That is an interesting way to read it, and it seems silly, but fine, let’s just ship someone into “involuntary servititude” for life.
To get rid of the arguments about speeding, let’s just drop that one. Let’s say a serious felony, one that could now get you life in prison.
What, in the consitution, would stop such a person from being sold into chattel slavery, for life, upon conviction of such a crime?
I don’t see how the 14th would apply either? The state can lock you in a 7X9 cell for 23 hours a day with minimal food and that is not a 14th amendment violation.
The twin facts that nobody who wrote the 13th amendment intended that as a consequence and that no legislative body and no court have interpreted the 13th amendment as allowing that.
You cannot be put into slavery by the government or anybody else. You can be incarcerated by being lawfully convicted for a crime, and, within limits, after arrest and before conviction, or held until arrest under certain other limits. Your punishment can be whatever is found not to be cruel and unusual, and that allows a lot of leeway.
But you can’t be sold into slavery or sentenced to slavery. I find this to be a clear reading of the amendment, and so far every legal body in the U.S. since 1865 has always thought so as well.
How do we know what they intended, unless those who framed the 13th Amendment left commentary to that effect? And has the question ever actually come before any legal bodies in the U.S. since 1865? There have been cases where various conditions were held to be tantamont to involuntary servitude, but not AFAIK, relating to punishments for crimes.
That said, I just thought of another reason why you’re probably right: if chattel slavery could be the punishment for felonies, then after 1865 it would have to be applied to all, including whites. And I’m sure no one ever thought that slavery of whites would for a single instant be tolerable.
The Civil War followed by Reconstruction complete with the Freedmen’s Bureau was the commentary. The Confederacy (explicitly, mind you) stood for slavery, and the Union was Republican enough to stand for its Abolition. The very idea of that Republic ratifying an amendment to suddenly allow slavery as the punishment for a crime strains all historical context to the breaking point.
Additionally, I don’t recall slavery as punishment for a crime existing prior to Abolition, so unless I’m mistaken we also have to posit an Abolitionist Congress passing and Abolitionist states ratifying an amendment to create a whole new form of slavery. That not only beggars belief, it leaves it ripe for being convicted of vagrancy.
(To make it clear: The difference between ‘slavery’ and ‘involuntary servitude’ is that ‘slavery’ in the Constitution means chattel slavery, correct? The notion of two distinct terms meaning precisely the same thing appears pointless.)