Putting Prisoners to Work: Slavery or Not?

Great Debates
1

This is the result of two other threads, “The Ethics of States Raising Kids” and “Libertarian is a Monster.” (That’s not my opinion. I think he’s just misguided.)

I say putting prisoners to work is not slavery. I see nothing wrong in putting to work someone who is in jail for committing a violent crime. Let them at least mitigate the expense of keeping them in prison. (It costs so much to keep a prisoner it seems unlikely a prisoner could earn his/her full keep.)

The reason I do not see this as slavery is because the prisoner would still be allowed to go free once his sentence has run its course. With few exceptions, slaves in this country were slaves for life. Also, they had committed no crimes before being made into slaves. Except for those few who were wrongfully convicted, everyone in prison today is guilty of committing a crime.

Putting prisoners to work has been proposed in the past and is, indeed, carried out in many states, the most (in)famous example being the roadside chain gang. (Chains seem cruel, but how else do you keep prisoners from escaping? And they are doing useful work, mostly picking up trash and improving flood control.)

But I see nothing wrong in allowing them, even forcing them, to do other kinds of work. I leave it to all of you to decide what that work should be.

I remember a few years ago when it was proposed to put prisoners to work answering phones for airline reservation services, for example, the biggest protest seemed to come from labor unions. Their complaint was that this was taking work away from law-abiding citizens. They have a point, but once these people have served their time, they will have to compete in the job market and they will now have a skill. (One of the reasons so many criminals are recidivists is their lack of work skills. Frankly, breaking the law is all most of them know how to do.)

AFAIK, prisoners today work in exchange for earlier release. I would abolish this. Instead, I say you MUST work or your sentence would INCREASE. For every week you refuse to work, another day is added to your sentence, for example. (Or, instead of 1 for 7, maybe 1 for 10 or 1 for 5. I’m flexible here.)

The only exception to this rule would be those who are in prison for life. They would not be required to work. This exception is made for practical reasons. How would you punish him for refusing?

So forcing prisoners to work is not slavery because:

  1. They have broken the law.

  2. It would not be permanent.

  3. They will learn a marketable skill.

When all else fails, ask Cecil.

2

I thought slavery implied that a slave is not just put to work, but is owned by someone else, be it another person or the state. So requiring prisoners to work wouldn’t be slavery. Add that as number 4 to your list, and for number 5, the prisoner should work to earn the money to repay his victims and pay the expense of his trial and imprisonment.

3

AFAIK, you wouldn’t usually have to force a prisoner to work if the alternate was simply sitting in his cell all day.

Give 'em the choice: Work or self-imposed solitary.

4

One argument I can see against forced labor is that abuses are difficult to guard against.

I remember a 60 minutes segment with chinese activist Harry Wu. He was trying to prove that China used forced prison labor, so with one of the sixty minute anchors he posed as an american businessman trying to purchase cheaply made goods in China made by prisoners. With a hidden camera rolling, he asked the Chinese sales representative “How can you assure that the goods made by prisoners are high quality? What is their incentive?” Her answer was “if they don’t do good work they are beaten.”

I think prison work should be voluntary, with incentives for good behaviour, rather than coercive, with punishment for bad behaviour, because in general I believe you achieve better results by encouraging people to do good rather than punishing them if they do bad.

5

Of course they should work. They should pay their way in the system. Those of us out here in society, pay our way, right?
*Why then, if someone loses their rights by virtue of being convicted of a crime, should they more rights than we do?
*Why should they get a “free lunch?”
*Or room & board; medical & dental, etc…? *Why should they get anything free for having committed crimes against society?

They should be charged for their accommodations, their meals, their laundry, their medical and anything else they receive.

They commit crimes against society and then expect this same society to foot the bill for their upkeep.

6

Make the SOB’s work, make 'em wear pink uniforms and live in tents. They aren’t there because they were being nice to someone and it isn’t going to hurt 'em (much, hopefully some).

7

Gee Arnold, I thought they had a pretty good incentive in getting to stay out of jail in the first place, by simply not commiting crimes! But they didn’t care! Arnold, these are criminals we’re talking about.

