>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 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution)
Personally I think you need to NOT brutalize people if you want them to be rehabilitated. But you also SHOULD NOT enjoy prison. And deterrent is important (for both rehabilitation and preventing crimes in the first place).
It seems to me that being in prison should be enough punishment.
But I see now that the prison system in the US is not really focused on rehabilitation.
Brejvik probably has a better life in a Norwegian prison than a poor addict has in the USA. So if a poor addict can improve their life by going to prison, it's not much of an incentive to stay out of jail...
OTOH, Norway is one of the best nations of the world to be poor in. It's still no picnic, but being poor and free in Norway is still much better than being stuck in a "soft" Norwegian jail.
But certainly it looks like it is time to amend that exception with further requirements for the humane treatment of prisoners.
>> 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.
You're misreading that. The exception applies to involuntary servitude not slavery.
If I'm wrong, prove it: point me to the prison website where they offer convicts for sale.
But they do - in the modern version. Just like we have - here in my native Germany in a very big way over the last two decades - made actually employing people, as too inflexible and too expensive, a thing of the past for hundreds of thousands, and instead lend them out to companies, you don't need to deal with the hassle of actually owning someone. After all, what does any slave owner actually want? Not the slave, that's just "costs" and a lot of effort (infrastructure, overseers, security etc.). No, all they want is their labor. And that is exactly what those prisons sell, no? All the benefits without the disadvantages in one convenient cheap package.
I have no idea why you focus on the unimportant part of slavery, the one that was always inconvenient for the slave owners, the one that only contributed to the "cost" side of their business.
I would also like to take the liberty of pointing to this page about "Disputing Definitions" when trying to dissect some non-existent god-given very exact and always valid no matter the changing context meaning of some word: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-...
No. Slavery is reckoning certain people as ownable pieces of property, and prison labor is not that.
It sounds like you have your definitions messed up. People being property is the defining characteristic of slavery. That would almost always entail involuntary servitude, but involuntary servitude is a more general term that encompasses other practices.
Also "being able to force someone to do anything against their will" certainly doesn't apply to prisoners in the US any other developed country.
I don't see how having poor and resentful prisoners helps getting them back into society.