the conversation.
Yes, this user grotesquely underrepresented the scale of chattel slavery in America at the peak of the American slave economy. The original commenter is still completely wrong if you look at the 1860 census.
The first user made a wild, incorrect guess, and the rest of this subthread shows just how badly that can spoil discussion quality on a forum like this. Fortunately, someone linked an earlier discussion up at the top.
The first user made a wild, incorrect guess, and the rest of this subthread shows just how badly that can spoil discussion quality on a forum like this. Fortunately, someone linked an earlier discussion up at the top.
they mean absolute numbers
Are we reading the same comment? OP said
>I tried to compute an estimate of the current percentage of the US population that's forced labor vs. at the peak of the pre-abolition slave trade, and from what I can tell, it's currently higher than it ever was back then.
It's explicitly talking about "percentage" at the start. It would be weird if they silently switched to absolute numbers afterwards.
>I tried to compute an estimate of the current percentage of the US population that's forced labor vs. at the peak of the pre-abolition slave trade, and from what I can tell, it's currently higher than it ever was back then.
It's explicitly talking about "percentage" at the start. It would be weird if they silently switched to absolute numbers afterwards.
i read it as percentage applied to the first half, but not the second -- perhaps only on the grounds that to distribute the word "percentage" would make the claim obviously false.
Whether false by percentage or not, I'm not sure relative percentages are of that much importance. Surely the hundreds of thousands of american soliders dying in the US civil war wouldnt be relieved to hear that perhaps more black people were enslaved today, only to feel their sacrifce justified when hearing it was a mere 0.5%
Whether false by percentage or not, I'm not sure relative percentages are of that much importance. Surely the hundreds of thousands of american soliders dying in the US civil war wouldnt be relieved to hear that perhaps more black people were enslaved today, only to feel their sacrifce justified when hearing it was a mere 0.5%
They are also wrong by absolute numbers.
Their choice of the word “percentage” is incongruent with meaning “absolute.”
The 1860 census counted just over 4 million enslaved African Americans in the South, out of a population of about 31.4 million.[0][1]
There are about 1.9 million people incarcerated in jail or prison in the United States today.[2]
The scale of incarceration in the US today is mind-boggling, but is itself under half the number of people enslaved at the height of the Southern slave economy.
[0]https://usafacts.org/articles/the-1860-census-counted-4-mill... [1]https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1864/dec/1860a.h... [2]https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html
There are about 1.9 million people incarcerated in jail or prison in the United States today.[2]
The scale of incarceration in the US today is mind-boggling, but is itself under half the number of people enslaved at the height of the Southern slave economy.
[0]https://usafacts.org/articles/the-1860-census-counted-4-mill... [1]https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1864/dec/1860a.h... [2]https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html
The oddness of referring to the "slave trade" is the height of the "Atlantic Slave Trade" far predated the peak of slavery in the US and contributed directly far more to the Caribbean and Brazil than to the rest of the Americas. US chattel slavery, particularly the form that exploded post cotton-gin, was a system of directly controlling the reproductive capacity of enslaved black and native Americans.
AFAIK, US prisons aren't making use of that 13th amendment exception and prison labor is voluntary. Prisoners choose it, despite the low wages, because it beats sitting around on their ass all day. There's a very valid argument to be made for paying them the normal minimum wage, if for no other reason than to be fair to the rest of the workforce, but doing away with the opportunity to work for prisoners would just be cruel.
As for it being eugenics, most prisoners are in for violent crimes or property crimes. Imprisoning people for stuff like failure to pay child support (modern debtors prison) is shameful, but not the sort of thing most US prisoners are in for.
As for it being eugenics, most prisoners are in for violent crimes or property crimes. Imprisoning people for stuff like failure to pay child support (modern debtors prison) is shameful, but not the sort of thing most US prisoners are in for.
> We keep a large percentage of reproductive-age black males locked up where they can't father or raise children.
To tie this into eugenics I think you'd have to make the case that black people who aren't criminals are being unfairly targeted for imprisonment. Otherwise it's just a side effect of criminal behaviour, and criminals end up in prison regardless of ethnicity.
I'm not suggesting it would be difficult to make that case. But some people tend to disregard systemic bias, so it would seem that everything is fine. If you don't want to be imprisoned, all you have to do is stop acting like a criminal.
To tie this into eugenics I think you'd have to make the case that black people who aren't criminals are being unfairly targeted for imprisonment. Otherwise it's just a side effect of criminal behaviour, and criminals end up in prison regardless of ethnicity.
I'm not suggesting it would be difficult to make that case. But some people tend to disregard systemic bias, so it would seem that everything is fine. If you don't want to be imprisoned, all you have to do is stop acting like a criminal.
you'd only need to make the case that laws were created to systematically target black people and hence rope them into prison slavery
this is a fairly easy case to make, see, for example the reason for the current distribution of race in us prisons
this is a fairly easy case to make, see, for example the reason for the current distribution of race in us prisons
A racial discrepancy exists in the demographics of those convicted of murder. Furthermore, most of the black men in prison for murder were convicted of killing another black person (most murders are intraracial). Do you mean to suggest that the laws against murder, which put black murderers away for killing other black people, were created to systematically target black men?
nope. you would indeed need more evidence than mere racial disparity in the distribution of inmates. thankfully such evidence exists, not least in the base rates of crimes in both populations compared to their prison populations -- but even such things arent needed, we have legislators on record explaining the motivations of the drug laws (et al.)
there are people alive today whose grandparents were born slaves, we need not pretend we live in some world where society operates on egalitarian principles. The last slaves died in the 40s, 50s; institutional racism as an explicit policy of the state and of core economic and political institutions carried on until at least the 90s.
this isnt speculation
there are people alive today whose grandparents were born slaves, we need not pretend we live in some world where society operates on egalitarian principles. The last slaves died in the 40s, 50s; institutional racism as an explicit policy of the state and of core economic and political institutions carried on until at least the 90s.
this isnt speculation
> not least in the base rates of crimes in both populations compared to their prison populations
Is this calibrated per severity of crime? The statement as it stands seems to general to support this case.
Is this calibrated per severity of crime? The statement as it stands seems to general to support this case.
[deleted]
There was a decent Netflix special on this - 13th amendment (I believe that was the name). Basically slavery never actually ended, it’s just hidden in the prison system now. Society is ok with it because we’ve somehow gotten this distorted view that prison is about punishment and not rehabilitation.
Then wonder why we have such a high rate of recidivism.
Then wonder why we have such a high rate of recidivism.
While I certainly would not support the abuses in the article, being required to work 5 days a week whether you want to or not is rehabilitative for many people who cannot hold down a job because they lack discipline and patience to appreciate that this is how productive citizens afford the basics of life. Along with drug addiction treatment, education, and psychological services, participation in labor is part of making them productive members of society again.
It should also not be for the profit of private companies. They are maintained by our tax dollars, and the public should reap that benefit.
It should also not be for the profit of private companies. They are maintained by our tax dollars, and the public should reap that benefit.
> While I certainly would not support the abuses in the article, being required to work 5 days a week whether you want to or not is rehabilitative for many people who cannot hold down a job because they lack discipline and patience to appreciate that this is how productive citizens afford the basics of life.
That’s odd, because the countries with the lowest rate of recidivism don’t have forced labor. “Lack of discipline” isn’t the reason most of them are in prison, it’s lack of skills and opportunity. Nothing about the prison industrial complex is fixing either of those problems.
It is subjecting them to a dog-eat-dog culture of violence though. Not exactly surprising people generally come out even less able to productively participate in society than when they go in.
That’s odd, because the countries with the lowest rate of recidivism don’t have forced labor. “Lack of discipline” isn’t the reason most of them are in prison, it’s lack of skills and opportunity. Nothing about the prison industrial complex is fixing either of those problems.
It is subjecting them to a dog-eat-dog culture of violence though. Not exactly surprising people generally come out even less able to productively participate in society than when they go in.
This is an issue that needs to be considered in the context of all the ways US prisons in various states are highly exploitative and abusive.
Prison labor has no impact on recidivism, so it can't be considered rehabilitative in its current form: https://mn.gov/doc/assets/Effects%20of%20Prison%20Labor%20on..., https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/impact-f....
I couldn't find any studies that specifically focused on involuntary labor; presumably some of the people in the linked studies were willing to work and not forced.
I couldn't find any studies that specifically focused on involuntary labor; presumably some of the people in the linked studies were willing to work and not forced.
Participation in prison labor significantly improved post-prison employment outcomes, but it yielded mixed results for prison misconduct and had little overall impact on recidivism. When we examined the extent to which prisoners
participated in prison labor, the best outcomes were observed for those who spent a
greater proportion of their overall confinement time working a job in prison. As the
percentage of prison time spent working increased, we found significant improvements in
prison misconduct, post-prison employment, and several measures of recidivism.
Work programs aren't magic, and they're certainly not going to cure sociopathy. They're a means to train and habituate people whose criminal behavior may have been significantly affected by their inability to maintain gainful employment. Of course we should continually try to improve them for relevancy and effectiveness.
Work programs aren't magic, and they're certainly not going to cure sociopathy. They're a means to train and habituate people whose criminal behavior may have been significantly affected by their inability to maintain gainful employment. Of course we should continually try to improve them for relevancy and effectiveness.
Wow this comment reads like it was written 150 years ago. You should really both read the article and watch the documentary about which you’re replying to, you'll learn a lot.
Between racially-biased mandatory minimum sentences, forced prison labor, and the fact that felons lose their right to vote, the United States prison industrial complex is a system that truly isn’t far off from slavery.
