Are Prisoners Who Make Low Wages Being Exploited?
Interesting article at the Foundation for Economic Education's blog, written by Robert P. Murphy.
The subhead -- "The Prison-Industrial Complex Pinches Rents from Prisoners" -- is a reminder that it's not free to taxpayers to keep people in prison.
Then again, how many people are in prison because of a non-violent drug offense? The government has no business caging people because they wish to consume a plant or sell it to another consenting adult.
Here's an excerpt from Murphy's piece:
Over the summer, critics objected to Whole Foods' participation in a program that used poorly paid prisoners to make expensive cheese for the grocery store's upscale customers, according to Vice:Whole Foods responded to the criticism by saying it sources tilapia and cheese from CCI as part of its mission to support communities, "and that includes the paid, rehabilitative employment of inmates at CCI. They are paid for their work, and learn job skills that can help them contribute to society in meaningful ways upon their release," the company said in a statement.Specifically, even though (according to the Vice article) prisoners may earn as little as 74 cents per day, the participating prisoners can earn more at these private/public jobs than the inmates who perform more traditional tasks such as working in the kitchen or laundry. Just because a job strikes outsiders as horrible and underpaid doesn't mean we should be quick to advocate removing these options.
Prisoners Do Need to Earn Money
Assuming the statistics are accurate, the work experience teaches valuable job skills, which may be things as basic as following a routine and taking instruction from a supervisor. The recidivism rate among the selected prisoners is half that of the general prison population.
One of the worst things the government does to a convict is deprive him of the means of generating a normal income.
More generally, though, all decent people should actively applaud "prison labor" as beneficial to the inmates as well as society at large. If that strikes you as shocking, consider the opposite scenario.
One of the worst things the government does to a convict is deprive him of the means of generating a normal income for the entire time he's locked up. This not only leaves the inmate poorer in the short run, it also sabotages his ability to gain experience in his desired field while he withers away in a cage. Even without the stigma of a prison record, less experience means he is less marketable down the road when he gets out of prison.
Most citizens take it for granted that during a recession, government officials must do whatever it takes to help the unemployed return to meaningful work. And yet, the population directly under government supervision -- namely, prison inmates -- is routinely assigned stultifying tasks like making license plates or picking up litter along the highway. Why not allow prisoners to work in other pursuits that benefit consumers, while gaining marketable skills at the same time?
His conclusion:
Generally speaking, we should applaud programs that allow individuals more options in selling their labor to outsiders. If prison inmates can earn more income and develop marketable skills by working for companies such as Whole Foods, then it helps both consumers and the prisoners themselves.However, the logic of free markets only works to the extent that the relationships are genuinely voluntary, which we cannot guarantee in the context of prison labor. More ominously, if the practice indirectly fuels government policies that swell prison populations, it might, on net, be harmful to liberty.
> More ominously, if the practice indirectly fuels government policies that swell prison populations, it might, on net, be harmful to liberty.
The prison should not be allowed to profit on the labor, and the prison should not be allowed to compete on pricing with non-prison firms.
Re: letting the computer programmer work in prison, well, it depends. Prisons that run call centers risk huge privacy leaks, prisons that let programmers program risk all sorts of software related problems.
jerry at September 26, 2015 11:07 PM
>> More ominously, if the practice indirectly fuels government policies that swell prison populations, it might, on net, be harmful to liberty.
>The prison should not be allowed to profit on the labor, and the prison should not be allowed to compete on pricing with non-prison firms.
And prison labor should not compete with any labor on costs. EG, prison supplied labor must charge the going rates, and any profit go to victims, educational outreach, etc.
jerry at September 26, 2015 11:10 PM
... and it must be voluntary. No forcing people to work.
NicoleK at September 27, 2015 6:19 AM
Dennis Dunsmoor says the most important thing with this:
"These guys are going to get back out on the street. A lot of these guys have never worked a job, never clocked in, never worked eight hours, and just that skill alone is very valuable, so we teach them that kind of work ethic."
If prison labor helps to teach a prisoner some sort of work ethic, instead of just goofing off, then it has to be somewhat of a good thing.
charles at September 27, 2015 6:49 AM
Well, common sense would say vastly overhaul the criminal code, decriminalize drugs and prostitution and other nanny-state laws, then work the shit out of the violent offenders-not even for pay for them at all, just to recoup what they've cost society by their actions. Common sense has been lacking in the US for quite some time, though, so good luck with that.
momof4 at September 27, 2015 7:04 AM
"then work the shit out of the violent offenders-not even for pay for them at all"
Wow. Forced labor camps. Brilliant.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 27, 2015 9:03 AM
"then work the shit out of the violent offenders-not even for pay for them at all"
Wow. Forced labor camps. Brilliant.
Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 27, 2015 9:03 AM
All labor is to some extent forced. Ask the guy who wins the lottery if he is going to continue driving the septic tank cleaning truck.
People who aren't busy, find all sorts of interesting ways to get into trouble.
It costs a tremendous amount of money to keep someone incarcerated. Unless you are going to use their earnings for victim compensation, or to support their dependents, I think paying prisoners a living wage will screw the taxpayers, and also becomes a motivator for prisoner on prisoner mafia like extortion schemes.
Isab at September 27, 2015 9:39 AM
Things like following a routine and taking instruction seem pretty basic, but there are a great many people out there who cannot do this, who cannot show up on time and work a full 8 hours.
Part-time jobs in high school are supposed to teach this, but our unrealistic minimum wage laws have priced inexperienced workers out of the market. Where do they get those skills in absence of a starter job?
The lower recidivism rate indicates such a program is doing its job. And costing society less in the long run.
Even if your offense was a non-violent one, you've transgressed against the community. You've eroded respect for the law. Time to pay society back. Saying your offense was non-violent does not excuse it.
We passed Prop 47 in California, making several non-violent offenses misdemeanors instead of felonies. Now, we're experiencing a petty crime wave across the state. My small town has had a rash of car break-ins and crimes of opportunity. The mailbox for several townhouses in my neighborhood was stolen (the entire mailbox unbolted and hauled away) by someone trying to find money of identity information in people's mail. Tweakers have made our downtown unpleasant and, in some cases, unsafe. Welcome to the reality of letting the "non-violent" offenders go free.
Conan the Grammarian at September 27, 2015 9:42 AM
"I think paying prisoners a living wage will screw the taxpayers"
My response was to momof4's assertion that we 'work the shit' out of prisoners for no pay.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 27, 2015 10:31 AM
Call them forced-labor camps if you want, but why should you and I pay to keep violent thugs in relative comfort-oftentimes far more comfort than they would have on the outside? Make them support themselves. Maybe, some people will decide NOT to become criminals, if they're going to have to work, inside or out, they might as well make it be outside.
momof4 at September 27, 2015 10:39 AM
I am reading Jeffrey Archer's diary of his time in prison for perjury. He says that prisoners will do anything to get out of their cells for a while. Many of them would likely work for free just for the chance to be in a room larger than 6 x 4.
Steamer at September 27, 2015 10:51 AM
The recidivism rate among the selected prisoners is half that of the general prison population.
Be careful what conclusion you draw from this. It could well be that the prisoners selected for the program were those most likely to go straight after release, regardless of whether they were in the program or not.
In general, if A correlates with B, any of the following could be true:
1. A causes B.
2. B causes A.
3. C causes both A and B.
It's real easy to overlook #3.
Rex Little at September 27, 2015 11:36 AM
The problem MomOf4 is the perverse incentive that gives the government. You throw people in prison and then force them to work. So what do you do when you don't have enough prisoners? Does the government go and round up another batch of slaves to work for free? And on the flip side, is cheap prison labor forcing other people out of business?
Forced labor is a bad idea. Voluntary labor is a completely different thing. Yes prison is expensive. But these people are not there by choice. They should not be responsible for paying to be involuntarily incarcerated.
The second issue is what is a reasonable wage? If a free person can't voluntarily work for 74c/day why should a criminal be given that privilege? It may seem like a ridiculously small wage, but if the labor is voluntary then you are letting a criminal engage in economic activity that is illegal for citizens in good standing. If there is a minimum wage it should be the minimum wage.
Ben at September 27, 2015 11:39 AM
You see to see this as an incentive for people to want to go to prison. Could it not also be a stepping stone to a career path once they're freed?
Patrick at September 27, 2015 2:46 PM
But these people are not there by choice.
If they knowingly chose to violate the law, then yes, yes, they are there by choice. Did they choose to get caught, prosecuted, and convicted? no, they didn't. They would have preferred to get away clean.
Not all choices are equal. Some have better outcomes than others. This is lesson that needs teaching, and some require incarceration to get that lesson.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 27, 2015 3:18 PM
Cute IRA. If they had the choice would they leave? Yes. So they are not there by choice.
I don't have an issue with locking most of them up. But lets use standard English.
Ben at September 27, 2015 4:59 PM
I'm with IRA on this one. Prisoners made a choice to break the law and assumed the incarceration risks that went with getting caught. That they cannot leave after being caught is part of the original choice they made.
As far as making them work, that's forced labor and a bit tricky. Slavery has been outlawed. Whether forcing convicts to labor in their [alleged] rehabilitation is slavery is a matter on which the courts have been split (work gangs are legal in some states). Keep in mind that, even after release, convicts are not afforded the full bill of Constitutionally-protected rights that the non-convicted enjoy.
