People talk about the 13th amendment ending slavery, but in reality it just codified it into the constitution. Jim Crow and then the prison industrial complex followed.
Oh really? How did the 13th amendment codify slavery? For some reason I thought that the civil war ended slavery but you must know better. Please explain.
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.
I don't think anyone is arguing for anything man, they're just pointing out that forcing people to work, conviction or not, is, in fact, slavery. If you think that slavery in those cases is justified, that's a different discussion. But it is slavery, plain and simple.
You are right, except to the extent that “people SAY the 13th amendment ended slavery but it really codified it man” recasts what happened in the civil war and what purpose people had in fighting and dying to get it passed.
Some people today want the glory of abolitionist revolution without having to pay with their own blood.
Yeah, maybe you can make an argument that the justice system can work differently in one way or another with diff tradeoffs, but if you set up the argument so that you’re in a morally superior position to the people who fought and died in the civil war to end slavery, you should expect and you definitely deserve very strong opposition.
In some places, criminals are killed much more quickly as punishment. Should we do that instead, because some countries do it?
Or maybe we should figure out what we want to do by argument and consensus, instead of blindly following the old colonialists and ex-fascists in Europe?
> In some places, criminals are killed much more quickly as punishment. Should we do that instead, because some countries do it?
You do. USA is a world leader in killing criminals. Only China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt kill more per year.
> Or maybe we should figure out what we want to do by argument and consensus, instead of blindly following the old colonialists and ex-fascists in Europe?
You don't do that. You blindly follow some 20yr old colonials who scribbled out a constitution 200 years ago.
> Only China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt kill more per year.
So you're saying we could do better I guess.
> You don't do that. You blindly follow some 20yr old colonials
> who scribbled out a constitution 200 years ago.
I guess, but maybe better to follow 20 year old colonials who wrote a constitution 200 years ago than to blindly follow inbred royal families with even poorer claims to power? I mean, as long as we're just throwing insults at this point, you have to see that Europe is at least as ridiculous (and at least when it comes to politics, arguably much worse).
Let me guess, that smug superiority, serious and knowing citations from "The Guardian", you're from the UK right? And you're lecturing us in the states about our naive skepticism of countries with royal families, while also paying your taxes to protect the royal pedophile Prince Andrew right? Please tell me more about how royalty no longer rules in Europe.
No, I answered your question before you edited it. You asked something to the effect of "How does the 13th amendment codify slavery?". This is Section 1 of the 13th amendment, that has an explicit exemption under which slavery is not unconstitutional.
The 13th amendment does not end incarceration it ends slavery and involuntary servitude. Thus it allows you to enslave criminals and force them to work for you without in any way taking away from the obvious ability to incarcerate them.
There's no reason for scare quotes given the specific carveout for slavery which exists in the Constitution. If you have an issue with that verbiage, take it up with the 38th United States Congress and Abraham Lincoln.
> do murderers get to walk free?
You're arguing against an extreme position that nobody actually holds. Most reasonable people would probably point to criminal justice as implemented in many European countries as exemplifying a more humane model which produces better long term results.
The carveout for the enslavement of incarcerated people also created a perverse incentive which played out predictably in the wake of Reconstruction's failure. If you're interested in the long and painful history of this fact here's a useful resource:
Europeans and European countries have done all kinds of ridiculous things. Just because someone in Europe does something like you describe (if they even do, I doubt it), it doesn’t mean we should do it.
People in the South after the civil war grasped for any excuse to disenfranchise black people. Big surprise. That’s not an argument to treat prisoners any differently than we do today.
Are people incarcerated unfairly or are they convicted under unjust or unconstitutional laws? That’s a reason to agitate for change.
Are duly convicted criminals forced to do things they don’t want to do? Oh well, sounds like a good idea to me, I will invest in continuing that practice as long as the laws are fair!
Your question was "How did the 13th amendment codify slavery?" They answered it, the first mention of slavery in the constitution legalized it for convicts in the 13th Amendment.
