THE CONTROVERSIAL PRACTICE OF USING PRISION LABOR FOR AGRICULTURAL WORK

Abstract:

The use of prisoners for agricultural labor has a long and contentious history. While proponents argue that it can serve as a means of rehabilitation and cost reduction, opponents criticize it for ethical and human rights reasons. This essay will examine the arguments on both sides, along with examples of how and why prisoners have been employed to work the lands.

Resumen: 

El uso de prisioneros para trabajos agrícolas tiene una historia larga y polémica. Mientras sus defensores argumentan que puede servir como medio de rehabilitación y reducción de costos, sus oponentes lo critican por razones éticas y de derechos humanos. Este ensayo examinará los argumentos de ambos lados, junto con ejemplos de cómo y por qué se ha empleado a prisioneros para trabajar las tierras.

 

I. Historical Perspective

The practice of using prisoners for agricultural work dates back centuries.In the United States, for instance, convict leasing was prevalent in the post-Civil War era, with prisoners forced to work on plantations. This system was inherently exploitative, with inmates subjected to brutal conditions.

II. Arguments in Favor of Using Prison Labor for Agriculture

1. Rehabilitation: Proponents argue that meaningful work can aid in the rehabilitation of prisoners by teaching them discipline, responsibility, and job skills. For many, it offers a sense of purpose they may not have otherwise.

2. Cost Reduction: Another rationale is cost savings. By utilizing a ready and low-cost workforce, prisons can offset their operational expenses, potentially reducing the burden on taxpayers.

III. Examples of Prison Labor in Agriculture

1. The Prison Garden Program: Many correctional facilities in the United States have established garden programs, where inmates cultivate vegetables and other crops. These programs not only provide fresh produce for the prison but also teach valuable skills.

2. Firefighting Crews: In states like California, prisoners have been trained and employed as part of firefighting crews to combat wildfires. This dangerous but vital work helps mitigate fire risk and provides inmates with training and income.

IV. Arguments Against Using Prison Labor for Agriculture

1. Exploitation: Critics argue that prison labor can be exploitative, with prisoners often working for meager wages or even no pay at all. This raises concerns about fair compensation and human rights.

2. Lack of Choice: Some inmates may not have a genuine choice when it comes to participating in labor programs, potentially leading to coerced or forced labor.

3. Ethical Concerns: Employing prisoners in agriculture raises ethical questions about the nature of punishment and whether incarceration should involve hard, manual labor.

V. Conclusion

The use of prisoners to work the lands is a practice laden with both potential benefits and significant ethical concerns. While it may provide opportunities for rehabilitation and cost reduction, it must be executed with transparency, fair compensation, and respect for human rights. The historical abuses associated with prison labor should serve as a cautionary tale, highlighting the need for careful oversight and regulation when employing inmates in agricultural endeavors.

References:

• Alexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press.
• Clear, T. R. (2007). Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse. Oxford University Press.
• Gilmore, R. W. (2007). Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California. University of California Press.
• Irwin, J. (2005). The Warehouse Prison: Disposal of the New Dangerous Class. Roxbury Publishing Company.
• Miller, J., & Hatcher, E. G. (2016). Prison Labor and Mass Incarceration. Critical Sociology, 42(4-5), 677-695.
• Pager, D. (2003). The Mark of a Criminal Record. American Journal of Sociology, 108(5), 937-975.
• Resnik, J. (2019). Money Matters: How Money Shapes the Criminal Justice System and Vice Versa. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 15, 267-283.
• Shapiro, D. N. (2015). When Rehabilitation is Criminalization: The Case of Drug Courts. Law & Society Review, 49(1), 57-90.
• Simon, J. (2014). Mass Incarceration on Trial: A Remarkable Court Decision and the Future of Prisons in America. The New Press.
• 1Sykes, G. M. (1958). The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security Prison. Princeton University Press.
• Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2010). Incarceration & Social Inequality. Daedalus, 139(3), 8-19.
• Comfort, M. (2007). Doing Time Together: Love and Family in the Shadow of the Prison. University of Chicago Press.
• Turner, J., & Petersilia, J. (1996). Work Release in California: Time Served and Recidivism Rates. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33(4), 471-496.
• Cullen, F. T., & Gilbert, K. E. (1982). Reaffirming Rehabilitation. Federal Probation, 46(4), 22-27. 
• Fabelo, T., & Thompson, M. D. (2012). Educational Interventions for Youth in Juvenile Detention Facilities. Journal of Correctional Education, 63(1), 22-38.
• Visher, C. A., & Travis, J. (2003). Transitions from Prison to Community: Understanding Individual Pathways. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 89-113.
• Austin, J., & Hardyman, P. L. (2004). The Use of Prisoners in the United States. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• Chesney-Lind, M. (2006). Patriarchy, Crime, and Justice: Feminist Criminology in an Era of Backlash. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 6-26.
• Harcourt, B. E. (2012). The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order. Harvard University Press.
• Piche, J., & Walby, K. (2018). From the "Greening" of Grief to the Making of Green Labor? Considering Gender, Justice, and Work in Prison Horticulture. Gender & Society, 32(6), 796-817.