3 ms·

The 13th Amendment goes out of its way to specify that slavery is permitted for convicts. I agree that it's immoral, but it's explicitly, unambiguously Constit

The 13th Amendment goes out of its way to specify that slavery is permitted for convicts. I agree that it's immoral, but it's explicitly, unambiguously Constitutional.

avs733 10y ago
Apologies for a delayed response...traveling and such...I understand the perspective from an absolute sense but I think there are three major problems with this analysis. 1) The system we are discussing more directly punishes the families of those convicted by crimes. That is manifestly unconstitutional on several levels including as it furthers not substantive government interest and restricts both the rights of non-prisoners and prisoners. [1a]. The courts have gone out of their way to uphold the rights of non-prisoners to communicate with prisoners [1b] which this effects. 2) Prisoners are already a protected class in research, specifically because they are not fully able to make uncoerced and voluntary decisions. The industry we are discussing is not beholden to the standards of IRB, but the prisons are still held to a minimal standard of duty of care. [e.g., 2] Allowing them to be monetized at the expense of all evidence of their rehabilitation, care, and well being would not seem to be a reasonable or sincere attempt to meet that standard. If not for 30 years of jurisprudence that treats prisoners as an annoyance 3) The slavery that the reading of the 13th amendment you reference is built around comes from the late 1800's. It referenced prison systems where the prisons were almost entirely self-sufficient based on inmate labor. [3] To use the language of the courts, prisoners were 'slaves of the state' in deference to their participation in this system. That does not mean they have entirely given up their rights [e.g., to free speech [1a,b]], but rather that they are significantly restricted. The prison phone scams and associated employment for private gain in prisons have nothing to do with slavery to the state so as to support the costs of the prison system. Rather this modern 13th amendment slavery to benefit private entities should be treated as unsettled (mostly because the courts defer in an almost unfathomable fashion to corrections departments) or a very troubling new reading of the 13th amendment. [1a] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/396/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/396/case.htm... [1b] http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1089&context=iplj http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=108... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_v._Brennan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_v._Brennan [3] https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=162920 https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=1629...

The 13th Amendment goes out of its way to specify that slavery is permitted for convicts. I agree that it's immoral, but it's explicitly, unambiguously Constitutional.

avs733 10y ago

Apologies for a delayed response...traveling and such...I understand the perspective from an absolute sense but I think there are three major problems with this analysis. 1) The system we are discussing more directly punishes the families of those convicted by crimes. That is manifestly unconstitutional on several levels including as it furthers not substantive government interest and restricts both the rights of non-prisoners and prisoners. [1a]. The courts have gone out of their way to uphold the rights of non-prisoners to communicate with prisoners [1b] which this effects. 2) Prisoners are already a protected class in research, specifically because they are not fully able to make uncoerced and voluntary decisions. The industry we are discussing is not beholden to the standards of IRB, but the prisons are still held to a minimal standard of duty of care. [e.g., 2] Allowing them to be monetized at the expense of all evidence of their rehabilitation, care, and well being would not seem to be a reasonable or sincere attempt to meet that standard. If not for 30 years of jurisprudence that treats prisoners as an annoyance 3) The slavery that the reading of the 13th amendment you reference is built around comes from the late 1800's. It referenced prison systems where the prisons were almost entirely self-sufficient based on inmate labor. [3] To use the language of the courts, prisoners were 'slaves of the state' in deference to their participation in this system. That does not mean they have entirely given up their rights [e.g., to free speech [1a,b]], but rather that they are significantly restricted. The prison phone scams and associated employment for private gain in prisons have nothing to do with slavery to the state so as to support the costs of the prison system. Rather this modern 13th amendment slavery to benefit private entities should be treated as unsettled (mostly because the courts defer in an almost unfathomable fashion to corrections departments) or a very troubling new reading of the 13th amendment. [1a] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/396/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/396/case.htm... [1b] http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1089&context=iplj http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=108... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_v._Brennan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_v._Brennan [3] https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=162920 https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=1629...