4 ms·

Correction: The US still has not abolished slavery. It is still legal in the case of prisoners: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_Unite

by phyzome 3mo ago

Correction: The US still has not abolished slavery. It is still legal in the case of prisoners: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...

froh 3mo ago
yes! which is _the_ driving factor behind the US prison system with its private prison labor facilities. there is zero financial motivation for the state for prevention or rehab or any other activities to reduce imprisonment rates did I mention disenfranchisement of the imprisoned?
- sokoloff 3mo ago
  Are you suggesting that the state turns a net profit on prisoners, making more from their labor than the full cost of their incarceration? That seems…unlikely.
  - none2585 3mo ago
    Not the state but the companies that run the prisons and those that contract the workers to work at an extremely low wage.
    - sokoloff 3mo ago
      What’s the financial motivation for the state then?
      - compsciphd 3mo ago
        to lose less money on the prisoners? i.e. its not a good motivation to increase the number of prisoners (even if one looses less money per prisoner, more prisoners will mean more loss), but it does motivate investigating ways on how one can minimize the loss on individual prisoners.
      - none2585 3mo ago
        I wasn't claiming there was a financial motivation one way or the other simply stating the actors who do turn a profit with regards to the US prison system. The explosion of incarceration and the private prisons resulting from that largely come from "the war on drugs". The book The New Jim Crow is pretty good if you're interested in the topic.
      - atmavatar 3mo ago
        For the state itself? None. For state employees (i.e. representatives, judges, etc.)? Some get kickbacks. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal See: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dhs-contractors-told-white-house-officials-asked-pay-corey-lewandowski-rcna263744 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dhs-contractors-told-wh... Alas, the "kids for cash" scandal was such a big news event that it dominates the results for any search you'd do on the subject of private prison corruption, but it's hardly the only example.
      - generj 3mo ago
        The state as a whole does not have a financial motivation. The interests of the criminal justice system on the other hand is heavily financially benefited from the current state of affairs. More incarcerations means more judges, more lawyers, more job security. Moves to correct this are labeled as “soft of crime” and surely my opponent Congresswoman Y isn’t pro crime?
      - insane_dreamer 3mo ago
        in many cases the motivation is not financial, it's racial; modern-day Jim Crow
      - scarecrowbob 3mo ago
        It's possible that you're genuine in your confusion here; it is, however very hard for me to believe that there are people who genuinely don't understand that when the state spends money it -goes somewhere-.
      - Brian_K_White 3mo ago
        Irrelevant. There doesn't need to be any. "What's the financial motivation for the state" is way too blinkered and makes at least 2 different false assumptions. There are other motivations besides financial, and it doesn't have to be the state's own motivation for the state to end up doing something. Countless government policies and programs exist which give no legitimate benefit to the state or the people, no legitimate motivation, financial or otherwise, yet they exist anyway because they do benefit and motivate someone, financially or otherwise, who has some mechanism of influence to cause it to happen. This is almost like asking "Why would anyone do something bad?" Gosh golly why indeed? 517,000 reasons and 124 new ones every day.
        sokoloff 3mo ago
        Relevant in that the directly upthread poster argued there was “zero financial motivation for the state for prevention or rehab or any other activities to reduce imprisonment rates”, which I claim is incorrect.
  - froh 3mo ago
