[cderwin]

And people who (from a legal perspective) chose to break the law. Why is it morally acceptable to hold criminals in prison but not to employ them (at will, from what I understand) for little compensation during that imprisonment? Is there such a big difference between imprisonment with no employment and imprisonment with under-employment?

[themartorana]

It's not a bad question. For me, imprisoning somebody should be a last resort and something we strive to avoid at all costs. In that light, does then taking advantage of someone in a (literal) captive situation, with no recourse for being taken advantage of, fit in the same worldview?

While "voluntary", promising time reductions or other sentencing modifications for either participation directly or "good behavior" indirectly changes the meaning of "voluntary." Add the threat of solitary confinement or other unconscionable punishments for bad behavior (and capable of being used in a punitive or retaliatory fashion by guards and administrators) and "voluntary" becomes even less voluntary.

It's easy to dehumanize prisoners as "lawbreakers" or cast them as people who gave up freedom flippantly. For me, taking advantage of prisoners to bolster private corporate profits - no matter their crime - is not a justifiable thing.

[acjohnson55]

Why shouldn't prisoners get full compensation for their labor?

[Tinyyy]

What does full compensation mean? The public market rate? Or the prison market rate because the risks and negative aspects of hiring prisoners mean that the demand for prisoners is low?

[acjohnson55]

That's debatable, but I'm seeing a 20 cent/hour rate being floated about in the comments, which strikes me as way below market, pretty much no matter how you slice it.