I really hope this doesn't devolve into just demonizing everyone who is incarcerated, and acting like making bad choices as a teenager means you deserve to be broke and unsuccessful for the rest of your life.
I would hope that society would rather me work and pay taxes, offsetting the cost of keeping me here, and giving me hope, responsibilities, discipline and a reason to continue making good life decisions when I am released.
95+% of those incarcerated are getting released one day.. People who have nothing to lose, no sense of self worth, or any feelings of identity with the rest of society are likely not people you want moving in next door to you.
I might be in prison but I lead a team of developers and contribute to open source regularly. I found my passion and I am now a contributing, tax paying member of society and no longer identify with the prison subculture at all.
It's difficult to see how this outcome could be viewed in any way as negative. I know that I made poor decisions, and I am not proud of them, or who I was at the time at all. I wanted to change my life and Maine gave me an opportunity to do that through hard work and I am extremely grateful for it.
I think most of the criticism comes from those worried it will lead to worse conditions. As long as the primary goal is education and reintegration, then it's great. If it becomes a program of squeezing unwilling prisoners to undercut competition then I have big problems with it. I fear the natural course will be cutting prison funding and putting pressure on these programs to bring in money to fund prison necessities.
I see what you're saying for sure. but at the end of the day, allowing inmates to have jobs both takes pressure off of the cost/budget for their incarceration, and simultaneously is drastically lowering the likelihood that those inmates will return (and cost more taxpayer $).
I guess what I mean is, they can't end up squeezing prisoners any more than they already are: in many places 8 hour prison jobs paying less than 50 cents a day, when a phone call costs $3.00+ an hour and a single ramen noodle costs $2.00+.
That stuff significantly contributes to the prison mentality and group-think mindset of 'the authorities are your enemy'. Even if you don't come in with that mentality, after being surrounded by it in conditions like that, you'll very likely be brainwashed by the time you leave and the cycle unfortunately begins.
> allowing inmates to have jobs both takes pressure off of the cost/budget for their incarceration
No. This CANNOT be part of the argument for prisoner's having jobs. If we as a society have decided that the only route to protecting society is to strip people of their rights and freedom, the we MUST be the one's to fund it. I don't have a problem with prisoners having jobs, in fact I definitely agree that it needs to be a part of rehabilitation. But a system that depends on abusing others to prop itself up should not exist. And this system cannot exist and deliver the actual results we want of correction and rehabilitation if there is a monetary incentive because there will always be someone that will come along and selfishly twist the system for their own gain.
I think all proceeds of prisoner work should remain solely that of the prisoners (potentially garnishable depending on their crimes).
> I think all proceeds of prisoner work should remain solely that of the prisoners (potentially garnishable depending on their crimes).
80-90% of the after tax salary should go to a fund that the prisoner receives the day they're released, with the rest going to commissary. Maybe a monthly disbursement if voters want to be paternalistic about it.
When convicts are released on probation to a halfway home, it should be with a pocket full of change so they can start rebuilding their life - buy a beater car to be able to commute, put a down payment on their own place, and so on.
> 80-90% of the after tax salary should go to a fund that the prisoner receives the day they're released
I’d rather they be allowed to use that money as they see fit while still incarcerated, unless there is a specific reason not to (e.g. history of financial crimes).
For instance, people in jail might have kids or sick parents, and should be able to help support them now if needed.
That’s a great point! If they have dependents, prisoners should absolutely be able to send money to them as they earn it without restriction.
I don’t want to deprive them of even more agency than we already do, but I do think there’s a moral hazard to letting prisoners spend all that money themselves while incarcerated. Commissary prices are ridiculous but there’s only so much they can spend on ramen and toiletries. Even a minimum wage of $10/hr is plenty to drive the black market for drugs out of control which will just make the long term situation worse for everyone (thanks to corrupt prison guards more than anything). It’s unfortunately paternalistic but
pragmatic.
Like the OP I have an ethical objection to prisoners subsidizing their own incarceration. If society wants to protect itself by taking away peoples’ rights that’s fine, but we should be willing to pay for it. Being released without a pot to piss in is just adding insult to injury and perpetuating a cycle of crime.
I see where you are coming from, and I am not saying you are fundamentally wrong at all.
What I can say, is that at this point in my life, I am genuinely happy to be able to not only pay taxes, but additionally offset some of the taxpayer money that my decisions cost. Regardless of whether or not I feel like I still belong here at this point, I made those decisions and I knew the consequences. I am just grateful to be in a position where that is even an option, because so many are not.
Indeed. If I have to ask myself questions like "was this product made with forced labor?", "what about coerced?", and "where is the line drawn?" then the right answer is to just walk away.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." -- U.S. Constitution, Amendment 13.
Enforce paying prisoners fair-market wages. That, in addition to providing prisoners with funds so they can start with at least some amount of money when they're released (many will face many months if not years searching for a job that will take them!), also prevents the government from using slave labor to undercut prices of, say, fire prevention crews.
And from these fair wages, deduct the rent of an average single-bedroom apartment.
Fun fact, a lot of those new joyless McDonalds remodels had their CAD work done by UNICOR.
