Talk:Penal labor in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Cbadillo29.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 7 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iivanchentw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request as a defined U.S. topic taking majority U.S. spelling convention per MOS:TIES--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Penal labour in the United States → Penal labor in the United States – MOS:TIES seems fairly clear on this: since the article is about the US, it should use US spelling (and hence "labor"). I wanted to raise it here first, though, in case there were any objections. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 23:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no actual opinion on the proposal. I just want to point out that looking at the page history, looks like this page was created a few weeks ago after content was split from the main Penal labour article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Should be noncontroversial engvar move. Zarcadia (talk) 07:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. U.S. article should be titled in U.S. English. bd2412 T 16:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
• No objection. I based the first draft on "Penal labour" and kept spelling without much thinking. - Altenmann >t 22:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Uncited

We can't leave this in the lede uncited.

"Penal labor is not required in the United States, but refusal to work normally results in the inmate receiving less food, a longer sentence, or other sanctions."

173.25.54.191 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Requires more cases of mistreatment

Regarding my recent edit: The original section title was fine, but the section itself needs to report more than just the case of Parchman Farms. Any investigations of for-profit prisons are welcome. Secretkeeper12 (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Distinguishing voluntary labor from forced labor

Some prison labor in the United States is voluntary labor instead of forced labor, but this article doesn't discuss the distinction between voluntary prison labor and forced prison labor. Jarble (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Peer review of Kylaj's initial contributions

Good job on your substantial and thorough contributions to this article! It is hard sometime to describe different policies and their impact while still being clear and concise. But the content you added in the lead is good. Consider making adjustments to the structure of the article, double checking links, and providing the most citations possible. But I know that for the initial contribution it is hard to work on every section. I think you are off to a great start! Thank you for you meaningful contribution to Wikipedia! Cbadillo29 (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Article doesn't mention race/old slavery

I've heard people say the 13th amendment's wording enables a sort of soft reimplementation of Southern Slavery... Can we find any data, say sociologists and historians discussing this? And I'd also like to see racial statistics of penal labor. IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as the 13th amendment explicitly mentions that penal slavery can only be applied to convicted felons, I'm not sure how it relates to the preexisting institution of slavery, in which slaves were innocent civilians not criminals (making up the majority of the Black population in the South), were held in servitude indefinitely with no expectation of release, and whose status as slaves was hereditary.

None of that is true for forced labour in prisons, which while morally dubious at best, is a very different institution in both scale and character. The Urge to Purge (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Hannah-ortloff, I am providing another peer review for applicable improvements. I would expand a little more on the 'Origins' section, to include aspects such as why penal labor was authorized under the 13th Amendment; in other words, why was such voted on as being acceptable in prison? I would also include, where applicable, additional states, under the 'Modern prison labor systems', where penal labor may be applicable. I would also expand on the 'Critics' section to include more media responses, as well as other organizational responses to penal labor--the same for the 'Inmate strikes' section, and also political and media responses in correlation to the section. Iivanchentw (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)livanchentw

NPOV concerns

This article appears to have some very serious NPOV issues; I was shocked to see that one of the basic rationales for prison work—rehabilitation and reduced recidivism—wasn't even included.

I've made a brief edit to include some obvious facts that were missing: 60% of US prisoners work; work/skills programs correlate with decreased re-imprisonment; most prisoners want to work.

But numerous NPOV and other basic issues remain:

• Most egregiously, the article completely failed to mention that the vast majority of prisoners who work do so on an entirely voluntary basis—a reader could easily come away thinking that US prison labor is largely forced and involuntary. It is essential that a voice be given to the majority of prisoners who want to work—and are staunchly opposed to "abolishment" of prison labor, such as this op-ed. (Side note: this piece claims that BOP statistics show that a minority of prisoners work, contradicting the PIAAC study I cited for the 60% figure—any help in verifying the percentage who work would be appreciated!)

• On what basis is this article "part of a series on slavery"? Sure, 13A abolished "slavery and involuntary servitude" except in cases of punishment for duly convicted—but US penal labor today is hardly best defined as either, since the vast majority of it is entirely voluntary. This statement fails NPOV: "The current state of prison labor in the United States has distinct roots in the slavery-era economy and society"—this is true of anything that "has roots" prior to 1865, yet no one would claim that, say, the War of 1812 had "distinct roots in the slavery-era economy and society".

