Penal labor in the United States violates international human trafficking laws

My opponent has pointed out that the UN’s Manual for Human Rights Training for Prison Officials states that “all prisoners under sentence shall be required to work, subject to their physical and mental fitness as determined by the medical officer.” The United Nations has consistently affirmed the right of all people to gainful employment; however, this selective excerpt does not take into account the context of the document as a whole and, divorced from such context, this quote is highly misleading. I will now endeavor to correct the record and supply the context absent from Con’s previous statement. Con quoted from the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and I would like to examine the rest of this section with special attention to 71 – (4), (5), (6); 72 – (2); 74 – (2); 76-(2), (3); and the accompanying implications provided by the authors of this document as an official interpretation of the document’s intent. The sections are as follows (emphasis added): "71. (4) So far as possible the work provided shall be such as will maintain or increase the prisoners' ability to earn an honest living after release. (5) Vocational training in useful trades shall be provided for prisoners able to profit thereby and especially for young prisoners. (6) Within the limits compatible with proper vocational selection and with the requirements of institutional administration and discipline, the prisoners shall be able to choose the type of work they wish to perform. 72. (2) The interests of the prisoners and of their vocational training, however, must not be subordinated to the purpose of making a financial profit from an industry in the institution. 74. (2) Provision shall be made to indemnify prisoners against industrial injury, including occupational disease, on terms not less favourable than those extended by law to free workmen. 76. (2) Under the system prisoners shall be allowed to spend at least a part of their earnings on approved articles for their own use and to send a part of their earnings to their family. (3) The system should also provide that a part of the earnings should be set aside by the administration so as to constitute a savings fund to be handed over to the prisoner on his release." In their appraisal of relevant international jurisprudence, the authors go on to state that there is a distinction between hard labor and forced or compulsory labor as the former may be imposed by domestic courts while the latter is prohibited under international law. Additionally, the principle that prisoners must be paid a fair wage is given special attention. Furthermore, it is emphasized that prison work “should not be subordinated merely to making a profit either for the prison authorities or for a private contractor” and that “prison authorities must ensure that prisoners are not used merely as a source of cheap labour or in order to undercut the wages of local workers. In these cases, prisoners should be paid the full rate for the work they do [1].” Con has failed to account for the conditions under which the required work of able-bodied prisoners must take place. In order to clarify the issue of what constitutes hard labor and forced or compulsory labor, I shall now turn to the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 (this was not ratified by the United States though they did ratify the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention of 1957 which references the 1930 definitions [2]). In the interest of space, I will quote the relevant portion which is Article 2 section 2 (c), which is as follows (emphasis added): “2. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this Convention, the term forced or compulsory labour shall not include- (…) (c) any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations;” This document, ratified, in force, and up-to-date, unequivocally states that prison labor is not considered forced or compulsory labor unless, among other things, prisoners are hired to private entities. Insofar as the United States allows private corporations to hire prisoners, the labor becomes forced or compulsory and is therefore in violation of international law [3]. I would like to note that the resolution does not say that prison labor is a violation of international law; it states that prison labor, as it is currently practiced, violates international law. Con has intimated through his arguments that I am arguing against labor of all sorts in prison. On the contrary, I am arguing that the current formulation of prison labor is exploitative and not serving the interests of the criminal justice system generally or the rehabilitative needs of prisoners specifically and in so doing, the practice constitutes trafficking in persons. Con has argued that the requirement of the incarcerated to contribute to the upkeep of the prison is not cruel and unusual punishment. While I largely agree, I must take issue with Con’s statement that “the profit of such going to the institute that holds them is common sense.” As I demonstrated previously, international law requires that profits and the reduction of costs is of secondary concern to the interests of prisoners, particularly as it relates to providing vocational training. First and foremost, prisons are to provide prisoners with opportunities to acquire skills for gainful employment upon completion of their sentence and the ability to earn a fair wage which can be used to contribute to their families outside of prison and as a savings fund to be made available to them upon release. Whether or not using prisoners as free or nearly free labor makes some sort of budgetary sense is frankly immaterial to the question at hand. Furthermore, if the government truly cared about reducing incarceration costs, they would incarcerate fewer people. Incarceration should be a punishment of last resort. Instead, the United States treats incarceration as a punishment of first preference as demonstrated by the fact that the United States incarcerates more people by far than any other nation [4]. That this decision leads to an expensive prison system does not negate the human rights of prisoners to be free from exploitation. My opponent argued that the 13th Amendment recognized the need for prisoners to contribute to their upkeep and provides a legal basis. I would like to remind Con that the resolution clearly states that “The use of penal labor in the United States, as it is currently practiced, violates international law…” (emphasis added). Accordingly, we are examining whether the practice is justified in the context of international law and whether domestic laws adequately provide the protections that are required under international law. Con states “…I am sure a bulk of tax paying Americans would find the prison system attempting to find ways of paying for itself rather than using tax payer funds to be a “good” thing.” To this statement, I argue that popular opinion is not a good indicator of morality, legality, or truth. During WWII, the United States incarcerated all individuals of Japanese origin or descent in internment camps in stark violation of their rights to due process and from indefinite detention. This action had popular support but was clearly immoral and unconstitutional [5]. That the majority of American taxpayers would be willing to allow prisoners’ human rights to be stripped from them through exploitation out of the self-interested desire to avoid paying for an unnecessarily expensive legal system provides paltry justification for doing so.Sources:1. https://www.un.org...2. http://www.ilo.org...3. http://www.ilo.org...4. http://www.nytimes.com...5. http://www.ihr.org...;