3 ms·

> he could at any time choose the jail option. That's not an option, it is a threat. And it fits the definition of forced labour.

lelanthran 5y ago
> That's not an option, it is a threat. And it fits the definition of forced labour. If you take away the option, they're going to jail anyway, right? They're convicts so they aren't going to escape the punitive measure unless the court allows it. You're literally arguing that, for a convict, putting them in jail if they refuse the alternative is forced labour, but that's ridiculous, because if all the abusive places referenced in the article didn't exist, they'd be in jail anyway. Convicts (i.e. people found guilty of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment) aren't going to go free just because the "rehab" places don't exist. In most jurisdictions convicts get no option - they get the punitive measure whether they like it or not. Giving them an alternative to the punitive measure is not "forced labour" no matter how you try to interpret it.
- mrtranscendence 5y ago
  I disagree with this characterization, if for no other reason than the fact that the nature of the alternatives might not be entirely clear. And should the convict decide six months in that he's tired of being abused doing dangerous work so that meat suppliers can get free labor, he doesn't get time served -- that six months is just lost.
  - lelanthran 5y ago
    > I disagree with this characterization, if for no other reason than the fact that the nature of the alternatives might not be entirely clear. And should the convict decide six months in that he's tired of being abused doing dangerous work so that meat suppliers can get free labor, he doesn't get time served -- that six months is just lost. I agree with all of that, but it still doesn't make it "forced labour". Using the term "forced labour" is a larger mischaracterisation of the situation. But, then again, in my post I did point out that there is not enough information here to determine whether the options being offered are fair, or whether the options are presented factually and truthfully. If we had more information we might know more, but the article in question is written to provide only a single point of view, and hence all the detail that might let us determine how fair/unfair this is has been omitted.
    - lupire 5y ago
      It's technically interesting to distinguish "labor" from "(more) time in prison", but both are a form of slavery -- loss of major freedom to choose how and where to spend one's time.

lelanthran 5y ago

> That's not an option, it is a threat. And it fits the definition of forced labour. If you take away the option, they're going to jail anyway, right? They're convicts so they aren't going to escape the punitive measure unless the court allows it. You're literally arguing that, for a convict, putting them in jail if they refuse the alternative is forced labour, but that's ridiculous, because if all the abusive places referenced in the article didn't exist, they'd be in jail anyway. Convicts (i.e. people found guilty of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment) aren't going to go free just because the "rehab" places don't exist. In most jurisdictions convicts get no option - they get the punitive measure whether they like it or not. Giving them an alternative to the punitive measure is not "forced labour" no matter how you try to interpret it.

mrtranscendence 5y ago
I disagree with this characterization, if for no other reason than the fact that the nature of the alternatives might not be entirely clear. And should the convict decide six months in that he's tired of being abused doing dangerous work so that meat suppliers can get free labor, he doesn't get time served -- that six months is just lost.
- lelanthran 5y ago
  > I disagree with this characterization, if for no other reason than the fact that the nature of the alternatives might not be entirely clear. And should the convict decide six months in that he's tired of being abused doing dangerous work so that meat suppliers can get free labor, he doesn't get time served -- that six months is just lost. I agree with all of that, but it still doesn't make it "forced labour". Using the term "forced labour" is a larger mischaracterisation of the situation. But, then again, in my post I did point out that there is not enough information here to determine whether the options being offered are fair, or whether the options are presented factually and truthfully. If we had more information we might know more, but the article in question is written to provide only a single point of view, and hence all the detail that might let us determine how fair/unfair this is has been omitted.
  - lupire 5y ago
    It's technically interesting to distinguish "labor" from "(more) time in prison", but both are a form of slavery -- loss of major freedom to choose how and where to spend one's time.