Let’s charge criminals fully for everything they receive, including court costs. They can pay it, or work it off. Society & the victims need relief.

Incorporate your rewards & punishments plan into the work plan. Just like in real life! Hey! what a novel idea!

And for those who want to let the felons sit in front of the tv or work out in the gym instead, offer to pay my share of their incarceration costs.

8

Doesn’t really matter if it’s called Slavery or merely Involuntary Servitude, as the following from the United States Constitution (the document, not the vessel) shows:

Amendments to the Constitution, Article XIII

This shows that the Constitution allows Slavery (Involuntary Servitude) only as a punishment for crime. What surprises me though, is the oft-repeated and incorrect notion that members of the military are government property.

9

Give them a choice: You don’t work, you don’t eat. Seems simple enough to me and it lets them exercise their free will. The options are somewhat limited, I will admit, but they are not exactly participating in the market economy.

10

In Iowa, prisons once supplied furniture for state offices. Tables Chairs Etc. don’t know why they quit. Maybe because someone wanted to sell furnishings to the state.
Buy the way they used to have several farms also.Prisoners did the work. You have to take into account the times. Most people had farm backgrounds.
I feel that it is OK if they [IN NO WAY]compete with the citizenry for jobs.

11

You raise a good point. One of the reasons that this country objects to prison labor is that goods produced by prisoners can undercut those produced by “free” workers. It is very easy to speak in harsh words about rpisoners paying their own way. I have yet to see, though, a business plan which supports the idea that millions of unskilled workers can generate sufficient income to not only keep themselves above the subsistence level and pay for the infrastructure of the prison system and the reimbursement of property lost/damaged by the criminals’ acts, but to do all of those things without taking income away from privately owned businesses in teh same market. Sure, it makes a nifty sound bite, but does that mean it would work?

Of course, even if it does work there are things to be concerned about. If the economics work to fulfill all the goals promised by some, then the government will be turning a profit on each prisoner, especially once restitution is made. I, for one, am not sanguine about the prospect that the government would see a financial benefit from incarcerating more of its citizens for longer periods. Remember, not all crimes are crimes against citizens.

It is very easy to take a hard line against rapists, murderers and child molesters, but not all prisoners are violent offenders. I see no problem with putting prisoners to work. A large percentage of prisoners already work; they work in menial jobs required for the day-to-day operation of any large housing facility. What they do not do is turn a profit for the state. I am not sure that is a bad thing. Frankly, I am glad that it costs a lot of money to incarcerate someone. Imprisoning citizens is an act which should be costly to the state; as a society we should never speak lightly of removing a man’s basic liberties. It is a serious decision, and it should not be motivated by anything other than extreme need.

As far as terms of imprisonment being affected by work, I feel that parole should certainly be denied those who fail to conform to prison rules, including the requirement to work where that is applicable.

BTW, at some point most prisoners leave prison. I think it would be a benefit to their transition back into society if they had learned not only a job skill but also the discipline to show up at a job each day while they were in prison. I don’t think it would be a benefit if every cent that they earned while they were in prison was taken away from them so that they hit the street without a penny in their pocket. It takes time and resources to find a job, a place to live, etc. If we want to discourage them from committing more crimes, we need to make other avenues available to them.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

12

The Constitution may permit “slavery or involuntary servitude,” but I consider it a moral violation of the highest order.

I take the view that people who commit serious violent crimes to be dangerously insane. Yes, they are dangerous. Yes, we are justified in taking whatever reasonable and prudent steps in protecting ourselves from a person who has proven himself to be dangerously insane, for as long as it takes to assure our safety from that individual.

If work and restitution is helpful or necessary to cure their insanity, we must most certainly offer them the opportunity to take advantge of such opportunities to accelerate or make possible their cure.

But, since the insanity of most violent people does not impair their ability to understand and give and withhold consent, I believe we cannot violate their consent beyond what is necessary to protect ourselves from their insanity.

Beyond that, the fact that we intentionally subject these people to activities intentionally designed to cause pain or distress or to profit from the fact of their involuntary incarceration reveals only the vengeful low moral standards of today’s society.

