Paying them minimum wage would remove this incentive and give the released or paroled prisoner a head-start towards paying the deposit on an apartment rental and getting work.

“as long as they are kept completely out of all other labour systems”

Ever heard of Wickard v Filburn? 

An example of this would be sailors pressed into service by accepting pieces of eight while drunk.

Or Moon Elves being pressed into service by Gremlins from the Vortex of Orion.

Because it directly encourages companies to lobby for unnecessary incarceration, for goodness’ sake. 

That wouldn’t last very long.

You should really look more into the prison-industrials. They don’t sell the kids, but the parents are most certainly property.

As for work in and for the prison or the state (the classic making license plates), IF you are duly convicted, prisons aren’t free to run, and the people in them ought to offset the cost of incarceration. Being in prison isn’t a job, it’s a punishment, so you don’t get treated like you have a job.

This guy, on the other hand, allegedly threatened to kill his family, so no I-bond for him. The sole problem I see in this case is that he was compelled to do labor prior to conviction. If Vermont skates by with this it will be on some very unsatisfying technicality, like that they actually paid him, or something.

The guy’s situation seems to satisfy the definition given in Amendment XIII.  I wonder if, at the trial, the prosecution is going to say something like: “Objection, your honor!”  “On what grounds?”  “Etymology!”

Labour is fungible.  Do you think the guards wash the laundry themselves?  Either the prisoners do it, or it is done by an outside contractor.  So the prisoners are in competition with the local labour market.  To permit them to be paid less than a fair wage is to permit everyone to be paid less – as you clearly understand.

Not only is prison labour not restricted to prison, but in the US some entire industries are built on it.  Pause, and consider this.  There are entire industries in your economy that do not contribute to the economy, at all, because slave labour keeps them out of it.

A large percentage of the people who are being held are simply poor. They aren’t guilty. The fact is that people who have little money right now are also having trouble keeping an address or a job. The court then decides that as renters with no stable income, they present a flight risk. Since they fail at that hurdle, they’re dropped into prison. 

Most won’t risk a bail bond for two reasons. (1) Many have no collateral. (2) The high fee to pay back could create a situation where they would be in more financial trouble later. Since these are people already barely scraping by, they simply can’t afford it.

Maybe what we need is legislation aimed at helping those who are first time offenders, with low income jobs, and renting. Maybe we need to be being more active about protecting people before they enter the system.

Wow.

I typed it, then I did a Google search. Guess what? On July 18, 2012, Governor Cuomo did as I just suggested. It’s not exactly the same, but: 

“Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today signed legislation that will allow the creation of charitable organizations in New York State which could post up to $2,000 in bail for low-income defendants charged with misdemeanor crimes.”

Spiffy.

http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/07182012-Help-Low-Income-Defendants-Meet-Bail

That’s bondage.

My reference to ‘people’ is from what I remember of Judge Death’s backstory.

“Servitude” itself IS compulsory service, often such as is required by legal penalty. Note that in this case, no judgement had been issued against Finbar McGarry, and in our legal system, we’re supposed to be operating under the assumption that people are innocent until proven guilty. That means they should not become part of the workforce. Mr. McGarry was not being treated as an indentured servant, as there was no contract (a forced contract = no contract) and the service he was providing should not have been required of him.

I do understand your problem with the loaded term “slave.” In its simplest form, “slavery” implies ownership by a master. You might have preferred the term “bondage” which actually means “a state of subjugation or captivity often involving burdensome and degrading labor.” While it has taken on a pleasing sexual undertone, that may be the most appropriate term for the situation that McGarry was left in. He was dominated by threat into action against his will.

(I’ve used dictionary.com for my reference material because it’s openly accessible. I hope you’re okay with that.)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indentured?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indentured+servant?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slavery?s=t

An even older amendment to the Constitution says, “Excessive bail shall not be required” – 8th Amendment, clause 1. Hundreds of years’ worth of law say that bail is supposed to be set high enough to make sure that the accused shows up for trial, but not so high that they can’t pay it under any circumstances. We’ve gotten into the bad habit, in America, of admitting that we can’t prove that someone is unsafe to release until their trial, but effectively denying them bail by setting a bail that we know they can’t make – an elegantly simple, but horrific and blatantly unconstitutional hack. It shows that we really don’t believe in innocent until proven guilty any more, which makes the rest of the story, punishment by forced labor before conviction, all the less surprising.