Between racially-biased mandatory minimum sentences, forced prison labor, and the fact that felons lose their right to vote, the United States prison industrial complex is a system that truly isn’t far off from slavery.
You're confounding a lot of issues here that I made no reference to at all. But suffice it to say, you seem to have a fundamental problem with people, as determined by a court of law to have broken the social contract (courts which could be corrupt - but again, separate issue), losing any modicum of their rights as free citizens. That is a fringe opinion.
Someone referenced a documentary claiming prison system is modern day slavery. You refuted their claims pulled from said documentary with standard prison industrial complex rhetoric, which is completely unfounded and not backed by any kind of real-world data, especially in the US. Try digging in a bit. It’s irrelevant if it’s a fringe opinion.
"Slavery as a cure for NEEThood," is an interesting (read: horrifying) proposition. Assuming that people "lack discipline and patience" is begging the question; the requirement of productivity to justify one's existence, post-industrialization, is circumspect, particularly in an economic system that relies on some level of unemployment to keep prices for even basic goods down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Praise_of_Idleness_and_Othe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Praise_of_Idleness_and_Othe...
Noted this in a comment above, but restating it here: If someone has wronged me or my family or society at large in some kind of serious manner, rehabilitating is not really a concern for me. I think they should be punished. Plain and simple.
Have you ever been wronged in a serious manner?
I haven’t been, but I’ve been close with multiple people who have been wronged personally (near-deadly assault, unprovoked, all cases unrelate) and they all came around quickly to not wanting any vengeance on the assailant, legal or not. I was surprised, frankly.
In all cases survivors just wanted to move on, and simply not hear about the perps.
I haven’t been, but I’ve been close with multiple people who have been wronged personally (near-deadly assault, unprovoked, all cases unrelate) and they all came around quickly to not wanting any vengeance on the assailant, legal or not. I was surprised, frankly.
In all cases survivors just wanted to move on, and simply not hear about the perps.
Yes, we know, thank you. As the moral and spiritual arguments against bloodthirsty retribution are well established in most of the world's belief systems I won't try to rehash them here. Yours isn't a fringe view, we're all aware of it and it has been taken into account, in fact is the basis of the current system. Please allow us to discuss other approaches. Don't stress too much, I'm sure we will continue to torture the slaves.
[deleted]
> "Well established"
Not really.
I hope you or your family are never hurt by a criminal. However, if that does happen, I assume you will be okay with the criminal going to a summer camp where they sing songs, play games, and eat bonbons. ;)
Not really.
I hope you or your family are never hurt by a criminal. However, if that does happen, I assume you will be okay with the criminal going to a summer camp where they sing songs, play games, and eat bonbons. ;)
Incomprehensible to you that this a sincerely held belief? In fact I have been the victim of violent crimes, and I have given statements advocating for maximum leniency. I want what is best for my community, and retribution is not.
> Incomprehensible to you that this a sincerely held belief? In fact I have been the victim of violent crimes, and I have given statements advocating for maximum leniency.
Well, I won't call you a liar. I've seen people do this before, and I've always been just... confused.
> I want what is best for my community, and retribution is not.
I think this is the crux of the disagreement.
My belief is that retribution is the immune system of civilization.
Well, I won't call you a liar. I've seen people do this before, and I've always been just... confused.
> I want what is best for my community, and retribution is not.
I think this is the crux of the disagreement.
My belief is that retribution is the immune system of civilization.
> My belief is that retribution is the immune system of civilization.
Have you engaged with any justice system that isn't based on retribution? Have you seen the results they achieve? Norway is the classic example. They give more lenient punishment for crimes, their prisons are vastly more comfortable, and actively try to educate their prison population. All things Americans (as a general point) would scoff at.
The result? Norway has a vastly lower recidivism rate. 20% vs 75+% in the US. Norway is a uniquely good example, but similar results play out across Northern Europe.
Have you engaged with any justice system that isn't based on retribution? Have you seen the results they achieve? Norway is the classic example. They give more lenient punishment for crimes, their prisons are vastly more comfortable, and actively try to educate their prison population. All things Americans (as a general point) would scoff at.
The result? Norway has a vastly lower recidivism rate. 20% vs 75+% in the US. Norway is a uniquely good example, but similar results play out across Northern Europe.
> Have you engaged with any justice system that isn't based on retribution?
Most people here who live in SF have done just that, not by their own choice - and the results are not pretty. "Restorative" justice might or might not work in places like Norway, but let's just say other implementations have been quite bad.
Most people here who live in SF have done just that, not by their own choice - and the results are not pretty. "Restorative" justice might or might not work in places like Norway, but let's just say other implementations have been quite bad.
Neither Norway nor SF use anything like a restorative justice framework.
So again, yes, thank you for stating the mainstream position on retribution. Please allow those of us who are interested to at least discuss other possibilities for our selves and our world.
>I've seen people do this before, and I've always been just... confused.
That compassion and concern for the wider community is this alien to you is sad.
That compassion and concern for the wider community is this alien to you is sad.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. It’s an excellent documentary.
[deleted]
We should put airTags on all prisoners so we can see where they get trafficked.
What would you rather have the prisoners doing besides working? This actually gives them some sort of skillset that can be used when they get out.
Keeping someone trapped in order to force them to do work is called “slavery” and it’s generally frowned upon in the modern era. There shouldn’t be profit associated with prisoners, that’s how you get wrongful arrests and draconian drug laws.
They're not imprisoned in order to force them to do work.
Except when they are
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
That case was about the (private) prison system itself profiting from the number of inmates increasing, not from labor the inmates were forced to provide.
You don't think the fact that the prison's economically depend on slave labor to function has any side effects on how the justice system works for those slaves?
It's certainly possible.
But the courts doing the sentencing and the prison owners are typically completely separate entities.
It's not just one "justice system" run by one group of people.
But the courts doing the sentencing and the prison owners are typically completely separate entities.
It's not just one "justice system" run by one group of people.
>Keeping someone trapped in order to force them to do work is called “slavery” and it’s generally frowned upon in the modern era.
It may be frowned upon; but, it's legal. Even in 1865, prison labor was scene as "acceptable" slavery. It's the exemption in the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
It may be frowned upon; but, it's legal. Even in 1865, prison labor was scene as "acceptable" slavery. It's the exemption in the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
"This atrocity is legal" is really not a very strong argument I don't think. Chattel slavery was legal until it wasn't, marital rape was legal until it wasn't, etc etc. The fact that our constitution explicitly allows slavery is a stain on all of our souls. But it is completely irrelevant in a discussion about the ethics of allowing slavery.
Putting a person in a prison, de-facto is a forcible, long-term restraint on their right to free movement. Also known as slavery. If we want to "fully" abolish slavery, it's hard to see how prisons can even exist.
Or maybe we can acknowledge "slavery" is a loaded term designed to cause reactionary thinking.
Or maybe we can acknowledge "slavery" is a loaded term designed to cause reactionary thinking.
The point of limiting people's freedom of movement is to prevent them from being a danger to others (what's sometimes called 'incapacitation'). It's pretty much the same logic as what used to be called "shelter in place", except a lot more extreme because the level of risk is correspondingly higher. Of course once you're going to keep prisoners, it makes sense to try and offer them some kind of rehabilitation. The punishment, deterrence and retaliation aspect is not totally absent but is pretty much incidental; prison is never going to be somewhere people want to be, regardless of whether we happen to think of it as some sort of punishment.
I think that’s where our world views vary.
If you kill 20 people with a car into a parade, you have no chance at rehabilitation. Punishment is perfectly acceptable - especially when it is hardly brutal, we aren’t even sending the perp to an oil rig.
The sooner we stop playing games about prisons being rehab facilities, the better. I have yet to hear a successful prison rehab story, and the statistics show that doesn’t work. When punishment is the focus - look at the 80s crime wave. It worked.
I think it’s because I know that there is no way, whatsoever, to build a society without prisons, because there will always be crime.
If you kill 20 people with a car into a parade, you have no chance at rehabilitation. Punishment is perfectly acceptable - especially when it is hardly brutal, we aren’t even sending the perp to an oil rig.
The sooner we stop playing games about prisons being rehab facilities, the better. I have yet to hear a successful prison rehab story, and the statistics show that doesn’t work. When punishment is the focus - look at the 80s crime wave. It worked.
I think it’s because I know that there is no way, whatsoever, to build a society without prisons, because there will always be crime.
The relevant question is how many people exist who would have likewise killed 20 people, but didn't because the prospect of rotting in a "punishment" focused prison scared them straight. I'm not saying that such people don't exist, I just think they're a whole lot rarer than the alternative, i.e. those who can be meaningfully rehabilitated and induced to not reoffend.
1) I support prison abolition, yes.
2) What is or isn't de facto slavery is worth discussing but we should certainly move towards removing de jure slavery.
3) I don't know the intention of framers of the constitution in choosing the word slavery, but it is the word they chose. So unless you mean "reactionary" very very literally, using it to describe advocates for a progressive cause interpreting a word well within its historically normative meaning is at best slick rhetorical judo. At worst an indication of bad faith.
2) What is or isn't de facto slavery is worth discussing but we should certainly move towards removing de jure slavery.
3) I don't know the intention of framers of the constitution in choosing the word slavery, but it is the word they chose. So unless you mean "reactionary" very very literally, using it to describe advocates for a progressive cause interpreting a word well within its historically normative meaning is at best slick rhetorical judo. At worst an indication of bad faith.
1) And just like that, you’ve never been a victim of a violent assault. I don’t wish anything on anyone, but your worldview completely changes when it happens to you.
2) Isn’t being forced to literally be in a cage for years de jure slavery by itself?
2) Isn’t being forced to literally be in a cage for years de jure slavery by itself?