I take very seriously (on philosophical rather than theological grounds) the (slightly reworded) biblical injunctions that vengance does not belong to humans, and that what we do to the least of our brethren, we do to ourselves.

He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’

13

Okay, as the local “expert” on prison issues, here goes:

Slavery is legal and occurs regularly in prison. Obviously, we don’t emphasize this point, but we don’t deny it either. The 13th Amendment allows slavery as long as it’s part of “a punishment for a crime, whereof (whereof?)the party shall have been duly convicted.” Virtually all prisoners are put to work; the only exceptions are those who for medical or security reasons are unable to. Granted some of the “jobs” might not be what you’d think of as a job in the real world. For example, New York state requires that all prisoners who do not have a high school diploma must spend at least three hours a day in school as their “job”. Prisoners can request a particular job, but their job assignment is not voluntary and they cannot legally refuse to work the job they are given. If they do refuse, it’s a violation of prison rules and they are punished (by things like loss of recreation or commissary priviledges).

On an aside to SingleDad: What the heck are you talking about? “A moral violation of the highest order”? “Activities intentionally designed to cause pain or distress”? Jeez, get some perspective. We’re talking about things like mopping floors or washing dishes not Nazi war crimes.

14

I don’t think that event is something we’ll ever have to worry about. I (dimly) remember reading a few years ago that it costs roughly $100,000 per year to keep a prisoner in prison. That includes the cost of the facilities, personnel costs, and the costs of responding to all of the appeals, etc.

I don’t think you’re ever going to get that much revenue from making the average prisoner work. Most of these folks aren’t exactly brain surgeons.

15

Actually, WillGolfForfood, that was my first point. I think that those who argue that they can finance a prison system and force criminals to recompense their victims using teh products of prison labor are deluding themselves as to the true economics of the situation.

My second point was that any such prison labor would represent an unfair competition to free businesses in the same market.

My third point was that even if the numbers work it creates a dangerous, IMO, situation in which a government actually profits from incarcerating its citizens.

I have no problems with prisoners mopping floors, attending school, making license plates, etc. They do all of those things now. I just grow leary whenever people start telling me how many problems would disappear if we just “put prisoners to work”. Quite often, it appears such people have bought into the “prison as country club” myth that gets pushed so hard by certain segments of the political spectrum.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

16

The prison system is WAY out of hand. More than 1.3 million U.S. citizens are incarcerated. That’s a significant percentage of the 90 million or so full time workers in this nation. Putting that many people to organized, productive work (I’m not talking about mopping and reading books) for the State would have a significant impact on the free business world and would provide great incentive for States to imprison even MORE men and woman.

If we’re only talking about violent criminals, things are a bit different. For one, our prison population would be more than cut in half. That’s good, but we’d still have about 400,000 brutal slaves working on the side of the road, in vast telemarketing rooms, and in great sweatshops churning out children’s socks. We cannot assume (unlike SingleDad) that violent offenders are insane, but inmate abuse, riots, product quality problems, and escapes rise greatly in forced work environments (very notable in SE Asia, China and Russia, among others). By it’s very nature, forced labor is non-competitive which doesn’t fit well in a (near) free market economy. New York, California and Texas, with huge prison populations would reap the benefits of a great influx of money from lucrative prison labor. States with small prison populations would quickly start to scope out land for a couple new prisons to fill.

My suggestions:

  1. Release all non-violent criminals.
  2. Kill all multiple, repeat violent offenders.
  3. Release all children.
  4. Transfer all of the seriously mentally ill criminals to a properly secure medical facility.
  5. Transfer all criminals who are HIV positive to a properly secure medical facility.

I think the above would leave us with a manageable prison population somewhere around a tenth of what we currently have. So long as the State doesn’t turn a profit from their work, I don’t see how that few people would have much of an impact on the market if they’re forced to do menial labor.

Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.

17

“Release all non-violent criminals.”

I could MAYBE see releasing all people in jail or prison for committing victimless crimes, however one defines that term. But a non-violent crime is NOT the same as a victimless crime!