• Why is the first sentence about the Thirteenth Amendment? It's what makes prison labor constitutional, but it's hardly the most salient fact about the topic. While it did change the practice of penal labor in the US, it didn't begin it. This is another blatant and biased attempt to link chattel slavery to prison jobs.

• There is a short section on "critics", but the entire article is biased against prison labor to the point where it qualifies as "criticism". There is no neutral description or even acknowledgement of why prison labor has been and continues to be so popular—be it with the public, legislators, prison officials, and prisoners themselves.

• The lead lacks basic facts but contains plenty of irrelevant details; is it really appropriate or relevant to cite a jeremiad against prison labor that includes the fact that furniture damaged in the Capitol riot will be replaced by that made in prisons? Unicor produces an enormous amount of goods, and is worthy of inclusion—but this factoid is gratuitous and adds nothing to the article topic.

• Throughout, biased phrasing is used. For example: "The stated aim of penal labor in the United States is to mitigate recidivism"—why "the" and "stated"? It is one very real aim, and not the only one—and the use of "stated" suggests that there is some nefarious, unstated reason for penal labor.

Look forward to hearing thoughts! ElleTheBelle 17:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Certain terms like "multi-billion-dollar industry," "below market rates," and "prison in-sourcing as an alternative to outsourcing" carry negative connotations, suggesting a critical view of the prison labor system. While the information is factual, these phrases imply exploitation, which detracts from a fully neutral tone.

2600:1007:A02C:B70E:80BB:20E9:75B0:142 15:04 23 September 2024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:A02C:B70E:80BB:20E9:75B0:142 (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

To respond to the bullet points

1. What is considered "voluntary" doesn't take into account punishments, such as loss of good time, limiting visitation hours, and other privileges. Additionally, earning 10 or so cents an hour (and sometimes a day!) can be considered slave wages, especially when there are not alternatives available.

2. Slave wages and coercion per previous bullet point. The argument that penal slavery is rooted in the history of slavery is coming from 13th (film), and is a popular argument from criminal justice reformers. It might still be biased, but that is where it is coming from.

6. That phrasing may be biased, but if the goal is ending recidivism, slave wages (under a dollar an hour or day) do next to nothing for that.

There is an inherent exploitation to prison labor because wages are artificially low. Since the state is in control of all the jobs and wages, workers cannot leverage their labor by refusing to work extremely low-paying jobs. Even the ones it isn't in charge of (private industry) the prison can refuse to assign a prisoner to one of those jobs. In fact, prisoners do not have basic workplace protections like the right to strike or to quit their jobs (involuntary servitude). That is why the article seemed biased against human rights abuses. Catboy69 (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ARCN 211 Material Histories of Labor

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2023 and 15 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LKL88 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by LKL88 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Tax incentives/Work Opportunity Tax Credit

This section does not appear to actually be accurate, or at least has no corroborating citations:

Firms including those in the technology and food industries are often provided tax incentives to contract prison labor, commonly at below market rates. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) serves as a federal tax credit that grants employers $2,400 for every work-release employed inmate.

The citation for the first line is a broken link. The citation provided for the second line does not appear to actually support that interpretation or analysis of the WOTC. As defined in the page linked, the WOTC applies to ten groups who have historically struggled finding employment (other examples of said groups would be veterans and SSI recipients), and the only one of the ten that is related to incarceration is specifically "qualified ex-felons," defined as:

A “qualified ex-felon” is a person hired within a year of:

• Being convicted of a felony or
• Being released from prison for the felony

I.e., people who have already been released from prison, or who never went to prison post-conviction in the first place. You could argue that "hired within a year of being convicted of a felony" could theoretically be held to apply to persons who are still incarcerated, but such persons would not be referred to as ex-felons and I could not find any citation corroborating this interpretation when I tried searching for one. Jcf88 (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Senior Seminar

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 10 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tjklink44 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Tjklink44 (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Capstone - Criminal Justice Reform

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2024 and 10 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mla02 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Bigmacchuck (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

prison abolition movement

This section reads like an ad for the organization discussed and has no direct connection with penal labor. Thinking of cutting. Uhoj (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)