That's one difference, sure, but the two situations are similar as well. In both cases, a person's basic life needs (food, housing, etc.) are met by someone else. When it comes to children, we generally accept that forcing people to contribute to their own upkeep is not wrong, whether it's working on the farm or cooking, etc. Why is it different for prisoners?

We explicitly do not say it's ok to force children to pay for their own upkeep. A parent is required to take care of their child and that is legally enforced, but a child can refuse all chores and the government doesn't punish them.

In fact, the government will punish the parents if they try to not take care of their child or punish them too severely for not doing their chores

That's absolutely not true. Parents are legally entitled to use coercion and punishment to force children to pay for their own upkeep. That's one of the key reasons people used to have kids until relatively recently--for help on the farm.

Go ahead and beat your kid because he's not doing the dishes. Feed them sub standard food and not enough at that. If he talks back at all, throw him in an empty room for a week or two with no human contact.

Let's see how long you can do that before the government and society come down on you

Edit: I don't think "relatively recently" even applies here. Child labor laws were passed long before we had laws allowing things like mixed race marriage, gay marriage, civil rights for minorities, and other social changes. We are no longer an agrarian society that needs mass free labor to survive

I think the tenses are inconsistent in the sentences you wrote there.

Life has more value in well off western countries today. Child mortality is low. Families have few children. So no, you can’t abuse your kids, the state doesn’t like that.

One is an adult. They have freedoms which we, as a society, have taken away due to whatever offense they have committed (potentially as light as possession of Marijuana).

One is a child. They do not have the freedoms which we, as a society, have given them yet due to their age, lack of maturity and lack of means.

What is the logic for giving more preferential treatment to someone who is a ward because they did something bad, versus a child who is a ward despite being completely innocent?

My argument for treating prisoners better than children (at least in regard to being paid for working) is that once you leave prison, you're likely in a really bad situation unless you have money to help with the transition.

Finding a job is tough as an ex-con. Your support network may well be gone, or it may be entirely composed of people who enabled you in the first place.

Most kids have years of supported, gradual transition from unpaid chores to fully-independent adults, although there are obviously exceptions to that. I feel really badly for kids who enter adulthood from foster care.

Are you arguing for child labor or are you just unintentionally doing it?

> ...more preferential treatment...

I don't see this position being articulated here. Can you help me understand how you read the people disagreeing with you as saying that?

Because recidivism is a bad