Giving them the choice to join a labor program (and quit later if they want) would not be forced labor. The pittance they're paid is still more than they'd make sitting in the yard lifting weights and shanking fellow prisoners. And the work habits they pick up can make their transition to non-prison life easier.
Conan the Grammarian at September 27, 2015 5:31 PM
for some historical perspective:
http://priceonomics.com/the-dark-origins-of-conjugal-visits/?src=longreads
fianza at September 27, 2015 6:35 PM
I think that the entire prison sytem needs to be over hauled.
Victimless crimes should be dropped, non violent crimes under a million dollars in damages should carry no jail time. Just liquidate the persons property to reimburse.
Over that, jail em. House non violent offenders away from violent. Set up a gradient system.
Then each state or the federal government pays out per offender based on the type of facility they need to be housed in.
And send all prisoners to the same place. Preferably an island, let the US armed forces use it as a training ground to repel anyone trying to reach or leave the island. Telecommute for court cases.
lujlp at September 27, 2015 7:11 PM
Slavery has been outlawed.
Yes, it has--except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. Whatever the valid objections to forced labor by prisoners might be, unconstitutionality isn't one of them.
Rex Little at September 27, 2015 7:16 PM
And what if they have no property? Tweeters aren't noted for having valuable possessions, having pawned them for drug money.
We in California have a front row seat to see how decriminalizing non-violent crimes works out:
Conan the Grammarian at September 27, 2015 8:01 PM
"If prison labor helps to teach a prisoner some sort of work ethic, instead of just goofing off, then it has to be somewhat of a good thing."
Many years ago, one of the early bloggers, a lady who had a Ph.D. in criminal justice, told me: "The problem with rehabilitation is that your typical prisoner was never habilitated in the first place." So it would seem that a more successful program would be one that teaches basic "how to be an adult" skills, which would include showing up for your job every work day, making some money, and managing that money. You do run into the problem of how to ensure that these types of programs don't create perverse incentives for the government, or any contractor who administers such a program. And yes, you have to make sure that such labor isn't competing unfairly with the private sector. These are solvable problems, though.
"and it must be voluntary. No forcing people to work."
The problem you face there is that if you offer the typical prisoner the choice of working at a job or not, they'll choose not. Incentives can work, but since a lot of prisoners don't comprehend the notion of purchasing things they want with money that they earn, they are going to have to be pushed into it, at least initially. We push teenagers to do the same, and nobody thinks twice about it.
Cousin Dave at September 28, 2015 7:03 AM
Sorry Conan but you are trying too hard.
Prison
any place of confinement or involuntary restraint.
Involuntary means not chosen. People don't chose to go to prison. Yes, they took action and made choices that could result in jail time. But they are different things.
Instead of trying to push the moral issue of locking people up onto them by claiming they chose it, it is better to accept that it is moral to lock some people up. We chose to lock them up. And we (but usually a governor or parole board) can chose to release them. And that is OK. There is nothing wrong with protecting yourself.
Ben at September 28, 2015 9:02 AM
I'm not going to absolve a prisoner by saying his low-paid labor is wrong because he's in prison not by choice. He made a choice that put him there.
And you're quibbling over semantics. No, a prisoner does not have a choice to walk out of prison and did not choose to go to prison. That doesn't mean he's not in prison by choice.
You're confusing the consequences of a choice with choice itself. Prison is a consequence, not a choice.
If you choose to commit a crime and are put in prison for it, of course you are not in prison by choice, but you are in prison as a result of a choice you made. You gambled and lost.
I don't choose to pay my electric bill. I choose to have electricity which requires that I pay the supplier. If I choose not to pay PG&E, they cut off my electricity. I may think my choice was to not pay PG&E, but my choice was really to not have electricity.
If I choose to rob a bank, my choice is to risk imprisonment if caught, even if I don't acknowledge that as part of my choice package. If I choose to do that robbery with a gun, I choose to risk a longer prison sentence or even one for murder if the gun goes off (for whatever reason) during the robbery.
Choosing a risk and having to suffer the consequences is still making a choice.
Conan the Grammarian at September 28, 2015 11:07 AM
Where did I suggest decriminalizing non violent crimes?
I suggested decriminalizing crimes where there is no victim as all
lujlp at September 28, 2015 11:27 AM
You suggested that "non violent crimes under a million dollars in damages should carry no jail time. Just liquidate the persons property to reimburse." That's when I asked what to do if they have no property to liquidate.
I live in a town with a downtown full of tweakers breaking into cars and stealin' stuff from porches. Letting people go just because their "crimes" are victimless or did little damage will backfire on your good intentions.
I'm actually in favor of legalizing drugs, but turning a bunch of addicts loose on the streets isn't the solution.
I agree that the prison system and criminal justice system needs an overhaul, but beware the unintended consequences of well-meaning reform.
Conan the Grammarian at September 28, 2015 2:56 PM
Leave a comment