Why are you now changing your argument to "they deserve slavery?" Didn't you just say the Civil War ended slavery?
No I’m not changing my question, but I think this gets to the misunderstanding that there must be in rejecting the idea that the 13th amendment ended slavery.
We didn’t fight the civil war to end the concept of incarceration for duly convicted lawbreakers. It’s pretty easy to understand and accept that right?
And the people who fought the civil war believed that they were doing it to end slavery.
So perhaps your definition of slavery is inconsistent with theirs, and also out of step with the letter of the law.
Incarceration isn't slavery, we could still have prison without treating people like property.
And again, the 13th Amendment is the first time slavery was mentioned and it explicitly allowed some form of it. Maybe the Civil War vets were fine with that, but the amendment still codified slavery.
https://theconversation.com/prison-records-from-1800s-georgi... Across the US but most flagrantly in the deep south, you see huge spikes in the black prison population starting after the civil war. Many were contracted out to mines, farms, etc. Conditions were poor, many died in that labor. There's little else it can be called once you move out of the abstract.
I think there's a big difference between Chattel slavery, and the kind of slavery that the 13th amendment allows for. There's also "wage slavery", which even Abe Lincoln and the republican party agreed was comparable to chattel slavery unless the wage slavery eventually led to self-employment.
> the people who fought the civil war believed that they were doing it to end slavery
For many Northerners, it had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with states rights vs. federalism. And keeping the Union together. Revisionist history makes it 100% about slavery.
While it’s true to say that some northerners had other interests in fighting the civil war, there’s no clearer evidence of the cause and purpose of the civil war than the reasons cited by secessionist states for leaving the union. Yes it was about “states rights”, but specifically (as they themselves said) it was about the right of states to continue slavery.
You can say that people in the north weren’t angels, they certainly weren’t, and that there were other issues that motivated people to enter the war and fight for their side, there certainly were.
But the central issue of the civil war was slavery. If it was any other issue, the seceding states would have said it, and surely a compromise would have been reached (as in fact even today states have “rights” if not just the “right” to hold slaves).
They did. I get the feeling we’ve read different history books. So many reasons. What about the industrial north and the agricultural south? Played no part in the war, I’ve suspect you’d say. It was all slavery.
> What about the industrial north and the agricultural south?
Guess what kind of labor the economy of the "agricultural south" was dependent on at the time. The Civil War was primarily about slavery, especially the expansion of slavery westward. To argue the opposite is ahistorical nonsense so false it amounts to an outright lie.
Even the Confederacy was open about the fact that slavery was the reason for succession. Just read The Cornerstone Speech given by the vice president of the Confederacy weeks before the Civil War began:
> [The Confederacy's] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
> I get the feeling we’ve read different history books.
I get the feeling we've read different history.
Forget books or opinions provided by other people many years after the fact, forget my opinion, just look at what the seceding states themselves said to justify their secession.
The VERY FIRST sentence identifies the reason to secede being that the northern states are refusing to send back their fugitive slaves!
And if it's not clear enough for you, they repeat it in more detail just a little further down in the document:
---
"In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River."
Some states such as Arkansas, Georgia, and Texas pay them nothing at all and additionally, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Carolina allowed unpaid labor for at least some jobs.
Not who you're responding to, but I will take a crack at your question. I think that incarceration and forced labor are barbaric and ineffective, and an enlightened society should not engage in those sorts of behaviors.
I believe in corporal punishment and fines. Petty crimes get fines, say some number larger than the average payout per crime divided by the chances of getting caught, so that on average criminals lose money. And for violent crimes, lashing, flogging, something quick, painful, that doesn't destroy families and take years from someone, and that doesn't maim or disable (so things like cutting off hands are out). And for repeat violent offenders and extreme cases like murder and torture and things, death, the reasoning being this is not punishment, it is corrective action, and if the corrective action doesn't work, the offender must be removed from society as they are a danger.
I can see exile making some sense in some cases but I haven't explored that really.
