141–150 of 391 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think reasonable for them to work, as long as it’s voluntary and subject to the same protections afforded to any other worker, such as minimum wage. The problem isn’t prison work, it’s prison slavery .
It's not slavery. But if you don't "volunteer" for work, you spend a week in solitary (aka: Torture).
A relevant snippet: “California inmates were sent off to fight what has become the largest wildfire in the state’s history for just $1 an hour. These firefighters, who volunteered for a vocational training program offered by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, are often disqualified from the work after release because a required credential is denied to anyone with a criminal record. Hundreds…
It’s worth noting that this is a voulenteer program and that for every day you work you get 1 day off your sentence. So you can effectively halve your time in prison. This actually seems like a pretty good deal, what would you pay to get a day off your sentence? That said, I think the Prision system is fucked, has horrible incentives, private companies abuse bought prison labor, etc. etc. But I actually felt like thi…
Interesting. You could conceivably rationalize that as being equivalent to a fair wage--every day you work gets you one extra day closer to getting out and starting a real job.
Of course that still ignores the obvious problem of how hard it is for a broke ex-con to find work. But it's better than nothing, I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not being independently wealthy, I don’t have a choice to work or not. In that sense, if I wanted not to work, then, yes, I would be working against my will. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery Edit: I should clarify, I have the choice not to work and be homeless, but that’s such a deplorable choice, it doesn’t constitute a real, free choice.
Sure you do have a choice; you can go live in the wilderness and live entirely self-sufficiently. Just because a choice is unreasonable to you doesn't make it less of a choice. More importantly (and my entire point) is that you have a choice of exactly what kind of work you want to do. That self-determination differentiates you from a prisoner or slave.
My point is that I have no choice other than to do something someone else will pay me to do. You haven’t addressed the argument; you are begging the question. “Work or die” sounds a lot like slavery to me.
Please reply again when you have a good faith argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can any lawyer comment? A reading of the 13th amendment seems to justify involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime, does this mean prison labor that isn't included in a sentence a violation of the 13th amendment? Just reading of this seems to allow one to make an legal argument along those lines, so I imagine there must have been some case that lead to a clarification of the 13th in the intervening century or…
Except there is over a century of precedent, and no court is going to overturn that now. The 13th amendment is not some new discovery that the courts are waiting for someone to make an argument based on
The supreme court could reinterpret this, and require forced labor to be a part of the sentence, not just allowed to be used against anyone in prison.
Precedent changes over time. This idea that the current interpretation of the Constitution is immutable is defeatist and foolish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure prisons should offer gainful employment to prisoners. Teaching, training, therapy, yes, please, absolutely. Humane conditions and treatment from the guards most definitely. But minimum wage? I’m not sure. I like the idea of inmates being able to complete their sentence with some funds they’ve saved up to help get back on their feet. But that’s what halfway houses are supposed to support I guess?
Either you like a rule for minimum wage or you dont, if you start choosing who gets it you subvert the very core principle that people deserve a sustenance wage. It would be reasonable to devote 10-20% of the wages to prison maintenance or victims reparations, but saying their labor is worth 1$ is preposterous.
It’s not unreasonable to treat prisoners as a unique population / special case. They are not incarcerated so that they can continue gainful employment.
Prisoners should not be getting paid to cook, clean, do laundry, etc. to help operate the prison, for example.
My understanding was jobs that provided for options to work outside the prison (like cleaning up roadside garbage) were coveted chances to get outside and maybe earn some time off for community service.
Court ordered community service can also be a reasonable punishment instead of incarceration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the difference between a teenager mowing the lawn for their parents and someone paid to mow a lawn? Furthermore, when a farmer's child does chores alongside a paid laborer, what's going on?
The kid getting paid to mow neighborhood lawns has: 1. The right to say "no" without repercussions beyond "not getting paid". 2. Significant statutory protections regarding exploitative treatment. EDIT: There's also a large body of statute defining what is and isn't okay in the family farm situation.
Have you ever had parents? I realize it's outside the Overton window to do anything about it, but age-based slavery[0] is ubiquitous and the legal default in essentially (I think literally) every country on Earth. It's an even more pervasive affliction than copyright, so I find your ignorance implausible.
0: in the ownership sense; actually using them for forced labor is less common
A relevant snippet: “California inmates were sent off to fight what has become the largest wildfire in the state’s history for just $1 an hour. These firefighters, who volunteered for a vocational training program offered by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, are often disqualified from the work after release because a required credential is denied to anyone with a criminal record. Hundreds…
Prisoners are also unable to become smokejumpers or hot shots because they not only have a criminal record, but don't get the same training such as the EMT requirement, yet they're put in harm's way. Democracy Now covered this topic extensively.
It's often a CYA and public perception issue: org X receives application from convict, considers fallout if convict does something bad, realizes it'll become a PR nightmare and that they'll be torn to shreds for permitting the hire. The risk is never outweighed by the benefit, in their eyes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The kid getting paid to mow neighborhood lawns has: 1. The right to say "no" without repercussions beyond "not getting paid". 2. Significant statutory protections regarding exploitative treatment. EDIT: There's also a large body of statute defining what is and isn't okay in the family farm situation.
> 1. The right to say "no" without repercussions beyond "not getting paid". Have you ever had parents? I realize it's outside the Overton window to do anything about it, but age-based slavery[0] is ubiquitous and the legal default in essentially (I think literally ) every country on Earth. It's an even more pervasive affliction than copyright, so I find your ignorance implausible. 0: in the ownership sense; actually…
Please try to address the argument I actually made.
I never understood the idea of paying prisoners absurdly little “because prison”. Why, because they’re not paying rent? And there’s no way they will find a job on Day 1 after release, meaning they essentially have not enough money while in prison, no way to save money, and poverty at release. Given that, they’ll probably be forced to steal to survive after release and...end up back in prison. It’s inhumane garbage, a…
I don’t disagree but just wanted to say something: The whole point of money was to make it possible for 2+ good actors to do legal (and different) work/goods/services for each other while profiting. Most people who end up in prison were “bad actors” by definition. The system was not benefiting from them. And thus I can’t help thinking that they don’t really deserve any of the system’s monetary medium of exchange.
No matter what crime someone's committed, they're still a person, and if our goal is more productive members of society, cutting people off from the main tool for goods exchange will not move us toward that goal.
I'm very impressed that we don't actually bill prisoners for rent, food, etc and if they can't pay, loan them money through a high interest loan that they can never pay off. Maybe they could do this and reduce interest on the loan if you work in prison. Whatever story works to keep people blind to the fact that the state abuses the shit out of its people.
We do. https://money.cnn.com/2015/09/18/news/economy/prison-fees-in...