Penal labor in the United States violates international human trafficking laws

So, since Pro has made use of a structured nature, for my rebuttals, sadly, I must break from my conversational tone and get a bit more oriented to how Pro has structured their arguments.1. The Nature of Penal Labor In this section, Pro brings to light many facts and figures that Con has no need to dispute, though brings to question the relevance of exactly how trafficking and penal labor meet. Pro mentions how many prisoners labor, presumably for profit, however the details from the cited materials get quite nebulous. Case in point: “The majority of these prisoners are required to perform labor for the upkeep of the prison itself. The remainder are contracted out to private companies to provide labor and produce products and services for extremely low wages, if they are paid at all. Federal prisons pay between $0.12 and $0.40 per hour while in Texas state prisons the minimum wage is $0.00 per hour.” Does this mean the Federal/State inmates are paid that to upkeep the prison? Or does it mean that they are paid (or not paid) on the ‘contracted out’ portion of the statement? Is this prison pool of contracted laborers a ‘volunteer’ basis? The article cited, while it might be factually accurate about the numbers makes no differentiation on the status of the inmates, only that money is being made from them. Con must suggest that the inmates being contracted out volunteered for work outside the scope of prison (or for-state labor), and that the posits put by Pro simply are devoid of relationship to make a case for trafficking. On the matter of solitary confinement and revocation of privileges, should an inmate choose to not work, and instead “strike” in some form or fashion, I would challenge Pro to find appropriate punishment that does not run afoul of further rights violations. Con suggests that there are no further leverages short of additional prison time (counterproductive by inception…) to encourage an inmate to contribute to their upkeep. Lastly, illegal immigrants. Admittedly, this is a dicey situation, in as much as their very presence is what makes them subject to arrest: they shouldn’t be here. Detaining illegal immigrants is akin to county lock up until trial. Again, Con suggests that there is no viable alternative but for those being detained to work in order to upkeep their facility. You cannot deport these detainees; they have not been convicted. You cannot release these detainees scot free; their presence in country is exactly what got them locked up in the first place, you would just be releasing them to break the law some more, quite literally. The only options on the table are for the accused to self deport (HA!), or remain in custody to await trial, or possibly ‘bond out’ until trial. There are surprisingly a lot of options available to illegal immigrants once caught by ICE, and its safe to say that if you are being retained for more than 48 hours, much like their US counterparts, you have been seen as a risk for various reasons (1). In any case, this all cost money from various parties. Pro’s citation states: “The lawsuit focuses on the company's "voluntary work program" in which detainees did various tasks around the center for $1 per day.”. The detainees were asked to upkeep their facility, and some of the complaints from those detained at such a facility very well might have only been staying 48 hours there. This is a very, very murky circumstance (illegal alien detention), and our readers need to remember the goal of such institutions are to eventually get said illegal immigrant OUT of the US. 2. Penal Labor is Necessarily Exploitative “The system of penal labor in the United States is necessarily exploitative as it produces benefits for private corporations and state and federal prisons while denying prisoners any real benefits.”Con would find the funding of the prison system on the labors of those legally held within it to be a benefit for everyone, prisoners included. We are still awaiting direct evidence of forced labor for a private corporation. At this given juncture, we have a collection of inmates stating that they feel that the compensation being provided is unfair. Regarding point 3, Con appreciates this, and finds this to be a reiteration of sorts, and will be reviewed in the conclusion.4. The Purpose of Penal Labor is the Exploitation of Prisoners “Moreover, costs of maintaining the astonishingly high level of incarceration within the United States are incredibly high. Insofar as the United States can cut costs for incarceration by reassigning upkeep tasks to prisoners, it is in the interests of the United States to do so.” Con addressed this in the introduction, and agrees, but for different reasons. Con fully believes that the upkeep of prisoners by prisoners in in the best interests of the United States, and by extension, its inmate population and tax payer. The logic is clear: The prisoners are maintained by their own labors. The tax burden is reduced to the rest of the public. Yes, this is in the United States’ best interest as tax revenue can instead be devoted to other productive ends. Now, at this point in the debate, we have questions on the table that have vague allusion, but get no definitive answer: how are those selected for work beyond upkeep of the facilities chosen? Pro states its coercion to various end, but such from their sources has been only claimed. What constitutes “profit” for a prison system that by nature runs in the red each fiscal year? Con would argue that any monies being recouped from the labor of prisoners that goes back to the budget of the prison itself cannot reasonably called “profit” given the nature of the cited deficits. Trafficking laws and violations depend on these questions getting answered, as a voluntary work force negates a vast majority of this discussion, and if we determine that the upkeep of a prison being supplied by the prisoners is appropriate, their ‘exploitation’ to make basic ends meet simply cannot realistically be seen as a human rights violation by the various laws and definitions we have adopted for the debate. (1) http://www.nolo.com... In the next round Con will go on to refute the most recent inapplicable objections, and conclude.