All this is predicated on the society being one where victimless crimes don't exist. Nothing should be illegal that involves no unwilling participants. Drugs, sodomy and things like that should not be crimes, social pressure and social sanction are enough to deter things a society doesn't want but that doesn't violate rights of others, and punishments for them should not be codified into law.
I know my opinion on this is not a commonly held view, and would be considered extreme by many, but I do think it is more humane and productive than incarceration.
That's exactly why the Jim Crow laws came around making almost anything illegal (if you were black). They rounded people up and put them right back on chain gangs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
> Section 1
> 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.
So XIII explicitly allows for criminals to be worked without reward. Of course equating that with chattel slavery (which was prohibited by XIII)...
That there is no rehabilitation, only punitive. This undermines the domestic security of the US (as the convicts are still in a marginalized status after the sentence is over and also not rehabilitated, promoting destructive behaviors)
And its purpose is specially for a slave population.
Some developed nations have reevaluated this, to have convicts be rehabilitated and more collaborative members of society. And the inhumane conditions in the US prisons - for slaves - being valid arguments to prevent extradition.
If you’re not interested in fighting on the Internet, you wouldn’t have posted what you posted.
You can say “it codified [slavery] in the above sense”, but obviously this isn’t the sense that people meant when they went to war to end slavery. And neither you nor I had to make the sacrifice that those people made to end what they considered to be slavery in the US.
Maybe it’s worth considering what the purpose of the 13th amendment was? It’d be a pretty huge mistake to conclude that the purpose of passing the 13th amendment was to enshrine slavery in law, which so many people fought and died to abolish, right?
I was acting with the principle of charity, assuming that you did not actually understand the sense the above poster meant. Hoping that you would apply the same principle to my comment, I pointed out in my original response that that sense drew an equivalence between unpaid imprisoned work and chattel slavery that is...
That's the last I'll respond to you about this topic.
> That's the last I'll respond to you about this topic.
I love it when this one gets pulled out. UH OH, NO MORE RESPONSES!
Well I'm also happy to leave it here, that the 13th amendment absolutely outlawed slavery and that people arguing for policy changes in law enforcement are making a weak case that their poorly justified agenda is somehow on par (or even more morally virtuous) with the 19th century abolitionists.
Freed slaves would wind up convicted of "vagrancy". That is, being black and unable to prove employment to the judge, who would be getting kickbacks for each conviction from the local lumber company that hired out prison labor.
Sounds like an unjust law and/or an unfair enforcement of the law, rather than an argument that incarcerated people shouldn’t be forced to work.
Freed slaves also were unfairly scrutinized for eligibility to vote. Does that mean we should never work to guarantee the integrity of our voting systems?
There are unfortunately many companies who lobby the government to keep prison population high because they depend on cheap/free prison labor. Over 4,100 companies profit off of prison labor in the US. That's a lot of incentive.
The outcome of punitive retribution is that it undermines the domestic security of the US when convicts sentences are over. They are less integrated into society than before the arrest, and are not rehabilitated from the crime they did, are not rehabilitated from the punishments and society in prison, and are marginalized from the rest of society pushing people towards more petty and violent crimes against the population just for basic food and shelter.
So your idea exacerbates the thing you want to dissuade.
The concept is called recidivism if you are interested in corroborating or learning additional perspectives of this. And why it occurs such as the misaligned incentives that promote recidivism that we as a society can fix.
Or maybe the motivation for punitive retribution is punitive, not corrective, so that the truth of the empirical theory has no bearing on the support for policy?
Disagreements on values often masquerade as disagreements on facts, especially because people often use fact claims oriented to their audience’s perceived values to sell actions based on different values to them.
sympathetic DAs are the wrong approach, hampering enforcement is the wrong approach. those are bandaids that are incompatible with society that doesn't have other structural changes. since those structural changes don't exist, all you have is amplified domestic security problems as more violence occurs without penalty, incompatible with the concept of civilization.
you're looking at this through the lens of more enforcement+penalties versus less enforcement+penalties, a false dilemma that's not what the rest of us are talking about.