Remember, prison guards get special bonus' for managing inmates that make the prison money. Now imagine that you are constitutionally a slave (according to the Thirteenth Amendment) and that your prison guard's bonus is tied to your work. You don't get to say no to extra shifts. You don't get to take sick days. You don't get to stop the line (for those making physical products). You don't get to challenge the safety of your workstation (for those making physical products).
I'm not saying these programs shouldn't exist, but you need actual safeguards to prevent the current rampant abuse of prisoners (at least on the UNICOR side). Guards should never be 'special UNICOR employees' tied to the program (they really start to see inmates as slaves, their job only exists as long as their facility's UNICOR program is 'successful') and should never have bonus' tied to inmate work output. Currently both of these things occur.
The Thirteenth Amendment does not say that prisoners are slaves. The text (of section one) is: “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 means that someone could be sentenced to slavery or indentured servitude. Federal prisons require able inmates to work; this is a form of indentured servitude, but it does not necessarily extend to state prisons (or municipal jails).
Slaves are property of others (until their death or a decision by their owner to free them), and can be traded or sold. Indentured servants are engaged for a specified period of time, usually to one specific employer.
> Slaves are property of others (until their death or a decision by their owner to free them)
That is chattel slavery. There are other forms of slavery, indentured servitude being one of them. De facto slavery is the term of art for what is going on here.
The term of art that I'm familiar with is "unfree labor" or "modern slavery", both of which are widely used. Either way, every country has agreed it's at least nominally a human rights issue via the Forced Labor Convention ratified by all diplomatically significant nations except the US.
Indentured servitude was a contract one would enter into voluntarily with a perceived benefit on the other side. I think you’d have to squint pretty hard to argue that every criminal doing labor today voluntarily signed up for it to brighten their futures.
Well, supporters of state authority could argue that the contract was a prior one, the ‘social contract’. As it happens, I am a philosophical anarchist, so that doesn’t work for me, but most discussants here probably believe in political authority of some sort.
Equating “the social contract” with the type of legal construction involved with actual indentured servitude is some real “a taco is a hotdog” thinking.
Nobody currently alive actually voted on anything related to the US Constitution, any of the first fifteen amendments, or many important laws, because they weren't alive. I don't see how the Thirteenth Amendment is any different from the many laws which were enacted and last amended before you or I was alive. Either the populace has consented to all of that body of law, or none of it.
I think that they’re saying that the concept of a social contract does not refer to a literal contract or legal document, or document of any kind, but rather simply a way of treating each other implicit in society.
Notably neither the Constitution nor its Amendments is the “social contract.”
Then those people need to stop calling it a "contract". That's an act of manipulative deception purposefully designed to influence the listener towards accepting it, regardless of whether the speaker is aware of those origins.
It doesn't constitute a "contract" any more than a schoolyard bully demanding another child's lunch money "or else" (implicit threat of initiation of force / violence) constitutes a "contract".
The bully wouldn't become morally justified by calling his dictated orders (under threat of violence) a contract, nor would his act of extortion become any more legitimized, by deceptively referring to the act with an unambiguously incorrect term like "contract".
The "social contract" would be the only contract in existence for which those subject to the terms of it were not granted the opportunity of consideration and the free choice to accept or reject that contract.
A contract you cannot choose to decline, and that you'll face imprisonment for violating isn't really a contract at all, it's really just a set of orders being dictated to you by a tyrant willing to initiate violence to get their way.
I don’t believe they argued that the 13th amendment says prisoners are slaves. They only asked you to imagine that you are and they pointed out that it’s allowed “according to the Thirteenth amendment”. At least, that was my interpretation.
My read is that they were asking the reader to imagine they (the reader) are a prisoner, and thus a slave according to the thirteenth amendment. Even under your reading, that comment is a pure hypothetical, because federal prisoners are not slaves. I happen to believe that the federal government has enslaved people in a different context, very recently, conscripts.
They call it "involuntary servitude." I read it as:
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 ...
It's a distinction without a difference. Even the Wikipedia article explicitly says that involuntary servitude and involuntary slavery are used interchangeably. [0] I feel you're getting caught up in word choice instead of arguing the actual implementation and interpretation of the law.
> Some crime victims would rather have their perpetrators “rot in hell” than see them have these kinds of privileges, said Randall Liberty, commissioner of the Maine Department of Corrections, and victims are notified, and their concerns considered, when offenders line up remote jobs.
I can understand those very human feelings. But the state justice system should not be retributive, no matter how much victims want it to be.
It should focus on protection (keeping criminals off the streets and the rest of us safe), deterrence, rehabilitation, and restitution. And its constraints should be fairness, transparency, and speed/efficiency.
The official US Federal Government position (and sentencing law) is that promoting correction and rehabilitation are prohibited from sentencing considerations when it comes to imprisonment (and any imprisonment sentence that includes such considerations will be challenged and reversed for resentencing). A prison sentence is a punishment, not a means for correction and/or rehabilitation:
18 U.S. Code § 3582 - Imposition of a sentence of imprisonment....
(a)Factors To Be Considered in Imposing a Term of Imprisonment.—
The court, in determining whether to impose a term of imprisonment, and, if a term of imprisonment is to be imposed, in determining the length of the term, shall consider the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, recognizing that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation
Yet another reason why, if I somehow magically found myself on a US jury (given I'm not American, that's not an actual concern), would find it morally impossible to vote to convict anyone.
