Well, it was a convient carveout in post-civil war anti-slavery legistlation. One can wonder why that was done, but it still exists regardless of that.

That said, prison labor is quite common across the globe and considered rehabilitating.

But here in Finland the prisoners are paid minimum wage or more per law. This change happened in the last 15years or so and was mostly about it being considered unfair competition, which is an angle that might work in USA too.

Nobody should be forced to work for slave wages in slave conditions.

> That said, prison labor is quite common across the globe and considered rehabilitating.

I cannot speak for Finland specifically, but in many places prisoners are taught and can earn qualifications while in prison. If they can leave prison with qualifications as a cook, car mechanic, car painter, carpenter, electrician, or even locksmith (yes, I've seen that, as ridiculous as it sounds), that might actually help them.

However in the US prisoners are often exploited to perform utterly menial tasks. Forget any formal training or earning qualifications. Even if they would perform the same task outside prison, they probably couldn't compete with $0.10/h prison labor. If that cheap human labor didn't exist, those tasks would likely just be automated.

So there's a bit of nuance there and I wouldn't consider all kinds of prison labor rehabilitating.

The philosophy in the US seems to be that you just have to change people: Instead of giving people opportunities to lead a normal life after prison, options are actually taken away from felons. Most other western countries recognize that many crimes are also a result of circumstances and lack of opportunities. The easiest way to get people to follow your rules is not punishment, it's making them want to do it because conformity is the path of least resistance.

> or even locksmith (yes, I've seen that, as ridiculous as it sounds), that might actually help them

As it happens, in the UK there's a chain of locksmiths (they do a few other things, but key cutting is their stock in trade) called Timpson that employs many ex-offenders:

https://www.timpson-group.co.uk/timpson-foundation/ex-offend...

One thing that always surprised me is that felons can't vote in America.

In the Netherlands only in a few political cases after WW2 did people lose their right to vote or enter parliament.

The ethnic makeup is allegedly the reason behind that.

> The philosophy in the US seems to be that you just have to change people

I'm not sure what you mean by this. To me it looks like prisons in US are a good business and good for business due to cheap slave labor. Many places have for profit prisons, high repeat offense rates and ridiculous incarceration rates.

This is all from an external point of view, I'm not from the US.

> No one is desperate due to the circumstances created by the USA. They make the conscious choice to become a criminal.

Man, if any quote could be used to show how HN should not be taken seriously on any topic that strays outside of the strict definition of STEM-related, this could be a contender.

I don't even know where to begin, but consider the fact that people are born into situations far more horrible than you may ever truly comprehend, where criminal acts and lifestyles are as normal to them as anything you would find normal to yourself growing up.

> I don't even know where to begin

Possibly because you don’t have a good point to make.

Most people that grow up in bad places or situations don’t become criminals. Criminal acts may occur more frequently in certain places but the vast majority of people from those places do not become criminals.

And what do you know about me growing up? I grew up around a lot of these types of “horrible situations” and most the kids turned out. Sone choose to commit crimes and sone died or were incarcerated because of those choices.

> Possibly because you don’t have a good point to make.

Consider the other possibilities. If someone confidently told you that our flat Earth is 6,000 years old, where would you begin? There's a lot to unpack, and you're not even certain if all the work will be worth doing or just a waste of time.

> Most people that grow up in bad places or situations don’t become criminals.

Most people who smoke don't get lung cancer. So by your logic have we proven that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer?

Poverty, in the US and globally, is correlated with higher crime rates. Isn't it such a strange coincidence that people who happen to be born into poverty also consistently happen to "choose" to commit more crimes, given that their environment has nothing to do with their choices? Shouldn't crime rates be equal across all socioeconomic classes?

> I grew up around a lot of these types of “horrible situations” and most the kids turned out.

Again, most people who do X don't end up Y is in no way a valid argument that X doesn't cause Y.

If that were true, wouldn’t crime rates be evenly distributed among income/circumstances?

You don’t find it convincing that poorer/less-educated places tend to have higher crime rates?

I’m not saying people aren’t culpable for their crimes, but surely it’s not as simple as people “consciously choosing” to become criminals.

> If that were true, wouldn’t crime rates be evenly distributed among income/circumstances?