It is, which is why it's specifically classified as such in the constitution.
"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."
How it works is up to the state, for example in Utah it is opt in if you are in a part of the system where you can work.
However Utah has a parole board to determine when to release you on parole, thus if you get sentenced on a 2rd degree felony 1-15 years, then it is up to the Parole board if you do one year and get parole or 15 years without parole.
So the system says they want everyone to have a job in the prison as part of their rehabilitation, if you refuse a job then you are obviously not trying to rehabilitate therefore when you come up to the parole board you will not be getting that 1 year parole, but serving out your sentence (next hearing 2 years probably) so when you want to not do 15 years you take the job and you do a good job to show the board you are getting rehabilitated.
Of course the wages are very low, but still the monetary incentives to get a job still exist as you can purchase overpriced items from the commissary, and it can be nice to have those items, so people who don't have anyone to put money on their account will work to earn that money.
I believe in a number of the Southern states, historically familiar with slavery, the forced labor emphasizes the forced much more.
Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News. Especially not on inflammatory topics. It leads to dumbed-down, predictable conversation and that's what we're trying to avoid here.
The feds are making arrests just months after the crimes are committed, not years, which shows they do apparently care. It uncommon to make arrests for financial crimes so quickly. In the past it would take year, now they do it in months.
People who write these articles are making generalizations without looking at the actual evidence. They are still stuck on Enron. They overlook the smaller cases. Also, its not like Enron employees escaped jail time either.
Also huge sentences too in federal prison and no parole.
The NFTs are a drop in the bucket in the great scheme of things when it comes to finance and finance-related crimes, let's see if this incoming recession will bring any convictions (cause I'm pretty sure a lot of financial bad-doings and illegal stuff will resurface once the money tide will recede). Afaik there weren't that many convictions last time round, after 2008-2010 (i.e. after Enron).
My brother was facing years in prison after being illegally searched and having over $84,000 cash found in his possession. He got it down to a few years of felony probation for attempted money laundering and of course the corrupt cops kept the money they stole.
He was doing some shady stuff, but they couldn't prove anything other than he had a lot of cash on him. So they seized the cash and charged him with money laundering. Once the cash is seized it's guilty until proven innocent. He couldn't prove that he legally acquired it, so the police kept the money. Civil asset forfeiture is modern day highway robbery.
So he was doing shady stuff, they caught him, and he lost the shady cash? Isn’t that kind of the point?
Is it that hard to prove where 80k of cash came from? Either you were paid in cash for a job, and you’ll have paperwork for that. Or you sold something expensive, and you’ll have proof of that too. Or you won it at a casino? I’m sure they can give you proof as wel
They didn't catch him doing anything shady other than traveling through Oregon with cash. They wouldn't have found it either if they hadn't illegally searched him.
You just wrote the best defense for asset forfeiture.
Note that in most countries if you cannot prove where you got your money you will be in trouble, and it could be higher than just seizing your assets. The difference is that the money usually goes to the state, not the police department. But travel in most European countries with 50 000€ in cash without declaring it and you will have troubles
I disagree. I used to keep $10,000 cash in my apartment in case of an emergency. I earned it all from my job, but would I be able to prove that I had taken money out of particular paychecks and set it aside for my emergency fund? No, I would not have been able to.
The SEC is a joke. I think the average person pictures them as an all pervasive, omnipotent regulator of everything that happens in our markets. The reality is that they are a few hundred people in an office building in DC, tasked with overseeing the most complex economy in all of history. Whatever enforcement actions they are able to take affect only the most egregious and publicly visible examples they can find.
The SEC being a joke is not an accident but the result of a decades long push for it to be a toothless tiger by conservative lobbyists in both major parties. There never has been enough political support for it to be anything else thanks to that. That doesn't mean it is completely without use. I think they do a fine job of e.g. limiting the amount of damage done via obvious Ponzi schemes.
