Also see: the first time this article was submitted with a slight title correction to avoid the disgusting euphemism for slavery used by the original site[0]
[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude, as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted> The plain intention was to abolish slavery of whatever name and form and all its badges and incidents; to render impossible any state of bondage; to make labor free, by prohibiting that control by which the personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit, which is the essence of involuntary servitude.
It may help to interpret the wording of the amendment like this:
"Here is a list of two things which shall not exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction: Number one is slavery, number two is involuntary servitude (except as punishment for a duly convicted crime)."
And that's how SCOTUS appears to interpret it, which means that's de facto what it says.
ITYM that it's de jure what it says. de facto is the opposite.
*Used by the original submission. (I think that's what you meant... The article has a title closer to what you used.)
"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"
They're slaves.