←back to thread

In Maine, prisoners are thriving in remote jobs

(www.mainepublic.org)
245 points voxadam | 2 comments | 22 Sep 25 22:51 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
taurath ◴[22 Sep 25 23:07 UTC] No.45340733[source]▶
If we get serious about actual rehabilitation in prisons instead of punishment there’s never been a better time to be able to learn just about anything on your own time. But we’d have to stop dehumanizing criminals. Dehumanization seems to be the trend that the US is leading on right now.

We can also be concerned about the incentives for prison labor - for profit prisons and all the many service providers that get paid a mint. Phone calls in many prisons are like $10. Labor gangs and the such. It’s just horrible how badly we treat people in the US for some middleman to make money.

replies(10): >>45340773 #>>45340824 #>>45340906 #>>45340974 #>>45340977 #>>45341060 #>>45341686 #>>45341741 #>>45342361 #>>45345007 #
mullingitover ◴[22 Sep 25 23:45 UTC] No.45341060[source]▶
There are also perverse electoral incentives to having a prison in your voting district. Generally the prisoners count toward your population numbers but they can’t vote. No pesky three fifths compromise.
replies(4): >>45341132 #>>45341134 #>>45341327 #>>45347418 #
Terr_ ◴[22 Sep 25 23:54 UTC] No.45341134[source]▶
If I had my 'druthers, disenfranchisement for felonies is anti-democratic nonsense, so people in prison should retain voting rights.

The only ethically-hard problem is which jurisdiction their vote should count in, since they cannot demonstrate it by choosing where to live. Perhaps a choice between:

1. The location of the prison, if their main interest is the conditions of their detention rather than anything outside.

2. The location of their property or close family, because they're still paying property-taxes or school levies etc. and they will be returning there later.

replies(5): >>45341223 #>>45341246 #>>45342014 #>>45342071 #>>45343210 #
dylan604 ◴[23 Sep 25 00:07 UTC] No.45341246[source]▶
I've never understood the not allowing felons to vote, even while incarcerated. Does serving time really mean you should not get the same say in leaders as everyone else? As if being incarcerated isn't punishment enough, but disenfranchising on top just seems over the top.

Many people live in an area, but keep their voting registration in another. They are even able to vote without having to return to their registered polling place. Allowing inmates to vote could just as easily be handled the same way.

replies(8): >>45341366 #>>45341391 #>>45341402 #>>45341567 #>>45341853 #>>45342007 #>>45343178 #>>45345940 #
zzrrt ◴[23 Sep 25 05:48 UTC] No.45343178[source]▶
> Many people live in an area, but keep their voting registration in another.

I guess state laws vary a lot, but are you sure that’s legal? You probably are required to have your address updated, even if moving within the same precinct. If they then allow you a choice of locations, sounds fine, but your wording sounded like maybe you don’t tell them you moved, which is probably not legal.

replies(1): >>45349106 #
1. dylan604 ◴[23 Sep 25 16:17 UTC] No.45349106[source]▶
College kids are a prime example. People working remote jobs away from family are another. It is not illegal to own multiple domiciles (as long as your loan papers match primary residence seeing that is being weaponized now), and live back and forth between them.
replies(1): >>45351219 #
2. zzrrt ◴[23 Sep 25 18:51 UTC] No.45351219[source]▶
IANAL but I think domicile is only one place by definition. You can have multiple residences. Your domicile might be required to be the place you spend the most time at. College students would be a common counter-example, if they can live at college for 9+ months and still be registered at their parent’s home or such.