Not disagreeing with you, just minor correction: SEC employs closer to 5000 people rather than 500 people, which your comment makes it seem. So "a few thousand people" would be more accurate.
Depends on what you think "actively involved" means.
Parent said "tasked with overseeing the most complex economy in all of history", which everyones mission at the SEC is, even if they are employed as an office administrator and they are supporting that "mission" indirectly.
The funny thing about that case is that she wasn't jailed for securities fraud; she was jailed for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators.
Which fits the theme: the SEC is apparently not particularly great[0] at investigating financial crimes. They're "lucky" that they managed to get Stewart on what are essentially technicalities.
[0] Not even trying to shit on them personally; if the OP is correct that until recently, only two SEC employees had subpoena powers, no wonder they aren't able to pursue everything they should be pursuing.
The SEC doesn't have the authority to prosecute financial crimes. They do civil enforcement only. If they do find evidence of criminal activity they pass it on to the Justice Department.
My dads friends who are in their 70-80's like to say the first rule is don't steal from rich people.
If you're Wells Fargo, you can break the law and steal tens of millions from your working class customers. The most that will happen is the government will demand a fine that is essentially a just a share of the take.
Do that to wealthy people like Madoff did and you die in prison.
If specific performance judgement isn't ordered on Musk for the fake Twitter offer/bad faith agreement renege resulting in a multi-billion dollar fraudulent cash out, it'll be a strong indicator of blatant corruption.
The thing is, specific performance would probably be really bad for Twitter too. Who wants to be bought by someone who didn’t want to? The best resolution would probably be for Twitter and Musk to settle for something more than the 1B breakup fee, less than the 20B delta between market value and contract price
As an outsider and taking a view over my adult lifetime (25 years), it seems to me the US is relatively tough on white collar crime. That's just my impression obviously. At least in the US there are heavy sentences and cases that are prosecuted seem to stick.
As another outsider, "selective enforcement" seems to be the name of the game in the US.
Martin Shkreli was sentenced to 7 years in prison for securities fraud, while not a single person seems to have received any sentence related to the (ongoing) opioid crisis in the US mainly created by pharmaceutical companies.
I'm not saying Shkreli didn't deserve his conviction, but how is no one yet deemed responsible for the drugs currently ravaging across America?
Another example is Elon Musk, who flagrantly breaks various laws (like the whole "Taking Tesla private" thing) but never ends up in prison, only having to pay fines that are much lower than the profits he extract from public markets.
> While not a single person seems to have received any sentence related to the (ongoing) opioid crisis in the US mainly created by pharmaceutical companies.
Not true. Many doctors who illegally prescribed opioids have received long sentences. Here are a few examples;
But, for unclear reasons, the pharmaceutical companies that supplied the opioids are mainly staking through with fines but hardly jail term for personnel.
Perhaps there are virtues to weak law enforcement that are difficult to see, and perhaps instead of trying to make financial crimes more like (say) drug crimes, it would be wiser to make drug crimes more like financial crimes.
A reasonable rule in both cases is to prosecute crimes when other people are being exposed to harm. Failing to intervene to stop scams or fraudulent behavior seems like a clear case that should be stopped, and ideally sooner rather than later
Yet another article which ignores the fact that America has better enforcement and longer sentences for white collar crime then basically any other Western country. Law enforcement in most of the world is a total joke in this regard. "Wire fraud" (probably the most commonly used charge in financial crimes) has a maximum sentence of 20 years. Yes, not everyone gets 20 years, because the sentencing guidelines call for sentencing to be proportional to stuff like number of victims, loss amount, and whether the victims suffered financial hardship. Even on stuff like FCPA violations, the cases are almost always initiated by America and then a bunch of European countries piggyback on the billion dollar settlement (of course the third world country that got ripped off gets nothing).
An illustrative example:
Tony Goetz bought over a billion dollars in gold from Venezuela and conflict regions in Africa. He personally profited around 10 million dollars from this. He received an 18 month suspended sentence for this in Belgium.