Satisfying the desire for retribution has to be one of the system's goals, otherwise people would take matters into their own hands. However, you are correct that it shouldn't be the main goal, or even a major one.
It blows my mind to see you downvoted for this most simple and straightforward ethical statement — justice and retribution are not the same, and the state should be in the business of justice.
From Plato to the Tao, Christianity and Buddhism, Reverend King and Gandhi, most careful thinkers about ethics, philosophy, and government over thousands of years have come to the same conclusion. The purposes of punishment are to remove a dangerous person from circulation, to make amends to victims, and to deter other potential offenders. Revenge does not enter into it.
Replies here are talking about how good revenge feels, and threatening mob violence if revenge isn’t granted, but consider that those responses are in a context where there is little justice already. We know in our society that injustice is not often punished, and that revenge (e.g., shooting a healthcare CEO) feels great. That is further proof of the importance of justice, not an argument for retribution.
the actual data on this refutes that. rehabilitation focused countries overhelmingly have less recidivism.
increasing access and quality of education, early intervention like head start, wicc and other "wellfare" programs as well as free healthcare are much more likely to reduce crime rates by a significant amount.
are you claiming that the Scandinavians are lying about their rates of recidivism? or that you believe that recidivism is indeed lower there than in the US, but it's due to something else than their focus on rehabilitation over punishment?
I'm trying to figure out if you're arguing in good faith or if it would not be worth digging up the numbers for you.
It is fair to consider the study suspect in that Scandinavian societies as a whole may contribute to decreased recidivism. Understanding the role that the penal system plays will have different outcomes in other countries with different social makeups and different values (broadly speaking) should not be discounted.
That's not to say that rehabilitation is impossible. I am inclined to disagree with the utter disregard GP had for the study, but I also do not believe it can be directly replicated in American society as it stands today.
This is obvious to me. A different value system is required to approach justice differently. Sadly this indicates that it is not just our justice system that needs fixing, but instead our entire societal culture. It’s no wonder we have such outlying violence statistics, we are just more bloodthirsty.
And this is coming from someone who believes that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Yes, guns make it easier, but you have to want to kill first, and we simply have more of that per capita.
Likewise, maybe the same society that views justice as retributive, is one that will fight tooth and nail to keep access to guns unchanged even in the face of elementary school massacres and toddlers accidentally discharging guns left lying around, as well as look the other way from abysmal mental health crises leading to dire situations that lead to a variety of violence and trauma.
So yes, I agree that we won’t just see it replicated in American society anytime soon.
Norway had a brutal, US inspired prison system until the 1960s. Norway's most infamous prison (now closed) was explicitly built on plans copying a US prison design.
Norway's current focus on reducing reoffending was a decades long path of prison reform and gradually figuring out what works.
It is also fair to consider that if systemic racial profiling has contributed to a person's winding up in prison, then following their release from prison that same racial profiling will put them back in prison.
> I'm just not going to take some claim [...] at face value
Again, what does that mean to you? What would it take to convince you? Presumably pointing at the Scandinavians does not convince you? So "actual data" isn't enough. What would be enough? Is it possible to change your mind? Or have you already decided the answer but know you can't defend it?
I would potentially take heed of a study that had authorship with mixed ideology, where conservative ideas were not automatically dismissed out of hand. Probably the most valuable would be debates between intelligent people on both sides that I believe are arguing in good faith.
Scandinavia is different from the United States so I'm not going to automatically assume that something that works for them would work in the United States. There are also highly retributive societies, such as Singapore, that have excellent crime and safety results. Does that convince you that more retribution is needed? If not, why should I pay attention to Scandinavia but not Singapore?
>My estimation of the credibility of the so-called "actual data" is minimal to nonexistent. It sounds like ideologically motivated conclusions to push a left wing social agenda.
So your ideology guarantees your assumptions are always correct but the other guy's ideology guarantees his assumptions are always "ideologically motivated"?
Only if a leading entity emerges and keeps power, but history doesn't show that a single entity can keep power for very long in the grand timeline of humanity.
And that fact--constant threat/change of power--makes the following difficult:
- Having an idea of societal benefit or justice that does not align with a person's feelings (leader of the ruling party)
- Owning land or real property with conveniences like electricity or water - your territory is always under threat and unless you have large numbers of allies you will eventually get swallowed or forced to obey directives of the ruling party.
Furthermore:
- Having large numbers of allies, or being part of or strongly affiliated with the ruling entity just puts you in the same situation as ruling entity which is causing the first 2 things so it can survive.
So, since you cannot restore the victim, and past is past, you'll lecture victims about the cycle of violence and tell them to "just get over it"? And call it "justice"?
"The justice system should not be retributive" is a poor way to phrase it. I think what OP intended to say is that at least on paper, it is at about the right level of retribution right now, and that increasing it really isn't helpful.
