If you want to talk about reintegrating prisoners into society, then clear prisoner's records after they leave prison and bar employers from asking about prior convictions. Otherwise, I don't buy that we're doing this out of concern for the prisoner.
Also, to be clear:
> Prisoners at Angola can be legally forced to work once cleared by a medical doctor, and most are required to perform field work, like harvesting soybeans and corn for at least 90 days upon arrival. For long hours in the hot sun, they earn as little as 4 cents per hour.
So yeah, that sounds a lot like slavery to me. What's hyperbolic about that?
4 cents an hour is not compensation. By your logic, the South wasn't practicing slavery either since plantation owners gave their slaves "free" room and board.
From the Appeal's coverage of the same prison (https://theappeal.org/louisiana-prisoners-demand-an-end-to-m...):
> Once cleared by a prison doctor, prisoners at Angola can be legally forced to work under threat of severe punishment, including solitary confinement. Even prisoners with physical impediments may still have to work. “Angola frequently fails to accommodate men with disabilities—often forcing them to work in dangerous factories or in the fields,” said Mercedes Montagnes, executive director of the Promise of Justice Initiative.
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.
The threat is that if you don't work, you receive more punishment, whether formal or informal: solitary confinement, abuse by guards, ineligibility for parole, etc. So yes, they are forced to work under duress. It's basically extortion.
Edit: why the downvotes? I'm pointing this out in good faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_disability#Termin...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/kidspost/why-you-sh...
I think it's reasonable to be skeptical of consensus on a group of people on the matter of what they like to be called. Consider, for example, the backlash on the term "Latinx" and, more recently, even among some of our Black neighbors over being included in BIPOC.
I'm not trying to get into a whole thing here, it just seems to me that "intellectually disabled", taken at literal value, is more disparaging (and more open to slur-ish interpretation) than "mentally retarded".
Your links don't appear to support your position. None of them say that the people in question prefer this appellation. The WaPo piece expressly prefers "people with intellectual disabilities" (with Eades emphasizing that the inclusion of the word 'people' first is that makes the phrase better), so presumably he'd have a similar objection to the term "intellectually disabled."
The NIH doc doesn't even include the phrase "intellectual disabled" but does suggest the phrase "mental retardation" (see term number 13), so I can't imagine why you've included it if your point is to suggest that the former is more humane than the latter per this source.
In any case, if indeed there is the kind of consensus you assert, I'm happy to oblige it. But I think it's reasonable to wonder whether that's so.
So yeah, I'm also happy to use a better term if you know of one. I’m not really trying to prove a point here, per se — I just know there is widespread consensus that the r-word is a slur and I’m trying to gently help us move past it :)
You see it as a slur, and that's fine, but why should people have to change a common lexicon over some random person's feelings.
Also, 'disability' is considered offensive now, didn't you mean 'differently abled'? See, where does it stop?
I used to work with mentally retarded people. They had a jobs program where they contracted with companies for small jobs that these folks could do. TI teamed up with the school, and together they set up a "workshop" where they would fold up power cords and tie with twists. The people were paid like a dollar per day... they worked a couple of hours per day. It was beneficial for all (TI indeed sold those cords with its products), and hardly slavery. It was hailed at time for all its good. That was not a prison, but it served a similar purpose. Not a single complaint of slavery or exploitation was ever raised... but this was in the 1980s.