Samer Barrage and Juan Granda were purchasing agents for an Amercan gold refiner who bought gold of dubious origin in Latin America. They bought a similar amount of gold as Tony Goetz. They each only made about million dollars from this. They got 7 years in prison.
And this isn't even accounting for the fact that prisons in Belgium are like a stay at the Ritz compared to American prisons.
111 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 177 ms ] threadSome people today want the glory of abolitionist revolution without having to pay with their own blood.
Yeah, maybe you can make an argument that the justice system can work differently in one way or another with diff tradeoffs, but if you set up the argument so that you’re in a morally superior position to the people who fought and died in the civil war to end slavery, you should expect and you definitely deserve very strong opposition.
Or maybe we should figure out what we want to do by argument and consensus, instead of blindly following the old colonialists and ex-fascists in Europe?
You do. USA is a world leader in killing criminals. Only China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt kill more per year.
> Or maybe we should figure out what we want to do by argument and consensus, instead of blindly following the old colonialists and ex-fascists in Europe?
You don't do that. You blindly follow some 20yr old colonials who scribbled out a constitution 200 years ago.
So you're saying we could do better I guess.
> You don't do that. You blindly follow some 20yr old colonials > who scribbled out a constitution 200 years ago.
I guess, but maybe better to follow 20 year old colonials who wrote a constitution 200 years ago than to blindly follow inbred royal families with even poorer claims to power? I mean, as long as we're just throwing insults at this point, you have to see that Europe is at least as ridiculous (and at least when it comes to politics, arguably much worse).
> except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted
It does otherwise end slavery, but provides the above loophole for continuing similar practices.
Like, after you’ve convinced everyone that you’re morally superior to everyone else, do murderers get to walk free?
> do murderers get to walk free?
You're arguing against an extreme position that nobody actually holds. Most reasonable people would probably point to criminal justice as implemented in many European countries as exemplifying a more humane model which produces better long term results.
The carveout for the enslavement of incarcerated people also created a perverse incentive which played out predictably in the wake of Reconstruction's failure. If you're interested in the long and painful history of this fact here's a useful resource:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4kI2h3iotA
People in the South after the civil war grasped for any excuse to disenfranchise black people. Big surprise. That’s not an argument to treat prisoners any differently than we do today.
Are people incarcerated unfairly or are they convicted under unjust or unconstitutional laws? That’s a reason to agitate for change.
Are duly convicted criminals forced to do things they don’t want to do? Oh well, sounds like a good idea to me, I will invest in continuing that practice as long as the laws are fair!
Why are you now changing your argument to "they deserve slavery?" Didn't you just say the Civil War ended slavery?
We didn’t fight the civil war to end the concept of incarceration for duly convicted lawbreakers. It’s pretty easy to understand and accept that right?
And the people who fought the civil war believed that they were doing it to end slavery.
So perhaps your definition of slavery is inconsistent with theirs, and also out of step with the letter of the law.
And again, the 13th Amendment is the first time slavery was mentioned and it explicitly allowed some form of it. Maybe the Civil War vets were fine with that, but the amendment still codified slavery.
For many Northerners, it had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with states rights vs. federalism. And keeping the Union together. Revisionist history makes it 100% about slavery.
You can say that people in the north weren’t angels, they certainly weren’t, and that there were other issues that motivated people to enter the war and fight for their side, there certainly were.
But the central issue of the civil war was slavery. If it was any other issue, the seceding states would have said it, and surely a compromise would have been reached (as in fact even today states have “rights” if not just the “right” to hold slaves).
They did. I get the feeling we’ve read different history books. So many reasons. What about the industrial north and the agricultural south? Played no part in the war, I’ve suspect you’d say. It was all slavery.
Guess what kind of labor the economy of the "agricultural south" was dependent on at the time. The Civil War was primarily about slavery, especially the expansion of slavery westward. To argue the opposite is ahistorical nonsense so false it amounts to an outright lie.