IDK what it is about this subject that makes people think they know me. You don't know anything about me, about what kind of life I've lived. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39275721
I think there is a difference between keeping people confined against their will and coercing them to labor for your own economic benefit. Neither thing should be permitted, but I'm not trying to solve all problems overnight. We were talking about the laboring thing, let's stick to that.
I see elsewhere that you have complete confidence in your view about this, with no room for doubt or curiosity. If you can't entertain the possibility of being anything but an adversary, then I can't justify spending more time or effort on this subject with you.
I think there is a difference between keeping people confined against their will and coercing them to labor for your own economic benefit. Neither thing should be permitted, but I'm not trying to solve all problems overnight. We were talking about the laboring thing, let's stick to that.
I see elsewhere that you have complete confidence in your view about this, with no room for doubt or curiosity. If you can't entertain the possibility of being anything but an adversary, then I can't justify spending more time or effort on this subject with you.
1- Bullshit I've been in several and still firmly believe in rehabilitation, as do many. Some victims and families even forgive murderers.
2- You are purposefully conflating imprisonment with slavery.
2- You are purposefully conflating imprisonment with slavery.
It’s not slavery when the human has done things that society deemed bad enough to lose their rights for however long the sentence is.
If you truly hold this position you’d be well served to familiarize yourself with Scandinavian prison system which focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment and various American atrocities such as the war on drugs and the private prison pipeline such as “kids for cash”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
Kids for cash was a crime. It doesn't reinforce the idea that the system is designed to ship people into private prisons. It shows the opposite.
This comment makes me incredibly sad.
It’s hard to put into words how destructive your line of reasoning is, and the confidence with which you express it frightens me that others might even share it with you.
I would argue that the private prison system is in fact designed to do exactly this, namely to put people in prison and keep them there for profit.
You could argue that my claim that their intent is nefarious is speculation and I’ll grant you that, because I am unfamiliar with any private prison owners or the people who came up with the idea, but by that token you’d have to grant your opinion about the intent behind private prisons is also purely speculative, and I would add more damaging than my speculation.
> The charges outlined in the information[23] described actions between 2000 and 2007 by both judges to assist in the construction and population of private juvenile facilities operated by the two Pennsylvania Child Care companies, acting in an official capacity in favor of the private facilities over the facility operated by Luzerne County.
Your attempt at logic somehow leads you to tell the victims over a 7 year period ~“look, you won, now stop bringing attention to this issue, the system is designed to do something else, who cares that it is capable of being exploited in this manner”.
If everyone had your perspective those prisons would still be doing this, but thankfully in that 7 year period of “the system working as designed” activists speculated that something nefarious was happening and brought attention to how it actually works.
> It shows the opposite.
This is incredibly naive. When has one entity getting caught ever been a legitimate excuse for everyone else similarly situated to be free from scrutiny?
What is “the opposite” in this context anyway? Do you believe private prisons exist to empty themselves and “give cash to kids”? How does a private prison sustain itself with a population of 0?
It’s hard to put into words how destructive your line of reasoning is, and the confidence with which you express it frightens me that others might even share it with you.
I would argue that the private prison system is in fact designed to do exactly this, namely to put people in prison and keep them there for profit.
You could argue that my claim that their intent is nefarious is speculation and I’ll grant you that, because I am unfamiliar with any private prison owners or the people who came up with the idea, but by that token you’d have to grant your opinion about the intent behind private prisons is also purely speculative, and I would add more damaging than my speculation.
> The charges outlined in the information[23] described actions between 2000 and 2007 by both judges to assist in the construction and population of private juvenile facilities operated by the two Pennsylvania Child Care companies, acting in an official capacity in favor of the private facilities over the facility operated by Luzerne County.
Your attempt at logic somehow leads you to tell the victims over a 7 year period ~“look, you won, now stop bringing attention to this issue, the system is designed to do something else, who cares that it is capable of being exploited in this manner”.
If everyone had your perspective those prisons would still be doing this, but thankfully in that 7 year period of “the system working as designed” activists speculated that something nefarious was happening and brought attention to how it actually works.
> It shows the opposite.
This is incredibly naive. When has one entity getting caught ever been a legitimate excuse for everyone else similarly situated to be free from scrutiny?
What is “the opposite” in this context anyway? Do you believe private prisons exist to empty themselves and “give cash to kids”? How does a private prison sustain itself with a population of 0?
You are reading a lot into my three sentences. I didn't say any of the things you are refuting. I'm not going to defend them, not simply because I never espoused those opinions, but also because lots of them are completely irrational anyway.
Communication is a two way street: what is said and how it’s received.
With imprecise communication there is always the danger of misunderstanding, and that can lead to devastating consequences.
You say I misunderstood your comment, that’s fair, but I have read and reread it many times and am unable to interpret it elsewise.
Please elaborate.
It will be best for both of us.
I will know what you truly meant, and perhaps feel better about your position, and you will be assured that your true intent is clear and fully received by your audience.
With imprecise communication there is always the danger of misunderstanding, and that can lead to devastating consequences.
You say I misunderstood your comment, that’s fair, but I have read and reread it many times and am unable to interpret it elsewise.
Please elaborate.
It will be best for both of us.
I will know what you truly meant, and perhaps feel better about your position, and you will be assured that your true intent is clear and fully received by your audience.
A crime was identified as proof that the system was organized in a particular way. The fact that it was a crime explicitly tells us the system is not that way. The Green River Killer murdered lots of people and wasn't arrested for 20 years. This doesn't mean that the laws and criminal justice system are designed to advance murder. The fact that they were able to identify him as the murderer and arrested him proves the system is against murder.
Things I didn't say:
- any value judgment about private prisons - no statement about shutting up or stop bringing up the crimes - didn't justify or attempt to justify excluding oversight of government - anything about the business model of private prisons
Things I didn't say:
- any value judgment about private prisons - no statement about shutting up or stop bringing up the crimes - didn't justify or attempt to justify excluding oversight of government - anything about the business model of private prisons
> The Green River Killer murdered lots of people and wasn't arrested for 20 years. This doesn't mean that the laws and criminal justice system are designed to advance murder. The fact that they were able to identify him as the murderer and arrested him proves the system is against murder.
I think your analogy is flawed.
For it to apply there would have to have been an institution that can only exist in the presence of mass murder similarly as private prisons only exist in the presence of incarceration.
A better analogy would be Civil Asset Forfeiture. A perfectly legal act by police, but also clearly heinous. The fact that these "forfeitures" are written into the police budgets means "the system" is designed to require it, but still stops short of "advancing" the infractions where that procedure is then abused.
For instance, if I get pulled over for a broken tail light, and happen to have $10k in cash on me and the police seize the money, it would be ridiculous to then say that "tail light awareness is designed to advance civil asset forfeiture".
> Things I didn't say:
> - any value judgment about private prisons
I can accept that, but you were objecting to a example provided in a comment that was critical of private prisons. It suggests you are in support of them.
> - no statement about shutting up or stop bringing up the crimes
> - didn't justify or attempt to justify excluding oversight of government
I certainly read your comment's dismissive "It shows the opposite." to be a pithy way of trying to stop the conversation about private prisons and specifically kids for cash.
It also suggests that you think my bringing it up is superfluous anyway, and everything is as it should be, so why then would there be any need for oversight? Conversely, if you support oversight then you must admit there is a flaw in the system capable of being exploited.
If I write a strongly typed function (the system) then it would be unnecessary for me to write another function that checks the types of the inputs before running the previous function (oversight) because the types are already a part of "the system".
> - anything about the business model of private prisons
Okay, but you did say: "It doesn't reinforce the idea that the system is designed to ship people into private prisons. It shows the opposite." By these bullet points you seem to be implying that private prisons are somehow "other than" in regards to "the system". What is your definition of the system?
Because kids for cash was organised by judges and prison owners who I would say are precisely "the system".
This is the point I was making about communication. The exact words you use is only a piece of what you communicate.
And hey, if you feel I put words into your mouth then this is an opportunity for you to set me straight on how you do in fact feel about these things.
What is you value judgement on private prisons?
What is your opinion on the business model of private prisons?
Do you think that exploitation like "kids for cash" implies flaws in "the system"?
I think your analogy is flawed.
For it to apply there would have to have been an institution that can only exist in the presence of mass murder similarly as private prisons only exist in the presence of incarceration.
A better analogy would be Civil Asset Forfeiture. A perfectly legal act by police, but also clearly heinous. The fact that these "forfeitures" are written into the police budgets means "the system" is designed to require it, but still stops short of "advancing" the infractions where that procedure is then abused.
For instance, if I get pulled over for a broken tail light, and happen to have $10k in cash on me and the police seize the money, it would be ridiculous to then say that "tail light awareness is designed to advance civil asset forfeiture".
> Things I didn't say:
> - any value judgment about private prisons
I can accept that, but you were objecting to a example provided in a comment that was critical of private prisons. It suggests you are in support of them.
> - no statement about shutting up or stop bringing up the crimes
> - didn't justify or attempt to justify excluding oversight of government
I certainly read your comment's dismissive "It shows the opposite." to be a pithy way of trying to stop the conversation about private prisons and specifically kids for cash.
It also suggests that you think my bringing it up is superfluous anyway, and everything is as it should be, so why then would there be any need for oversight? Conversely, if you support oversight then you must admit there is a flaw in the system capable of being exploited.
If I write a strongly typed function (the system) then it would be unnecessary for me to write another function that checks the types of the inputs before running the previous function (oversight) because the types are already a part of "the system".
