That’s not so bad, though it’s a little misleading to suggest that anything a prisoner does is not “compelled” to some slight degree.
I’m sure many are happy to just get out in the open for a time. I’m sure many are “enticed” by a reduction in sentence. I’m sure some are thinking they’re getting some valuable job training, or it might help them mitigate a prison record when they’re out.
If any of that counts as “compulsion”, I’m A-OK with it. Call it whatever you like.
That’s not true. There is a clear legal distinction between things a prisoner is required to do and things which are the prisoner’s choice.
Legally, yes. But legally it’s apparently already well established that prisoners can be used for non-prison labor purposes for less than the prevailing wage. We’re talking about whether this is moral.
If you’re in jail long enough, any monetary debts would fall away under the statute of limitations of your state - and/or you could file for bankruptcy and have them discharged.
Obviously there’s more to it than that - the creditors could go after whatever assets you might have, while you’re still in prison. Filing bankruptcy from inside might be a logistical impossibility, and so on.
As far as “debt to society”: yeah, imprisonment should level things. That shouldn’t stop the victims of the crime from attempting to get restitution, of course - if I assault someone and spend 10 years in jail, the person I assaulted should have every right to sue my sorry ass for whatever expenses resulted from the assault.
The concept of the gummint going after ex-prisoners for the cost of their incarceration is ridiculous, though. How many ex-cons have enough assets to make it worth their while?
And looking at the cost of keeping someone in prison: let’s say 30,000 a year (and that’s probably conservative). 5 years in prison, and you could theoretically be nailed for 150,000 dollars.
So the end result is the government is going after people who:
- are wealthy enough already (very few people that wealthy spend much time in prison)
- come into money via a lawsuit against the government as in the OP
- Have some sort of other windfall
- flat out don’t have the money anyway.
Any of these (except #1) make the government look like scum. I can’t imagine the government makes enough money in this kind of shakedown to make it worth their while, and the PR value is awful.
There actually are ways where someone can literally pay for somewhat better treatment. Years ago, a friend was sentenced to a short stint in county jail. He had the option of going in for weekends only for a month or so - but had to pay for the “privilege”. If he had not been able to come up with the money (and it wasn’t a huge amount, but someone destitute couldn’t have found it), he’d have had to spend an entire month full-time inside.
Where I’m from debts don’t just automatically go away after a certain amount of time. If the debt is actively pursued, it does not expire. If they fail to pursue and the time limit passes but later they get you on record as admitting to the debt, it’s on again.
Yep, laws vary by country.
Here the statute of limitations on debts varies by state - say, 5-10 years. I don’t know how often debts go unpaid that long, as creditors do have legal remedies such as filing liens on your property, garnishing your salary (what a weird word - sounds like they’re throwing parsley on your paycheck) and so on.
Regardless, the creditor pursuing the debt is not what keeps it alive. UNLESS - if I remember correctly, they could chase you down after 5 years, persuade you to make some payments, then the statute of limitations resets to whenever you made your last payment.
I’ve heard that debt forgiveness is generally much easier in the U.S. than in other countries, and that this has implications in areas such as new business creation, but I’m short on details. I expect it to be different for individuals and corporations, and what I’ve heard may have been for the latter.