>It really doesn't seem very many steps above slavery
Zero. It's literally slavery. The thought of it is barbaric and horrible.
Zero. It's literally slavery. The thought of it is barbaric and horrible.
It is not. It may be allowed by the Constitution but it is a significant extra punishment levied on offenders that should be part of their actual punitive phase, if that is what society wants.
The 13th amendment specifically permits "slavery" as a punishment for those convicted of a crime.
"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."
Slavery was the capturing of innocent human beings and then forcing them and their progeny to do labor in perpetuity. It was utterly dehumanizing and undeserved treatment. We do a disservice to the meaning of slavery in the USA by calling everything slavery: taxation, prison work, marriage, etc.
I do agree about the overuse of the term in other situations however
That part, at least, is not technically correct.
Ah, justice, that famously objective thing we can measure scientifically and which is not subject to any sort of sociopolitical bias.
I'm arguing that here in the US, which is a very relevant context for a HN discussion on US/CA prisons, the term slavery has special meaning and we shouldn't water it down by using it to describe every perceived slight.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The 13th amendment specifically calls it slavery and specifically allows that kind of slavery. The abolitionists who pushed through the 13th knew the meaning of slavery when it was more than a distant memory and still decided that it was the correct term.
Must they have to work on a cotton plantation for you to make it count?
Oh wait, we call these prison farms and there are dozens of them...
The point about the treatment being dehumanizing and undeserved is that this is a completely orthogonal issue. It mostly was, but then, most current prisoners aren't treated that well either.
Prison labor so sufficiently meets the definition of slavery that the authors of the 13th Amendment, ending chattel slavery, excluded prison labor as still allowed.
Why the word "innocent"? Its irrelevant if they committed a crime or not, or if they were convicted of a crime or not.
Enforced prison labor is slavery, no ifs ands or buts. It must be stopped. This is an Americanized version of Stalin's gulags.
If you're a member of a society and you break the law, then you aren't innocent. If the laws of the society are unjust then that's a different argument entirely. Africans who were not even members of the American colonies were kidnapped and forced into labor. They were completely innocent but regarded as sub-human and not deserving of rights. To equate their plight with the plight of those who knowingly break the law in the USA and are forced to do labor is to demean the situation of Africans who were enslaved. IMO, that's not the argument we want to make regarding US prison problems.
Enforced prison labor is slavery
Then I guess we can't fine people either. People perform labor to make money. Fining people forces them to provide labor.
Enforced prison labor is just a fine to be paid through labor. Like any penalty, it can be punitive or it can be recompensatory. It is not "slavery".
Ever had a traffic ticket? Stolen something when you were young? Yes? Technically, you are a criminal then. You just didn't get caught or were a minor criminal, according to law.
Besides. Anyone in prison/jail is still human and I truly believe this gives you some rights, including the right not to be used as slave labor. After all, we've already taken away their freedom.
> "Traffic infraction" means a violation of law punishable as provided in § 46.2-113, which is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor.
§ 46.2-113:
> [ ... ] Unless otherwise stated, these violations shall constitute traffic infractions punishable by a fine of not more than that provided for a Class 4 misdemeanor under § 18.2-11.
Ran a red light? Not a criminal. DUI? Criminal.
> unless otherwise declared in this chapter with respect to particular offenses, it is a misdemeanor for any person to do any act forbidden or fail to perform any act required in this chapter.
Upside, we're entitled to real jury trials.
I would suggest this line of reasoning - "they are all criminals" - is not productive. We all are criminals. Should we all be treated as such?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Geo...
I personally don't mind inmates working while in prison. What I disagree with is the inmates not being allowed to be released early because the state wants them to keep working.
I don't think having to work while in prison is going to scare any would-be offender straight. And thinking about inmates not being released early is only going to piss off everyone.
However, if criminal punishment actually scared people away from committing crimes, why are our incarceration rates are so high?
You'd think a country with mandatory minimum sentences and capital punishment to deter a lot of crime, but it appears it simply doesn't work. One theory I read (I can't find the source ATM) posited deterrence tends not work against people who tend to go to prison because people who go to prison statistically have a poorer sense of risk/reward.
So what do you do?
Personally, I think it depends on the type of crime. First, we need to recognize that some of our policies incentivize crime, especially the illicit drug market. People with a poor sense of risk/reward will naturally gravitate to this line of work because they probably respond a lot more to the reward than the risk.
There may be a population that is deterred by criminal punishments and one could argue it makes sense to keep criminal punishments to simply deter that population. I don't disagree with that, but I do think we really need to reassess whether criminal punishment is the universal deterrence some people make it out to be. Our best crime prevention policy may simply be removing or poisoning incentive.
The premise: "Harsh punishments are scaring criminals from commiting crime" must be questioned. I highly doubt it is a valid premise. Just look at crime rates in regions where you have harsh criminal laws up to capital punishment. There is not even a correlation much less a causal relation between "Harsh on Crime" vs. "Low crime rate".
Know what else is barbaric and horrible? The crimes some of the "slaves" commit