> - anything about the business model of private prisons
Okay, but you did say: "It doesn't reinforce the idea that the system is designed to ship people into private prisons. It shows the opposite." By these bullet points you seem to be implying that private prisons are somehow "other than" in regards to "the system". What is your definition of the system?
Because kids for cash was organised by judges and prison owners who I would say are precisely "the system".
This is the point I was making about communication. The exact words you use is only a piece of what you communicate.
And hey, if you feel I put words into your mouth then this is an opportunity for you to set me straight on how you do in fact feel about these things.
What is you value judgement on private prisons?
What is your opinion on the business model of private prisons?
Do you think that exploitation like "kids for cash" implies flaws in "the system"?
You're rationalizing reading all your anti-opinions into what I wrote so you can argue against them. I never said any of the things you're objecting to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpAvcGcEc0k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpAvcGcEc0k
Scandinavian system is completely incompatible with US population numbers and economic realities for the US. Their total population is less than 39 million, while the US has 10x that.
Slavery is slavery, regardless of how bad the person is.
And kidnapping is kidnapping. According to this logic, imprisonment is kidnapping, and serial killers should be free to roam the streets.
> And kidnapping is kidnapping. According to this logic, imprisonment is kidnapping,
MW definition:
"to seize and detain or carry away by unlawful force or fraud and often with a demand for ransom"
So no: Lawful imprisonment is not kidnapping.
MW definition:
"to seize and detain or carry away by unlawful force or fraud and often with a demand for ransom"
So no: Lawful imprisonment is not kidnapping.
That is exactly my point. The law is the differentiator: the 13th amendment sets apart forced labor for punishment of a crime.
You are losing your freedom of movement, not your rights, no?
Prisoners lose most of their rights. They have no privacy rights, they can be searched at any time without a warrant, they often don't get to vote, they don't get to own weapons, they don't have freedom of association, they don't get to choose their style of dress.
Nope you lose a lot of your rights as well. I don't know about European prisons, though. When you break the social contract, there are consequences.
I've never seen the social contract, let alone signed it. I suppose I used to sort of believe that it existed, but that belief, like so many others I once held, has not survived the past decade or so. Certainly I believe in consequences, but they seem little better than random, though they quite rarely touch the wealthy/connected.
why punish twice for one crime ?
People aren't "trapped", they are there because they broke the law. The work should be voluntary though. Also Portland is showing exactly how well allowing hard drugs to flourish works. The voluntary uptake of drug rehabilitation offers has been terrible as most skeptics suggested. I'm glad they are doubling down on it for the forseeable future so the rest of the country will be slow to enact "shoot up heroin on the corner lolz" laws. Weed is fine but fenty, crack, meth, etc will destroy people and kill any will they have to recover from it. Imprisoning addicts is ridiculous. Imprisoning drug dealers and other 1 step removed killers? I have zero problems with that.
I specifically said “draconian drug laws” and didn’t go into which ones I believed were bad, because that’s not the point of the discussion. The point is that those laws continue to exist to fill prisons and keep the prison industrial complex moving.
There's entire thinktanks dedicated to harassing companies for sourcing materials anywhere near Xiajiang, while there's mountains of proof the US has a for-profit prison industry with incentives to keep it around by providing companies with dirt cheap slave labor and this site just goes "well they broke the law so they deserve it".
Neat
Neat
[deleted]
Portland screwed up. Circumstances were beyond their control, but they botched the "reaction".
Essentially, with the decriminalization was meant to come a whole host of support network and rehab and other programs (regardless of what you may feel about the viability of the same). Then COVID happened, everything was decriminalized, and all of the other stuff did not, or barely, got off the ground, and is playing catch up now. And the result has been entirely predictable.
> voluntary uptake of drug rehabilitation offers has been terrible as most skeptics suggested
As a paramedic who administers Narcan multiple times a week, I get this. But the rationale is "if someone is using drugs, is even a 2% (arbitrary number) entry into rehab a success? Certainly if compared to 0%".
Let's also be real, it's not the legality of harder drugs that determine whether people do them or not.
I'm entirely in agreement. Dealers and suppliers? Those are, and should (and in PDX are) be illegal still. Portland Police have to shoulder their share of the blame, too, here, not (just) the social constructs - Portland Police were some of the worst in the country when it came to things like BLM, Patriot Prayer, the Proud Boys and similar (and behind Seattle were one of the top per capita when it came to "number of officers who attended 1/6") and have been happy to "quiet quit" (worse, really) the last few years.
Essentially, with the decriminalization was meant to come a whole host of support network and rehab and other programs (regardless of what you may feel about the viability of the same). Then COVID happened, everything was decriminalized, and all of the other stuff did not, or barely, got off the ground, and is playing catch up now. And the result has been entirely predictable.
> voluntary uptake of drug rehabilitation offers has been terrible as most skeptics suggested
As a paramedic who administers Narcan multiple times a week, I get this. But the rationale is "if someone is using drugs, is even a 2% (arbitrary number) entry into rehab a success? Certainly if compared to 0%".
Let's also be real, it's not the legality of harder drugs that determine whether people do them or not.
I'm entirely in agreement. Dealers and suppliers? Those are, and should (and in PDX are) be illegal still. Portland Police have to shoulder their share of the blame, too, here, not (just) the social constructs - Portland Police were some of the worst in the country when it came to things like BLM, Patriot Prayer, the Proud Boys and similar (and behind Seattle were one of the top per capita when it came to "number of officers who attended 1/6") and have been happy to "quiet quit" (worse, really) the last few years.
If prisoners at least got paid minimum wage then maybe when they left prison they'd have a pool of funds to get their life put back together rather than resorting to crime in order to survive, repeating a cycle that gets them put back in there.
Many states will bill inmates for their room and board on release.
Some even do so when there has been no conviction.
Some even do so when there has been no conviction.
You realize that prison is interested in getting them back?
This is an industrial complex and they are the product.
There are exceptions of cause, see Norway.
This is an industrial complex and they are the product.
There are exceptions of cause, see Norway.
Obviously the for-profit prisons would absolutely hate this kind of reform and will spend millions lobbying against it if it ever garnered serious consideration. All the more reason to push for it.
Not just for-profit prisons.
Correctional Officer unions are among the hardest lobbiers against ANY decriminalization of marijuana, or any general "reform" to our criminal statutes.
That blows my mind. "Keep more things illegal so we have a job".
Correctional Officer unions are among the hardest lobbiers against ANY decriminalization of marijuana, or any general "reform" to our criminal statutes.
That blows my mind. "Keep more things illegal so we have a job".
You think it is different in non for profit prisons? Wrong. And they are also making good money with it.
The question is, what is prison supposed to be? Punishment? Reintegration? Deterrence?
The question is, what is prison supposed to be? Punishment? Reintegration? Deterrence?
Prison is supposed to keep people who are harmful to society away from their victims. Anything else is secondary and should not impinge on prison's functionality of segregating convicts from society.
Wouldn't in many of those cases those funds be more needed by their victims to help restore a little of what was lost. Direct things like paying medical bills or supporting someone who can no longer work or less direct things like paying for therapy for someone who is now traumatized?
As for victimless crimes, do they really deserve prison to begin with and wouldn't we do better with alternatives, or perhaps even removing some of those laws entirely?
As for victimless crimes, do they really deserve prison to begin with and wouldn't we do better with alternatives, or perhaps even removing some of those laws entirely?
Having a percentage of their pay going to reparations for any identified victims of their crimes seems like it would be a fair system, and much better than what currently goes on where these companies are pocketing all of the profits from their labor.
That sounds like a feel-good system that would be very difficult to implement in practice. It's very different for different kinds of crimes, and nitpicking over level of victimhood is not something the law seems very concerned about. It could open up a whole cottage industry of "Victimhood Optimization" where people get very good at claiming they were the victim of some nebulous crime, and deserve a payout.
There are "victimless crimes" that are only victimless because everyone was lucky: a 3rd DUI, firing a gun in a crowded area but not hitting anyone, etc. Then there are crimes that have millions of potential victims: dumping toxic waste in a river, etc. It'd be an entire extra enigma the courts would have to figure out with every case. (I do think a big percentage of the "victimless crimes", like personal drug possession, should not even be crimes at all, but that's beside this point.)
There are "victimless crimes" that are only victimless because everyone was lucky: a 3rd DUI, firing a gun in a crowded area but not hitting anyone, etc. Then there are crimes that have millions of potential victims: dumping toxic waste in a river, etc. It'd be an entire extra enigma the courts would have to figure out with every case. (I do think a big percentage of the "victimless crimes", like personal drug possession, should not even be crimes at all, but that's beside this point.)
Give them something to do that normally doesn't get done. I could think of them building trails and huts in national parks like the CCC did in the 30s. Or other charitable things. Them working for cheap for profitable corporations is a massive market distortion which costs other non-imprisoned people their jobs.
Studying, choosing whether to work, making at least minimum wage
Working is fine but they should get paid normally so it doesn't ruin the labor market for all the non-slaves. They should start getting the paychecks they earned when they get out. If they mess up and re-offend, that's when we take that money away. The incentives now are all aligned with going back to crime, which works well for the slavers but not for anyone else.
I would rather have them choosing whether or not to work so they aren't slaves.
A slave that isn't given tasks to do is still a slave.
We can discuss the negative incentives of having them do labor and how that might pervert our legal system (companies that benefit lobbying for harsher penalties on victimless crimes), but they are still denied their freedom regardless of which way that discussion goes.
We can discuss the negative incentives of having them do labor and how that might pervert our legal system (companies that benefit lobbying for harsher penalties on victimless crimes), but they are still denied their freedom regardless of which way that discussion goes.
