On the one hand, prisoners being coerced to work is payment for their crimes. On the other hand, that job would have gone to someone else at market rates. This kind of thing drags down the market rates.
We really need to get rid of the exception in the 13th amendment.
It's rather difficult to do enough bad things to get a lengthy prison sentence these days. Usually requires a violent offense in the context of significant priors.
If you're interested in doing hard federal time, I would suggest you consider interstate trafficking of distribution quantities of drugs.
At the state level, by far the most common reason for long sentences are violent offenses. At the federal level it is more often trafficking at distribution scale.
There are always stories, but the majority are the above. If you have a state in mind we can look at the data together.
> It's rather difficult to do enough bad things to get a lengthy prison sentence these days.
...there are two million people in prison. Several million more in various stages of the carceral cycle who be be easily subbed in when more labor is required.
The loss of rights should be the payment for their crimes. Having volunteer job opportunities for reform or having them maintain their own facilities is the max that should be mandated.
It’s just slavery with all the perverse incentives that come with it, and I think we’d all be better off if this was a lever that no one in society had access to pull on
Sounds nice, until you're robbed, they catch and prosecute the guy successfully, and then you're unable to be made whole again because the criminal doesn't have any money to pay you back.
What then? If they're not forced to produce something of value to give to you, then how can you ever be made whole again? Does the state pay? If so, why do taxpayers who didn't commit a crime foot the bill? If it's insurance, then why do non-criminals paying insurance premiums foot the bill?
If there's nothing linking the action (_theft_) to the needed outcome (_restitution_), then there's this unmoored loop of perverse incentives wherein some folks can continue to commit crimes with very limited consequences.
Doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to work while in prison. But surely for any and all crimes that have a clearly defined dollar amount, shouldn't that criminal be forced to pay that amount back? Garnishing future wages can be circumvented (_just don't get a real job when you get out, keep stealing things to support yourself_). And even at best, it's very much _delayed_ restitution. Justice delayed is justice denied.
The prisoner in the article is so unusual someone wrote an article about them and it made headlines on a tech forum.
The parent thread we're discussing is broadly about prisoner work in the US. So we should be considering the mean and median values, not the one guy making 4 orders of magnitude more than everyone else.
>If they're not forced to produce something of value to give to you, then how can you ever be made whole again? Does the state pay? If so, why do taxpayers who didn't commit a crime foot the bill? If it's insurance, then why do non-criminals paying insurance premiums foot the bill?
Are any of these solutions that unreasonable when you consider that the state/taxpayers are already footing the bill to keep prisoners incarcerated?
> Sounds nice, until you're robbed, they catch and prosecute the guy successfully, and then you're unable to be made whole again because the criminal doesn't have any money to pay you back.
How do they pay you back when employers run background checks (not to mention housing)?
> If there's nothing linking the action (_theft_) to the needed outcome (_restitution_), then there's this unmoored loop of perverse incentives wherein some folks can continue to commit crimes with very limited consequences.
>you're unable to be made whole again because the criminal doesn't have any money to pay you back.
What does that have to do with rehabilitation? That person can go to prison, realize the errors of their ways, and have a healthy life.I don't have to like nor forgive them. I'm not being "made whole again" no matter how long you lock them up.
> If they're not forced to produce something of value to give to you, then how can you ever be made whole again?
1) you generally don't get something "produced of value", unless suffering is a currency now. Probably is in 2025
2) insurance. not everything can be given back, but many material goods can be compensated.
>If it's insurance, then why do non-criminals paying insurance premiums foot the bill?
because that's how insurance works, in spirit. You're all pooling together a fund so that you help out some other person when they need it. The instigator is often not the one footing the bill to begin with. Shaking down a criminal with no money is as useful as yelling at a forest fire as it burns your place down.
>Doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to work while in prison. But surely for any and all crimes that have a clearly defined dollar amount, shouldn't that criminal be forced to pay that amount back?
if they have it, sure. As is, this isn't the model of the "justice" system, though. You're not getting paid back for anyone put behind bars.
> If there's nothing linking the action (_theft_) to the needed outcome (_restitution_), then there's this unmoored loop of perverse incentives wherein some folks can continue to commit crimes with very limited consequences.
>prisoners being coerced to work is payment for their crimes. On the other hand, that job would have gone to someone else at market rates. This kind of thing drags down the market rates.
That's a different problem, for different inmates -- the inmates covered in this story are paid market rates. It mentions the software developer has a six-figure salary.
As intended, companies will do everything to lower wages and have borderline slaves work for them, either through immigrants, hiring mostly co-op workers, and now prisoners, and a lot of people are okay with it for some reason, so gullible! The "engineer" job in 2025 is like sewing in a prison a couple of decades ago, crazy.
It was not. Working in prisons started as part of rehabilitation, so the prisoners could learn life skills to survive. Now it devolved to power tripping and control.
Because it's free money for them either way, and they can undercut the competition, even minimum wage workers, due to the 13th amendment excluding prisoners.
The prisoner doesn't really get too much choice in the matter other than taking/rejecting the offer.
The prison could, for grift reasons. They can undercut competition because their costs are lower. If a union, or even a market-rate shop needs to pay, say, $20-hour for labor, and the prison can pay $1-hour (or day) they can charge much less, and then pocket the difference. Their advantage isn't a higher quality product just a cheaper one.
Why would someone buy services from a prison vs an established company. Presumably the quality would be worse and there is a potential risk to reputation. The answer would be because the prison is substantially cheaper due to not needing to abide by labor laws. There are plenty of services where I'd be willing for forgo (some) quality for significant costs decreases.
We really need to get rid of the exception in the 13th amendment.