Just because some people from lower income brackets choose to risk their livelihoods by doing crimes doesn’t mean there isn’t boundless opportunities.

If a person would rather gangbang or sling meth instead of doing something productive then that’s their choice.

There aren’t exactly a bunch of dudes desperate for cancer treatments they can’t afford so they turn to criminal enterprise to fund it. They choose the lifestyle.

Again though, if that were the case (that it's simply a choice and opportunity has nothing to do with it), we should see the same rate of people choosing crime among affluent people.

It's simply not true that people in lower income have the same opportunities. They don't have access to the same quality of education, people who care about their career prospects or the ability to afford higher education.

You’re changing the argument again. I never said the “same opportunities”. I simply said there are opportunities available in sufficient numbers that crime is no excuse.

Poor people aren’t as stupid as you think. Most don’t turn to crime.

To reverse your logic, affluent people should never commit crimes but yet sone do too. People make choices.

I think this was once called the soft bigotry of low expectations. You are a bigot by your logic. Looking down on poor people is offensive.

> To reverse your logic, affluent people should never commit crimes but yet sone do too. People make choices.

I'm not arguing that people make choices. Also, we are talking about the rate of criminal activity, not absolutes. Nothing in my argument says affluent people never commit crime, that is a straw man.

> Poor people aren’t as stupid as you think. Most don’t turn to crime.

I don't know how to be any clearer that I am talking about the _rate_ of criminal activity.

> I think this was once called the soft bigotry of low expectations. You are a bigot by your logic. Looking down on poor people is offensive.

I appreciate the ad hominem, but the one thing you won't answer is why then do poorer communities commit more crime on average? It seems pretty clear that less opportunity/resources makes it _more likely_ to turn to crime.

How do you explain the difference in rates if it's just choice?

> How do you explain the difference in rates if it's just choice?

Broken cultures and bad values. If it were really about money then violent crime that has nothing to do with money wouldn’t be higher as well.

Single motherhood is the leading cause and it’s endemic in poor communities. This value is not only tolerated but celebrated somehow by affluent liberals. It’s astonishing.

America is so incredibly boundless with opportunity that people wait years to move their lives here and others risk their life to come here illegally so they can take advantage of the opportunities and send money back home. Many of these people come from places that are actually poor (America doesn’t really have poverty compared to other places) and could probably be justified in stealing bread. But they don’t.

If that’s not clear evidence it’s a choice then I don’t know what is.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

We don't get to choose where or to whom we are born. If you are then born into "bad cultures and values", as you say, that has a huge influence on your "choices". If you drop the same kid randomly into a more affluent family, I highly doubt he makes the same choices.

I just don't think that the cause can be simply boiled down to choices, when environment clearly has an outsized effect.

An affluent person can certainly sustain themselves more easily where bad values are concerned like single motherhood, etc. So much they can actually promote it as a value which eventually gets picked up by middle and lower classes and is destructive there.

Poor communities had as a value the 2-parent family and their crime rates were far lower than today. As our social values have changed our crime rates have generally increased. We like to point out that since the 90’s they’ve gone down but not overall the last 100 years.

I wouldn’t treat my enemies that bad. And we spend a lot of time judging other countries and how they treat prisoners. What prisoners need is a prisoners union but prisons have built protections into preventing communications between jails. If all prisoners went on strike at the same time many things that rely on slave labour would come to a quick stop and the slave labour money machine would come to a crashing stop.

I can't cite a source, but I suspect recently freed individuals are more likely to end up back in jail if you bus them to the nearest city and give them $100... This makes them entirely reliant on others... Some will pick family, others will leverage social services.. and others might have no family/friends and reject "assistance"... Hopefully friends/family provide support, a place to live, stability.... But if that family is a criminal gang... Of course they are going to be encouraged to break the law again...

By giving people more money, it helps people in all situations to avoid going back to prison. Money helps even if you seek social assistance -- you can have better rent options, you can have better clothing for interviews, better peace of mind in their financial situation (because they might not be free and clear of previous debts, either)...

Some (if not all) states require you to continue paying debts and taxes (e.g. child support) while incarcerated.. so at $.10/hour you almost certainly had to sell everything you own even if you're incarcerated for under a year.

There's no doubt that the US criminal justice system is profoundly dysfunctional, starting with the fact that most of the accused are successfully extorted by prosecutors into accepting plea bargains.