I don't want to have a semantic argument about the definition of "slave", maybe we can agree on the term "involuntary servant".
Prisoners should be denied as much freedom as is necessary to protect the rest of society and no more. Forcing people to work against their will does not protect anybody. It is not legitimate to say that if we deny one freedom we might as well deny all of them, they aren't free regardless.
Prisoners should be denied as much freedom as is necessary to protect the rest of society and no more. Forcing people to work against their will does not protect anybody. It is not legitimate to say that if we deny one freedom we might as well deny all of them, they aren't free regardless.
>Prisoners should be denied as much freedom as is necessary to protect the rest of society and no more.
I think many of those prisoners are already denied far more freedoms that necessary to keep them safe, so would that mean they are already worse off? The added labor is even worse, but I don't find that as the tipping point of good to bad yet a lot of the past discussion I've seen on if prison is slavery or not does seem to treat it as the tipping point. Getting past how we are naming things, my disagreement is that forced labor isn't what tips us from having a just prison system to an unjust one, and instead that we are mostly already over that tipping point even without forced labor being included.
I think many of those prisoners are already denied far more freedoms that necessary to keep them safe, so would that mean they are already worse off? The added labor is even worse, but I don't find that as the tipping point of good to bad yet a lot of the past discussion I've seen on if prison is slavery or not does seem to treat it as the tipping point. Getting past how we are naming things, my disagreement is that forced labor isn't what tips us from having a just prison system to an unjust one, and instead that we are mostly already over that tipping point even without forced labor being included.
> would that mean they are already worse off
Yes.
I agree that forced labor is not a tipping point, I haven't seen it described that way but I wouldn't agree with someone who said that everything we do up to forced labor is fine.
Yes.
I agree that forced labor is not a tipping point, I haven't seen it described that way but I wouldn't agree with someone who said that everything we do up to forced labor is fine.
I feel like the addition of being forced to work to benefit the man, while being paid little to nothing, while being physically abused, while losing the little free time they had, might just make those two things not the same.
The definitions of slave and slavery disagree with you
Oxford dictionary's definition requires ownership, so if the prisons/corporations do not actually legally own the person, then technically it doesn't qualify as slavery regardless of what sort of forced labor is required.
But is such a distinction really helpful to the discussion? If someone owns another person and forces them to work but doesn't force them to obey them, does it technically count as not a slave because it doesn't meet all three requirements of Oxford dictionary's definition. Will it really help if we then start comparing dictionary definitions of "forced" or "owned"? Or even what counts as work. A prisoner required to clean their cells and return their trays after lunch are forms of labor that could be done by janitor... is that work?
I don't think these matter once you have locked someone in a cage, even if it is a slightly gilded. Metaphorically speaking, no actual gold leaf or gold paint in use.
But is such a distinction really helpful to the discussion? If someone owns another person and forces them to work but doesn't force them to obey them, does it technically count as not a slave because it doesn't meet all three requirements of Oxford dictionary's definition. Will it really help if we then start comparing dictionary definitions of "forced" or "owned"? Or even what counts as work. A prisoner required to clean their cells and return their trays after lunch are forms of labor that could be done by janitor... is that work?
I don't think these matter once you have locked someone in a cage, even if it is a slightly gilded. Metaphorically speaking, no actual gold leaf or gold paint in use.
I know when I need to look up something pertaining to systemic racism, I reach for my Oxford.
As you say, saying "a prisoner who work is a slave" is already wrong, but saying "a prisoner who doesn't work is still a slave" is doubly wrong.
> But is such a distinction really helpful to the discussion?
Yes words have a meaning, changing the meaning of words is often used for dubious ideologies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTI_–_Lingua_Tertii_Imperii
Something can be bad and not an "holocaust", someone can be abused an not a "slave", someone can be racist and not "literally hitler", this modern perversion of language doesn't do anything besides discrediting the person who uses it.
We already have very specific words for very specific situations, we don't have to reuse loaded terms
> But is such a distinction really helpful to the discussion?
Yes words have a meaning, changing the meaning of words is often used for dubious ideologies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTI_–_Lingua_Tertii_Imperii
Something can be bad and not an "holocaust", someone can be abused an not a "slave", someone can be racist and not "literally hitler", this modern perversion of language doesn't do anything besides discrediting the person who uses it.
We already have very specific words for very specific situations, we don't have to reuse loaded terms
So are you seriously advocating that there be no consequences at all for those who would hurt others, and even kill them, just because you personally define it as "slavery"?
It's not that they're working it's that they're paid basically nothing for their labor which is bad for them and also the people in surrounding areas who have to compete with the absolute pittance the prison labor forces are paid.
The fact companies and people can make money of prisoners created an incentive to imprison more people for longer. That’s the problem.
Shouldn’t they be focusing on their rehab and mental health?
Rehabilitate our prisoners? And dry up the supply of cheap labor for the corporate interests? Come now.
Sad :(
Can you at least pay them a correct wage? In my country they are paid at least minimum wages, and have the choice of studying instead.
Education and Socializing activities for starters. Slavery isn't exactly going to rehabilitate anyone. At best they'll be indifferent and at worst it will just make them more angry and resentful at "the system". Hard to integrate back into society with that kind of head on your shoulders.
If someone has wronged me or my family or society at large in some kind of severe manner by committing a crime, I don't really care if they are rehabilitated. I want them punished. Why complicate things?
Also, I recognize that there are a lot of people in prison in the U.S. who shouldn't be there. I think our the way people end up in prison needs reform, of course. However, once there, the point is to punish people for doing something wrong, IMHO. "Rehabilitation" is not the point of prison.
Also, I recognize that there are a lot of people in prison in the U.S. who shouldn't be there. I think our the way people end up in prison needs reform, of course. However, once there, the point is to punish people for doing something wrong, IMHO. "Rehabilitation" is not the point of prison.
Should we just lock prisoners up for life? Or perhaps we should skip that and murder them behind the courthouse after they've been convicted, saving some taxpayer dollars in the process?
Neither is a practical or morally justifiable answer, of course. Other than cases where defendants are sentenced to life without parole, most of the people incarcerated in the United States will eventually be released from prison (whether it be through parole or because their sentence has been completed).
A purely punitive prison system does nothing to prepare prisoners for their eventual release back into society. Which, again, will happen for most prisoners. Even setting aside the moral questions with that approach, you merely increase the odds of re-offending. How is that better for society?
Neither is a practical or morally justifiable answer, of course. Other than cases where defendants are sentenced to life without parole, most of the people incarcerated in the United States will eventually be released from prison (whether it be through parole or because their sentence has been completed).
A purely punitive prison system does nothing to prepare prisoners for their eventual release back into society. Which, again, will happen for most prisoners. Even setting aside the moral questions with that approach, you merely increase the odds of re-offending. How is that better for society?
> I want them punished. Why complicate things?
Probably because satisfying your want for revenge isn't a good enough reason to have the big expensive system that is prison.
Presumably prison should be solving some wider societal problems.
Probably because satisfying your want for revenge isn't a good enough reason to have the big expensive system that is prison.
Presumably prison should be solving some wider societal problems.
> satisfying your want for revenge isn't a good enough reason to have the big expensive system that is prison
Retribution is an important component of justice [1]. Its utilitarian purpose is to prevent out-of-the-law reprisal.
You see it on HN, where certain topics attract someone who will be “sickened” or “disgusted” by some thing or other, and reflexively want something horrible to happen to everyone involved. (If you’re honest, you’ve done this too. It’s a childish impulse inherent to being human.)
[1] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/reasons-...
Retribution is an important component of justice [1]. Its utilitarian purpose is to prevent out-of-the-law reprisal.
You see it on HN, where certain topics attract someone who will be “sickened” or “disgusted” by some thing or other, and reflexively want something horrible to happen to everyone involved. (If you’re honest, you’ve done this too. It’s a childish impulse inherent to being human.)
[1] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/reasons-...
Retribution is not revenge, though.
Retribution is deserved punishment. Revenge is the infliction of harm or hurt on someone, and to me is "above and beyond" justice retribution, remediation, and rehabilitation.
Retribution is deserved punishment. Revenge is the infliction of harm or hurt on someone, and to me is "above and beyond" justice retribution, remediation, and rehabilitation.
I concur, but I think my point still stands: on its own, that's not enough to justify the existence of the whole machine. There are far cheaper ways to mete out punishment.
You don't want punishment to be cheap, it leads to very bad incentives. Expensive punishment means that it's in everyone's self interest to actually make sure that they're punishing the right guy. If effective rehabilitation turns out to be costly, that's not a bad thing either.
Most crimes don't result in life imprisonment or death, which means we have to consider the chances of them victimizing someone else once they get out. The punitive systems tend to do dramatically worse on this metric than the rehabilitative ones; they are crime and victimization generators.
> I want them punished.
Funnily enough, studies of families of murder victims where the murdered was sentenced to death show that they tend to disagree with you.
It "satisfies" for some very brief moment, but the loss is still there, and it doesn't make anyone's life better. It doesn't improve anything for anyone.
I'm reminded of American History X. A character is raging against everyone and anyone he has perceived has hurt him, his family, his home, his country. Immigrants, POC, whatever. He has responded with hate crimes, destroying grocery stores, forming groups of likeminded (or white) people.
His efforts end him in jail, and he's still raging.
And then a teacher asks him, says: "There was a moment, when I used to blame everything and everyone for all the pain and suffering and vile things that happened to me, that I saw happen to my people. Used to blame everybody. Blamed White people, blamed society, blamed God. I didn't get no answers 'cause I was asking the wrong questions. You have to ask the right questions."
Like what?
"Have any of the things you've done made your life better?"
