9 ms·

> It's immoral and unethical, but it's legal. Do you think it is reasonable for people in prison to work to offset some of the cost of their room and board or

• TaylorAlexander 8y ago
  I do not believe anyone should be compelled to work against their will. If we want to lock them up, we pay for it.
  • whatshisface 8y ago
    If a non-incarcerated person finds it necessary to work in order to pay for their food and housing, are they being forced to work against their will?
    • nrb 8y ago
      A non-incarcerated person has agency. They have a choice of what work to do, where that work takes place, when to work, the ability to negotiate wages, etc.
      • pmiller2 8y ago
        Not being independently wealthy, I don’t have a choice to work or not. In that sense, if I wanted not to work, then, yes, I would be working against my will. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery Edit: I should clarify, I have the choice not to work and be homeless, but that’s such a deplorable choice, it doesn’t constitute a real, free choice.
        • nrb 8y ago
          Sure you do have a choice; you can go live in the wilderness and live entirely self-sufficiently. Just because a choice is unreasonable to you doesn't make it less of a choice. More importantly (and my entire point) is that you have a choice of exactly what kind of work you want to do. That self-determination differentiates you from a prisoner or slave.
          • pmiller2 8y ago
            You’re really reaching here. Who’s to say I have the skills to do that? Where do I get the basic supplies to do so, without working for money? And on whose land do I do it? What do I do when I need medical care? What if I already have a chronic illness that needs periodic attention (as, in fact, I do.) You’re telling me that going off into the woods to die is a viable alternative to working a job for money to live in an apartment and be able to go to doctors? My point is that I have no choice other than to do something someone else will pay me to do. You haven’t addressed the argument; you are begging the question. “Work or die” sounds a lot like slavery to me. Please reply again when you have a good faith argument.
            • nrb 8y ago
              I responded with an extreme example because of your extreme conflation of "needing to do some type of work of your choosing" with wage slavery. You seem to be ignoring the central point that you GET TO CHOOSE THAT WORK.
              • pmiller2 8y ago
                You said I get to choose exactly what type of work I want to do. That’s like saying I can choose to be executed by the gas chamber or lethal injection. The consequences of not working, as someone who is not independently wealthy are so extreme as to make that not a valid choice. You are still begging the question. Do I get to choose not to work, or not? “Just go off and die,” on the streets or in the wilderness is not a valid choice.
          • 8y ago
    • pmiller2 8y ago
      If I didn’t have to, I wouldn’t be working in the sense that I do now. I’d be pursuing interests that may or may not make money, but would bring me personal fulfillment.
      • jklinger410 8y ago
        If we chase this line of logic we will find that we are all slaves to something or another. It's about whether or not we want society to force certain types of slavery. We've barred "defacto" slavery, but what about these myriad other forms? Dragging old concepts out of their graves by repurposing words we thought we already knew the definitions is one way that progressives are trying to re-try, or appeal, certain concepts. This one being modern imprisonment. I don't think the term slavery should alarm anyone in this instance, but it will, which is how we get progress in 2018.
        • pmiller2 8y ago
          Not all of us are slaves. Those with enough wealth get to buy their way out of rules that apply to ordinary people. Do you really think Jeff Bezos is a slave?
    • geofft 8y ago
      Well, yes. Food and housing should be human rights. A fulfilling or comfortable life is not, but life is a human right. But even if you don't agree with that interpretation of the human right of life, prisoners typically aren't free participants in the market. They're being paid well below average wages for the work they're doing, which a) makes it feel like a technicality that they're getting paid for their work, and b) distorts the market for everyone else.
      • tbirrell 8y ago
        The right /to/ life is different from the right /of/ life. The right to life means that no one can deprive you of your life, but neither is society obligated to ensure you have a life. The right of life means that you are owed a life and it must be given to you by the relevant authorities. The reason this is important because the former gives you control over your life, and the latter operates at the whim of the governing authority. To make that a little clearer, the right to life requires passive governmental involvement, the right of life requires active governmental involvement. Guess which one goes out the window as soon as its inconvenient. </pedantry>
        • geofft 8y ago
          This seems inconsistent with how, if you are put in prison, the government is obligated to provide you with food and shelter at no cost to you. If you only have a right "to" life in your interpretation, could not the government say, you need to pay out of pocket for food and shelter, and if you can't afford it, it's your fault you're starving to death in a dungeon? And given the potential savings, why don't more governments do exactly that?
          • tbirrell 8y ago
            That obligation is separate from the right to life. It falls more under the social contract than human rights.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
    So what about cases where the penalty is a fine instead of (or in addition to) prison time? If I get a ticket, I have to pay. For the majority of people, that money comes through doing work of some form, which I'm now being required to do or else face possible prison time.
    • kiliantics 8y ago
      Yes, fines are far more punitive to poor people than they are for the rich. They're effectively just a small expense which allows them to commit crimes. The fact that society forces us to work harder and harder in order just to live, when it could easily sustain a dignified standard of living for all at minimal cost, is the fundamental problem that people on the left are against.
