4 ms·

> It feels instinctively wrong to tie prison time to pay - it should be tied to rehabilitation. You seem to be reasoning under the assumption that prison exist

> It feels instinctively wrong to tie prison time to pay - it should be tied to rehabilitation. You seem to be reasoning under the assumption that prison exists for rehabilitation. It doesn't. Incarceration serves to punish. And forced labour is an additional punishment. Therefore substituting prison time with extra work seems a fair trade-off, and one well aligned with the intended goals of the prison system.

danShumway 8y ago
It's a pretty big complete coincidence that all of these additional punishments happen to be a major source of revenue for prisons, states, and private businesses. The most likely reason we're offering to knock off prison time is because we really stinking need firefighters. It's not a punishment, we're exchanging prison time for a service that we want very much. If there wasn't a forest fire, we wouldn't be offering it. If punishment was actually the purpose of these programs, we would be a lot more creative and a lot more specific in how we reduced prison sentences: "Okay, here's a bottle of sterilized urine. Drink it, and we'll knock a day off." But in practice, you don't see stuff like that. Forced labor is nearly always phrased by its proponents as something that's good for the prisoner's character, and as an effective way to repay a social debt. Look over the comments on this very article and you'll find more than a few people saying that getting to work outside is a privilege for prisoners and they should be happy just with that as a reward. The rephrasing of work as a direct punishment (especially when it's tied to money) manages to somehow makes the entire situation feel even worse to me. At least when it was transactional you could talk about it as being something that's good for both parties. I don't think that argument holds up, it's at least a reasonable starting point. But it seems obvious to me that the state shouldn't have a financial incentive to punish people. If punishment is our goal, the way we're going about it is super corrupt.
- atlantic 8y ago
  I have to agree with you that the state should never have privatized the prison service. It sets itself up for all sorts of unintended consequences, the chief of which is lobbying by the prison-industrial complex for ever more severe sentencing. The same applies to a lot of other sectors. All the basic utilities and universal healthcare should be public-sector, because any benefits relating to market efficiency are more than offset by distortions to the political process resulting from lobbying. Still, the basic point stands that incarceration is a form of punishment, and it is legitimate for it to include a component of hard labour.

danShumway 8y ago

It's a pretty big complete coincidence that all of these additional punishments happen to be a major source of revenue for prisons, states, and private businesses. The most likely reason we're offering to knock off prison time is because we really stinking need firefighters. It's not a punishment, we're exchanging prison time for a service that we want very much. If there wasn't a forest fire, we wouldn't be offering it. If punishment was actually the purpose of these programs, we would be a lot more creative and a lot more specific in how we reduced prison sentences: "Okay, here's a bottle of sterilized urine. Drink it, and we'll knock a day off." But in practice, you don't see stuff like that. Forced labor is nearly always phrased by its proponents as something that's good for the prisoner's character, and as an effective way to repay a social debt. Look over the comments on this very article and you'll find more than a few people saying that getting to work outside is a privilege for prisoners and they should be happy just with that as a reward. The rephrasing of work as a direct punishment (especially when it's tied to money) manages to somehow makes the entire situation feel even worse to me. At least when it was transactional you could talk about it as being something that's good for both parties. I don't think that argument holds up, it's at least a reasonable starting point. But it seems obvious to me that the state shouldn't have a financial incentive to punish people. If punishment is our goal, the way we're going about it is super corrupt.

atlantic 8y ago
I have to agree with you that the state should never have privatized the prison service. It sets itself up for all sorts of unintended consequences, the chief of which is lobbying by the prison-industrial complex for ever more severe sentencing. The same applies to a lot of other sectors. All the basic utilities and universal healthcare should be public-sector, because any benefits relating to market efficiency are more than offset by distortions to the political process resulting from lobbying. Still, the basic point stands that incarceration is a form of punishment, and it is legitimate for it to include a component of hard labour.