re: Angola Farm Line lawsuit will determine if forced prison labor is unconstitutional

Lol 4dummies will be there to cheer!

quote:

---

Seems that the 13th amendment contradicts the 8th amendment in this instance.

---

I don't think so, but then I'm more of a contextual guy for something like this. What I mean is that the 8th doesn't spell out exactly what defines "cruel and unusual" so, if we're wanting to be honest instead of subjectively defining the phrase (like the "evolving standards of decency" from 1958's Trop v. Dulles), we have to look back at the context of its creation and passing to best understand its meaning.

With that said, the two most influential pieces on the Framers for the 8th Amendment were:

-The English Bill of Rights of 1689: it prohibited "cruell and unusuall punishments" after abuses under King James II (things like excessive or arbitrary penalties were part of it, but a larger part of the focus was often on disproportionate or innovative cruelties like being drawn and quartered).

-The Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776): drafted by George Mason, it included a similar prohibition and influenced James Madison (who proposed the Bill of Rights).

In the First Congress (where Madison introduced the amendments), there was little debate on defining "cruel and unusual." One member worried it might prevent necessary punishments (like whipping or ear-cropping for certain crimes), but no real clarifying definition emerged.

So the best summation seems to be that the primary concern was preventing torture (to extract confessions, for example), arbitrary or disproportionate penalties, and barbaric methods associated with monarchy or European absolutism (like the Spanish Inquisition). This is in line with what the Framers accepted during their day. Things like capital punishment (hanging) were viewed as standard and not inherently cruel/unusual, as well as corporal punishments like whipping for certain crimes. We can then say their aim seemed to be to ban extreme abuses rather than create a rigid list.

That means we say they defined "cruel and unusual" thusly:

-Cruel generally meant excessively harsh, barbarous, or torturous (burning at the stake, disemboweling, or other gruesome methods common in European history but largely abandoned by the late 18th century).

-Unusual likely meant contrary to "long usage" or innovative/new (not necessarily "rare," but deviations from longstanding common-law traditions of humane punishment) although there could be an argument for it meaning something like "cruel innovation" by government (ie: new forms of punishment that exceeded traditional limits).

If the Court were to go that route, Wright would have his first point:

quote:

---

1) “Defendants force men to labor on the Farm Line under high heat conditions that expose them to a substantial risk of serious physical harm without adequate mitigation to abate that risk,” Wright said.

---

That can be readily rectified by having mandatory water/rest breaks and a medical professional monitoring the workers.



The second point should be a non-starter though:

quote:

---

2) “Defendants use the Farm Line to punish men by subjecting them to debasing, inhumane conditions reminiscent of chattel slavery, thereby stripping them of their fundamental human dignity, deviating from contemporary standards of decency, and adding degradation on top of their sentence to hard labor,” Wright said.

---

Things like "fundamental human dignity" or "debasing, inhumane conditions reminiscent of chattel slavery" or "adding degradation" are all emotional appeals, thus are more subjective than objective. There's no argument for proving that they are torture, just that they are more burdensome than simple incarceration and that somehow that qualifies for "cruel and unusual".

quote:

---

Yes, yes I do... I got the inspiration from Bible reading. It made sense to me.

---

There's probably a reason it stopped

Ever watch Papillion?

quote:

---

Ever watch Papillion?

---

Is that the one with Steve McQeen bouncing a baseball against the wall. All he had was a ball and a glove in solitary?

quote:

---

US prisons focus on maximum deprivation and punishment,

---

Again.. they have access to food, water, clothing, shelter, work, entertainment, canteen, religion, medical care, education, libraries, etc…

Maximum deprivation is not the correct term for that.

What they don’t have is freedom of movement, freedom of schedule. Those depravations are fitting for punishment.

quote:

---

Prisons don’t teach people how to survive in society as productive members of society.

---

They offer education and job skills. They can’t really “teach” much more than that.

But… I am open to how a system can teach offenders to live productively in society. Beyond the obvious education and job skills offered.

ETA.. you didn’t address my idea of cities of refuge. Seriously, it seems like an idea that might appeal to you.

quote:

---

The actual solution is to create conditions that reduce violence without stripping people of their humanity.

---

This is a huge liberal folly. You don't realize that some people are just "less than human" and the only solution is to remove them from civil society. These people can't be rehabilitated and live amongst the rest of free society.

quote:

---

Well as you cited the 13th in error for why it's inhumane,

---

So to be clear, your position is that involuntary servitude is inhumane for humans in general, but becomes humane when applied to a legally defined subset of humans in certain circumstances.

quote:

---

You know where this will go, you have no basis whatsoever for your morality other than you feel it in your heart that prison is not moral.

