One person was arguing that they shouldn’t be able to refuse to do “chores” in prison, but the things they do there are things like making license plates, furniture, and fighting wildfires. A bit far from mopping up and taking out the garbage.
They’re in prison. Forcing them to do anything is wrong. We’ve already taken their freedom. Using them as labor is morally wrong. Especially when you look at the punishments like solitary.
I’d argue that simple chores can be used to help inmates get used to structured work as part of a reintegration effort. Of course that only makes sense if reintegration is the main goal of the prison system, which isn’t the case in the United States.
In any way, if inmates were to do labor, they’d have to be subject to labor law including worker protections and minimum wage provisions. That would probably require the United States to abolish slavery first, which isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
A guy I knew once that I definitely wouldn’t call a friend, used to say, “the only way you can change a man is if he’s in diapers.”
And in a lot of different aspects that has resonated with me, in this case, if you’re forcing a person to do labor in order to make that a better functioning member of society… It’s not going to work. They may just do the work they are forced to do without changing at all. Or they just cause trouble. OR, you hire prisoners to do the job that they need and then substitute labor that they can’t hire within. But the logic or forcing someone into submission just will never work, that’s definitely a reason why the recidivation is high.
A lot of these folks in prison were raised “free range” or completely feral and thus were never taught even the most basic elements of home care and cleaning. Knowing how and when to do those “chores” is essential should any of them want to reintegrate into society as any sort of a functioning person. Like the military will show recruits basic hygiene because some of these recruits were never taught it.
Nonsense. Of course abolishing prison slavery would be a good thing. But the alternative, should such involuntary servitude remain, would be to impose humane regulations on such labor.
They can’t refuse any job short of firefighting. They will be punished for doing so. Reports from former inmates indicate punishments range from solitary to beatings.
See that’s still too vague. Cleaning the bathroom is a domestic duty and yet is something a janitor does in this context. I would say that’s probably the dividing line, if it’s something you’d pay someone to do then they would be banned from requiring it.
I guess I’ll put my personal opinion on the record here. I think that penal labour is generally an exploitative industry, if you want to call it that. And I do think that prisoners who perform work should be paid for that work. At the same time, I’m also sensitive to the fact that it costs a great deal of money to pay for room and board and security for prisoners, and that it’s also fair that their labour be used to offset some of the cost of their own imprisonment rather than laying the burden entirely on the public purse.
So while I don’t support solitary confinement as a punishment (for anything), I do think that prisoners should have to at a minimum cook and clean for themselves. If they don’t want to cook, then nobody else should have to do it; they just won’t have dinner that night if they don’t cook and serve it themselves. If nobody wants to wash the dishes, then it’s not the administration’s problem if there aren’t any clean plates to use for the next meal. If nobody wants to clean the shower, then it’s not the administration’s problem if grime starts to build up on it. The State should not force the prisoners to work, but it also shouldn’t be the State’s responsibility to provide janitors or cooks to look after them.
Which means I agree that “extra” work beyond what’s necessary to maintain the basic needs of the prisoners should be paid and optional. “Optional” meaning there’s no punishment if you choose not to do it, but if you don’t, you won’t have money to pay for services like postage stamps, extra phone calls, or the prison commissary. Even if prisoners are only paid half of minimum wage, that’s still an improvement, because it recognises that their labour has value and this money can also be used to pay for fines and restitution. A pretty common problem among the newly-released is that they are saddled with an obscene amount of debt because the State makes them pay court costs, room and board, fines, parole monitoring fees, and restitution but only pays them fifty cents an hour for their work, meaning they leave prison thousands of dollars in debt with the threat of parole revocation if they can’t pay. That just drives people to resort to crime in order to find the money.
If nobody wants to clean the shower, then it’s not the administration’s problem if grime starts to build up on it.
Some of these examples amount to de facto collective punishment by introducing a tragedy of the commons.
“The new arrival didn’t clean up the ancient infested shower of disease, so she too consents to never getting a shower.”
Paying some prisoner a pittance to clean the shower every week would be insignificant compared to the cost of containing them. And it reduces the incentive for a gang to privatize the showers.
Let’s not experiment on clever new prison ideas. Let’s just copy Finland.
One person was arguing that they shouldn’t be able to refuse to do “chores” in prison, but the things they do there are things like making license plates, furniture, and fighting wildfires. A bit far from mopping up and taking out the garbage.
Is that person wrong though? Would they be able to refuse “chores”?
Edit: This is not a rhetorical question. I want to know if they are factually correct or not.
They’re in prison. Forcing them to do anything is wrong. We’ve already taken their freedom. Using them as labor is morally wrong. Especially when you look at the punishments like solitary.
