Slavery In The Prison System

[Touch Of Death]

Isn't that freedom?

I have mentioned this earlier ...in this, or the other post. If a person decides to not participate in society, isn't that OK. Right up to the point where they break the law.

If someone wants to live hand to mouth, with no job, begging for the good will of their fellow citizens, isn't that OK. Isn't that a choice?

Why must we demand that someone make the choice to be 'productive' in society?

The welfare mentality is generational. Kids are being taught to feed off the system as we speak. What is so wrong with trying to right that situation?
Sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

Hard Labor was often part and parcel of criminal punishment and incarceration with the idea that if we work prison inmates darn near to death they won't ever want to come back.

I could not quickly find on the net easy to interpret stats on the history of recidivism and punishment methodology.

Let's start this exploration by listing some things we need to consider outside of politics:

* Crime-appropriate punishment
* Potential success of rehabilitation according to crime and criminal history
* Socioeconomic need
* Reintegration solutions
* Realistic environmental and sociological controls inside facilities
* Funding
* Definition of "Slavery" as it relates to punishment, labor, environment, need and funding


So how *exactly* are we defining the slavery of incarcerated persons?

My "Slavery" angle is as it pertains to which sections of the population are most heavily hit by the prison system. Some kids are just destined for the penitentary.
Sean

 

[jks9199]

Isn't that freedom?

I have mentioned this earlier ...in this, or the other post. If a person decides to not participate in society, isn't that OK. Right up to the point where they break the law.

If someone wants to live hand to mouth, with no job, begging for the good will of their fellow citizens, isn't that OK. Isn't that a choice?

Why must we demand that someone make the choice to be 'productive' in society?

You do have the right to live on the streets, hoping strangers will decide to give you food or shelter.

That "right" stops when you interfere with my right to move freely about, when you demand that I provide you with food, money, or shelter (rather than accept what is offered), or when your actions violate the law (trespass, public urination, public drunkenness, etc.).

 

[Touch Of Death]

You do have the right to live on the streets, hoping strangers will decide to give you food or shelter.

That "right" stops when you interfere with my right to move freely about, when you demand that I provide you with food, money, or shelter (rather than accept what is offered), or when your actions violate the law (trespass, public urination, public drunkenness, etc.).

Exactly, being unproductive is not neutral. This is yin or yang.
Sean

 

[michaeledward]

The welfare mentality is generational. Kids are being taught to feed off the system as we speak. What is so wrong with trying to right that situation?
Sean

I make no claims about welfare.

I make claims about personal choice to not participate in the system. If I do not want to pay income taxes, one certain way to accomplish that is to have no income... to be a bum. Is being poor illegal? Why must someone meet another's standard of productivity?

I am not advocating breaking the law. I am not advocating cheating the system. (look back to the post).

jks9199 ... is intimating that if a person chooses not to play in societies rules, they are breaking the law. That is not what I said. I am not advocating a person interfering with anyone else's rights.

But, if you are not able to visualize one, without the other, than having a meaningful conversation becomes a challenge.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

So where do we, as the "productive citizens" who fund welfare programs get to draw the line? Like jks9199 stated (and was ignored):

"...when you demand that I provide you with food, money, or shelter (rather than accept what is offered)"

Yes, you are FREE to be poor and homeless, but then are you not FREE to starve to death and expect no help? I have no problem with assisting the poor/homeless. I have a BIG problem with the mentality that its societally acceptable to have the mindest that "Im free to be a nonproductive ball and chain on society and YOU have to support me".

They are not "living off my goodwill"...I HAVE NO CHOICE, my taxes pay for them regardless of my "goodwill". Am I not as free to deny them my aid?

 

[michaeledward]

And if the person who chooses to be non-productive makes no demands upon you, via any social structures. It seems that several here can't even come to grips with this premise.

And ... no you do not get to choose, on a program by program basis. If society puts in a social net, you don't get to choose not participate. I don't get to choose that my taxes don't pay for the Department of War.




As a society, we create laws. We impose punishments on those who violate those laws; either in loss of property (fines, repossession) or loss of freedom for some period of time (prison, execution).

Once the terms of those punishments are imposed ... why does society have any say in what comes next ... terms used in this thread ... (halfway house, second chance, they don't want help).

