I will point out that article states that there are a number of exemptions in that law, such as only prisoners convicted of certain crimes are subject to charges and there is a fifty thousand dollars deductible before any charges are applied. The article says only two percent of the prisoners in the state are subject to any charges.
Is it a good idea? I’d say no. But I think it’s wrong to claim it’s a general practice.
For comparison, I live in Texas. This article was written two-weeks ago (it goes over the entire history, but I’ll quote “today”):
Today, 24 Texas prison units still have agribusiness operations. Nine are located on former plantations. Incarcerated workers harvest many of the same crops that slaves and later convict laborers did from 1871 to 1910. Like the previous owners, the Texas prison system still compels captive people to work its fields without pay. Guards on horseback monitor those who labor under the sun in fields of cotton and other crops. Texas prisons were finally fully racially desegregated in 1991, but Black Texans still account for one-third of the incarcerated—nearly triple their portion of the general population. Texas is one of only seven U.S. states that pay incarcerated workers nothing. Meanwhile, those incarcerated must pay for many essential items in the commissary. Their unpaid work is mandatory, a practice sanctioned by the U.S. Constitution’s 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.”
This other 2024 article says that most of the products are bought by the State (ie, food to feed prisoners, cotton to make prison uniforms), but not all. Some is sold to for-profit entities like McDonald’s, Whole Foods, Pizza Hut, etc. Here is one Texas prisoner’s account of what happened when he refused to pick cotton:
He was in shock, looking for other people around him to affirm that they couldn’t really be there to pick cotton. But many of them had been to the fields before. As he explains it, it was a rebellious spirit that landed him in prison to begin with, and that spirit had not been broken yet. “I was like, 'There’s no way I’m picking cotton. To hell with this.’”
That’s how he learned that heat could be a punishment.
“At 17, I’m under the assumption that I have rights. And my right is to say 'hell no.’ And I was sadly mistaken. They had designed the system for people like me, who would say 'hell no.’ And that system was as brutal as I could ever be.”
When Hockley refused to pick cotton, horses surrounded him. Officers made him kneel, handcuffed him, and brought him to the back of a trailer, enclosed by metal fencing. He was the first, but he was soon joined by four other young men from other squads who refused to participate. For four hours, they sat bunched together and handcuffed on the metal floor in the heat. “That was my introduction into burning hell.”
I’m trying to think (out loud/to myself) why it matters if it’s bought by the State or sold to private companies. Like, why does that distinction mean forcing a prisoner to work should be legal. I do know the article said Texas law requires the State to buy the products - it’s not discretionary; and they fired they removed the job of the last independent auditor who started to poke around.
The distinction only makes sense if the forced labor is a fait accompli. It determines whether benefits nominally flow to public or private interests.
You can see if I make widgets, and I don’t want forced labor in my supply chain, I don’t want competitors to benefit from forced labor either.
~Max
I had a “smart” response, but I deleted it and I’m just putting this: I’m not following you. I think you answered it, but it’s going over my head. It’s inherently wrong or its not. Right? I think you’re saying that’s right, but society just accepts forced labor as a thing that happens with prisoners, and since we do, then because of that only then does the distinction matter.
I’m just hung up on the inherently wrong part and can’t mentally get past that.
I’ve read your posts and they are all very informative and helpful. Thanks.
You can plead guilty and still be innocent. A DA will threaten with a dozen counts of stuff leading to Life without parole, and offer a 5 year with parole sentence, and some will take the deal.
It is supposed to be. But there are other goals- Punishment, deterrence, etc.
Florida- where you have no rights.
Yep.
75% of the inmates claim to be innocent.
Old story about Frederick the Great visiting Potsdam Prison. He spoke with the prisoners, and each man claimed to be innocent, a victim of the system. One man, however, sat silently in the corner.
The ruler asked him, “And you, sir, who do you blame for your sentence?”
His response was, “Your majesty, I am guilty and richly deserve my punishment.” Surprised, the emperor shouted for the prison warden: “Come and get this man out of here before he corrupts all these innocent people.”
Mind you- some are innocent-
Like working for the wild fire dept here in CA.
Texas.
If you think forced labor is wrong and that’s the end of it, there’s no use distinguishing between forced labor for the public or forced labor for private gain. You’re against both. As noted, it’s just as unfair to the individual doing the work no matter who benefits.
Say you think forced labor is wrong. But you are resigned to the fact that it exists and isn’t going away any time soon. You don’t “accept” forced labor but you might hold your nose and go for the lesser evil, keeping it away from the profit motive, keeping it from giving your competitors an edge, etc.
Say you think forced labor is acceptable in limited circumstances of diverting prisoners to a useful occupation. This is the old-school approach from the days where idleness was a sin. You still admit leasing unfree labor to select profit-driven corporations is bad for a number of reasons, so while you may accept road work and such, you are against prison labor being used to make Big Macs.
~Max
How do you feel about forced labor for housekeeping duties inside the prison? Because honestly that’s the biggest job assignment. We assign prisoners to keep the units clean, doing things like sweeping and mopping the floors. Do you feel that is a legitimate job assignment?
