As one who has been through both state and federal prison, I can attest that an inmate doesn't have to work if they don't want to. There are some privileges lost, and of course, if there is no alternative income, you truly know what it is to go without.
Also, you don't have to work any job they assign. An inmate can choose to be a yard or hall orderly (janitor) or work in the kitchen or laundry.
I earned enough each month to have a soda and candy bar daily, a quart of ice cream weekly, and enough disposable money to get comfortable sweat pants and shirts and then a book every month. (I played D&D, so those books were about $32 with shipping.)
I worked in the laundry, then the commissary (prison store). While in the store, I took a drafting course and upon graduation, I became a tutor for that course. At the next prison, I worked in the Electrical maintenance shop until the prison Engineer discovered I could draft, and then I drew blueprints.
The tutor and draftsman jobs were very cushy and I earned about $120/month. Plus, I had a side hustle at both of them where I could use a photocopier to make copies for other inmates that weren't allowed in the law library.
And, if you can get a hustle selling something like cigarettes you can make upwards of $10000 a month.
It depends on where you are imprisoned. In Angola prison, in Louisiana, "inmates at Angola, once cleared by the prison doctor, can be forced to work under threat of punishment as severe as solitary confinement. Legally, this labor may be totally uncompensated; more typically inmates are paid meagerly—as little as two cents per hour—for their full-time work in the fields, manufacturing warehouses, or kitchens."
It's also the case that federal prisons are usually better than state prisons. In terms of living conditions, respect for basic human rights, and access to resources for recreation and rehabilitation, federal low- and minimimum-security prisons are probably the best places to be incarcerated in the US. (although that's about as faint as praise gets)
Netflix has a documentary series called Fire Chasers that covers this. Although it sounds like you think otherwise, most of the inmates jump at this chance - to get outside and to be productive.
I don't necessarily doubt that, though I suspect critical documentaries tend to have a harder time getting access. Getting outside and doing something meaningful are both important to human happiness.
The part that's very concerning is that by not paying at least minimum wage, there are perverse incentives to incarcerate more people for longer periods of time for their labor. I've also read of prisoners being punished for not choosing to do labor that their prisons could profit off of.
Perhaps there's a moral difference here between working for CalFire and working for a private prison? California has orders of magnitude more prisoners than they need for CalFire so I cannot imagine there's any incentive there to incarcerate longer or arrest more people.
As for the pay, I'm curious on the pay idea: what the hourly cost is to try, convict, house, and feed a convicted criminal. I've been unable to find this info in a useful form for California.
I think you will not find support for your idea though as long as there are unemployed non-criminals available to work - although I get your point.
Lol who down voted you? The use of prison/slave labor is probably a factor in the disappearance of millions of jobs.
And creates a perverse incentive for kickback relationships between certain industries and the judicio-prison complex to funnel more de facto slaves into the system.
"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."
Slavery is legal as long as it concerns criminal, that's why the US prison system is one of the most fucked up of any first world countries.
To be fair if they didn't write that then forcing convicted persons to do any work as part of their rehabilitation would be illegal, for instance community service sentences. A constitution provides the bare minimum rights. The nitty gritty should be dealt with in higher level more mutable law. It's the complete dysfunction of the law making bodies that is the problem.
And what if they say "you can do community service or get 20 years in jail"? If you allow that kind of choice there's no difference to the status quo, it's just window dressing.
Constitutions are not the right place to put laws that need to updated.
That's part of the court setting the sentence though. There are already maximum times for imprisonment set in law, so I don't think your scenario is realistic.
If it's interpreted as permissible to threaten someone with prison if they don't do community service, then a constitutional prohibition of convicts being forced to work is nugatory. And if it's interpreted as impermissible then you just banned community service.
Inmates love the chance to do the exciting work. They have to earn the right as you'd expect, being in demand.
They also get to give back to society and it's good for their mental health.
They are in the same boat as anyone who eventually leaves prison though, with work and life being hard. But that's nothing to do with this, that's about how we also have to organise opportunities for when all inmates leave.
Lots of media on it, obviously it's normally male inmates, but -
They volunteer they aren't forced. It looks good and is legitimately bad ass.
I worked with a bunch prisoners as part of a probation before judgment deal ( not in ca though) and a lot of them are bored and will volunteer for all types of stuff
Yes and when they leave prison after their sentence and apply to become professional firefighters, they aren't allowed, because they're convicted felons.