Even the Confederacy was open about the fact that slavery was the reason for succession. Just read The Cornerstone Speech given by the vice president of the Confederacy weeks before the Civil War began:
> [The Confederacy's] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
I get the feeling we've read different history.
Forget books or opinions provided by other people many years after the fact, forget my opinion, just look at what the seceding states themselves said to justify their secession.
For example, here's South Carolina: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
The VERY FIRST sentence identifies the reason to secede being that the northern states are refusing to send back their fugitive slaves!
And if it's not clear enough for you, they repeat it in more detail just a little further down in the document:
---
"In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River."
"states rights" to do what?
Come one, you totally changed your question!
They shouldn't become slaves. US prison slaves produce $11B worth of products and services and are paid 11c to 52c per hour.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/15/us-prison-wo...
I believe in corporal punishment and fines. Petty crimes get fines, say some number larger than the average payout per crime divided by the chances of getting caught, so that on average criminals lose money. And for violent crimes, lashing, flogging, something quick, painful, that doesn't destroy families and take years from someone, and that doesn't maim or disable (so things like cutting off hands are out). And for repeat violent offenders and extreme cases like murder and torture and things, death, the reasoning being this is not punishment, it is corrective action, and if the corrective action doesn't work, the offender must be removed from society as they are a danger.
I can see exile making some sense in some cases but I haven't explored that really.
All this is predicated on the society being one where victimless crimes don't exist. Nothing should be illegal that involves no unwilling participants. Drugs, sodomy and things like that should not be crimes, social pressure and social sanction are enough to deter things a society doesn't want but that doesn't violate rights of others, and punishments for them should not be codified into law.
I know my opinion on this is not a commonly held view, and would be considered extreme by many, but I do think it is more humane and productive than incarceration.
> Section 1 > 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.
So XIII explicitly allows for criminals to be worked without reward. Of course equating that with chattel slavery (which was prohibited by XIII)...
And its purpose is specially for a slave population.
Some developed nations have reevaluated this, to have convicts be rehabilitated and more collaborative members of society. And the inhumane conditions in the US prisons - for slaves - being valid arguments to prevent extradition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitative_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_justice
> How did the 13th amendment codify slavery?
It codified it the above sense.
You can say “it codified [slavery] in the above sense”, but obviously this isn’t the sense that people meant when they went to war to end slavery. And neither you nor I had to make the sacrifice that those people made to end what they considered to be slavery in the US.
Maybe it’s worth considering what the purpose of the 13th amendment was? It’d be a pretty huge mistake to conclude that the purpose of passing the 13th amendment was to enshrine slavery in law, which so many people fought and died to abolish, right?
That's the last I'll respond to you about this topic.
I love it when this one gets pulled out. UH OH, NO MORE RESPONSES!
Well I'm also happy to leave it here, that the 13th amendment absolutely outlawed slavery and that people arguing for policy changes in law enforcement are making a weak case that their poorly justified agenda is somehow on par (or even more morally virtuous) with the 19th century abolitionists.
NOW I'M TAKING MY BALL AND GOING HOME.
Freed slaves also were unfairly scrutinized for eligibility to vote. Does that mean we should never work to guarantee the integrity of our voting systems?
https://corpaccountabilitylab.org/calblog/2020/8/5/private-c...
Some people might argue that we should pursue even more extreme punishments, to dissuade people from committing crimes.
So your idea exacerbates the thing you want to dissuade.
The concept is called recidivism if you are interested in corroborating or learning additional perspectives of this. And why it occurs such as the misaligned incentives that promote recidivism that we as a society can fix.
Maybe it's actually wrong?
Disagreements on values often masquerade as disagreements on facts, especially because people often use fact claims oriented to their audience’s perceived values to sell actions based on different values to them.
you're looking at this through the lens of more enforcement+penalties versus less enforcement+penalties, a false dilemma that's not what the rest of us are talking about.
"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."
However Utah has a parole board to determine when to release you on parole, thus if you get sentenced on a 2rd degree felony 1-15 years, then it is up to the Parole board if you do one year and get parole or 15 years without parole.