In the American justice system, you do the crime and then do the time, after which you are released and can live as a free man for the rest of your days. If the crime is especially unforgivable, you go in for life. There is a major disconnect in people's understanding of that. People disagree with the sentencing, but then fixate on the idea that somebody might be able to live a normal, pro-social life upon release and focus their anger on that instead of what they actually have an issue with.
"Protect your perpetrator" is a really huge stretch. Letting someone who is in for 5-10 years for pushing crack get a job they can work from their cell so they can potentially get right upon release is definitely preferable to ensuring the perpetrator turns into a career fuckup.
> Letting someone who is in for 5-10 years for pushing crack get a job they can work from their cell so they can potentially get right upon release is definitely preferable to ensuring the perpetrator turns into a career fuckup.
Yes, but some crimes hurt specific people, badly. Some victims seek a measure of retribution, and in a different place and time we all could agree that is "justice". Some other legal systems extricate themselves from this conflict by placing perpetrators at the mercy of their victims. The US system is not superior in its efforts to withhold from victims the satisfaction of appropriate retribution. In exactly the same way you think 5-10 years in the scenario above is unjust, I think a system that ignores the impact of crime on victims is worse than useless.
The 5-10 years isn't unjust. Even them fucking up afterwards and going back in isn't necessarily unjust. It's just that recidivism in that case is an avoidable thing, but people would just let it happen because they can imagine some situation where some perpetrator deserves worse. It's frankly an incredibly stupid hill to die on, even if you completely discount the wellbeing of the person being incarcerated.
The system isn't ignoring the impact of crime on victims, it just doesn't let victims completely run the show in sentencing/punishment. Sometimes there's bad outcomes, but that's fixable. You can never fix people that feel the death sentence is appropriate for even the slightest transgression, and if you add some sort of oversight to that you're right back where we are.
You do not want street justice. I don't understand how one could possibly not understand how bad it would be. There's a reason we rag on societies that enable it.
UNICOR tried to get into electronics recycling here in California under SB20.. while Google and MSFT and Apple ran away as fast as possible! not just the management either, lots of ordinary employees in those huge companies knew that electronics recycling is a liability, not "maximizing revenue" .. meanwhile UNICOR looks for more hooks for more contracts.. UNICOR has no concern about the outcome of electronics recycling .. they would make guranteed trash throw-away anything if it meant a new prison labor contract.
real
edit Walmart uses prison labor to assemble bicycles for kids.. source: eyewitness at a store in California
Yeah it's essentially on a case by case basis. All the remote workers at this point have earned considerable trust and have more access than a typical college student does. I think I am one of only a couple that weren't required to be a post-graduate to apply, so there is at the very least a few years worth of opportunities to mess up the privilege before that trust is given. But yes, all the typical things you would imagine still obviously blocked (social media, adult content, etc)
Remote jobs because of the altruism of these Maine corporations? Or because prisoners come cheap and don't have access to 99% of the job market?
I don't want prisoners to be eligible for any jobs. They distort market wages heavily and take away jobs that other, more deserving, individuals could have. If you want to argue that they should be job eligible, then they should just be free in the first place at that point.
There is too much emphasis on incarceration. It seems like a fair amount of correctional system bureaucracy could be replaced by public horsewhipping. Send a message and send ‘em on their way.
I really hope this doesn't devolve into just demonizing everyone who is incarcerated, and acting like making bad choices as a teenager means you deserve to be broke and unsuccessful for the rest of your life.
I would hope that society would rather me work and pay taxes, offsetting the cost of keeping me here, and giving me hope, responsibilities, discipline and a reason to continue making good life decisions when I am released.
95+% of those incarcerated are getting released one day.. People who have nothing to lose, no sense of self worth, or any feelings of identity with the rest of society are likely not people you want moving in next door to you.
I might be in prison but I lead a team of developers and contribute to open source regularly. I found my passion and I am now a contributing, tax paying member of society and no longer identify with the prison subculture at all.
It's difficult to see how this outcome could be viewed in any way as negative. I know that I made poor decisions, and I am not proud of them, or who I was at the time at all. I wanted to change my life and Maine gave me an opportunity to do that through hard work and I am extremely grateful for it.
I think most of the criticism comes from those worried it will lead to worse conditions. As long as the primary goal is education and reintegration, then it's great. If it becomes a program of squeezing unwilling prisoners to undercut competition then I have big problems with it. I fear the natural course will be cutting prison funding and putting pressure on these programs to bring in money to fund prison necessities.
I see what you're saying for sure. but at the end of the day, allowing inmates to have jobs both takes pressure off of the cost/budget for their incarceration, and simultaneously is drastically lowering the likelihood that those inmates will return (and cost more taxpayer $).
I guess what I mean is, they can't end up squeezing prisoners any more than they already are: in many places 8 hour prison jobs paying less than 50 cents a day, when a phone call costs $3.00+ an hour and a single ramen noodle costs $2.00+.
That stuff significantly contributes to the prison mentality and group-think mindset of 'the authorities are your enemy'. Even if you don't come in with that mentality, after being surrounded by it in conditions like that, you'll very likely be brainwashed by the time you leave and the cycle unfortunately begins.