They give voice to anger, rage, revenge (that's honestly a more honest word, in your case - you don't just want them punished, you want revenge on them). But none of those feelings improves anything.
Funnily enough, studies of families of murder victims where the murdered was sentenced to death show that they tend to disagree with you.
It "satisfies" for some very brief moment, but the loss is still there, and it doesn't make anyone's life better. It doesn't improve anything for anyone.
I'm reminded of American History X. A character is raging against everyone and anyone he has perceived has hurt him, his family, his home, his country. Immigrants, POC, whatever. He has responded with hate crimes, destroying grocery stores, forming groups of likeminded (or white) people.
His efforts end him in jail, and he's still raging.
And then a teacher asks him, says: "There was a moment, when I used to blame everything and everyone for all the pain and suffering and vile things that happened to me, that I saw happen to my people. Used to blame everybody. Blamed White people, blamed society, blamed God. I didn't get no answers 'cause I was asking the wrong questions. You have to ask the right questions."
Like what?
"Have any of the things you've done made your life better?"
They give voice to anger, rage, revenge (that's honestly a more honest word, in your case - you don't just want them punished, you want revenge on them). But none of those feelings improves anything.
To avoid two bad things, the following should be true when a company uses prison labor:
- The prisoner should be able to freely choose to work or not to work.
- The prisoner should be able to choose whom to work for and be able to quit.
- The prisoner should be making the same wage as someone not in prison. This wage may be garnished by the jail to pay for prison (separate topic), but it should still cost the company the same as a non-prisoner laborer.
The bad things that are avoided are:
- being unethical
- making sure corporations don't lobby to expand prison labor - which could have the side of effect of criminializing things that most people don't consider crimes.
- The prisoner should be able to freely choose to work or not to work.
- The prisoner should be able to choose whom to work for and be able to quit.
- The prisoner should be making the same wage as someone not in prison. This wage may be garnished by the jail to pay for prison (separate topic), but it should still cost the company the same as a non-prisoner laborer.
The bad things that are avoided are:
- being unethical
- making sure corporations don't lobby to expand prison labor - which could have the side of effect of criminializing things that most people don't consider crimes.
That’s slavery, friend.
i would certainly not want, anyone in a prison situation to handle food or critical dual purpose items, at any point during manufacture.
to wit; how often is prison product tested or monitored for tampering or expectorative adulterations ?
to wit; how often is prison product tested or monitored for tampering or expectorative adulterations ?
Working as a firefighter, inmate firefighters are among the hardest workers on the fire line, and do so despite often getting the worst work to do (hoeing and clearing fire breaks in 100F+ windy days with smoke and fire).
I'm very much appreciative of the fact that, though not mentioned, a growing number of fire departments are willing to overlook (certain) criminal history for hiring ex-inmate firefighters.
I'm very much appreciative of the fact that, though not mentioned, a growing number of fire departments are willing to overlook (certain) criminal history for hiring ex-inmate firefighters.
that does describe voluntary employment to me.
if industry can capture labor at the lower price point, there is a lot of incentive not to hire civilians with health care and worker rights, instead get more prison labor. This is older than Egypt.
They are paid far too low a wage. Even if they don't have much opportunities to spend money, they should be paid a regular wage.
(To be clear, they are being paid far below minimum wage; it would be illegal if they weren't prisoners)
If this makes prison labor no longer economical, so be it.
(To be clear, they are being paid far below minimum wage; it would be illegal if they weren't prisoners)
If this makes prison labor no longer economical, so be it.
its not about them working or not, its about what companies benefit from using such labor as opposed to employing people who need to support self/family.
Yeah, I don't understand why prison labor should be controversial as long as they're not being treated terribly. Give them minimum wage if weighs on your conscience, and pay it out in a lump sum when they get out.
Please read the article, it addresses all of your points and should help you understand.
[deleted]
Because we tend not to like slave labor in the modern world. Using prisoners for slave labor creates perverse incentives to enslave more people, and keep them enslaved longer.
Call me old fashioned, but I don't think law abiding citizens should bear the burden of those who break the law.
If people outside those prison walls are forced to get a job, then the people inside those walls should be no exception.
If people outside those prison walls are forced to get a job, then the people inside those walls should be no exception.
Because it sets up incentives for whoever benefits from the labor to lobby for stricter crime laws regardless of whether those stricter laws lead to less crime in the long term.
This is a problem with crony capitalism, moreso than the philosophy of rehabilitation vs punishment.
Literal slavery
tiahura(1)
sschueller(1)
pierat(2)
Just force them code in Rust.
As it sits, do the prisoners have the right to refuse this work = sit in a cell or yard doing nothing? I might well choose the activity of the work.
The world's prison systems are, as we all know, systems that promote the wide dissemination of DIY crime instruction from 'old boys' as well as 'tech boys' and it works very well at that!!
With the rise of AI, and the application of AI to detailed instruction (AKA teaching) where each prisoner would have 3-4 hours of instruction, followed by 3-4 hours of AI supervised homework/surfing make a valuable day where they learn various new skills and are taught STEM matter as well as history/arts - as their intellect and interest allows. Prisoners could gain from this, as would we all.
No they do not have the right to refuse, and can be punished if they do. The text is pretty clear: "involuntary servitude" is permitted as punishment for a crime.
> More than 76 percent of incarcerated workers report that they are required to work or face additional punishment such as solitary confinement, denial of opportunities to reduce their sentence, and loss of family visitation, or the inability to pay for basic life necessities like bath soap.
- https://www.aclu.org/publications/captive-labor-exploitation...
> More than 76 percent of incarcerated workers report that they are required to work or face additional punishment such as solitary confinement, denial of opportunities to reduce their sentence, and loss of family visitation, or the inability to pay for basic life necessities like bath soap.
- https://www.aclu.org/publications/captive-labor-exploitation...
It’s a bit more complex than that and has a bunch of edge cases.
For example, in most of the states, there are prisons that are pay-to-stay, so prisoners basically go in debt while they’re incarcerated. This further troubles their debts, putting more pressure on them to take on work. Part of this debt can be written off by working on specific jobs that are sourced by local employers. There was a case of a woman I read about, how she’s paying off her pay-to-stay prison debt working at a wings place part time, while serving her sentence.
Since every state has its own laws and complexities, you get a bunch of scenarios that add up, which, in my opinion, are highly immoral.
For example, in most of the states, there are prisons that are pay-to-stay, so prisoners basically go in debt while they’re incarcerated. This further troubles their debts, putting more pressure on them to take on work. Part of this debt can be written off by working on specific jobs that are sourced by local employers. There was a case of a woman I read about, how she’s paying off her pay-to-stay prison debt working at a wings place part time, while serving her sentence.
Since every state has its own laws and complexities, you get a bunch of scenarios that add up, which, in my opinion, are highly immoral.
Uhm ... how can prisons be pay to stay? Do you get a worse prison if you don't pay?
I'm genuinely not kidding, as a non-American who has some family living in US, some of that just sounds absolutely bizarre. However I'm not that sure about its intricacies. But keep in mind, going to prison for having debt is also a thing in the states. So not paying up your dues can eventually roll you back into the system.
But yeah, pay-to-stay imprisonment is a thing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay-to-stay_(imprisonment).
But yeah, pay-to-stay imprisonment is a thing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay-to-stay_(imprisonment).
> going to prison for having debt is also a thing in the states
LOL no, except for some narrow definition of debt which only counts criminal activity.
Foreigners are so credulous when it comes to what they hear about the US.
LOL no, except for some narrow definition of debt which only counts criminal activity.
Foreigners are so credulous when it comes to what they hear about the US.
I did very quick Googling, and my memory was based on reading these two [1] [2], I'm not entirely sure how are these correlated to criminal activities. Obviously, it's all nuanced and depends on each state, but don't mind being corrected:
[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/797098376/investigation-finds...
[2] https://www.dw.com/en/a-world-of-debt-over-300-trillion-and-... - part about the woman in Missisipi
[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/797098376/investigation-finds...
[2] https://www.dw.com/en/a-world-of-debt-over-300-trillion-and-... - part about the woman in Missisipi
Annita Husband was imprisoned for embezzlement and placed under the supervision of a restitution center until she completed that. Her debt, as it were, was to the State of Mississippi.
Similar with the other example. These are people who are required to have a job so they can pay restitution, and if they refuse to get a job they can be imprisoned as one possible punishment.
Regular people who are in debt do not face debtor's prison in the US, this is not a feature of the bankruptcy courts. Debtors prisons were more common in the distant past, and especially a thing in Europe.
Similar with the other example. These are people who are required to have a job so they can pay restitution, and if they refuse to get a job they can be imprisoned as one possible punishment.
Regular people who are in debt do not face debtor's prison in the US, this is not a feature of the bankruptcy courts. Debtors prisons were more common in the distant past, and especially a thing in Europe.
I’m sorry, but if you’re forced to stay at a place until you pay off your debt, how is that “not a debt prison”? You can call it “restitution center”, but… c’mon. They’re not being sent there because of their other crimes, but specifically because they need to pay off their debt. I’m not saying they’re going into a supermax or something, but their freedom is actively being restricted, because they have not paid their debt.
These people stole that money. Paying it back is part of their sentence. A sentence for a criminal act. The criminal act of theft, or embezzlement. They are, in fact, being "sent there because of their other crimes." If they had taken out loans for that money and failed to pay it back, they would not be in this situation, they'd just have shitty credit ratings.
Restitution is not borrowed money. That's a pretty important distinction. Calling it debt may be strictly correct but it comparing it to consumer debt is disingenuous.
You may be interested in reading up on the prison industrial complex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_comp...
Yes actually.