But simply on the topic of paying prisoners the market rate for labor, the idea does seem unjust to me.

Let's say we have two people, Jack and Jill, who both work a low paying job and are miserable. One day Jill decides to rob a store, but is caught and goes to prison for a few years. In prison she is first working some menial job, but a government program trains her in some skilled labor (we might imagine she is learning to code). After completing her sentence she is released and has the entire amount that she earned (minus no expenses) and trained a valuable job skill that will enable her to get a better paying job.

Meanwhile Jack, who committed no crime, has had to pay for his expenses (which eat up the majority of his pay), and received no help or training.

We reward Jill for her criminal behavior by "fixing" her life so she is less likely to commit crimes in the future, but we ignore Jack even though he was equally miserable, but chose not to commit a crime.

Jill also had to spend a few years in prison, so it's not like she "got away with it" and scammed the taxpayer into improving her life.

The real issue is that currently both Jack and Jill are getting screwed over by society. We should fix both. It wouldn't even be that expensive and it would in fact probably lead to greater happiness and lower overall societal costs like healthcare (e.g. poor people kicking the can until they can't escape it any longer and now it's a very expensive stage 4 cancer) and justice (don't need to pay for as many expensive courts if there's less crime). And probably more tax take as everyone in the bottom 90% of society basically spends what they earn and doesn't hide it in the Caymans.

But greater and more equitable overall growth is still less short-term growth for the top, so we can't have it.

Jack should have been paid more than minimum wage. The existence of many minimum wage jobs is somewhat appalling, especially when it is not a livable wage in many places.

Welfare provided to one shouldn't necessarily be compared with all other potential recepients always. Improving the situation of one does not mean others' shouldn't receive assistance as well.

>pays for their accommodation, bills, food, medical, etc

It varies wildly in the US, but some of those like "medical" and "food", are debatable. Our prison system is truly barbaric in some places.

There is no reason that the minumum wage should not apply.

Otherwise, you get institutionalized slavery, like we have now and is documented in this article.

In the US, that is constitutional, though still a terrible thing. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-13

That’s true, however the nearest analogue to non-criminal forced-labour ‘prisoners’ would be the military - and in the UK that makes deductions for food, housing and utilities.

Top of my head, I’d estimate an effective hourly rate of about £1 to £2 for a week’s work at minimum wage minus payment to the prison for accommodation and food - but then there is an issue of whether prison labour is of real economic value and not often a form of ‘make work’ ie is sewing mail-bags really worth £10 an hour? Perhaps 50p per hour (net) is actually a fair return for value produced?

If work doesn't provide value that is higher than minimum wage it is work not worth doing. It is not like we must provide prisoners work. We could offer them free education too instead. And not even pay them for taking it.

It might be worth doing if it’s of psychological or behavioural benefit to the prisoners ie it prevents boredom / fighting / depression, and inculcates an ‘employee state of mind’ (usefulness, discipline, and ‘earn to spend’).

That’s fine if the state was providing these activities as unpaid or low paid hobbies in addition to actual jobs.

The problem is that the state is exploiting the prisoners for profit. The profit should go to the prisoners doing the work.

But isn't prison special and exempt from our distaste against slavery? How could it ever not be akin to slavery even if they were paid?

According to the article there are not enough jobs to go around, so you are not forced to do a job.

However, if you do take a job, you should be paid for it, like everybody else.

This is important to counter prisons for profit schemes as well as improving the wellbeing of the prisoners.

Prevailing market rates, at or above minimum wage, sounds about right.

Prisoners should be allowed to acquire and purchase necessities without markups with their earnings.

Prison facilities and services should be free.

There are people who work full time and after their monthly expenses are paid hardly have anything left over, but prisoners should just pocket it all?

Do we want prison to be rehabilitation or a revolving door?

If people leave with money, they can actually try to break the cycle... Perhaps try to keep some of their property/belongings for short incarcerations... Most Americans families would lose their house and/or car if one parent was in jail for 6 months... Which makes prison a family killer, encouraging more crime to continue from neglected children and single mom/dad now working 2-3 jobs to cost the gap

Sure, that's probably all true. I'm just trying to contrast the reality of living outside of prison (a substantial amount of money goes to living expenses) to living in prison (you have or should have no expenses).