> allowing inmates to have jobs both takes pressure off of the cost/budget for their incarceration
No. This CANNOT be part of the argument for prisoner's having jobs. If we as a society have decided that the only route to protecting society is to strip people of their rights and freedom, the we MUST be the one's to fund it. I don't have a problem with prisoners having jobs, in fact I definitely agree that it needs to be a part of rehabilitation. But a system that depends on abusing others to prop itself up should not exist. And this system cannot exist and deliver the actual results we want of correction and rehabilitation if there is a monetary incentive because there will always be someone that will come along and selfishly twist the system for their own gain.
I think all proceeds of prisoner work should remain solely that of the prisoners (potentially garnishable depending on their crimes).
> I think all proceeds of prisoner work should remain solely that of the prisoners (potentially garnishable depending on their crimes).
80-90% of the after tax salary should go to a fund that the prisoner receives the day they're released, with the rest going to commissary. Maybe a monthly disbursement if voters want to be paternalistic about it.
When convicts are released on probation to a halfway home, it should be with a pocket full of change so they can start rebuilding their life - buy a beater car to be able to commute, put a down payment on their own place, and so on.
> 80-90% of the after tax salary should go to a fund that the prisoner receives the day they're released
I’d rather they be allowed to use that money as they see fit while still incarcerated, unless there is a specific reason not to (e.g. history of financial crimes).
For instance, people in jail might have kids or sick parents, and should be able to help support them now if needed.
That’s a great point! If they have dependents, prisoners should absolutely be able to send money to them as they earn it without restriction.
I don’t want to deprive them of even more agency than we already do, but I do think there’s a moral hazard to letting prisoners spend all that money themselves while incarcerated. Commissary prices are ridiculous but there’s only so much they can spend on ramen and toiletries. Even a minimum wage of $10/hr is plenty to drive the black market for drugs out of control which will just make the long term situation worse for everyone (thanks to corrupt prison guards more than anything). It’s unfortunately paternalistic but pragmatic.
Like the OP I have an ethical objection to prisoners subsidizing their own incarceration. If society wants to protect itself by taking away peoples’ rights that’s fine, but we should be willing to pay for it. Being released without a pot to piss in is just adding insult to injury and perpetuating a cycle of crime.
I see where you are coming from, and I am not saying you are fundamentally wrong at all.
What I can say, is that at this point in my life, I am genuinely happy to be able to not only pay taxes, but additionally offset some of the taxpayer money that my decisions cost. Regardless of whether or not I feel like I still belong here at this point, I made those decisions and I knew the consequences. I am just grateful to be in a position where that is even an option, because so many are not.
Indeed. If I have to ask myself questions like "was this product made with forced labor?", "what about coerced?", and "where is the line drawn?" then the right answer is to just walk away.
> If it becomes a program of squeezing unwilling prisoners to undercut competition then I have big problems with it
That sounds like most jobs. Or similar to monetary policy to increase unemployment to drive wages down.
[dead]
If a prisoner's work offsets the cost of them being in prison, then there is an incentive for the system to have prisoners.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." -- U.S. Constitution, Amendment 13.
The 13th Amendment doesn’t change incentives. The existence of amendments proves that the Constitution can evolve.
The "except as a punishment for crime" is why we have prison labor at all, isn't it? There's enough (exceptionally cheap) prison labor that local (county level) effects are measurable: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/the-lasting-...
Enforce paying prisoners fair-market wages. That, in addition to providing prisoners with funds so they can start with at least some amount of money when they're released (many will face many months if not years searching for a job that will take them!), also prevents the government from using slave labor to undercut prices of, say, fire prevention crews.
And from these fair wages, deduct the rent of an average single-bedroom apartment.
Fun fact, a lot of those new joyless McDonalds remodels had their CAD work done by UNICOR.
Remember, prison guards get special bonus' for managing inmates that make the prison money. Now imagine that you are constitutionally a slave (according to the Thirteenth Amendment) and that your prison guard's bonus is tied to your work. You don't get to say no to extra shifts. You don't get to take sick days. You don't get to stop the line (for those making physical products). You don't get to challenge the safety of your workstation (for those making physical products).
I'm not saying these programs shouldn't exist, but you need actual safeguards to prevent the current rampant abuse of prisoners (at least on the UNICOR side). Guards should never be 'special UNICOR employees' tied to the program (they really start to see inmates as slaves, their job only exists as long as their facility's UNICOR program is 'successful') and should never have bonus' tied to inmate work output. Currently both of these things occur.
The Thirteenth Amendment does not say that prisoners are slaves. The text (of section one) is: “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 means that someone could be sentenced to slavery or indentured servitude. Federal prisons require able inmates to work; this is a form of indentured servitude, but it does not necessarily extend to state prisons (or municipal jails).
Slaves are property of others (until their death or a decision by their owner to free them), and can be traded or sold. Indentured servants are engaged for a specified period of time, usually to one specific employer.
> Slaves are property of others (until their death or a decision by their owner to free them)
That is chattel slavery. There are other forms of slavery, indentured servitude being one of them. De facto slavery is the term of art for what is going on here.