That's the part I don't get about people comparing this to slavery. You have the right to refuse. Everything I've heard from people actually in prison say they're grateful for it because it gives them something to do. Do we need to have reform around the prison system? Yes. Is targeting the one place where they are able to do something productive and earn some money the way to do it? Probably not.
You're not going to get much reform if the prison operators are making bank on the status quo.
We can add this to the hundreds of reasons why for-profit prisons are bad.
You think it is different in government run prisons? There are valid reasons to be against forced prison labor, but the prevalence of it has little to do whether the prison is run by the government or a private company.
Government-run prisons may be badly run, but at least they don't have an overt incentive to exploit the inmates as much as possible.
>Government-run prisons may be badly run, but at least they don't have an overt incentive to exploit the inmates as much as possible.
Everyone who benefits from the prison industrial complex has a an overt incentive to exploit the inmates as much as possible.
Only about 8% of prisoners are in private prisons:
https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/private-prisons-in...
Take for example California. There are no private prisons. Yet CA is one of the states requiring forced labor and prisoners can earn a maximum of 37 cents an hour:
https://www.capradio.org/articles/2023/05/12/california-is-o....
Who is part of the prison industrial complex? How about the prison guard unions who directly benefit from having more prisoners?
>...Although its membership is relatively small, representing only about one tenth the membership of the California Teachers Association, CCPOA political activity routinely exceeds that of all other labor unions in California. The union spends heavily on influencing political campaigns, and on lobbying legislators and other government officials. CCPOA also hires public relations firms and political polling firms.
>As calls for reform of the state's prison system escalated during 2006, putting pressure on former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to take a more aggressive stance on reform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Correctional_Peace_...
This prison system with no private prisons is a prison system where the medical care is so bad that the system was taken over by the federal government:
>...The state's prison medical care system has been in receivership since 2006, when a federal court ruled in Plata v. Brown that the state failed to provide a constitutional level of medical care to its prisoners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_California#:~:text=....
One should care about the lack of accountability of prison guards and the cruelty for cruelty sake that seems to permeate the prison system. When you have the people who regulate the system are the same ones who run it, though what do you expect? Take the example of Cochran prison in CA. This was a prison which shot and killed more prisoners than any prison in the country and the guards were setting up and then betting on gladiator battles.
>...Guards and inmates described macabre scenes in which prison officers gathered in control booths overlooking cramped exercise yards in advance of fights, which were sometimes delayed so that female guards and even prison secretaries could be present.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/staged-fights-betti...
After 60 minutes covered the story, the California Department of Corrections did an investigation and naturally found no "'widespread staff conspiracy' to abuse prisoners".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Prison,_Corco...
This isn't to say that CA prisons are the worst in the country - likely other state's prisons are just as bad as CA. When you have the people regulating a system be the same people who are running the system, you have an overt incentive to exploit the inmates as much as possible.
Everyone who benefits from the prison industrial complex has a an overt incentive to exploit the inmates as much as possible.
Only about 8% of prisoners are in private prisons:
https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/private-prisons-in...
Take for example California. There are no private prisons. Yet CA is one of the states requiring forced labor and prisoners can earn a maximum of 37 cents an hour:
https://www.capradio.org/articles/2023/05/12/california-is-o....
Who is part of the prison industrial complex? How about the prison guard unions who directly benefit from having more prisoners?
>...Although its membership is relatively small, representing only about one tenth the membership of the California Teachers Association, CCPOA political activity routinely exceeds that of all other labor unions in California. The union spends heavily on influencing political campaigns, and on lobbying legislators and other government officials. CCPOA also hires public relations firms and political polling firms.
>As calls for reform of the state's prison system escalated during 2006, putting pressure on former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to take a more aggressive stance on reform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Correctional_Peace_...
This prison system with no private prisons is a prison system where the medical care is so bad that the system was taken over by the federal government:
>...The state's prison medical care system has been in receivership since 2006, when a federal court ruled in Plata v. Brown that the state failed to provide a constitutional level of medical care to its prisoners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_California#:~:text=....
One should care about the lack of accountability of prison guards and the cruelty for cruelty sake that seems to permeate the prison system. When you have the people who regulate the system are the same ones who run it, though what do you expect? Take the example of Cochran prison in CA. This was a prison which shot and killed more prisoners than any prison in the country and the guards were setting up and then betting on gladiator battles.
>...Guards and inmates described macabre scenes in which prison officers gathered in control booths overlooking cramped exercise yards in advance of fights, which were sometimes delayed so that female guards and even prison secretaries could be present.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/staged-fights-betti...
After 60 minutes covered the story, the California Department of Corrections did an investigation and naturally found no "'widespread staff conspiracy' to abuse prisoners".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Prison,_Corco...
This isn't to say that CA prisons are the worst in the country - likely other state's prisons are just as bad as CA. When you have the people regulating a system be the same people who are running the system, you have an overt incentive to exploit the inmates as much as possible.
Recidivism is so high for a lot of reasons, but two big ones are 1) prisons are focused too much on punishment for the sake of punishment and not enough on reforming those inmates who can be reformed (not all can); and, 2) ex-cons typically have little to no resources when they get out, have trouble finding employment, and turn back to crime as one of the only ways they can make any money at all. Does this mean they should get a pass for the crimes? Of course not.
But it does mean that we could combat #2 by actually paying convicts working as part of a prison sentence the wage they'd get for that same job after release. Why are we paying convicts less than $0.50/hr[0] for jobs they'd earn $25-30/hr for? Because it benefits those local economies, but at the cause of driving up recidivism. Imagine if you were incarcerated, had the option of working (the majority of incarcerated workers are punished if they don't work), and if you did you'd have thousands in savings when released to get back on your feet?
[0] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/04/10/wages/
But it does mean that we could combat #2 by actually paying convicts working as part of a prison sentence the wage they'd get for that same job after release. Why are we paying convicts less than $0.50/hr[0] for jobs they'd earn $25-30/hr for? Because it benefits those local economies, but at the cause of driving up recidivism. Imagine if you were incarcerated, had the option of working (the majority of incarcerated workers are punished if they don't work), and if you did you'd have thousands in savings when released to get back on your feet?
[0] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/04/10/wages/
Being tossed in solitary confinement because you won't work for $0.40/hr sounds like slavery to me. It's right there in the language of the 13th amendment. Maybe has something to do with the US having the largest prison population in the world. Larger than China even, an authoritarian nation with 4x the population. Does that happen in a vacuum?
Forced labor in prison is not "slavery", as that term is generally understood. It may be bad, and that labor benefiting private companies may be worse, but that doesn't mean it's "slavery". Also, people duly convicted of crimes lose many of their civil rights. This is not new, and there's nothing wrong with it per se. (It happens in every country.) Seriously people, you're not being clever or radical. You're just being foolish and/or dishonest. People who are against forced prison labor are trying to convince other people that it's "slavery" because they want to get rid of it (or pare it back, or stop private companies from benefiting from it, or whatever). It is very much an Orwellian tactic.
Forced labor is indeed slavery, which the Thirteenth Amendment unfortunately permits.
> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
It may not be chattel slavery.
> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
It may not be chattel slavery.
By that definition, forcing a dad to work for child support (which happens sometimes, and I fully understand why) is slavery. That definition can apply to a lot of stuff if you stretch it, or if you remove context. Obviously having to work when you put yourself in a situation through the consequences of your own actions, with a sentence and due process, is not slavery. Having to work to provide for your children (legally so) is not slavery either. Now you can totally be against prison labor, I myself don't think it is beneficial for anyone, but you don't have to say it's "slavery" just to frame it as a pro or anti slavery debate lol.
By the legal definition of kidnapping, putting someone in jail could be considered to be kidnapping yet everyone knows very well that it just isn't the same
By the legal definition of kidnapping, putting someone in jail could be considered to be kidnapping yet everyone knows very well that it just isn't the same
> By that definition, forcing a dad to work for child support (which happens sometimes, and I fully understand why) is slavery.
We don't force deadbeat dads to work; we force them to make payments. You can sell assets, use savings, beg/borrow/steal, but you're obligated to make the payments.
If we assigned a job to deadbeat dads, that would be involuntary servitude. (Certain levels of avoiding child support payments being a crime, this is currently Constitutionally permissible, but uncommon.)
> By the legal definition of kidnapping, putting someone in jail could be considered to be kidnapping yet everyone knows very well that it just isn't the same
No. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1201
The second word in the definition is unlawfully. Putting someone in jail via due process is not unlawful. I know we all like to think of Congress as entirely feckless, but the interns writing the regs typically aren't idiots.
We don't force deadbeat dads to work; we force them to make payments. You can sell assets, use savings, beg/borrow/steal, but you're obligated to make the payments.
If we assigned a job to deadbeat dads, that would be involuntary servitude. (Certain levels of avoiding child support payments being a crime, this is currently Constitutionally permissible, but uncommon.)
> By the legal definition of kidnapping, putting someone in jail could be considered to be kidnapping yet everyone knows very well that it just isn't the same
No. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1201
The second word in the definition is unlawfully. Putting someone in jail via due process is not unlawful. I know we all like to think of Congress as entirely feckless, but the interns writing the regs typically aren't idiots.
For most of the world's history, life ran on one motto:
"If you don't work (or someone who loves you doesn't work for you), you don't eat."
The alternative is manifestly unjust: A prisoner who might have killed 20 people gets to just live life, and can't be ordered to even keep the cell doors clean.
"If you don't work (or someone who loves you doesn't work for you), you don't eat."
The alternative is manifestly unjust: A prisoner who might have killed 20 people gets to just live life, and can't be ordered to even keep the cell doors clean.