    I get how you could read it that way, and of course the state as the thing that is collecting taxes and paying whatever does not profit. and the state as all citizens, including those affected by gang and drug related violence also would benefit from dong things differently. it's those who benefit off the current prison labor system who lobby to keep it running, and they make it seem "natural" and "without alternatives"... and "the state" (as the tax collecting entity) pays for the prisons and the inmates while the labor "providing" companies benefit off the labor. it's a very very clever system. enslavement without being called such. and I agree, no, "the state" (as the totality of citizens) doesn't benefit. only "the state" as the entity that's controlled by lobbyists and _pretends_ being by the people, for the people, that has no motivation to change this.
- anonymars 3mo ago
  Related: https://newjimcrow.com/about/excerpt-from-the-introduction https://newjimcrow.com/about/excerpt-from-the-introduction "Jarvious Cotton cannot vote. Like his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great-grandfather, he has been denied the right to participate in our electoral democracy"
encom 3mo ago
Prisoners are not slaves, because they are not the property of the prison or any other entity. It's called involuntary servitude. I'm sure the people affected do not care about the distinction, but words matter. It's also trivially easy to not end up in involuntary servitude.
- amazingamazing 3mo ago
  > It's also trivially easy to not end up in involuntary servitude. Stupid people always say nonsense like this as if no person in prison is innocent.
  - grantith 3mo ago
    It's also black and white thinking that carries an ego-filled, nuance-lacking, disregard for the myriad of circumstances that underpin human behavior.
    - toilet 3mo ago
      Read more about it in Herbert Marcuse: One-Dimensional Man
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3mo ago
    Stupid people also assume there are not exceptions to every rule. But you can't build your systems (or your arguments) around edge cases, because that would be ignoring the vast majority of use cases.
    - amazingamazing 3mo ago
      Another stupid comment. What do you think about the death penalty? If you happen to be the one dying for no reason would you consider that just a trivial unfortunate edge case? Educate yourself: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/policy/innocence https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/policy/innocence Every day I am happy many here are techies and not politicians.
- 3mo ago
elmer2 3mo ago
I suppose using this logic, murder is legal, because of self defense. Theft is legal because of tax laws. Prisoners aren't 'slaves'. They are being punished for crimes they committed. Very dofferent than being born into it and bought/sold to the highest bidder.
- tmtvl 3mo ago
  If someone is abducted against their will and forced to do work without (fair) compensation and without being allowed to exercise their human rights, is that person not a slave because they were neither born into it nor bought or sold?
  - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
    "Abduction against their will" is something that happens when a person is arrested. If you are done for crime I don't think freedoms apply to you anymore.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- crote 3mo ago
  > They are being punished for crimes they committed The punishment is being locked up in a cell. Being forced to work on top of that is the slavery.
  - ivell 3mo ago
    > Being forced to work on top of that is the slavery. Why is it not part of the punishment? I think it is dependent upon interpretation. Otherwise arresting and locking up can be interpreted as kidnapping and so on. I do agree that they should be fairly compensated though.
    - blooalien 3mo ago
      > Why is it not part of the punishment? Indeed it is part of the punishment. As an earlier comment in this thread points out from the 13th amendment: > "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime" (emphasis added by me)