      • MandieD 8y ago
        That's why I love how Finland does at least some of their fines: set at X days' income for each given offense. Granted, my losing a week's income would be a lot less painful for me than it would be for a single mother working as a home health aide, but it at least approaches fairness (we both lose the benefit of a week of our own work, but without the complete upheaval that a week in jail would have caused us)
• jbob2000 8y ago
  Nobody should be in prison longer than their rehabilitation takes and the focus of their stay should 100% be rehabilitation. The prison system should be structured around reducing costs by getting people out of the system, not reducing costs by getting those in the system to do work.
  • lightbyte 8y ago
    >Nobody should be in prison longer than their rehabilitation takes and the focus of their stay should 100% be rehabilitation That would be nice, but our current justice system is not even remotely close to being anything like this. That will take generations of change. You're trying to say we should be at step Z when we haven't even gotten to A yet.
    • craftyguy 8y ago
      Well, for one, we can rename the "Department of Corrections" to reflect what it really is since 'corrections' is not part of their charter. Step A should be "stop lying to ourselves and face the truth".
      • dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Well, for one, we can rename the "Department of Corrections" to reflect what it really is Well, we could, but no one wants to sponsor the bill to replace that name with “Department of Vengeance, Torture, Slavery, and Maintenance of th Permanent Underclass”.
    • kiliantics 8y ago
      That kind of argument is used to justify a lack of action towards progress though. Similar arguments were made by many about slavery at the time: "It would be nice to abolish slavery but our current economic system isn't even remotely close to being anything like this. It would take generations of change..." So we should prefer generations more people be subjected to these horrors than take a risk and make an effort to do better?
• kw71 8y ago
  The case might be made that these people were sentenced to prison, not slavery or involuntary servitude.
• pythonslayer 8y ago
  Maybe I am misunderstanding but “as a service” makes me think they are selling the labor to private companies. Given we pay so much in taxes for our prisons, I’m not convinced this is just covering their room and board. According to a quick search, Design2Part is a manufacturing trade show. I didn’t know that before.
• kiliantics 8y ago
  The work often offsets costs for private companies so it doesn't even go back to taxpayers. But yes, imprisoning people is ridiculously expensive and that cost is borne by the taxpayer while offering almost no benefit. We should not be imprisoning them to give private companies a cheaper labour source.
• mikeash 8y ago
  I think reasonable for them to work, as long as it’s voluntary and subject to the same protections afforded to any other worker, such as minimum wage. The problem isn’t prison work, it’s prison slavery.
  • crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    It's not slavery. But if you don't "volunteer" for work, you spend a week in solitary (aka: Torture).
    • mikeash 8y ago
      I assume that first bit is sarcastic? Seems like, given the rest, but hard to be sure....
• aseipp 8y ago
  > I have a problem with creating an economic incentive to keep people in prison You're going to be in for a real surprise when you learn why they get paid a $1/hr to do life-threatening work (that they're banned from afterwords), and where the rest of the money goes. Do you think corrections departments who sell these services charge $1/hr? Do you think them buying an overpriced toothbrush at over $20 and being price gouged by a prison actually saves the ever-deified "taxpayers" any money? Or that prisons don't pocket that and want more of it? Of course, historically, some slaves got paid by their masters, too. Unsurprisingly, it was a very popular argument (by slave owners and apologists) against their freedom (from being enslaved) because at least they got something (besides being a slave) instead of nothing (from the slave owners who got everything) and hey -- we're all making a buck, so that's their fair share. It's almost like.... slavery -- of all forms -- is really economically effective and has really, really good margins, and can make lots of money. Super weird. Can't imagine why people got rid of it.
• bilbo0s 8y ago
  I know this will sound pretty simplistic, but a prisoner is either a threat to society or they are not. If they are a threat to society, why are they given access to computers, the internet and programming tools? (The security implications should be obvious there.) Even better, why are they let outside the prison at all? If they are not a threat to society, why am I paying any amount of tax money to keep them in prison? We should pay zero dollars for any offender who is so little of a threat that we can let him/her outside of the prison. (Or, indeed, give him/her hacking tools.) Any prisoner qualifying for these work release programs, should probably be released. And the money paid incarcerating them can be saved, or at least put to better uses.
  • noobermin 8y ago
    This strikes to the heart of what the prison strike is supposed to point out. Certain companies (like private prisons and contractors who make money off of prisons) make profit out of people being in prisoned, so it is in their self interest to keep people, even people who are not dangerous to anyone in prison because it affects their bottom line. They then lobby politicians and the like to keep their place, get more funding, as well as lobby for legislation like mandatory minimums so they get a fresh supply of humans to exploit. So, it never was for the general public's interest, it's in the private interest of these corporations.
  • tcbawo 8y ago
    There is a theory of rehabilitation, although prison is probably the least effective form of it.
  • jpindar 8y ago
    What country are you talking about that gives prisoners "access to computers, the internet and programming tools"? (I've heard of them being able to send email to whitelisted addresses from locked down kiosks, but that's not the internet as we know it.)
• johnchristopher 8y ago
  > Do you think it is reasonable for people in prison to work to offset some of the cost of their room and board or do you think it should all be paid for by taxpayers? But they are taxpayers. Or more likely were before being incarcerated and will be again once released. The same is said for people losing their job: no unemployment coverage since they aren't working. No, it's not how the social net is supposed to work. Keep in mind I live in glorious EU though.