Why not keep going and just start selling prisoners directly into indenture? You could call them "servants" and sell them on blocks to the highest bidder. Require as a condition of purchase that a percentage of the purchase price be delivered into their hands when their indenture ends.
If we cannot punish prisoners for their crimes by being required to do even a modicum of labor (it's certainly not brutal anymore), why even put them in jail in the first place? We're restricting their right to free movement, which is de-facto slavery. If we want to abolish slavery fully, prisons themselves cannot exist.
> why even put them in jail in the first place?
To keep them separate from the society they're having trouble safely engaging with.
> We're restricting their right to free movement, which is de-facto slavery.
No; imprisonment and slavery are not the same thing. You can't just redefine words to make your strawman argument work.
To keep them separate from the society they're having trouble safely engaging with.
> We're restricting their right to free movement, which is de-facto slavery.
No; imprisonment and slavery are not the same thing. You can't just redefine words to make your strawman argument work.
"Most of the world's history" was shitty and brutal. It is good to move past outdated concepts.
Forced prison labor is very clearly not chattel slavery. And chattel slavery is what 99.9% of people mean when they talk about slavery in the US.
And I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it seems to me that "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" qualifies "involuntary servitude", not "slavery". And in any case, lawyers like to err on the side of ruling out any possible misinterpretation, no matter how ridiculous.
If one was with a child, and the child saw a chain gang working, and the child asked "Are they slaves?", no sane person would say "yes" and leave it at that. You're being either daft or disingenuous, or both.
And I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it seems to me that "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" qualifies "involuntary servitude", not "slavery". And in any case, lawyers like to err on the side of ruling out any possible misinterpretation, no matter how ridiculous.
If one was with a child, and the child saw a chain gang working, and the child asked "Are they slaves?", no sane person would say "yes" and leave it at that. You're being either daft or disingenuous, or both.
> Forced prison labor is very clearly not chattel slavery.
But it is, if unpaid, slavery.
> And I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it seems to me that "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" qualifies "involuntary servitude", not "slavery". And in any case, lawyers like to err on the side of ruling out any possible misinterpretation, no matter how ridiculous.
No. The distinction between the two is that involuntary servitude covers being forced to work while being paid or otherwise compensated; a slave, in contrast, doesn't get paid. Both are forced labor, but one is slavery. US prison labor may be one or the other, depending on payment.
(An English teacher would also sigh at you for your parsing of the clauses, I suspect. Your interpretation would require a different arrangement of the commas, i.e. Neither slavery COMMA nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted COMMA shall exist within the United States...)
> If one was with a child, and the child saw a chain gang working, and the child asked "Are they slaves?", no sane person would say "yes" and leave it at that.
Correct, because at a glance, you don't know if it's forced labor. Some states do voluntary work gangs; in some scenarios it's even considered a perk.
But it is, if unpaid, slavery.
> And I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it seems to me that "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" qualifies "involuntary servitude", not "slavery". And in any case, lawyers like to err on the side of ruling out any possible misinterpretation, no matter how ridiculous.
No. The distinction between the two is that involuntary servitude covers being forced to work while being paid or otherwise compensated; a slave, in contrast, doesn't get paid. Both are forced labor, but one is slavery. US prison labor may be one or the other, depending on payment.
(An English teacher would also sigh at you for your parsing of the clauses, I suspect. Your interpretation would require a different arrangement of the commas, i.e. Neither slavery COMMA nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted COMMA shall exist within the United States...)
> If one was with a child, and the child saw a chain gang working, and the child asked "Are they slaves?", no sane person would say "yes" and leave it at that.
Correct, because at a glance, you don't know if it's forced labor. Some states do voluntary work gangs; in some scenarios it's even considered a perk.
> No. The distinction between the two is that involuntary servitude covers being forced to work while being paid or otherwise compensated; a slave, in contrast, doesn't get paid.
Do you have a citation for this claim?
> > If one was with a child, and the child saw a chain gang working, and the child asked "Are they slaves?", no sane person would say "yes" and leave it at that.
> Correct, because at a glance, you don't know if it's forced labor. Some states do voluntary work gangs; in some scenarios it's even considered a perk.
What if the adult in the scenario happens to know that the prisoners are not being paid? Then you think the correct answer to the child's question is "Yes, those are slaves"? With no further qualification necessary?
Do you have a citation for this claim?
> > If one was with a child, and the child saw a chain gang working, and the child asked "Are they slaves?", no sane person would say "yes" and leave it at that.
> Correct, because at a glance, you don't know if it's forced labor. Some states do voluntary work gangs; in some scenarios it's even considered a perk.
What if the adult in the scenario happens to know that the prisoners are not being paid? Then you think the correct answer to the child's question is "Yes, those are slaves"? With no further qualification necessary?
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/219/219/
> The words involuntary servitude have a "larger meaning than slavery." "It was very well understood that, in the form of apprenticeship for long terms, as it had been practiced in the West India Islands, on the abolition of slavery by the English government, or by reducing the slaves to the condition of serfs attached to the plantation, the purpose of the article might have been evaded if only the word 'slavery' had been used."
If there wasn't a distinction between the two, the Amendment wouldn't need to mention both.
If I see forced unpaid laborers, I'm entirely comfortable deeming them slaves. (They'll probably learn about similar forms of slavery in history class; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome, for example. In current affairs, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century)
> The words involuntary servitude have a "larger meaning than slavery." "It was very well understood that, in the form of apprenticeship for long terms, as it had been practiced in the West India Islands, on the abolition of slavery by the English government, or by reducing the slaves to the condition of serfs attached to the plantation, the purpose of the article might have been evaded if only the word 'slavery' had been used."
If there wasn't a distinction between the two, the Amendment wouldn't need to mention both.
If I see forced unpaid laborers, I'm entirely comfortable deeming them slaves. (They'll probably learn about similar forms of slavery in history class; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome, for example. In current affairs, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century)
Your original claim was that "slavery" means forced work without compensation, whereas "involuntary servitude" means forced work with or without compensation. Your citation doesn't justify this claim. It not just that there's a distinction, it's the nature of the distinction that I'm disputing.
> If I see forced unpaid laborers, I'm entirely comfortable deeming them slaves.
Yeah, you're comfortable with it because you've redefined "slavery" to mean whatever you want it to mean. But if you did a survey of native English speakers, and asked them if unpaid workers on a chain gang were slaves, how many do you think would say "yes", without qualification? I would be shocked if the answer were more than 20%.
> If I see forced unpaid laborers, I'm entirely comfortable deeming them slaves.
Yeah, you're comfortable with it because you've redefined "slavery" to mean whatever you want it to mean. But if you did a survey of native English speakers, and asked them if unpaid workers on a chain gang were slaves, how many do you think would say "yes", without qualification? I would be shocked if the answer were more than 20%.
Forced labour _is_ slavery, by definition. If your rights are taken away and you are forced to work, you are a slave.
The US 13th amendment says,
> either slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
"Except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". Ie, you're in prison, and required to labour. It's slavery. It's right there in that US consitutional amendment.
There are different types of slavery. You may be thinking of chattel slaves, where a person is owned. A prisoner is not owned. That does not mean that someone who is not owned by another human, yet who is forced to labour, is not a slave: it's called de facto slavery or state imposed forced labour slavery.
See https://www.antislavery.org/what-we-do/state-imposed-forced-...
The US 13th amendment says,
> either slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
"Except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". Ie, you're in prison, and required to labour. It's slavery. It's right there in that US consitutional amendment.
There are different types of slavery. You may be thinking of chattel slaves, where a person is owned. A prisoner is not owned. That does not mean that someone who is not owned by another human, yet who is forced to labour, is not a slave: it's called de facto slavery or state imposed forced labour slavery.
See https://www.antislavery.org/what-we-do/state-imposed-forced-...
> people duly convicted of crimes lose many of their civil rights. This is not new, and there's nothing wrong with it per se.
The wrong part is when you connect "X loses many of their civil rights" to "Y makes a greater profit", and now Y has a lot of money and an incentive to spend a fraction of it on lobbying for legislative changes that will send even more people to prison... which means even more money for lobbying, etc.
A few iterations of this feedback loop and you get a system which routinely sends people to prison for trivial things, which routinely sends innocent people to prison, heck even a system where the innocent people are officially advised to "confess" and accept a plea bargain rather than insist on their rights and risk 10x greater penalty if they are falsely convicted.
The wrong part is when you connect "X loses many of their civil rights" to "Y makes a greater profit", and now Y has a lot of money and an incentive to spend a fraction of it on lobbying for legislative changes that will send even more people to prison... which means even more money for lobbying, etc.
A few iterations of this feedback loop and you get a system which routinely sends people to prison for trivial things, which routinely sends innocent people to prison, heck even a system where the innocent people are officially advised to "confess" and accept a plea bargain rather than insist on their rights and risk 10x greater penalty if they are falsely convicted.
how is it not?
> With the passage of the 13th amendment in 1865, slavery was deemed unconstitutional. Involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, was still explicitly allowed.
> With the passage of the 13th amendment in 1865, slavery was deemed unconstitutional. Involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, was still explicitly allowed.
See my response above. When people talk about slavery in the US, they mean chattel slavery. Forced prison labor is clearly not chattel slavery. To pretend otherwise is to be either silly or disingenuous, or both.
I don't see why you're attempting to mitigate this horrible shitty thing.
It can be shitty without being slavery. You don't have to frame every debate like this just to strengthen your point.
Because it pisses me off when people try to 'argue' by stretching the commonly-understood meanings of emotionally-charged words like "slavery". Argue the merits, don't attempt cheap rhetorical legerdemain.