Comment by dvektor | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dvektor | Hacker News Reader

I really hope this doesn't devolve into just demonizing everyone who is incarcerated, and acting like making bad choices as a teenager means you deserve to be broke and unsuccessful for the rest of your life.

I would hope that society would rather me work and pay taxes, offsetting the cost of keeping me here, and giving me hope, responsibilities, discipline and a reason to continue making good life decisions when I am released.

95+% of those incarcerated are getting released one day.. People who have nothing to lose, no sense of self worth, or any feelings of identity with the rest of society are likely not people you want moving in next door to you.

I might be in prison but I lead a team of developers and contribute to open source regularly. I found my passion and I am now a contributing, tax paying member of society and no longer identify with the prison subculture at all.

It's difficult to see how this outcome could be viewed in any way as negative. I know that I made poor decisions, and I am not proud of them, or who I was at the time at all. I wanted to change my life and Maine gave me an opportunity to do that through hard work and I am extremely grateful for it.

I think most of the criticism comes from those worried it will lead to worse conditions. As long as the primary goal is education and reintegration, then it's great. If it becomes a program of squeezing unwilling prisoners to undercut competition then I have big problems with it. I fear the natural course will be cutting prison funding and putting pressure on these programs to bring in money to fund prison necessities.

Indeed. If I have to ask myself questions like "was this product made with forced labor?", "what about coerced?", and "where is the line drawn?" then the right answer is to just walk away.

I see what you're saying for sure. but at the end of the day, allowing inmates to have jobs both takes pressure off of the cost/budget for their incarceration, and simultaneously is drastically lowering the likelihood that those inmates will return (and cost more taxpayer $).

I guess what I mean is, they can't end up squeezing prisoners any more than they already are: in many places 8 hour prison jobs paying less than 50 cents a day, when a phone call costs $3.00+ an hour and a single ramen noodle costs $2.00+.

That stuff significantly contributes to the prison mentality and group-think mindset of 'the authorities are your enemy'. Even if you don't come in with that mentality, after being surrounded by it in conditions like that, you'll very likely be brainwashed by the time you leave and the cycle unfortunately begins.

> allowing inmates to have jobs both takes pressure off of the cost/budget for their incarceration

No. This CANNOT be part of the argument for prisoner's having jobs. If we as a society have decided that the only route to protecting society is to strip people of their rights and freedom, the we MUST be the one's to fund it. I don't have a problem with prisoners having jobs, in fact I definitely agree that it needs to be a part of rehabilitation. But a system that depends on abusing others to prop itself up should not exist. And this system cannot exist and deliver the actual results we want of correction and rehabilitation if there is a monetary incentive because there will always be someone that will come along and selfishly twist the system for their own gain.

I think all proceeds of prisoner work should remain solely that of the prisoners (potentially garnishable depending on their crimes).

I see where you are coming from, and I am not saying you are fundamentally wrong at all.

What I can say, is that at this point in my life, I am genuinely happy to be able to not only pay taxes, but additionally offset some of the taxpayer money that my decisions cost. Regardless of whether or not I feel like I still belong here at this point, I made those decisions and I knew the consequences. I am just grateful to be in a position where that is even an option, because so many are not.

> I think all proceeds of prisoner work should remain solely that of the prisoners (potentially garnishable depending on their crimes).

80-90% of the after tax salary should go to a fund that the prisoner receives the day they're released, with the rest going to commissary. Maybe a monthly disbursement if voters want to be paternalistic about it.

When convicts are released on probation to a halfway home, it should be with a pocket full of change so they can start rebuilding their life - buy a beater car to be able to commute, put a down payment on their own place, and so on.

> 80-90% of the after tax salary should go to a fund that the prisoner receives the day they're released

I’d rather they be allowed to use that money as they see fit while still incarcerated, unless there is a specific reason not to (e.g. history of financial crimes).

For instance, people in jail might have kids or sick parents, and should be able to help support them now if needed.

That’s a great point! If they have dependents, prisoners should absolutely be able to send money to them as they earn it without restriction.

I don’t want to deprive them of even more agency than we already do, but I do think there’s a moral hazard to letting prisoners spend all that money themselves while incarcerated. Commissary prices are ridiculous but there’s only so much they can spend on ramen and toiletries. Even a minimum wage of $10/hr is plenty to drive the black market for drugs out of control which will just make the long term situation worse for everyone (thanks to corrupt prison guards more than anything). It’s unfortunately paternalistic but pragmatic.

Like the OP I have an ethical objection to prisoners subsidizing their own incarceration. If society wants to protect itself by taking away peoples’ rights that’s fine, but we should be willing to pay for it. Being released without a pot to piss in is just adding insult to injury and perpetuating a cycle of crime.

> If it becomes a program of squeezing unwilling prisoners to undercut competition then I have big problems with it

That sounds like most jobs. Or similar to monetary policy to increase unemployment to drive wages down.

If a prisoner's work offsets the cost of them being in prison, then there is an incentive for the system to have prisoners.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." -- U.S. Constitution, Amendment 13.

The 13th Amendment doesn’t change incentives. The existence of amendments proves that the Constitution can evolve.

The "except as a punishment for crime" is why we have prison labor at all, isn't it? There's enough (exceptionally cheap) prison labor that local (county level) effects are measurable: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/the-lasting-...

Enforce paying prisoners fair-market wages. That, in addition to providing prisoners with funds so they can start with at least some amount of money when they're released (many will face many months if not years searching for a job that will take them!), also prevents the government from using slave labor to undercut prices of, say, fire prevention crews.

And from these fair wages, deduct the rent of an average single-bedroom apartment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com