I’d argue that simple chores can be used to help inmates get used to structured work as part of a reintegration effort. Of course that only makes sense if reintegration is the main goal of the prison system, which isn’t the case in the United States.
In any way, if inmates were to do labor, they’d have to be subject to labor law including worker protections and minimum wage provisions. That would probably require the United States to abolish slavery first, which isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
If it’s not against their will. Sure.
A guy I knew once that I definitely wouldn’t call a friend, used to say, “the only way you can change a man is if he’s in diapers.”
And in a lot of different aspects that has resonated with me, in this case, if you’re forcing a person to do labor in order to make that a better functioning member of society… It’s not going to work. They may just do the work they are forced to do without changing at all. Or they just cause trouble. OR, you hire prisoners to do the job that they need and then substitute labor that they can’t hire within. But the logic or forcing someone into submission just will never work, that’s definitely a reason why the recidivation is high.
A lot of these folks in prison were raised “free range” or completely feral and thus were never taught even the most basic elements of home care and cleaning. Knowing how and when to do those “chores” is essential should any of them want to reintegrate into society as any sort of a functioning person. Like the military will show recruits basic hygiene because some of these recruits were never taught it.
Oh wow, we are doing these savages a service! Now, go put out that wildfire, unclean one /s
Jesus, this sounds like Europeans landing at whatever they colonized centuries ago
Man…. The disconnect here
Prisons are almost entirely run by prisoners. There are no “labor laws”
That’s what they’re saying.
If prisoners are to do manual labor, labor laws should apply, but that would require the USA to abolish slavery.
Nonsense. Of course abolishing prison slavery would be a good thing. But the alternative, should such involuntary servitude remain, would be to impose humane regulations on such labor.
That was not a rhetorical question. I am asking if that argument is or is not factually correct.
They can’t refuse any job short of firefighting. They will be punished for doing so. Reports from former inmates indicate punishments range from solitary to beatings.
Let me rephrase: would the proposition, if it had passed, prohibited prisons from requiring prisoners to perform domestic duties within the prison?
See that’s still too vague. Cleaning the bathroom is a domestic duty and yet is something a janitor does in this context. I would say that’s probably the dividing line, if it’s something you’d pay someone to do then they would be banned from requiring it.
I guess I’ll put my personal opinion on the record here. I think that penal labour is generally an exploitative industry, if you want to call it that. And I do think that prisoners who perform work should be paid for that work. At the same time, I’m also sensitive to the fact that it costs a great deal of money to pay for room and board and security for prisoners, and that it’s also fair that their labour be used to offset some of the cost of their own imprisonment rather than laying the burden entirely on the public purse.
So while I don’t support solitary confinement as a punishment (for anything), I do think that prisoners should have to at a minimum cook and clean for themselves. If they don’t want to cook, then nobody else should have to do it; they just won’t have dinner that night if they don’t cook and serve it themselves. If nobody wants to wash the dishes, then it’s not the administration’s problem if there aren’t any clean plates to use for the next meal. If nobody wants to clean the shower, then it’s not the administration’s problem if grime starts to build up on it. The State should not force the prisoners to work, but it also shouldn’t be the State’s responsibility to provide janitors or cooks to look after them.
Which means I agree that “extra” work beyond what’s necessary to maintain the basic needs of the prisoners should be paid and optional. “Optional” meaning there’s no punishment if you choose not to do it, but if you don’t, you won’t have money to pay for services like postage stamps, extra phone calls, or the prison commissary. Even if prisoners are only paid half of minimum wage, that’s still an improvement, because it recognises that their labour has value and this money can also be used to pay for fines and restitution. A pretty common problem among the newly-released is that they are saddled with an obscene amount of debt because the State makes them pay court costs, room and board, fines, parole monitoring fees, and restitution but only pays them fifty cents an hour for their work, meaning they leave prison thousands of dollars in debt with the threat of parole revocation if they can’t pay. That just drives people to resort to crime in order to find the money.
Congratulations you just created a prisoner government that will require select prisoners to do all the work or be physically and sexually assaulted.
We put them there, it’s our responsibility to take care of them. There’s no getting around that.
Some of these examples amount to de facto collective punishment by introducing a tragedy of the commons.
“The new arrival didn’t clean up the ancient infested shower of disease, so she too consents to never getting a shower.”
Paying some prisoner a pittance to clean the shower every week would be insignificant compared to the cost of containing them. And it reduces the incentive for a gang to privatize the showers.
Let’s not experiment on clever new prison ideas. Let’s just copy Finland.