by phyzome 3mo ago

froh 3mo ago

yes! which is _the_ driving factor behind the US prison system with its private prison labor facilities. there is zero financial motivation for the state for prevention or rehab or any other activities to reduce imprisonment rates did I mention disenfranchisement of the imprisoned?

sokoloff 3mo ago
Are you suggesting that the state turns a net profit on prisoners, making more from their labor than the full cost of their incarceration? That seems…unlikely.
- none2585 3mo ago
  Not the state but the companies that run the prisons and those that contract the workers to work at an extremely low wage.
  - sokoloff 3mo ago
    What’s the financial motivation for the state then?
    - compsciphd 3mo ago
      to lose less money on the prisoners? i.e. its not a good motivation to increase the number of prisoners (even if one looses less money per prisoner, more prisoners will mean more loss), but it does motivate investigating ways on how one can minimize the loss on individual prisoners.
    - none2585 3mo ago
      I wasn't claiming there was a financial motivation one way or the other simply stating the actors who do turn a profit with regards to the US prison system. The explosion of incarceration and the private prisons resulting from that largely come from "the war on drugs". The book The New Jim Crow is pretty good if you're interested in the topic.
    - atmavatar 3mo ago
      For the state itself? None. For state employees (i.e. representatives, judges, etc.)? Some get kickbacks. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal See: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dhs-contractors-told-white-house-officials-asked-pay-corey-lewandowski-rcna263744 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dhs-contractors-told-wh... Alas, the "kids for cash" scandal was such a big news event that it dominates the results for any search you'd do on the subject of private prison corruption, but it's hardly the only example.
    - generj 3mo ago
      The state as a whole does not have a financial motivation. The interests of the criminal justice system on the other hand is heavily financially benefited from the current state of affairs. More incarcerations means more judges, more lawyers, more job security. Moves to correct this are labeled as “soft of crime” and surely my opponent Congresswoman Y isn’t pro crime?
    - insane_dreamer 3mo ago
      in many cases the motivation is not financial, it's racial; modern-day Jim Crow
    - scarecrowbob 3mo ago
      It's possible that you're genuine in your confusion here; it is, however very hard for me to believe that there are people who genuinely don't understand that when the state spends money it -goes somewhere-.
    - Brian_K_White 3mo ago
      Irrelevant. There doesn't need to be any. "What's the financial motivation for the state" is way too blinkered and makes at least 2 different false assumptions. There are other motivations besides financial, and it doesn't have to be the state's own motivation for the state to end up doing something. Countless government policies and programs exist which give no legitimate benefit to the state or the people, no legitimate motivation, financial or otherwise, yet they exist anyway because they do benefit and motivate someone, financially or otherwise, who has some mechanism of influence to cause it to happen. This is almost like asking "Why would anyone do something bad?" Gosh golly why indeed? 517,000 reasons and 124 new ones every day.
      - sokoloff 3mo ago
        Relevant in that the directly upthread poster argued there was “zero financial motivation for the state for prevention or rehab or any other activities to reduce imprisonment rates”, which I claim is incorrect.
- froh 3mo ago
  I get how you could read it that way, and of course the state as the thing that is collecting taxes and paying whatever does not profit. and the state as all citizens, including those affected by gang and drug related violence also would benefit from dong things differently. it's those who benefit off the current prison labor system who lobby to keep it running, and they make it seem "natural" and "without alternatives"... and "the state" (as the tax collecting entity) pays for the prisons and the inmates while the labor "providing" companies benefit off the labor. it's a very very clever system. enslavement without being called such. and I agree, no, "the state" (as the totality of citizens) doesn't benefit. only "the state" as the entity that's controlled by lobbyists and _pretends_ being by the people, for the people, that has no motivation to change this.
anonymars 3mo ago
Related: https://newjimcrow.com/about/excerpt-from-the-introduction https://newjimcrow.com/about/excerpt-from-the-introduction "Jarvious Cotton cannot vote. Like his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great-grandfather, he has been denied the right to participate in our electoral democracy"

encom 3mo ago

Prisoners are not slaves, because they are not the property of the prison or any other entity. It's called involuntary servitude. I'm sure the people affected do not care about the distinction, but words matter. It's also trivially easy to not end up in involuntary servitude.

amazingamazing 3mo ago
> It's also trivially easy to not end up in involuntary servitude. Stupid people always say nonsense like this as if no person in prison is innocent.
- grantith 3mo ago
  It's also black and white thinking that carries an ego-filled, nuance-lacking, disregard for the myriad of circumstances that underpin human behavior.
  - toilet 3mo ago
    Read more about it in Herbert Marcuse: One-Dimensional Man
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3mo ago
  Stupid people also assume there are not exceptions to every rule. But you can't build your systems (or your arguments) around edge cases, because that would be ignoring the vast majority of use cases.
  - amazingamazing 3mo ago
    Another stupid comment. What do you think about the death penalty? If you happen to be the one dying for no reason would you consider that just a trivial unfortunate edge case? Educate yourself: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/policy/innocence https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/policy/innocence Every day I am happy many here are techies and not politicians.
3mo ago

elmer2 3mo ago

I suppose using this logic, murder is legal, because of self defense. Theft is legal because of tax laws. Prisoners aren't 'slaves'. They are being punished for crimes they committed. Very dofferent than being born into it and bought/sold to the highest bidder.

tmtvl 3mo ago
If someone is abducted against their will and forced to do work without (fair) compensation and without being allowed to exercise their human rights, is that person not a slave because they were neither born into it nor bought or sold?
- ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
  "Abduction against their will" is something that happens when a person is arrested. If you are done for crime I don't think freedoms apply to you anymore.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
crote 3mo ago
> They are being punished for crimes they committed The punishment is being locked up in a cell. Being forced to work on top of that is the slavery.
- ivell 3mo ago
  > Being forced to work on top of that is the slavery. Why is it not part of the punishment? I think it is dependent upon interpretation. Otherwise arresting and locking up can be interpreted as kidnapping and so on. I do agree that they should be fairly compensated though.
  - blooalien 3mo ago
    > Why is it not part of the punishment? Indeed it is part of the punishment. As an earlier comment in this thread points out from the 13th amendment: > "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime" (emphasis added by me)