Stealing somebody’s car is a non-violent crime. Embezzling the savings of an elderly widow is a non-violent crime. Planting a “bug” in someone’s apartment without a proper warrant is a non-violent offense. Do you really think that these crimes should go unpunished? Do citizens who committed such offenses against other citizens deserve to be released just because they didn’t cause their victim physical pain or injury? If that were so, then my only reasonable expectation from the law would be protection from bodily harm because there would be no practical legal protection of the rights of property and privacy.
“Kill all multiple, repeat violent offenders.”

Multiple repeat? Did you get that phrase from the Redundancy Department of Redundancy? :slight_smile:

Seriously, though, “violent offenders” is a broad category. A participant in a weaponless bar brawl is a violent offender. A turnstile jumper who shoves over the station agent as he flees is a violent offender. If I punch out three people in separate incidents, I should get the needle for it?

You’re simultaneously suggesting that society should be extremely “soft” on crime AND extremely “tough” on it. Hang the muggers and free the car thieves!?

18

Uhh, so there’s no penalty for white-collar crime anymore? Say, mind if I borrow your credit card for a bit?

19

Once we presume the moral right to enforce involuntary servitude of prisoners, we differ from Spritus Mundi’s powerful objection only by degree, and not by definition.

Once we exercise our power to incarcerate someone, we then must assume the obligation to positively guarantee the rights he retains since we have stripped him of his own power to defend them.

I don’t assume them to be insane, I define them so. I do so because I favor the medical model of responding to violence, not the punitive model.

Note, however, that my proposal is actually stricter than current practice: I would favor incarcerating all serious violent offenders until they could prove their lack of threat to others beyond a reasonable doubt. Since this condition for release is difficult to implement, I am, in essence, arguing for life imprisonment for serious violent crimes.

If we take Sake’s statistics at face value, we have 400,000 seriously violent prisoners at a cost of $100,000 per prisoner per year. So we’re talking about about $40 billion per year. That seems a little pricey in absolute terms, but it’s only about 0.58% of 1999 USGP. Personally, I’m not willing to compromise my principles for so paltry a sum.

On to nonviolent (economic) offenders…

There are many other consequences than incarceration that we might morally impose on someone. One such obvious consequence is seizure of assets and garnishment of labor, until the economic harm inflicted is recompensed, including losses due to inconvenience, lack of assets, and the overall costs of insurance and enforcement.

Note that garnishment does not constitute involuntary servitude. If my labor is garnished, I am free (i.e. I will face none but natural consequences) to not work, but if I freely choose to work, then I must forfeit a portion of that labor to fulfill my obligation.

He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’

20

I say put 'em to work and make it as uncomfortable as possible. Unlike SingleDad, I do not believe in one’s ability to change for the better. I do believe that we can make prison the deterrent to crime that it ought to be but isn’t.

Might this lead to a “You’ll never take me alive copper!!! <bam> <bam> <bam>” attitude? Maybe, but at least we won’t have to pay for a trial and maintenance of the convict. We won’t have to pay for incarcerating their kids either. does anyone want to argue against the idea that often criminals breed criminals? How about the 6 year old who shot his classmate?

What type of work can a prisoner do that doesn’t conflict with the local economy? Dig holes, big, deep, round holes. Then fill 'em in and dig a new one. Mopping floors is a joke. They probably don’t do a good job of it either. It is good for the abdominal region. I would know 'cause I used to be a sanitary engineer at Wal-Mart.

Perhaps if we legalize marijuana we can let something like 40% of the prison population out.

I guess I’m basically selfish and my having to support some scumbag who kills people or molests little kids is appalling to me. “A moral violation of the highest order.”? If you can’t do the time, don’t to the crime. When someone commits a crime, that’s his conscious decision to invalidate his rights. I sure as hell didn’t hold a gun to his head and make 'em hold a gun to someone else’s head.

“…oft-repeated and incorrect notion that members of the military are government property.” Um, maybe not, but there aren’t a lot of jobs in which you can legally be shot for not following orders. Additionally, state laws do not apply to military personel while on a federal military installation or out of the states (obviously), but federal law does.