Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Slavery? In The US? Now?  
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5490 posts, RR: 14
Posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3117 times:

I guess it's common knowledge that prisoners in some states are required to work in the prison in order to reduce the cost of incarceration and, some say, to aid in the rehabilitation process.

But, this article brings up an interesting situation.

I tend to be a fairly hard line person on the function of incarceration, re:rehabilitation vs. punishment. But, I'm kind of falling to the side of the plaintiff here.

Here in the US, and, I'm guessing, most free democracies, we have the presumption of innocence. i understand that this is kind of a fantasy because when you are arrested, you are placed in a cell and are not freed until a judge frees you via a bail/bond agreement or some other arrangement. But, it's the way the system works, and really, that's ok.

The plaintiff, while incarcerated, had not yet (nor was) convicted of any crime. He was subjected to the same work rules as those who had been convicted.

I believe I have a problem with that. Yes, he is in prison, but he is there because he threatened violence and was not able to make bail/bond or was not afforded the opportunity by the court. Again, he stood accused, not convicted.

I think $11M is excessive, but I'm thinking he has a case.

What do you guys think?


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1866 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3094 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Thread starter):
What do you guys think?

I have no problem with convicted prisoners doing this sort of work, but this is nonsense. This guy was in prison to wait for his day in court, not to repay his debt to society.

A judge may find this suit frivolous though. $11M is way too high for 6 months of laundry work and a bacterial infection for (alleged) unsanitary conditions at the prison. This guy is taking a bit of a gamble here, but I hope he comes out with something.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineGEEZER From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3044 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Thread starter):
I believe I have a problem with that. Yes, he is in prison, but he is there because he threatened violence and was not able to make bail/bond or was not afforded the opportunity by the court. Again, he stood accused, not convicted.

I haven't read the article; having said that...........I'm unaware of any place in the U.S. where people who are arrested are thrown in "prison" while awaiting trial ! In "jail" yes; in "prison", no; BIG DIFFERENCE !

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineWrenchBender From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 1779 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3026 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 2):
I haven't read the article; having said that...........I'm unaware of any place in the U.S. where people who are arrested are thrown in "prison" while awaiting trial ! In "jail" yes; in "prison", no; BIG DIFFERENCE !

You really should read the article, Vermont does mix "pre trial detainees" with "convicted felons" in their prison system.

He has a fair case and should win, not sure how much he will get though.

WrenchBender



Silly Pilot, Tricks are for kids.......
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5490 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3015 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 2):
I haven't read the article; having said that...........I'm unaware of any place in the U.S. where people who are arrested are thrown in "prison" while awaiting trial ! In "jail" yes; in "prison", no; BIG DIFFERENCE !

Some states do allow that. Also, this man was waiting 6 months for a trial that eventually did not happen. Long time for a jail to hold anyone.

I'm thinking NYC moves clears someone from the jail to Rikers after 48 or 72 hours.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1378 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 2968 times:

This is terrible. I realize that most prisoners really would rather work a gig than sit in the cell all day (in fact, losing a "job" is often a punitive measure for various infractions while incarcerated), but it really should be their choice when awaiting a trial. Not good, state, not good...

Quoting fr8mech (Thread starter):

I think $11M is excessive, but I'm thinking he has a case.

Maybe it is, but if the liability incurred prevents it from occurring again, it will have served its purpose.

Quoting WrenchBender (Reply 3):

You really should read the article, Vermont does mix "pre trial detainees" with "convicted felons" in their prison system.

Right, most states do that. But really, it's still just jail. Yeah, detainees and felons will share the same spaces, but it's usually somewhat transient, with the detainees going to trial and the felons eventually moving off to prison as space becomes available.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineNorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1851 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2940 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

From my reading of the article, the end result of this suit might be an injunction against the state of vermont from requiring pre-trial detainees from doing rehabilitative labor. In a way though, requiring everyone, regardless of being a convict or a detainee, to engage in labor, makes sense. If you have two groups of prisoners being housed together and one group has to work all day while the other group pretty much sits around and does nothing while they wait for their trial, there's going to be a degree of resentment from those who have to work against those who don't have to work. This could lead to fights, uprisings or just general inmate behavior problems. I'm guessing that the vermont corrections department sees this as a problem and their solution is to make everyone work, versus the more expensive alternative of creating dedicated jails or even jail wings for those being detained so that they don't come in contact with convicted felons.

It also kind of makes me wonder if his original case was thrown out because his constitutional rights were somehow violated by the way he was treated while incarcerated.



Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5490 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2936 times:

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 6):
In a way though, requiring everyone, regardless of being a convict or a detainee, to engage in labor, makes sense.

I see and understand your point, but the person has not been convicted of anything. He is being detained awaiting trial. No real easy solution here, if you take the general population's mood into account.