---

Strawman. Conditions in American prisons are inhumane. That was my claim, based on empirical evidence.

quote:

---

You reject the Bible, Human History, Democracy etc... as sources for what morality is.

---

Are you arguing that legality, democracy, religion, and biology are all sources of moral authority? You cannot have it both ways. Either morality exists independent of law, or it does not. If it does, then the fact that something is legal does not determine whether it is humane. If it does not, then appealing to biology or religion is irrelevant.

quote:

---

Yes, based on both Biological and Religious grounds.
It is an aberration of biological functions, and the Bible is very clear that it is a sin and like all sins a state of rebellion against God.

---

So you agree that legality does not determine morality. If only you would have used your immense critical thinking skills, you may have been able to anticipate my rebuttal, which you apparently agree with.

quote:

---

Just like Foo, I do have your actual best interests at heart.

---

Very curious what your end game is with these sanctimonious revelations, considering you repeatedly misrepresent my arguments and substitute moral proclamations for evidence. It appears your goal is less about engaging with what I’ve actually said and more about positioning yourself as a moral authority over me, which is bizarre considering I’ve never claimed to be one.

quote:

---

Bard

---

quote:

---

we have to look back at the context of its creation and passing to best understand its meaning.

---

Depending on one's preferred method of Constitutional interpretation, I suppose. We must acknowledge that the framers did not include any indication of how the document should be interpreted in the future.

I appreciate your historical context. Similar 18th century abuses are why early colonists did not impose a bail system on the accused.

quote:

---

Things like "fundamental human dignity" or "debasing, inhumane conditions reminiscent of chattel slavery" or "adding degradation" are all emotional appeals, thus are more subjective than objective. There's no argument for proving that they are torture, just that they are more burdensome than simple incarceration and that somehow that qualifies for "cruel and unusual".

---

Courts have consistently held that exposing incarcerated people to unnecessary risk of harm, unsafe conditions, or deliberate indifference to their well-being can violate the Eighth Amendment, even when those conditions do not resemble medieval torture.

Estelle v. Gamble (1976) established that "deliberate indifference" to an inmate's serious medical needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The injury in this case resulted from forced prison labor.

Hutto v. Finney (1978) ruled that conditions of confinement can be unconstitutional, even if no single condition alone would be. This is applicable because although prison labor is constitutional, the conditions of that labor can render it unconstitutional.

Rhodes v. Chapman (1981) introduced the concept that prison conditions must meet “minimal civilized standards.”

Wilson v. Seiter (1991) Conditions violate the Eighth Amendment when officials knowingly expose inmates to harmful conditions, including harmful environmental conditions like excessive heat.

Farmer v. Brennan (1994) The Court ruled that officials violate the Eighth Amendment when they are deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm.

Hope v. Pelzer (2002) Even temporary exposure to degrading or dangerous punishment violates the Eighth Amendment.

Brown v. Plata (2011) The Court explicitly recognized that prison conditions causing preventable suffering violate constitutional protections.

The relevant legal question is not whether prison labor itself is constitutional, but whether the State can impose conditions that expose incarcerated people to preventable harm, degradation, or deliberate indifference to their safety, and whether the conditions on the Farm Line fail to meet the standards established by prior Supreme Court rulings.

quote:

---

Again.. they have access to food, water, clothing, shelter, work, entertainment, canteen, religion, medical care, education, libraries, etc…

---

What is the evidence of, in your opinion? That the State provides conditions that allow for survival? That certain people can access certain luxuries at certain times under certain conditions?

quote:

---

What they don’t have is freedom of movement, freedom of schedule. Those depravations are fitting for punishment.

---

Or the ability to access most of the things you listed earlier in the post.

quote:

---

They offer education and job skills. They can’t really “teach” much more than that.

---

They can teach basic life skills, emotional regulation, parenting, and conflict resolution. These are directly tied to reduced recidivism and institutional safety. Prisons are not merely holding facilities. They are state-controlled environments that shape behavior, for better or worse.

quote:

---

ETA.. you didn’t address my idea of cities of refuge. Seriously, it seems like an idea that might appeal to you.

---

I don’t believe unstructured environments without leadership or governance would be conducive to rehabilitation or public safety.