Hacker News Reader

Comment by 5555624 | Hacker News Reader

>Keeping someone trapped in order to force them to do work is called “slavery” and it’s generally frowned upon in the modern era.

It may be frowned upon; but, it's legal. Even in 1865, prison labor was scene as "acceptable" slavery. It's the exemption in the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

View on HN

"This atrocity is legal" is really not a very strong argument I don't think. Chattel slavery was legal until it wasn't, marital rape was legal until it wasn't, etc etc. The fact that our constitution explicitly allows slavery is a stain on all of our souls. But it is completely irrelevant in a discussion about the ethics of allowing slavery.

Putting a person in a prison, de-facto is a forcible, long-term restraint on their right to free movement. Also known as slavery. If we want to "fully" abolish slavery, it's hard to see how prisons can even exist.

Or maybe we can acknowledge "slavery" is a loaded term designed to cause reactionary thinking.

1) I support prison abolition, yes.

2) What is or isn't de facto slavery is worth discussing but we should certainly move towards removing de jure slavery.

3) I don't know the intention of framers of the constitution in choosing the word slavery, but it is the word they chose. So unless you mean "reactionary" very very literally, using it to describe advocates for a progressive cause interpreting a word well within its historically normative meaning is at best slick rhetorical judo. At worst an indication of bad faith.

1) And just like that, you’ve never been a victim of a violent assault. I don’t wish anything on anyone, but your worldview completely changes when it happens to you.

2) Isn’t being forced to literally be in a cage for years de jure slavery by itself?

1- Bullshit I've been in several and still firmly believe in rehabilitation, as do many. Some victims and families even forgive murderers.

2- You are purposefully conflating imprisonment with slavery.

IDK what it is about this subject that makes people think they know me. You don't know anything about me, about what kind of life I've lived. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39275721

I think there is a difference between keeping people confined against their will and coercing them to labor for your own economic benefit. Neither thing should be permitted, but I'm not trying to solve all problems overnight. We were talking about the laboring thing, let's stick to that.

I see elsewhere that you have complete confidence in your view about this, with no room for doubt or curiosity. If you can't entertain the possibility of being anything but an adversary, then I can't justify spending more time or effort on this subject with you.

The point of limiting people's freedom of movement is to prevent them from being a danger to others (what's sometimes called 'incapacitation'). It's pretty much the same logic as what used to be called "shelter in place", except a lot more extreme because the level of risk is correspondingly higher. Of course once you're going to keep prisoners, it makes sense to try and offer them some kind of rehabilitation. The punishment, deterrence and retaliation aspect is not totally absent but is pretty much incidental; prison is never going to be somewhere people want to be, regardless of whether we happen to think of it as some sort of punishment.

I think that’s where our world views vary.

If you kill 20 people with a car into a parade, you have no chance at rehabilitation. Punishment is perfectly acceptable - especially when it is hardly brutal, we aren’t even sending the perp to an oil rig.

The sooner we stop playing games about prisons being rehab facilities, the better. I have yet to hear a successful prison rehab story, and the statistics show that doesn’t work. When punishment is the focus - look at the 80s crime wave. It worked.

I think it’s because I know that there is no way, whatsoever, to build a society without prisons, because there will always be crime.

The relevant question is how many people exist who would have likewise killed 20 people, but didn't because the prospect of rotting in a "punishment" focused prison scared them straight. I'm not saying that such people don't exist, I just think they're a whole lot rarer than the alternative, i.e. those who can be meaningfully rehabilitated and induced to not reoffend.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com