The term of art that I'm familiar with is "unfree labor" or "modern slavery", both of which are widely used. Either way, every country has agreed it's at least nominally a human rights issue via the Forced Labor Convention ratified by all diplomatically significant nations except the US.
Indentured servitude was a contract one would enter into voluntarily with a perceived benefit on the other side. I think you’d have to squint pretty hard to argue that every criminal doing labor today voluntarily signed up for it to brighten their futures.
Well, supporters of state authority could argue that the contract was a prior one, the ‘social contract’. As it happens, I am a philosophical anarchist, so that doesn’t work for me, but most discussants here probably believe in political authority of some sort.
Equating “the social contract” with the type of legal construction involved with actual indentured servitude is some real “a taco is a hotdog” thinking.
Nobody currently alive actually voted on anything related to the US Constitution, any of the first fifteen amendments, or many important laws, because they weren't alive. I don't see how the Thirteenth Amendment is any different from the many laws which were enacted and last amended before you or I was alive. Either the populace has consented to all of that body of law, or none of it.
I think that they’re saying that the concept of a social contract does not refer to a literal contract or legal document, or document of any kind, but rather simply a way of treating each other implicit in society.
Notably neither the Constitution nor its Amendments is the “social contract.”
Then those people need to stop calling it a "contract". That's an act of manipulative deception purposefully designed to influence the listener towards accepting it, regardless of whether the speaker is aware of those origins.
It doesn't constitute a "contract" any more than a schoolyard bully demanding another child's lunch money "or else" (implicit threat of initiation of force / violence) constitutes a "contract".
The bully wouldn't become morally justified by calling his dictated orders (under threat of violence) a contract, nor would his act of extortion become any more legitimized, by deceptively referring to the act with an unambiguously incorrect term like "contract".
The "social contract" would be the only contract in existence for which those subject to the terms of it were not granted the opportunity of consideration and the free choice to accept or reject that contract.
A contract you cannot choose to decline, and that you'll face imprisonment for violating isn't really a contract at all, it's really just a set of orders being dictated to you by a tyrant willing to initiate violence to get their way.
I don’t believe they argued that the 13th amendment says prisoners are slaves. They only asked you to imagine that you are and they pointed out that it’s allowed “according to the Thirteenth amendment”. At least, that was my interpretation.
My read is that they were asking the reader to imagine they (the reader) are a prisoner, and thus a slave according to the thirteenth amendment. Even under your reading, that comment is a pure hypothetical, because federal prisoners are not slaves. I happen to believe that the federal government has enslaved people in a different context, very recently, conscripts.
The very amendment you've been quoting explicitly calls it slavery.
What would this system look like if slavery wasn't excused for incarceration?
They call it "involuntary servitude." I read it as:
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 ...
It's a distinction without a difference. Even the Wikipedia article explicitly says that involuntary servitude and involuntary slavery are used interchangeably. [0] I feel you're getting caught up in word choice instead of arguing the actual implementation and interpretation of the law.
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude
Where can I read more about UNICOR doing some of the redesign work?
Dream frontline engineering manager situation
> Some crime victims would rather have their perpetrators “rot in hell” than see them have these kinds of privileges, said Randall Liberty, commissioner of the Maine Department of Corrections, and victims are notified, and their concerns considered, when offenders line up remote jobs.
I can understand those very human feelings. But the state justice system should not be retributive, no matter how much victims want it to be.
It should focus on protection (keeping criminals off the streets and the rest of us safe), deterrence, rehabilitation, and restitution. And its constraints should be fairness, transparency, and speed/efficiency.
The official US Federal Government position (and sentencing law) is that promoting correction and rehabilitation are prohibited from sentencing considerations when it comes to imprisonment (and any imprisonment sentence that includes such considerations will be challenged and reversed for resentencing). A prison sentence is a punishment, not a means for correction and/or rehabilitation:
18 U.S. Code § 3582 - Imposition of a sentence of imprisonment....
(a)Factors To Be Considered in Imposing a Term of Imprisonment.— The court, in determining whether to impose a term of imprisonment, and, if a term of imprisonment is to be imposed, in determining the length of the term, shall consider the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, recognizing that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation
That's about the term, not the conditions and resulting impact on the prisoner.
Of course, people seem to prefer inhumane, brutal conditions, regardless of the impact.
Yet another reason why, if I somehow magically found myself on a US jury (given I'm not American, that's not an actual concern), would find it morally impossible to vote to convict anyone.
Satisfying the desire for retribution has to be one of the system's goals, otherwise people would take matters into their own hands. However, you are correct that it shouldn't be the main goal, or even a major one.
Many things make people want to take justice into their hands without us yielding to those who are prepared to commit crimes to punish others.
It blows my mind to see you downvoted for this most simple and straightforward ethical statement — justice and retribution are not the same, and the state should be in the business of justice.
From Plato to the Tao, Christianity and Buddhism, Reverend King and Gandhi, most careful thinkers about ethics, philosophy, and government over thousands of years have come to the same conclusion. The purposes of punishment are to remove a dangerous person from circulation, to make amends to victims, and to deter other potential offenders. Revenge does not enter into it.