I'd be interested to see the result and read the remedy, assuming the court finds for the plaintiff.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1378 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2919 times:

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 6):
If you have two groups of prisoners being housed together and one group has to work all day while the other group pretty much sits around and does nothing while they wait for their trial, there's going to be a degree of resentment from those who have to work against those who don't have to work.

No, trust me, it's the other way around. I spent three weeks in the county jug once upon a time. You'd really much rather have something to do than rot in a cell all day. Unless you've also been there, it's difficult to convey how painfully boring 22 hours a day in 10 x 10 really is.

But, the state did command his labor without a conviction, and that looks like a 8th amendment issue to me, hence the suit.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9528 posts, RR: 31
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2867 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Thread starter):
Here in the US, and, I'm guessing, most free democracies, we have the presumption of innocence.

.......until proven guilty and until this is confirmed and through all courts and appeals, you are may be locked up (in case you are accused of a severe crime) but you have a different status than convicted criminals. If you want to work, you may eventually do so, but a pre-trial detainee cannot be forced to work here.

Quoting WrenchBender (Reply 3):
Vermont does mix "pre trial detainees" with "convicted felons" in their prison system.

this is, in a state ruled by thze law, highly questionable. Same as locking up people for petty stuff.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3873 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2863 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Thread starter):
I tend to be a fairly hard line person on the function of incarceration, re:rehabilitation vs. punishment. But, I'm kind of falling to the side of the plaintiff here.

Your stance on this issue isn't inconsistent with the position articulated here. The difference, as you rightly point out, is that those that are incarcerated are already proven guilty. Whereas this man was not found guilty of anything--it was pre-trial.

The guy definitely has a case, and I hope he wins.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2855 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Thread starter):
The plaintiff, while incarcerated, had not yet (nor was) convicted of any crime. He was subjected to the same work rules as those who had been convicted.

In general I would agree in terms of having to do farmwork or other sort of labor prior to conviction. However he was helping with the prisoners' laundry - someone has to do it. It's no different in the army, or a summer camp - you are not in a hotel. You make your beds, do your laundry, clean the bathrooms, and man the kitchen, and rotate the duties among the residents.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9528 posts, RR: 31
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2806 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
It's no different in the army, or a summer camp - you are not in a hotel. You make your beds, do your laundry, clean the bathrooms, and man the kitchen, and rotate the duties among the residents.

...and you're npot in the Army either. If a person is detained pre-trial he is innocent until he is cnvicted and only after all instances of appeal have found the same verdict. Until that, he is innocent and cannot be forced to do anything. Voluntarily yes, but not forced.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2790 times:

I am glad there is still enough sense in the judicial system to realize that remuneration does not preclude slavery.


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2773 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 12):
...and you're npot in the Army either. If a person is detained pre-trial he is innocent until he is cnvicted and only after all instances of appeal have found the same verdict. Until that, he is innocent and cannot be forced to do anything.

There is a big difference between laundry (a necessary function for the health of the inmates themselves) and putting them on a chaingang working the fields or roadwork.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 13):
I am glad there is still enough sense in the judicial system to realize that remuneration does not preclude slavery.

Don't get me wrong - I am in full support of chain-gangs and forced labor for convicted criminals. Prison should not be Club Med. Far too many ex-convicts keep getting sent back to jail, indicating that the deterrent function of prison (never mind rehabilitation) is not being fulfilled.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9528 posts, RR: 31
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2731 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
There is a big difference between laundry (a necessary function for the health of the inmates themselves) and putting them on a chaingang working the fields or roadwork.

I didn't even think about chain gangs, which, indeed is slavery. I thought that was abolished.

Whatever, a pre-trial detainee is innocent until proven guilty. He cannot be forced to work, he has special privileges a convicted criminal does not have. Putting pre-trial detainees together with convicted criminals is highly questionable. and does not fit a state ruled by the law.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26601 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2525 times:

This quote is excellent:

"Contrary to the district court's conclusion, it is well-settled that the term 'involuntary servitude' is not limited to chattel slavery-like conditions," appellate judge Barrington Parker wrote in the court's opinion. "The amendment was intended to prohibit all forms of involuntary labor, not solely to abolish chattel slavery."

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
I'm thinking NYC moves clears someone from the jail to Rikers after 48 or 72 hours.

Rikers is a jail, not a prison.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
Prison should not be Club Med. Far too many ex-convicts keep getting sent back to jail, indicating that the deterrent function of prison (never mind rehabilitation) is not being fulfilled.

Prison is hardly Club Med (or Club Fed, as some are known). The high recidivism rate has nothing to do with prisons being pleasant, as prisons in the US are rather horrid places. The "nice" prisons are generally for the Bernie Madoff types.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7558 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2516 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 16):

Prison is hardly Club Med

Come to Norway and it is.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5490 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2442 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 16):
Rikers is a jail, not a prison.

