No state has a longer, more profit-driven history of contracting prisoners out to private companies than Alabama. With a sprawling labor system that dates back more than 150 years — including the brutal convict leasing era that replaced slavery — it has constructed a template for the commercialization of mass incarceration.
Most jobs are inside facilities, where the state’s inmates — who are disproportionately Black — can be sentenced to hard labor and forced to work for free doing everything from mopping floors to laundry. But more than 10,000 inmates have logged a combined 17 million work hours outside Alabama’s prison walls since 2018, for entities like city and county governments and businesses that range from major car-part manufacturers and meat-processing plants to distribution centers for major retailers like Walmart, the AP determined.
Yep. And it’s perfectly legal, because the US never banned slavery.
I think we’re one of the only countries in the world who still has legal slavery. Pretty awful.
The accurate term for prison labor is involuntary servitude - and it's right there in your quote - but nobody ever gets internet points for using it.
If you’re arguing whether something is involuntary servitude or slavery, you’ve lost the plot. Both are unethical and inhumane, and involve coercing someone to work against their will to benefit another.
How much more ethical is confining people in a small room against their will for years or decades? - Let alone executing some of them?
There are distinct differences between prison and slavery. With slavery you're kidnapped with no justification and no trial, somebody literally owns you, and you have fewer rights than farm animals. Prison is a punishment for a crime. Miscasting anything involuntary as "slavery" to make an argument have more dramatic impact is what loses the plot - it misappropriates the experiences of millions of people who were shipped across the ocean and actually enslaved.
Oh so you're fine with slavery as long as there's a thinly veiled justification then.
"Crime" is whatever the state deems a crime, it is selectively enforced, and in the US the system is so set up that the vast majority plea out, because they are penalised for fighting back in a trial.
The laws are arbitrary, racist and politically targeted:
https://www.unharm.org/the-racist-truth-behind-the-war-on-drugs/
Back in the days of chattel slavery they had thinly veiled justifications too, called race science.
Anyone with an interest in the matter and no moral compass could fall back on that and explain why chattel slavery was good for those other races, and it was the "white man's burden" to deliver them to civilisation, ignoring how convenient it was that it also made them into slaves.
I'll let you think about which side of the argument you'd have been on back then, based on how you've swallowed the modern day version of it.
No, I'm not "fine with slavery" or with people putting words in my mouth. My position is that prison labor is NOT slavery, and that misrepresenting it as such devalues people who actually live in in slavery, for the sake of having a good buzzword for prison rights arguments.
you’re fine with a system that has the same look smell taste violent and racist enforcement and oppressive outcomes as slavery. you’re fine with slavery. sorry babes.
Arrest is just a legally allowed kidnapping.
Why do accept the justification of legality? Chattel slavery was legal.
We've already been over the fact that most inmates never see a day in court.
Hard to see how that's different to prison, except for the "literally owns you", although inmates are essentially bought and sold, and quotas are maintained for private prison contracts. It's not exactly ownership but that's a very marginal difference.
So do you accept that anyone the state deems a criminal somehow deserves involuntary servitude? Why?
EDIT: Since you haven't replied and I assume you haven't seen this yet: involuntary servitude IS slavery, it just isn't necessarily chattel slavery. The language of the bill even prohibits involuntary servitude, but it seems pretty clear to me that that wasn't to say that involuntary servitude and slavery are somehow distinct, but to say that some future narrow definition of slavery as only chattel slavery such as you are doing right now couldn't be used to justify some other form of technically but not meaningfully different kind of slavery. With the aforementioned exceptions.
It is slavery. I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was simply maintaining that the words you said were wrong.
Solitary confinement is also unethical.
If being too poor to afford a home is illegal, then it’s legal to make the homeless slaves. Is that ok with you? No one should be forced into slavery, even actual criminals, period.