To me if you pay prisoners a normal wage it would seem too much like a reward for breaking crime, given that we pay all their normal expenses as well.

Going to prison is no reward. No sane person would go to prison for the chance to earn minimum wage.

Furthermore, as the article states, prison services are substandard or entirely missing. Either fix that and we can talk deductions above normal taxes or allow the prisoners to earn minimum wage or more and to keep their earnings.

> No sane person would go to prison for the chance to earn minimum wage

It's not minimum wage. It's minimum wage plus room and board plus shitty food and healthcare. Even for someone young and healthy, albeit uneducated, a few years in prison could yield a nest egg. For someone with a chronic health condition, getting sentenced could be the smart move. (This is true even today, depending on your city and state.)

The price of prison labor, what companies and the government pay for it, should be no less than prevailing wages. Ideally, indexed to the county the prison is in. What the prisoner is paid out of that should deduct some amount, again ideally related to a local cost-of-living index, that goes into a rehabilitation fund.

Pros:

minimum wage (but not really), shitty room, shitty food, shitty healthcare

Cons:

minimum wage (yeah, not really), shitty room, shitty food, shitty healthcare,

AND

- loss of freedom,

- loss of reputation,

- loss of privacy,

- no prospect of advancement,

- no raises,

- even shittier neighbors (on average),

- holidays without your family,

- almost impossible to get a job when you're out,

- no vacation or other time off,

- no or almost no sex or intimacy with your loved ones,

- being treated like shit every day,

- the threat of solitary,

- being in solitary,

I could go on, but why bother.

Poverty is no peach either. Do you really think there aren’t Americans for whom that situation, plus the promise of tens of thousands of dollars to one’s name in a few years, would not be an insane choice?

It’s crap that’s reality. But it’s true, and between the prison population and those folks, I would argue for prioritising the latter. (Naturally, it’s better to do both.)

Still not finding this a persuasive argument. If there are such people, they are an insignificant proportion of both poor people generally and the prison population particularly.

I mean, really?

You want to trade your freedom and clean criminals record for minimum wage plus room and board?

No sane person would do that.

Prisoners should receive their wages less income taxes. Anything else creates a moral hazard, as we have seen with prisons for profit.

That doesn’t mean wages could not be garnished if there is a judgement against the prisoner.

>a substantial amount of money goes to living expenses

Then charge them for those living expenses. Pay them a normal wage for outside, and then charge them what it would cost to rent a tiny room you share with another person plus the real cost of a boiled egg plus a peanut butter sandwich. I imagine they'd end up with something like 90% of their wage left.

Ah, being forever branded as an undesirable, being abused by staff, losing your ability to walk outside when you want and have contact with regular people, having very little to do for ridiculous amounts of time, plus having to take care not to drop the soap to not get surprise sex

Truly better and more rewarding than being marginally poorer outside

It sounds pretty miserable, but there are plenty of people of have committed no crime, work, pay their expenses, and are miserable. Yet the government pays no bills and provides no help.

> Yet the government pays no bills and provides no help.

They are not wards of the state nor are they locked up. That’s a huge win.

The correct solution isn’t to make prisoners more miserable, but to make everybody less miserable.

Yes, they should "pocket it all". Without the opportunity to save _some_ money they are guaranteed to end up homeless (or worse) as soon as they leave the jail.

Being "rich" in prison doesn't mean you get to improve your gaming rig or buy a Roomba, it just means you don't have to consider whether to spend $2 to see the doctor. I would be fine with that.

Also, everything in prison is reported to be expensive, bad quality, and full of extra fees. So if they only have one expensive brand of toothpaste, they should at least earn enough to afford _those_ prices.

The society choose to lock them up. And part of that contract is to pay for expenses. It is not prisoners problem, society could as well kick them out and then they would need to pay for those themselves.

I'm not sure I find this argument convincing. Would you say that if I speed and get a fine, then society has chosen to fine me and so they should pay the fine?

It is not like we charge people for time of the police when receiving speeding ticket. Or the paper it is written on.

You do not become a ward of the state when you receive a speeding ticket.

yes.

They shouldn't be working at all. Prison labor is exploitation

We should encourage reading and education in prisons instead