So it is. Learn something new everyday.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 16):
as prisons in the US are rather horrid places

As they should be.

[Edited 2012-08-14 11:15:16]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 991 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2401 times:

Looks like the State "screwed the pooch" on this one, it gets better:

"CONCLUSION
The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption of this action to conform to the caption listed above.

2. In addition, McGarry's pro se complaint alleged (1) violation of his First Amendment rights related to access to reading materials; (2) violation of his First and Sixth Amendment rights arising from restrictions on his access to mail and telephone communication with his attorney; (3) and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201. The district court dismissed all claims. McGarry appeals only from the dismissal of his Thirteenth Amendment claim.

3. Because McGarry's claim was dismissed solely on the ground that he failed to state a claim under the Thirteenth Amendment, the district court never reached the question of whether the complaint correctly named the responsible prison officials or sufficiently pleaded the involvement of each individual defendant. The adequacy of the complaint in this regard is best considered in the first instance by the district court. See Farricielli v. Holbrook, 215 F.3d 241, 246 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam); see also Fulton v. Goord, 591 F.3d 37, 45 (2d Cir. 2009).

4. And it is obvious to us that conditions of confinement, pre-trial as well as postconviction, are not intended to be — and rarely are — pleasant.

5. Consistent with that position, federal corrections regulations provide that "[a] pretrial inmate may not be required to work in any assignment or area other than housekeeping tasks in the inmates' own cell and in the community living area, unless the pretrial inmate has signed a waiver of his or her right not to work." 28 C.F.R. §545.23(b).

6. Although defendants' (12)(b)(6) motion to the district court argued that McGarry's work was voluntary, they did not pursue this argument on appeal. On appeal, they principally contend that his claim must be dismissed because permitting it to go forward "would demean and trivialize the deep significance of the Thirteenth Amendment in the history of this country." Appellees' Br. at 12.

7. Normally, where it is alleged that a "a prison restriction infringes upon a specific constitutional guarantee," this Court will evaluate the restriction "in light of institutional security. Security is the main objective of prison administration; prison officials must have broad latitude to adopt rules that protect the safety of inmates and corrections personnel and prevent escape or unlawful entry." United States v. Cohen, 796 F.2d 20, 22 (2d Cir. 1986). Here, however, defendants advance no securityrelated rationale for compelling detainees to do the institution's laundry.

Betcha he wins......



Carpe Pices
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19938 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2384 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
In general I would agree in terms of having to do farmwork or other sort of labor prior to conviction. However he was helping with the prisoners' laundry - someone has to do it. It's no different in the army, or a summer camp - you are not in a hotel.

If you have not been found guilty of a crime, then you are in a hotel run by the government and you are an involuntary guest. The Constitution is quite clear. There is not to be ANY involuntary servitude unless by due process.

This is not the army or a summer camp, both voluntary situations. This is a jail.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5490 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2372 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 20):
If you have not been found guilty of a crime, then you are in a hotel run by the government and you are an involuntary guest. The Constitution is quite clear. There is not to be ANY involuntary servitude unless by due process.

Pretty much how I feel about it. Unless he signs a waiver, he should only have to clean-up after himself. As for cleaning up community areas, only the areas he has directly affected, i.e. bussing his own tray.

I still think he's asking too much.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19938 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2330 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 21):
Pretty much how I feel about it. Unless he signs a waiver, he should only have to clean-up after himself. As for cleaning up community areas, only the areas he has directly affected, i.e. bussing his own tray.

I still think he's asking too much.

I agree. But legal fees and fair wages would be fine. And maybe something punitive to the jail to remind them not to do that.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5490 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2326 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22):

I agree. But legal fees and fair wages would be fine. And maybe something punitive to the jail to remind them not to do that.

Kind of what I was thinking. But, the punitive part is the sticker. Hell, you know as well as I do, that's where the bulk of this $11 million is coming from.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Has The US Now Made An Eternal Enemy In The Arabs? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 04:56:41 by Derico
Virgin Mobile (in The US) ... posted Mon Aug 16 2010 23:31:17 by varigb707
Guns In The US - How Is It In Real Life? posted Tue Aug 10 2010 05:23:53 by AustrianZRH
Best Restaurant In The US? posted Tue Jul 20 2010 16:42:31 by ALTF4
Radio Station Acronyms In The US posted Tue Jun 1 2010 11:11:17 by lh526
Soccer(Football)What's Happening In The US posted Sun May 2 2010 14:59:26 by njxc500
Drunkest Cities In The US. posted Thu Feb 4 2010 08:41:02 by FXramper
Most Toxic & Least Toxic Cities In The US... posted Wed Nov 4 2009 16:09:25 by Mike89406
Searching/buying Car In The US posted Tue Jun 2 2009 11:46:23 by Luxair
Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US posted Sat May 16 2009 10:18:32 by CaliAtenza