The arguments I am seeing here is that penalties imposed for breaking laws are not severe enough, and we should never have an end to the penalty. The person, once having paid the physical penalties of law-breaking by paying the fine or serving time in prison, must continue to pay for the crime with labels, such as 'ex-convict', loss of voting rights, et al.

The argument I am seeing is that there is no end to the penalty phase of jurisprudence. No price is high enough to satisfy. Never forget. Never forgive. Never absolve.

That is not a society I want to live in.

 

[michaeledward]

So where do we, as the "productive citizens" who fund welfare programs get to draw the line? Like jks9199 stated (and was ignored):

His comment was not ignored. He superimposed his own supposition into my argument. He did not address my comments, but rather his own interpretation of my comments.

However, from your question ... any person who is not as productive as you, does not get to step across the line. The standard you are putting forth is that "everyone in society must be as productive as you".

Those unable, or unwilling, to meet that standard will always be seen as 'less than' from your argument.

I wonder what the social construct that imposed a single standard of 'productivity' onto its citizens is called? Whatever it may be, I am quite certain it is not a 'Free Society'.

 

[jks9199]

I

jks9199 ... is intimating that if a person chooses not to play in societies rules, they are breaking the law. That is not what I said. I am not advocating a person interfering with anyone else's rights.

But, if you are not able to visualize one, without the other, than having a meaningful conversation becomes a challenge.

That's not at all what I wrote; it's what you read into it. I said that anyone who so chooses doesn't have to work, doesn't have to be part of the system, and doesn't have to contribute to society. But I also said that it's not the duty of society to see that they are safe, sheltered and fed.

You don't want to play by everyone else's rules -- you don't get to make them play by yours, either. You don't want to work; you don't get a guarantee that you'll eat.

And if the person who chooses to be non-productive makes no demands upon you, via any social structures. It seems that several here can't even come to grips with this premise.

And ... no you do not get to choose, on a program by program basis. If society puts in a social net, you don't get to choose not participate. I don't get to choose that my taxes don't pay for the Department of War.




As a society, we create laws. We impose punishments on those who violate those laws; either in loss of property (fines, repossession) or loss of freedom for some period of time (prison, execution).

Once the terms of those punishments are imposed ... why does society have any say in what comes next ... terms used in this thread ... (halfway house, second chance, they don't want help).

The arguments I am seeing here is that penalties imposed for breaking laws are not severe enough, and we should never have an end to the penalty. The person, once having paid the physical penalties of law-breaking by paying the fine or serving time in prison, must continue to pay for the crime with labels, such as 'ex-convict', loss of voting rights, et al.

The argument I am seeing is that there is no end to the penalty phase of jurisprudence. No price is high enough to satisfy. Never forget. Never forgive. Never absolve.

That is not a society I want to live in.

Somehow, I'm not surprised that you're only finding what you want people to be saying in what they write. It's been a long practice that certain offenses are punished in ways beyond mere incarceration; we no longer practice corruption of the blood -- but that doesn't mean that a given felon gets a clean slate after they've done their time, either. Guess what? You violate society's trust -- society just may not trust you fully. That's life. You break the rules that badly, you don't get to vote. Hell -- the fact is that so many people here today take the right to vote for granted that I'm really becoming more and more in favor of Heinlein's model from Starship Troopers where only people who have chosen to "pay" a franchise tax of public service get to vote.

I defy you to find a single point where I said that a felon should never be given any chance to move beyond being a felon. I think you'll find that I've said the opposite; that one of the greatest problems with the current penal model is that we dump the ex-con back into the same place and same environment, often with little or no tools or support, that led him to make the choice to commit a felony. I support prison education -- but I don't think that a convicted felon should get a free ride through college when I had to work my butt off and am still paying for the education I completed nearly 10 years ago. They can work, and their work can pay towards their education. Nor do I see a reason why a prisoner isn't compelled to contribute to the costs of his imprisonment through labor. To point to an extreme example -- there's no reason I can see on Earth why Martha Stewart shouldn't have had to pay 100% of the costs of her imprisonment and house arrest. She'd barely have noticed it!

I'm in favor of making better use of drug rehab programs for addicts who commit crimes -- and I'm not even 100% in favor of treating simple possession with the seriousness we do. I just can't figure a better way to fight drug abuse.

But -- despite all of that -- I'm absolutely in favor of personal responsibility. A felony is a personal choice, whether that felony is forming a gang or committing a crime for the benefit of the gang, smoking crack cocaine, beating someone within an inch of their life, shoplifting, or murder. You make a choice -- you have to take the lumps for it.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I make no claims about welfare.