Replies here are talking about how good revenge feels, and threatening mob violence if revenge isn’t granted, but consider that those responses are in a context where there is little justice already. We know in our society that injustice is not often punished, and that revenge (e.g., shooting a healthcare CEO) feels great. That is further proof of the importance of justice, not an argument for retribution.
Retribution contributes to deterrence, as well as benefiting the society as a whole by promoting justice.
> Retribution contributes to deterrence,
the actual data on this refutes that. rehabilitation focused countries overhelmingly have less recidivism.
increasing access and quality of education, early intervention like head start, wicc and other "wellfare" programs as well as free healthcare are much more likely to reduce crime rates by a significant amount.
[flagged]
So you think other people should bother to listen to your gut feelings instead.
Unfortunately we don't have much more to go on, given an academia that is overwhelmingly leftist, especially in the social sciences.
> Unfortunately we don't have much more to go on, given an academia that is overwhelmingly leftist, especially in the social sciences.
Yea its hard figure out the truth when you just dismiss all the evidence that goes against your priors.
Ahh, so anyone who knows what they are talking about disagrees with you and you think that’s a problem with their work.
You don't think it's a problem that 99% of social study researchers are left wing?
are you claiming that the Scandinavians are lying about their rates of recidivism? or that you believe that recidivism is indeed lower there than in the US, but it's due to something else than their focus on rehabilitation over punishment?
I'm trying to figure out if you're arguing in good faith or if it would not be worth digging up the numbers for you.
It is fair to consider the study suspect in that Scandinavian societies as a whole may contribute to decreased recidivism. Understanding the role that the penal system plays will have different outcomes in other countries with different social makeups and different values (broadly speaking) should not be discounted.
That's not to say that rehabilitation is impossible. I am inclined to disagree with the utter disregard GP had for the study, but I also do not believe it can be directly replicated in American society as it stands today.
This is obvious to me. A different value system is required to approach justice differently. Sadly this indicates that it is not just our justice system that needs fixing, but instead our entire societal culture. It’s no wonder we have such outlying violence statistics, we are just more bloodthirsty.
And this is coming from someone who believes that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Yes, guns make it easier, but you have to want to kill first, and we simply have more of that per capita.
Likewise, maybe the same society that views justice as retributive, is one that will fight tooth and nail to keep access to guns unchanged even in the face of elementary school massacres and toddlers accidentally discharging guns left lying around, as well as look the other way from abysmal mental health crises leading to dire situations that lead to a variety of violence and trauma.
So yes, I agree that we won’t just see it replicated in American society anytime soon.
Norway had a brutal, US inspired prison system until the 1960s. Norway's most infamous prison (now closed) was explicitly built on plans copying a US prison design.
Norway's current focus on reducing reoffending was a decades long path of prison reform and gradually figuring out what works.
It is also fair to consider that if systemic racial profiling has contributed to a person's winding up in prison, then following their release from prison that same racial profiling will put them back in prison.
> also do not believe it can be directly replicated in American society as it stands today.
amen to that. profit-making prisons are a pretty clever way around slavery laws.
I didn't claim anything about Scandinavians. I'm just not going to take some claim about "actual data" on retribution vs. recidivism at face value.
> I'm just not going to take some claim [...] at face value
Again, what does that mean to you? What would it take to convince you? Presumably pointing at the Scandinavians does not convince you? So "actual data" isn't enough. What would be enough? Is it possible to change your mind? Or have you already decided the answer but know you can't defend it?
I would potentially take heed of a study that had authorship with mixed ideology, where conservative ideas were not automatically dismissed out of hand. Probably the most valuable would be debates between intelligent people on both sides that I believe are arguing in good faith.
Scandinavia is different from the United States so I'm not going to automatically assume that something that works for them would work in the United States. There are also highly retributive societies, such as Singapore, that have excellent crime and safety results. Does that convince you that more retribution is needed? If not, why should I pay attention to Scandinavia but not Singapore?
>My estimation of the credibility of the so-called "actual data" is minimal to nonexistent. It sounds like ideologically motivated conclusions to push a left wing social agenda.
So your ideology guarantees your assumptions are always correct but the other guy's ideology guarantees his assumptions are always "ideologically motivated"?
Only if a leading entity emerges and keeps power, but history doesn't show that a single entity can keep power for very long in the grand timeline of humanity.
And that fact--constant threat/change of power--makes the following difficult:
- Having an idea of societal benefit or justice that does not align with a person's feelings (leader of the ruling party)
- Owning land or real property with conveniences like electricity or water - your territory is always under threat and unless you have large numbers of allies you will eventually get swallowed or forced to obey directives of the ruling party.
Furthermore:
- Having large numbers of allies, or being part of or strongly affiliated with the ruling entity just puts you in the same situation as ruling entity which is causing the first 2 things so it can survive.
That's why you have no recidivism in the US?
> But the state justice system should not be retributive, no matter how much victims want it to be.
Perhaps you're looking for a form of government other than democracy?
[flagged]
> "We failed to protect you, but we're working hard to protect your perpetrator?"
