3 ms·
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United Sta
by kevmo 8y ago
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
- 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
Whenever anyone says slavery no longer exists in America, I point them to this. The foundational document of our system of government expressly allows slavery.
We house 25% of the world's prisoners in part because it's how we are still legally producing slaves.
- noobermin 8y agoCan any lawyer comment? A reading of the 13th amendment seems to justify involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime, does this mean prison labor that isn't included in a sentence a violation of the 13th amendment? Just reading of this seems to allow one to make an legal argument along those lines, so I imagine there must have been some case that lead to a clarification of the 13th in the intervening century or so.
- kevmo 8y agoI have a law degree and used to work for a federal judge (am a developer now, though). The 13th Amendment says that you can enslave someone as part of their post-conviction sentencing. This is very broad language and allows for the general slavery of anyone who has been convicted of a crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_Stat...
- TheSoftwareGuy 8y agoExcept there is over a century of precedent, and no court is going to overturn that now. The 13th amendment is not some new discovery that the courts are waiting for someone to make an argument based on
- RIMR 8y agoYou couldn't be more wrong. The supreme court could reinterpret this, and require forced labor to be a part of the sentence, not just allowed to be used against anyone in prison. Precedent changes over time. This idea that the current interpretation of the Constitution is immutable is defeatist and foolish.
- goobynight 8y agoThe supreme court could reinterpret anything. The trend at the moment is that they aren't interfering with past rulings and that's not about to change with the new addition.
- DenisM 8y agoRemember the recent gay marriage ruling? They re-interpreted centuries of tradition.