Comment by feklar | Hacker News Reader

Comment by feklar | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

BOP (feds) is the worst of all the systems when it comes to having any kind of blog/fb/twitter or speaking to the media. A friend of mine once posted his prison band, and apparently they weren't supposed to have access to instruments so everybody in that picture was given 2 months adseg and my friend they moved around prison to prison repeatedly to keep him away from any mail. https://www.thekindland.com/your-prison-blog-is-legal-but-it...

State prisons vary where some don't care at all so long as you don't specifically call out guards by name, you're free to keep a blog and even criticize the warden but BOP, this is a big no.

There's some outliers to that article, many state prisons allow for min wage now such as Arizona where female inmates can work at a polling/telemarketing company and be paid the state minimum wage. The great thing about this is those inmates walk out with $10,000 or so saved up and have a chance to land on their feet instead of say, TDCJ who denies state prisoners any kind of income whatsoever.

If we really wanted to cut back on crime, paying prisoners a fair wage for their labor would be a huge step in that direction. Getting out of jail and being able to afford housing and food on your own allows you to establish independence. Vs the system we have now that drives you right back into the same situation you were in that most likely caused you to go to prison in the first place.

To be honest, if we had jobs that paid a fair wage before they went to jail that would really cut back on crime.

Absolutely agree, but recent news articles suggest that many of the rural communities that contain prisons are functionally dependent on this free/cheap labor for public services (landscaping, trash clean up, etc.). When prison populations decline, there is a perception that the community suffers in excess of the potential for lost employment. Paying the inmates a proper wage would have a comparable effect.

Depending on slave labor is so abhorrent to begin with, I don't much care what happens to communities that lean on it.

Of course removing the slave labor will radically change the economy and render parts of it untenable. imho an economy predicated on slave labor doesn't really deserve to exist at all.

Isn't this the reverse of the "immigrants taking our jobs" argument?

Two sides of the same coin?

a.) Immigrants out of prison are bad, because they do work for minimum wage or more.

b.) Immigrants in prison are good, because they do work for less then minimum wage.

> Two sides of the same coin?

> b.) Immigrants in prison are good, because they do work for less then minimum wage.

I think that (b) doesn't really respond to the argument. Those who worry that "the immigrants are taking our jobs" are worried precisely that immigrants will do 'our jobs' for less than we would, making it likely that an employer will hire them instead. The situation being described is precisely one where prisoners will do work for free, as a result of which no non-prisoner members of the community has a chance of being paid to do that work.

I'm all for helping prisoners, but part of this strike is against the concept of prisons as economic engines. Imho prisons should not engage in profitable business. It creates too much incentive to keep productive people behind bars. And it turns those productive workers into a commodity.

That said, I have absolutely no issue with prisoners working, long as they are paid an appropriate wage and the activity doesn't turn a profit for the prison. Either give all the profits to the prisoners in pay, or run the operation as a rehabilitation program at a net loss.

I don't believe there is a fair wage for someone who is compelled to work not of their own choosing.

As to the idea of prison labor, there can be no revenue (not simply profit) from the prison system that is just. Society should pay a burden to separate those within itself from the rest. Any attempts to recoup costs (let alone profit) fall prey to a perverse incentive to keep prisoners longer than is absolutely necessary for the well-being of the Society.

I don't think we currently care about the well-being of Society, at least judged by how we treat prisoners. Our system of justice, at least in the United States, seeks punishment instead of rehabilitation.

There's no such thing as an "fair wage". Or at least, it's not some number you can come up with. Prisoners should be able to take any job they can plausibly do from inside at any salary they can get. The only "fair" possibility is to allow the establishment of a market. Imagine if a computer programmer was sent to prison. In all likelihood the most productive thing for themselves and for society would be for them to do a programming job from the inside. Instead, they're being paid slave wages and forced to make license plates.

> Prisoners should be able to take any job they can plausibly do from inside at any salary they can get.

Prisons also serve to punish and deter. Allowing inmates to earn market wages would make their punishment a lot lighter, especially for white-collars. Maximising "productivity" isn't and shouldn't be a priority for prisons.

You could address this by a punitive tax regime for prisoners. Then the person could still be earning more than a few cents per hour but additionally is contributing more to society via taxes. This also mitigates the undercutting of the non felon labour market.

I'm not really advocating for this, but it'd be one angle to consider.

