4 ms·

The Thirteenth Amendment does not say that prisoners are slaves. The text (of section one) is: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishmen

by nickff 2y ago

The Thirteenth Amendment does not say that prisoners are slaves. The text (of section one) is: “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.” This means that someone could be sentenced to slavery or indentured servitude. Federal prisons require able inmates to work; this is a form of indentured servitude, but it does not necessarily extend to state prisons (or municipal jails). Slaves are property of others (until their death or a decision by their owner to free them), and can be traded or sold. Indentured servants are engaged for a specified period of time, usually to one specific employer.

codazoda 2y ago
I don’t believe they argued that the 13th amendment says prisoners are slaves. They only asked you to imagine that you are and they pointed out that it’s allowed “according to the Thirteenth amendment”. At least, that was my interpretation.
- nickff 2y ago
  My read is that they were asking the reader to imagine they (the reader) are a prisoner, and thus a slave according to the thirteenth amendment. Even under your reading, that comment is a pure hypothetical, because federal prisoners are not slaves. I happen to believe that the federal government has enslaved people in a different context, very recently, conscripts.
  - jmholla 2y ago
    The very amendment you've been quoting explicitly calls it slavery. What would this system look like if slavery wasn't excused for incarceration?
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      They call it "involuntary servitude." I read it as: 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 ...
      - jmholla 2y ago
        It's a distinction without a difference. Even the Wikipedia article explicitly says that involuntary servitude and involuntary slavery are used interchangeably. [0] I feel you're getting caught up in word choice instead of arguing the actual implementation and interpretation of the law. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude
dghlsakjg 2y ago
> Slaves are property of others (until their death or a decision by their owner to free them) That is chattel slavery. There are other forms of slavery, indentured servitude being one of them. De facto slavery is the term of art for what is going on here.
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  The term of art that I'm familiar with is "unfree labor" or "modern slavery", both of which are widely used. Either way, every country has agreed it's at least nominally a human rights issue via the Forced Labor Convention ratified by all diplomatically significant nations except the US.
mckn1ght 2y ago
Indentured servitude was a contract one would enter into voluntarily with a perceived benefit on the other side. I think you’d have to squint pretty hard to argue that every criminal doing labor today voluntarily signed up for it to brighten their futures.
- nickff 2y ago
  Well, supporters of state authority could argue that the contract was a prior one, the ‘social contract’. As it happens, I am a philosophical anarchist, so that doesn’t work for me, but most discussants here probably believe in political authority of some sort.
  - mckn1ght 2y ago
    Equating “the social contract” with the type of legal construction involved with actual indentured servitude is some real “a taco is a hotdog” thinking.
    - nickff 2y ago
      Nobody currently alive actually voted on anything related to the US Constitution, any of the first fifteen amendments, or many important laws, because they weren't alive. I don't see how the Thirteenth Amendment is any different from the many laws which were enacted and last amended before you or I was alive. Either the populace has consented to all of that body of law, or none of it.
      - a12k 2y ago
        I think that they’re saying that the concept of a social contract does not refer to a literal contract or legal document, or document of any kind, but rather simply a way of treating each other implicit in society. Notably neither the Constitution nor its Amendments is the “social contract.”
        anonym29 2y ago
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
If you are not allowed to have a sick day without facing physical punishment (a threat obfuscated to the public by it being a threat of being shipped to a more dangerous facility, so I.E. a major threat of danger and permanent maming made clear to the slave but a threat somewhat obscured to the general public) what would you call it? You are not allowed bad days. You are not allowed slow days. You must work to the guard's (whose bonus depends on it) satisfaction. Or maybe your cell/tier gets extra shakedowns, and it's made known it's because you made a guard mad, you are going to get beat down. Based on your work performance. What would that be called?

by nickff 2y ago

codazoda 2y ago

I don’t believe they argued that the 13th amendment says prisoners are slaves. They only asked you to imagine that you are and they pointed out that it’s allowed “according to the Thirteenth amendment”. At least, that was my interpretation.

nickff 2y ago
My read is that they were asking the reader to imagine they (the reader) are a prisoner, and thus a slave according to the thirteenth amendment. Even under your reading, that comment is a pure hypothetical, because federal prisoners are not slaves. I happen to believe that the federal government has enslaved people in a different context, very recently, conscripts.
- jmholla 2y ago
  The very amendment you've been quoting explicitly calls it slavery. What would this system look like if slavery wasn't excused for incarceration?
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    They call it "involuntary servitude." I read it as: 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 ...
    - jmholla 2y ago
      It's a distinction without a difference. Even the Wikipedia article explicitly says that involuntary servitude and involuntary slavery are used interchangeably. [0] I feel you're getting caught up in word choice instead of arguing the actual implementation and interpretation of the law. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude

dghlsakjg 2y ago

> Slaves are property of others (until their death or a decision by their owner to free them) That is chattel slavery. There are other forms of slavery, indentured servitude being one of them. De facto slavery is the term of art for what is going on here.

AlotOfReading 2y ago
The term of art that I'm familiar with is "unfree labor" or "modern slavery", both of which are widely used. Either way, every country has agreed it's at least nominally a human rights issue via the Forced Labor Convention ratified by all diplomatically significant nations except the US.

mckn1ght 2y ago

Indentured servitude was a contract one would enter into voluntarily with a perceived benefit on the other side. I think you’d have to squint pretty hard to argue that every criminal doing labor today voluntarily signed up for it to brighten their futures.

nickff 2y ago
Well, supporters of state authority could argue that the contract was a prior one, the ‘social contract’. As it happens, I am a philosophical anarchist, so that doesn’t work for me, but most discussants here probably believe in political authority of some sort.
- mckn1ght 2y ago
  Equating “the social contract” with the type of legal construction involved with actual indentured servitude is some real “a taco is a hotdog” thinking.
  - nickff 2y ago
    Nobody currently alive actually voted on anything related to the US Constitution, any of the first fifteen amendments, or many important laws, because they weren't alive. I don't see how the Thirteenth Amendment is any different from the many laws which were enacted and last amended before you or I was alive. Either the populace has consented to all of that body of law, or none of it.
    - a12k 2y ago
      I think that they’re saying that the concept of a social contract does not refer to a literal contract or legal document, or document of any kind, but rather simply a way of treating each other implicit in society. Notably neither the Constitution nor its Amendments is the “social contract.”
      - anonym29 2y ago

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

If you are not allowed to have a sick day without facing physical punishment (a threat obfuscated to the public by it being a threat of being shipped to a more dangerous facility, so I.E. a major threat of danger and permanent maming made clear to the slave but a threat somewhat obscured to the general public) what would you call it? You are not allowed bad days. You are not allowed slow days. You must work to the guard's (whose bonus depends on it) satisfaction. Or maybe your cell/tier gets extra shakedowns, and it's made known it's because you made a guard mad, you are going to get beat down. Based on your work performance. What would that be called?