I make claims about personal choice to not participate in the system. If I do not want to pay income taxes, one certain way to accomplish that is to have no income... to be a bum. Is being poor illegal? Why must someone meet another's standard of productivity?

I am not advocating breaking the law. I am not advocating cheating the system. (look back to the post).

jks9199 ... is intimating that if a person chooses not to play in societies rules, they are breaking the law. That is not what I said. I am not advocating a person interfering with anyone else's rights.

But, if you are not able to visualize one, without the other, than having a meaningful conversation becomes a challenge.

I am not saying there is no difference but it is the type most likely to be convicted by a jury.
Sean

 

[MJS]

And if the person who chooses to be non-productive makes no demands upon you, via any social structures. It seems that several here can't even come to grips with this premise.

And ... no you do not get to choose, on a program by program basis. If society puts in a social net, you don't get to choose not participate. I don't get to choose that my taxes don't pay for the Department of War.




As a society, we create laws. We impose punishments on those who violate those laws; either in loss of property (fines, repossession) or loss of freedom for some period of time (prison, execution).

Once the terms of those punishments are imposed ... why does society have any say in what comes next ... terms used in this thread ... (halfway house, second chance, they don't want help).

The arguments I am seeing here is that penalties imposed for breaking laws are not severe enough, and we should never have an end to the penalty. The person, once having paid the physical penalties of law-breaking by paying the fine or serving time in prison, must continue to pay for the crime with labels, such as 'ex-convict', loss of voting rights, et al.

The argument I am seeing is that there is no end to the penalty phase of jurisprudence. No price is high enough to satisfy. Never forget. Never forgive. Never absolve.

That is not a society I want to live in.

Well, this IMHO, is where the laws are in need of fixing. Hey, if someone loses their job, and ends up on welfare, at least they're getting some source of money, food stamps, etc., to survive. But, I don't feel that this should be the solution. It should be a hold over and they should be going out to find a job. I think what the others are saying, is that we should not have to support a free ride for people.

Mike

 

[michaeledward]

Well, this IMHO, is where the laws are in need of fixing. Hey, if someone loses their job, and ends up on welfare, at least they're getting some source of money, food stamps, etc., to survive. But, I don't feel that this should be the solution. It should be a hold over and they should be going out to find a job. I think what the others are saying, is that we should not have to support a free ride for people.

Mike

Mike ... there is a big discrepency occurring. I am not arguing for a 'free ride' for anyone. But others are saying that the prisoner must become a productive member of society. If we are unable to separate concepts such as imprisonment, productivity, and welfare, then how can we ever have a clear conversation.

Several times on this thread, posters have intimated that going to prison to get free education is unjust. It would be nice if one of those persons would actually sign up to go to jail for that education. Quit bitchin about how unfair it is, and go to jail.

Who's going to be first?

Give up the freedom to eat when you want to eat; to sleep when you want to sleep; to have a prison guard strip you naked and force you to indignify yourself; to work in a kitchen for 15 hours a day; to be restricted to 1 hour of exercise a week.

And in exchange, this person will be able to participate in a CAD/CAM class for no charge.

If it was such a great deal ... why aren't more people taking advantage of it?

 

[Flatlander]

They are not "living off my goodwill"...I HAVE NO CHOICE, my taxes pay for them regardless of my "goodwill".

And you are thus enslaved.

It seems to me that the proposition of "prison labour" equating to slavery is not justifiable. In my definition of slavery, the slave has no choice in the matter. They are "enslaved" by circumstances quite beyond their own control.

In the prison system, the prisoner chooses to be there. The choice is made when the crime is committed. Thus, their lot in prison is that which they've brought upon themselves. So, if they knew, or had access to the knowledge previously that there is mandated work in prison, I do not consider them as having been "enslaved".

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

And you are thus enslaved.

It seems to me that the proposition of "prison labour" equating to slavery is not justifiable. In my definition of slavery, the slave has no choice in the matter. They are "enslaved" by circumstances quite beyond their own control.

In the prison system, the prisoner chooses to be there. The choice is made when the crime is committed. Thus, their lot in prison is that which they've brought upon themselves. So, if they knew, or had access to the knowledge previously that there is mandated work in prison, I do not consider them as having been "enslaved".

Excellent post, I only wish I could rep. you for it!

