6 ms·

Because, combined with a police state and selective enforcement, its prohibition is an amazing tool for filling prisons with black and brown bodies.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
And thanks to the 13th amendment, once found guilty of a crime, are legal to be slaves. Again.
- komali2 8y ago
  This is fact, so I'm curious why it's being downvoted. >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. Did I maybe miss a supreme Court case where that bit of it was neutered?
  - mywittyname 8y ago
    Probably from the people who think those in prison are not slaves, but are "earning their keep."
    - pc86 8y ago
      It's likely less about "earning your keep" and more that you're being punished.
  - dx87 8y ago
    It's probably getting downvoted because they're trying to evoke an emotional reaction by comparing forced labor as part of a prison sentence with literally keeping people as your personal property. If we're going to call any instance of the government forcing you to do a job you don't want "slavery", then here's a list of countries where the majority of the population has been forced into "slavery" without even being found guilty of a crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Countries_with_mandatory_military_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Countries_wit...
    - vkou 8y ago
      Yet, in the same breath, those same people condemn punitive labour camps in communist countries. You can't really have it both ways. Forced labour in prison creates a colossal conflict of interest for the state, even in a world where the law is just, and is applied fairly. (We don't really live in that world.)
    - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
      > It's probably getting downvoted because they're trying to evoke an emotional reaction by comparing forced labor as part of a prison sentence with literally keeping people as your personal property. What I stated was a fact. Too bad, that you don't like facts, or that you try to dismiss the fact that it is slavery by comparing it to chattel slavery. This isnt some bigoted law in some Southern state legislature. This is enshrined as federal constitutional law, and is also why the USA is not a signatory to numerous anti-slave treaties. > If we're going to call any instance of the government forcing you to do a job you don't want "slavery", then here's a list of countries where the majority of the population has been forced into "slavery" without even being found guilty of a crime. No, "I" didn't call it slavery. The 13th amendment did. Too bad the constitution isnt enough of a authoritative source. And then, you dismiss it with whataboutism. I live in the USA, and am dscussing USA constitutional law; Im not discussing your whataboutism of countries I dont live in.
      - pc86 8y ago
        You probably serve your (IMO just) argument well by learning to discuss controversial topics with at least some semblance of respect for those who disagree with you.
        crankylinuxuser 8y ago
        So I should "respect" those who accept and advocate slavery? No. We can discuss controversial subjects. Happens quite often. But you're wanting me to respect the fact that people are OK with slavery. Put it this way: I have ethics, and this is beyond the pale. This "argument" is nothing more than a decorum complaint. Slavery, in all its forms, is Wrong. Anybody who supports slavery is Wrong. No ifs, ands, or buts. And we fought a war over this very issue, and the 'compromise' was that criminals could be enslaved. Who'da thought that the majority of those who were chattel slaves would end up as "criminals", and back where they started? Its high time we excise that criminals part from the 13th.
  - pc86 8y ago
    > Did I maybe miss a supreme Court case where that bit of it was neutered? The Supreme Court does not have the authority to "neuter" parts of the Constitution.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - lovich 8y ago
      It de facto does. If the government is running off one interpretation of a piece of the Constitution and the supreme Court rules that that interpretation is incorrect, it's been neutered

crankylinuxuser 8y ago

And thanks to the 13th amendment, once found guilty of a crime, are legal to be slaves. Again.

komali2 8y ago
This is fact, so I'm curious why it's being downvoted. >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. Did I maybe miss a supreme Court case where that bit of it was neutered?
- mywittyname 8y ago
  Probably from the people who think those in prison are not slaves, but are "earning their keep."
  - pc86 8y ago
    It's likely less about "earning your keep" and more that you're being punished.
- dx87 8y ago
  It's probably getting downvoted because they're trying to evoke an emotional reaction by comparing forced labor as part of a prison sentence with literally keeping people as your personal property. If we're going to call any instance of the government forcing you to do a job you don't want "slavery", then here's a list of countries where the majority of the population has been forced into "slavery" without even being found guilty of a crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Countries_with_mandatory_military_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Countries_wit...
  - vkou 8y ago
    Yet, in the same breath, those same people condemn punitive labour camps in communist countries. You can't really have it both ways. Forced labour in prison creates a colossal conflict of interest for the state, even in a world where the law is just, and is applied fairly. (We don't really live in that world.)
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    > It's probably getting downvoted because they're trying to evoke an emotional reaction by comparing forced labor as part of a prison sentence with literally keeping people as your personal property. What I stated was a fact. Too bad, that you don't like facts, or that you try to dismiss the fact that it is slavery by comparing it to chattel slavery. This isnt some bigoted law in some Southern state legislature. This is enshrined as federal constitutional law, and is also why the USA is not a signatory to numerous anti-slave treaties. > If we're going to call any instance of the government forcing you to do a job you don't want "slavery", then here's a list of countries where the majority of the population has been forced into "slavery" without even being found guilty of a crime. No, "I" didn't call it slavery. The 13th amendment did. Too bad the constitution isnt enough of a authoritative source. And then, you dismiss it with whataboutism. I live in the USA, and am dscussing USA constitutional law; Im not discussing your whataboutism of countries I dont live in.
    - pc86 8y ago
      You probably serve your (IMO just) argument well by learning to discuss controversial topics with at least some semblance of respect for those who disagree with you.
      - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
        So I should "respect" those who accept and advocate slavery? No. We can discuss controversial subjects. Happens quite often. But you're wanting me to respect the fact that people are OK with slavery. Put it this way: I have ethics, and this is beyond the pale. This "argument" is nothing more than a decorum complaint. Slavery, in all its forms, is Wrong. Anybody who supports slavery is Wrong. No ifs, ands, or buts. And we fought a war over this very issue, and the 'compromise' was that criminals could be enslaved. Who'da thought that the majority of those who were chattel slaves would end up as "criminals", and back where they started? Its high time we excise that criminals part from the 13th.
- pc86 8y ago
  > Did I maybe miss a supreme Court case where that bit of it was neutered? The Supreme Court does not have the authority to "neuter" parts of the Constitution.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - lovich 8y ago
    It de facto does. If the government is running off one interpretation of a piece of the Constitution and the supreme Court rules that that interpretation is incorrect, it's been neutered