So the system says they want everyone to have a job in the prison as part of their rehabilitation, if you refuse a job then you are obviously not trying to rehabilitate therefore when you come up to the parole board you will not be getting that 1 year parole, but serving out your sentence (next hearing 2 years probably) so when you want to not do 15 years you take the job and you do a good job to show the board you are getting rehabilitated.
Of course the wages are very low, but still the monetary incentives to get a job still exist as you can purchase overpriced items from the commissary, and it can be nice to have those items, so people who don't have anyone to put money on their account will work to earn that money.
I believe in a number of the Southern states, historically familiar with slavery, the forced labor emphasizes the forced much more.
https://truthout.org/articles/for-profit-prisons-eight-stati...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
like this
https://mashable.com/article/opensea-insider-trading-nfts-ar...
and this
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/two-defendants-charged-...
and
https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cryptocurrency/22/07/279396...
The feds are making arrests just months after the crimes are committed, not years, which shows they do apparently care. It uncommon to make arrests for financial crimes so quickly. In the past it would take year, now they do it in months.
People who write these articles are making generalizations without looking at the actual evidence. They are still stuck on Enron. They overlook the smaller cases. Also, its not like Enron employees escaped jail time either.
Also huge sentences too in federal prison and no parole.
Also NFT people aren’t the ones who are well connected within the government.
Is it that hard to prove where 80k of cash came from? Either you were paid in cash for a job, and you’ll have paperwork for that. Or you sold something expensive, and you’ll have proof of that too. Or you won it at a casino? I’m sure they can give you proof as wel
Note that in most countries if you cannot prove where you got your money you will be in trouble, and it could be higher than just seizing your assets. The difference is that the money usually goes to the state, not the police department. But travel in most European countries with 50 000€ in cash without declaring it and you will have troubles
Parent said "tasked with overseeing the most complex economy in all of history", which everyones mission at the SEC is, even if they are employed as an office administrator and they are supporting that "mission" indirectly.
Which fits the theme: the SEC is apparently not particularly great[0] at investigating financial crimes. They're "lucky" that they managed to get Stewart on what are essentially technicalities.
[0] Not even trying to shit on them personally; if the OP is correct that until recently, only two SEC employees had subpoena powers, no wonder they aren't able to pursue everything they should be pursuing.
If you're Wells Fargo, you can break the law and steal tens of millions from your working class customers. The most that will happen is the government will demand a fine that is essentially a just a share of the take.
Do that to wealthy people like Madoff did and you die in prison.
Martin Shkreli was sentenced to 7 years in prison for securities fraud, while not a single person seems to have received any sentence related to the (ongoing) opioid crisis in the US mainly created by pharmaceutical companies.
I'm not saying Shkreli didn't deserve his conviction, but how is no one yet deemed responsible for the drugs currently ravaging across America?
Another example is Elon Musk, who flagrantly breaks various laws (like the whole "Taking Tesla private" thing) but never ends up in prison, only having to pay fines that are much lower than the profits he extract from public markets.
Not true. Many doctors who illegally prescribed opioids have received long sentences. Here are a few examples;
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-delaware-doctor-senten...
https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/practices/virginia-doctor-s...
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/ampfiles/ampbanner/cnn-app-banner-ma...
But, for unclear reasons, the pharmaceutical companies that supplied the opioids are mainly staking through with fines but hardly jail term for personnel.
An illustrative example:
Tony Goetz bought over a billion dollars in gold from Venezuela and conflict regions in Africa. He personally profited around 10 million dollars from this. He received an 18 month suspended sentence for this in Belgium.
Samer Barrage and Juan Granda were purchasing agents for an Amercan gold refiner who bought gold of dubious origin in Latin America. They bought a similar amount of gold as Tony Goetz. They each only made about million dollars from this. They got 7 years in prison.
And this isn't even accounting for the fact that prisons in Belgium are like a stay at the Ritz compared to American prisons.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gold-refining-tony-goetz-... https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article195552089.html