 

[Blotan Hunka]

And you are thus enslaved.

It seems to me that the proposition of "prison labour" equating to slavery is not justifiable. In my definition of slavery, the slave has no choice in the matter. They are "enslaved" by circumstances quite beyond their own control.

In the prison system, the prisoner chooses to be there. The choice is made when the crime is committed. Thus, their lot in prison is that which they've brought upon themselves. So, if they knew, or had access to the knowledge previously that there is mandated work in prison, I do not consider them as having been "enslaved".

Exactly. Worth replying to just to see it again.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Mike ... there is a big discrepency occurring. I am not arguing for a 'free ride' for anyone. But others are saying that the prisoner must become a productive member of society. If we are unable to separate concepts such as imprisonment, productivity, and welfare, then how can we ever have a clear conversation.

Several times on this thread, posters have intimated that going to prison to get free education is unjust. It would be nice if one of those persons would actually sign up to go to jail for that education. Quit bitchin about how unfair it is, and go to jail.

Who's going to be first?

Give up the freedom to eat when you want to eat; to sleep when you want to sleep; to have a prison guard strip you naked and force you to indignify yourself; to work in a kitchen for 15 hours a day; to be restricted to 1 hour of exercise a week.

And in exchange, this person will be able to participate in a CAD/CAM class for no charge.

If it was such a great deal ... why aren't more people taking advantage of it?

Where do I sign? Try enlisting.

My GI bill didnt even cover the whole shot.

 

[MJS]

Mike ... there is a big discrepency occurring. I am not arguing for a 'free ride' for anyone. But others are saying that the prisoner must become a productive member of society. If we are unable to separate concepts such as imprisonment, productivity, and welfare, then how can we ever have a clear conversation.

But is it that hard to make the seperation? I'm not saying they have to go out and find a 6 figure job, as long as they're doing something other than sitting at home collecting a welfare check. Work at Walmart, Kmart, Burger King, McDonalds, go to a temp agency...something.

Several times on this thread, posters have intimated that going to prison to get free education is unjust. It would be nice if one of those persons would actually sign up to go to jail for that education. Quit bitchin about how unfair it is, and go to jail.

Maybe I was one of those people. I have said that it amazes me how someone could not seem to give a rats behind about their alcohol or drug problem before they land in prison, but let them land in jail and look out...they're looking to enroll in every program available. Why? Why are they waiting to get help? Get the help before you land in prison.

Give up the freedom to eat when you want to eat; to sleep when you want to sleep; to have a prison guard strip you naked and force you to indignify yourself; to work in a kitchen for 15 hours a day; to be restricted to 1 hour of exercise a week.

They get 3 meals a day at set times, however, they're free to purchase food thru the prison and eat whenever they want. They get more sleep than you'd imagine. Not all of them have prison jobs. Strip searches are not happening as often as people think. They get more rec time/workout time than you think.

 

[MJS]

And you are thus enslaved.

It seems to me that the proposition of "prison labour" equating to slavery is not justifiable. In my definition of slavery, the slave has no choice in the matter. They are "enslaved" by circumstances quite beyond their own control.

In the prison system, the prisoner chooses to be there. The choice is made when the crime is committed. Thus, their lot in prison is that which they've brought upon themselves. So, if they knew, or had access to the knowledge previously that there is mandated work in prison, I do not consider them as having been "enslaved".

I agree!! Like I've said in other posts...don't do the crime if ya can't do the time.

Mike

 

[Tez3]

I don't know about your prison system but ours contains a great number of mentally ill people who should not be in prison but a secure hospital. they are in prison simply because they are a danger to themselves or others and there are no hospitals now to take them.it is not their fault they are ill but are now forced to live in a prison system that is not equiped to handle them. prison officers are not trained medical staff. Over here to we have people who are in prison for not paying court fines, the irony being we end up paying for them. We also have many women in prison who if they'd been men would not have been imprisoned. The judges who are almost invariably very old and male still have the idea that women who commit crimes are worse than men who do the same thing. One old male judge recently ruled that a peadolphile had to buy a 'nice bicycle' for his young victim as recompense for his crimes.No prison time of course.
Here at least we need to look at who is being incarcerated and for what before we decide how to treat prisoners.

 

[Touch Of Death]

They get more rec time/workout time than you think.

They get charged about $35 dollars a month to use the exercise equipment. If they don't work, they don't work out.
Sean