3 ms·

I don't think the right to your own work and it's profits are an issue of comfort. If you are to lose that right via prison perhaps that's okay. It's not okay t

by redorb 9y ago

I don't think the right to your own work and it's profits are an issue of comfort. If you are to lose that right via prison perhaps that's okay. It's not okay to then force that labor out of a person who is non-willing / force labor is slavery. My mother when leaving prison was given a bill for her stay - as if she were staying at a motel. So not only was she then a felon with little hope for a 'good job' but also was laden with debt, which fortunately had very tolerant pay back policies.

weberc2 9y ago
> I don't think the right to your own work and it's profits are an issue of comfort. No person with a debt is entitled to the profits of their work, free or otherwise. The debt here is the cost of their incarceration. I don't propose they pay back the entire portion of their incarceration, but I think they should be responsible for paying back what they can while they're in prison. Within this model, you could make provisions for prisoners to elect to pay a sum after release (thereby making it optional labor as a means of repaying the debt they entered into), but this isn't without its own moral quandaries. The crux of the issue in my mind is that someone needs to pay for incarceration, and while tax payers are going to have to pay a large portion regardless, the incarcerated should contribute what they can. Of course there are likely many injustices in the justice system which would cause this policy to impact some groups more than others (males vs females, for instance), but those issues are orthogonal to this, and consequently they should be addressed separately, insofar as they exist.
- vkou 9y ago
  > No person with a debt is entitled to the profits of their work, free or otherwise. The debt here is the cost of their incarceration. I don't propose they pay back the entire portion of their incarceration, but I think they should be responsible for paying back what they can while they're in prison. This is morally bankrupt. You are locking people up, against their will, taking away years of their productive working life - and then sending them a bill for it. This is a debtor's prison by another name. (Which are, by the way, widely recognized among the Western world, including in the US, to be immoral, and illegal - in theory.)
  - weberc2 9y ago
    You misread my comment. I was explicit that the debt is canceled at the end of their term. You're also neglecting that imprisonment is a consequence of committing a crime (the accuracy of our legal system being an orthogonal matter), and criminals are accepting that risk in committing the crime, so it's not exactly involuntary.

by redorb 9y ago

weberc2 9y ago

> I don't think the right to your own work and it's profits are an issue of comfort. No person with a debt is entitled to the profits of their work, free or otherwise. The debt here is the cost of their incarceration. I don't propose they pay back the entire portion of their incarceration, but I think they should be responsible for paying back what they can while they're in prison. Within this model, you could make provisions for prisoners to elect to pay a sum after release (thereby making it optional labor as a means of repaying the debt they entered into), but this isn't without its own moral quandaries. The crux of the issue in my mind is that someone needs to pay for incarceration, and while tax payers are going to have to pay a large portion regardless, the incarcerated should contribute what they can. Of course there are likely many injustices in the justice system which would cause this policy to impact some groups more than others (males vs females, for instance), but those issues are orthogonal to this, and consequently they should be addressed separately, insofar as they exist.

vkou 9y ago
> No person with a debt is entitled to the profits of their work, free or otherwise. The debt here is the cost of their incarceration. I don't propose they pay back the entire portion of their incarceration, but I think they should be responsible for paying back what they can while they're in prison. This is morally bankrupt. You are locking people up, against their will, taking away years of their productive working life - and then sending them a bill for it. This is a debtor's prison by another name. (Which are, by the way, widely recognized among the Western world, including in the US, to be immoral, and illegal - in theory.)
- weberc2 9y ago
  You misread my comment. I was explicit that the debt is canceled at the end of their term. You're also neglecting that imprisonment is a consequence of committing a crime (the accuracy of our legal system being an orthogonal matter), and criminals are accepting that risk in committing the crime, so it's not exactly involuntary.