No. Prisons aren't a market. They are the definition of a command economy.

Obviously that's how it is right now. I am arguing against the current state of affairs.

If you put a minimum wage that's significantly higher than the existing wage, then nobody'll employ prisoners.

Why do you think the market's price in this case is wrong or unfair?

There's a value to the employer to pay minimum wage, while having a "captive" (pun somewhat intended) employee base who doesn't suddenly quit and can't go get a better job due to unrealistic demands.

Seriously, prison work schemes are modern indentured servitude, or if you like, slavery. Slave is what you call a captive employee, right? The difference now is that the state subsidizes the scheme by feeding and housing the slaves, and taking care of security.

Paying a minimum wage is a start in the right direction, but ultimately the only moral endgame is abolishing forced labor and reducing the prison population drastically.

It's not just metaphorical slavery, it's literal. The Thirteenth Amendment allows for the enslavement of prisoners.

> 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.

No, the employer just needs to adjust wage so it's a bit higher than market price (in which case you'd get a less risk of suddenly quitting versus the average in the market). Or the employer can use golden handcuffs.

I think you simultaneously overestimate the value the employer puts on call center employees and and the level of interest your typical call center employee has in keeping that job. A small amount of increase isn't going to help reduce turnover.

Is this really "the market's price" if workers are not allowed to choose their employers?

> paying prisoners a fair wage for their labor

> then nobody'll employ prisoners

I doubt that your conclusion follows this assertion. Paying prisoners a few dollars per hour vs. a few cents per hour is still a net win for the corporations. They might(not sure but knowing our system it's quite possible) get tax benefits for this too.

Then, wouldn't the corporations increase the price till all prisoners are working? I'm guessing many prisoners aren't working. Feel free to correct me here.

So right. Many people in prison land there because they were never treated with any dignity in their life to begin with.

We don't even need to wonder if it would work. We can look at other countries for proof (and if you want proof our methods don't work, you can look around, too).

Hah. The very first thing we'd do after letting prisoners earn a decent wage is charge it all back to recoup the cost of their imprisonment.

On the flip side the law abiding citizen working the same job on the outside has little to no opportunity to accumulate $10,000 dollars in savings because they have to put food on the table and a roof over their head. When do they get the chance to land on their feet?

They don't have to fear for their life on a 24/7 basis while doing hard time http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3338209&post...

I understand the position that why should criminals get anything since they have nothing coming to them, but some sort of plan has to exist to stop the revolving recidivism door or even promote prison order. There's state prisons that now allow you to order (with your meagre work wages) takeout pizza and other food from restaurants close to the prison if you have good time credit. Apparently that is the best discipline motivator since nobody wants to risk losing their pizza and takeout privs.

Is their fear of living surrounded by criminals any more valid than the kid who sleeps on the floor at night to avoid a stray bullet?

I'm not sure how cash payment to prisoners solves the problems of recidivism. If it did a more cost effective solution would just to pay criminals $10,000 and turn them back on the streets.

Or are you saying that the prison experience itself somehow distills in the prisoner some essential skill which combined with $10,000 dollars turns them into law abiding citizen?

I'm strongly against prisons being profit centers because it invites abuse like we've seen with private, for-profit prisons. I'm even for paying prisoners minimum wage but not all of it should drop to the bottom line. They can and should pay costs associated with their trial and incarceration and also pay into a victims compensation fund depending on the nature of their crime.

Otherwise it's just a subsidy which could be better spent elsewhere.

It seems a bit disingenuous to describe it as $10k in savings when it first passes through the hands of a bunch of bankers and merchants who get to force the worker to buy various goods and services at vastly inflated prices.

To be fair, to a lot of prisoners, 10k wouldn't result them in being richer than regular people when they get out because they'll immediately have to spend thousands on renting a place, getting a used car, buying some furniture, etc.

Starting a life from scratch is expensive and after they do that they'll be on the same footing as a standard "pay-check to pay-check" citizen.

Yeah, those prisoners are lucky alright. Have you thought that comment through?

A law abiding citizen who lives with their parents, and has the same job on the outside has an opportunity to accumulate $10,000 in savings.

Should we forbid people from working while living with their parents?

Never mind the ethical bankruptcy of using slave labour... The thirteenth amendment, as it was drafted is as much blight on civilized society as the Gulags were.

Would you mind expanding your acronyms / abbreviations? "adseg", "BOP" "TDCJ"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com