Or do you feel that prisoners should not be required to do housekeeping even in the place where they live? What’s the alternative? Prisons should hire housekeepers so prisoners don’t have to clean up? I don’t think you’ll see a lot of support for the idea of hiring maids for prisoners.
I’ll also point out that if you consider being told to clean up your own place of residence is wrong, then I was a victim. Because my mom and dad certainly didn’t feel the 13th Amendment covered me and my siblings.
I wouldn’t consider basic housekeeping duties “hard labor”.
~Max
New York also has prison farms, although we don’t have any cotton fields for climate reasons. But I’ll admit I don’t see any major moral differences between having inmates milk cows and grow potatoes (which we do in New York) and having inmates grow cotton. I’ve worked on a farm; it can be a tough job but it’s not brutality. And quite frankly, prisoners do less work on a farm than most outside farmers do. A typical prison farm will have around five or ten times the number of workers that an outside farm would have and consequently prison farm workers do a much smaller share of work than outside farm workers do.
It’s the heat! Texas heat is unconstitutional. I guess imagine doing it in NY in the winter during a freeze - I think that would be a good equivalent. The article goes into heat deaths and the prison says no heat deaths, and the advocates say dozens per year. With that said, people do it all the time.
To boil it all down, no, none of this gets close to excessive punishment under the 8th amendment (or elsewhere). It’s just tough, and depending on the conditions, brutal work. And while I think it’s shameful and the dynamics are comically absurd (white prison guard/black prisoner picking cotton against his will), to be objective, the prisons are just near where the cotton grows which is why it was planted there in the first place hundreds of years ago. But also, the bigger picture is still there and it ain’t good and seems really wrong.
I did notice in the article that it would have been cheaper to buy the food and cotton rather than to use prison labor to grow it (and thus costs the taxpayers more money). Not sure if that was just a cherry-picked blip or not, if not, then it might offer deeper insight into the purpose of all this.
The 2021 audit found that, while the state brought in more than $90 million selling agricultural products in one year, it would have saved $17 million over five years by buying canned foods and certain crops instead of producing them. Cotton and cottonseed in particular cost $5.6 million more to produce with prison labor than to purchase externally.
I don’t have an answer other than forced labor seems wrong, but is certainly legit. I do know if you can’t hold someone accountable for a wrong or abusing something legit, it will generally devolve into its worst form. There has to be accountability.
Late: Max_S, thanks for your response above. It was very helpful.
A relevant article about the California proposition mentioned upthread:
If Proposition 6 passes, correctional officers could not order an inmate to work. What’s less clear is what might happen if an inmate wants to work in one of the thousands of prison jobs that allow them to earn small amounts of money or to build skills.
No one can say with certainty, but it raises the possibility that inmates could be paid minimum wage for work they perform while incarcerated.
The legal precedent that allows California prisons to pay sub-minimum wage to inmates — less than 74 cents an hour for most — draws in part from the provision in the state Constitution that would be overturned if voters pass the anti-slavery amendment.
Deleting the provision that bans slavery except as punishment for a crime could open the door to higher pay for inmate labor depending on how courts interpret the ballot measure…
Wow, talk about poisoning the well. The 13th amendment abolished slavery in 1865, and California ratified it. It is “involuntary servitude” perhaps but not slavery. Comparing the life a a murderer who has to make license plates to that os a pre-civil war black slave is so very very wrong.
Is turning big rocks into small rocks just a cartoon version of hard labor?
I mean, working a quarry is stereotypical hard labor. I think Nelson Mandela was forced to work in a quarry, for example. See also the linked FQ.
~Max
I don’t think forced labor is objectively wrong. I do think there is a potential for harmful market distortions and corruption. There are perverse incentives when money and crime and punishment mix. Such as this scenario where judges sold convictions of juveniles. Former judges who sent kids to jail for money must pay more than $200 million : NPR
I also think prison should be more focused on rehabilitation and maximizing human potential and less focused on state condoned brutality.
I can accept that.
I don’t know if this is still the case, but a couple state prisons in NC had inmates making paint for road markings. They had a cute little paint manufacturing building across the parking lot entrance. I’m told by my BIL that this was a very desirable job for most of the inmates. There was a waiting list and disciplinary action might include being removed from the job.
My BIL was fortunate in that our family kept his canteen account topped up to its maximum at all times. He did not have to work for the pay, but he chose to work in the library for several years just for the opportunity to be doing something. (He enjoyed the job quite a bit and spent a great deal of time writing to various people and agencies outside to request book donations and funding.)
It was common for my BIL to trade canteen treats for hand-made holiday and birthday cards. There were inmates who made the most beautiful drawings (pencil on plain paper) and made them into cards. We have a whole stack of them in our attic. Unusual, but beautiful.
The prison form of “raw-dogging”? Could be the next new thing.
Forcing a person isn’t wise or useful.
But I have absolutely no problem with an inmate reducing his sentence by providing a service or product to the community they’ve wronged. Hell, that’s practically self-funded rehabilitation.