IANAL but a naive reading of that could justify community service may be. These prisoners were not convicted and sentenced to be firemen.

They're not being compelled to be firemen.

Well, under a very narrow definition of "compelled," maybe not.

Are you implying one could be convicted and sentenced to be a slave ?

No. I am implying they weren't sentenced to be a firemen or a slave so they shouldn't be. People have been sentenced to do community service which I generally don't think is compensated. Going to be honest, I am ignorant and haven't been incarcerated so I am lucky, but from what I can tell community service tends to be a lighter punishment than prison, and doesn't tend to be as exploitative as the uncompensated labor described by these activists. It is also proscribed by the court and not up to wardens and their friends to decide its terms and extent.

And no, I don't think anyone should be sentenced to be a slave or a firemen. Any such sentence probably would violate the 8th amendment.

[0] Insightful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17813698

Sorry, chalk it up to fatigue and the consequent decline of my comprehension skills. I don't know why I misunderstand that sentence so badly.

It used to happen in a quite literal sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convict_lease

The modern prison labor system varies from this in degree, but not really in kind. Inmates are still compelled to work in the US.

out of curiosity, do you think an amendment to that could reach consensus with more awareness? federal prison could be fixed easily with congress and the executive branch, but fixing the patch work of state level would require a constitutional amendment.

also, there are a lot of constitutional things - like eugenics programs - that simply aren't practiced anymore anywhere. so awareness and public disfavor can alter the reality without a legal change being necessary.

That exception literally exists to provide a means to cheap labor... It's not accidental. Notice how many laws disproportionately target black people (always in their enforcement and effect, it would be illegal if it were in the text of the law), like drug prohibition, and you start to see a pattern that looks a whole lot like intent. We abolished slavery but we weren't ready to end white supremacy and our laws reflect that. The Civil Rights act was followed closely by the War on Drugs. We deny voting rights and job prospects to felons, enslave them while they're incarcerated, and keep them in an underclass that has few opportunities specifically to ensure they can re-enter the criminal justice system. Is it any wonder that we have the highest per-capita rates of imprisonment?

It's horrifying when you start to see the whole process in its entirety and doubly so when you realize how much money is generated through the system. Criminal justice reform is incredibly difficult to actually pass as a result.

Right, this isn't news to me and also doesn't answer the question

Criminal justice reform has lobbyists against it, and also has a culture that is obsessed with punishment and bloodlust.

I think prisoner wages or the duties of prisoners can be addressed in some capacity, without maintaining a massive slave labor force. The circumstances around wording of the 13th Amendment, and subsequent case law may allow for redress against this outcome.

From the majority opinion in Bailey v. Alabama in 1910

> "The plain intention [of the amendment] was to abolish slavery of whatever name and form and all its badges and incidents; to render impossible any state of bondage; to make labor free, by prohibiting that control by which the personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit, which is the essence of involuntary servitude. While the Amendment was self-executing, so far as its terms were applicable to any existing condition, Congress was authorized to secure its complete enforcement by appropriate legislation."

So I see what the amendment says - prisoners can be slaves - but honestly, it may be as simple as that having never been challenged. Its probably why they are paid 85 cents in some cases, and only a handful of traditionally southern states paying them nothing.

In conclusion: there may not be public support for prisoner slavery, there may not be Congressional or state legislature support for prisoner slavery, and even if it got to the Supreme Court they might just lean on old case law instead of the plain text of the amendment.

Your analysis completely ignores power structures inside the US. Try to oppose the prison industry, in reality not theory, and get back to me. This is a fight I'm actively involved in. I'm literally an activist and trying to end this mistreatment. You're wrong, but the reason you're wrong isn't your intent. It's the way people assume you're right and ignore the darker sides of capitalism. The truth is that it doesn't matter what the public supports or doesn't. Prisoner slavery exists because it makes people money and it will continue to exist until it does not.

I've offered perspectives to many causes that weren't considered by the people most invested in their cause.

I've offered perspectives to John Jay College of Criminal Justice on what arguments they should attempt in the courts, even though that approach was uncharted territory.

I'm not a lawyer.

I also don't care what the public thinks, I care about influence and outcomes that I like, and the public is VERY far removed from that process except in circumstances where the public coincidentally was already aligned with influential interests.

Thats why I start with simple questions such as "can this reach consensus necessary", that "consensus" can come from a Federal District Judge in Guam for all I care. Sometimes "consensus" is "we - the government - don't find it prudent to appeal this case" such as you saw with the stop and frisk federal appeals case in NYC.

I know the lawyers that came up the Citizens United arguments on some arbitrary first amendment grounds just because they could. Guess what, they ALWAYS go for first amendment. They practically pick the judges to hear their cases too.

And when I look at the 13th Amendment and power structures inside the US, I think there is plenty of room to get closer to the outcome you are interested in.