No one suggested that, or anything close to it.
Proportionality is a consideration as well. We don't want to hand out the death penalty just because the victim demands it!
A crime, once committed, has been committed. End of story. Nothing can change the past.
Seeking to punish isn't justice, it's revenge. It doesn't restore people or society, it feeds a cycle of violence.
Justice should be restorative.
So, since you cannot restore the victim, and past is past, you'll lecture victims about the cycle of violence and tell them to "just get over it"? And call it "justice"?
"The justice system should not be retributive" is a poor way to phrase it. I think what OP intended to say is that at least on paper, it is at about the right level of retribution right now, and that increasing it really isn't helpful.
In the American justice system, you do the crime and then do the time, after which you are released and can live as a free man for the rest of your days. If the crime is especially unforgivable, you go in for life. There is a major disconnect in people's understanding of that. People disagree with the sentencing, but then fixate on the idea that somebody might be able to live a normal, pro-social life upon release and focus their anger on that instead of what they actually have an issue with.
"Protect your perpetrator" is a really huge stretch. Letting someone who is in for 5-10 years for pushing crack get a job they can work from their cell so they can potentially get right upon release is definitely preferable to ensuring the perpetrator turns into a career fuckup.
> Letting someone who is in for 5-10 years for pushing crack get a job they can work from their cell so they can potentially get right upon release is definitely preferable to ensuring the perpetrator turns into a career fuckup.
Yes, but some crimes hurt specific people, badly. Some victims seek a measure of retribution, and in a different place and time we all could agree that is "justice". Some other legal systems extricate themselves from this conflict by placing perpetrators at the mercy of their victims. The US system is not superior in its efforts to withhold from victims the satisfaction of appropriate retribution. In exactly the same way you think 5-10 years in the scenario above is unjust, I think a system that ignores the impact of crime on victims is worse than useless.
The 5-10 years isn't unjust. Even them fucking up afterwards and going back in isn't necessarily unjust. It's just that recidivism in that case is an avoidable thing, but people would just let it happen because they can imagine some situation where some perpetrator deserves worse. It's frankly an incredibly stupid hill to die on, even if you completely discount the wellbeing of the person being incarcerated.
The system isn't ignoring the impact of crime on victims, it just doesn't let victims completely run the show in sentencing/punishment. Sometimes there's bad outcomes, but that's fixable. You can never fix people that feel the death sentence is appropriate for even the slightest transgression, and if you add some sort of oversight to that you're right back where we are.
You do not want street justice. I don't understand how one could possibly not understand how bad it would be. There's a reason we rag on societies that enable it.
"We failed you but we're taking steps to avoid this happening again in the future" is like textbook institutional apology.
Spoken like someone who has never been the victim of a serious crime.
You speak as if you understand the price of revenge.
[dead]
How about we treat prisoners as humans having value to begin with? Americans should start with the fundamentals before moving on to exploitation.
This just reflects that the parole system is broken, among other things.
This wouldn't bother me if the USA had universal basic income, public healthcare, free university education, and lower homeless rates.
> This wouldn't bother me if the USA had universal basic income, public healthcare, free university education, and lower homeless rates.
So sad that I don't see just one of those happening in America let alone all
https://archive.is/4ZOzU
How can I compete with a prisoner that works for ramen?
Let's hope this expands to other states.
UNICOR tried to get into electronics recycling here in California under SB20.. while Google and MSFT and Apple ran away as fast as possible! not just the management either, lots of ordinary employees in those huge companies knew that electronics recycling is a liability, not "maximizing revenue" .. meanwhile UNICOR looks for more hooks for more contracts.. UNICOR has no concern about the outcome of electronics recycling .. they would make guranteed trash throw-away anything if it meant a new prison labor contract.
real
edit Walmart uses prison labor to assemble bicycles for kids.. source: eyewitness at a store in California
Objectively good policy. Helps better distinguish violent vs nonviolent crimes as far as rehabilitation
Are there any software engineers here working from prison?
Yeah there are two of us in the Maine system working as developers, both for [0]Unlocked Labs.
[0] https://unlockedlabs.org
They mentioned in the article that LinkedIn got blocked because of the chat feature. Do they quite heavily restrict what sites you can access then?
Yeah it's essentially on a case by case basis. All the remote workers at this point have earned considerable trust and have more access than a typical college student does. I think I am one of only a couple that weren't required to be a post-graduate to apply, so there is at the very least a few years worth of opportunities to mess up the privilege before that trust is given. But yes, all the typical things you would imagine still obviously blocked (social media, adult content, etc)
Interesting, thanks for the info.
Remote jobs because of the altruism of these Maine corporations? Or because prisoners come cheap and don't have access to 99% of the job market?
I don't want prisoners to be eligible for any jobs. They distort market wages heavily and take away jobs that other, more deserving, individuals could have. If you want to argue that they should be job eligible, then they should just be free in the first place at that point.
[flagged]
There is too much emphasis on incarceration. It seems like a fair amount of correctional system bureaucracy could be replaced by public horsewhipping. Send a message and send ‘em on their way.
Comes with free healthcare benefits too.