Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


WebWanderer -> Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/11/2013 9:40:33 PM)

I was re-reading the Constitution the other day (because that's how I roll, apparently [8|]) when I found this little gem:
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." (Emphasis added.)

Sooooo... Are y'all thinking what I'm thinking? [;)] Hypothetically, if you found a sufficiently crazy judge that sticks to a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, you and your sub could make your contract perfectly legal if the sub were ordered to serve you as a punishment for a crime (mouthing off or punching your arm or some such).

At the very least, this should provide more than enough fodder for "what if"-type BDSM stories.

What do you think?




MsLadySue -> RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/11/2013 9:44:38 PM)

Would you want to see a judge that "crazy" sitting on the bench? I know I wouldn't.




Powergamz1 -> RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/11/2013 9:48:57 PM)

@OP

I'm sure you'll be able to connect with legal experts all over the internet, who will have no trouble following your logic.




WebWanderer -> RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/11/2013 9:48:59 PM)

Err, okay - how about "kink-friendly judge who wants to go out with a bang"? [:D]




DomKen -> RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/12/2013 2:40:39 AM)

FR
That wording is meant to allow government to keep locking up criminals in prisons and jails. That is the involuntary servitude that is still legal.




Edwynn -> RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/12/2013 3:46:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WebWanderer

I was re-reading the Constitution the other day (because that's how I roll, apparently [8|]) when I found this little gem:
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." (Emphasis added.)

Sooooo... Are y'all thinking what I'm thinking? [;)] Hypothetically, if you found a sufficiently crazy judge that sticks to a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, you and your sub could make your contract perfectly legal if the sub were ordered to serve you as a punishment for a crime (mouthing off or punching your arm or some such).

At the very least, this should provide more than enough fodder for "what if"-type BDSM stories.

What do you think?



Only the government, as per the Constitution, can render or impose such slavery or servitude for a crime. And only the government can say what constitutes a crime. No private contract can do that. And certainly no judge who sticks to a "very strict interpretation of the Constitution" would say otherwise.

You could take the matter you (apparently) have with your slave to civil court and investigate tort remedy, but I can assure you no judge in that setting would be alluding to either the Constitution or civil law precedent in support of 'legally-bound' private or 'contract' slavery or other servitude.

Somehow, I suspect that these legal aspects never arise for worthy-of-the-name Dommes or Doms, or their (consenting) counterparts.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce_HNyUQMGc





MasterCaneman -> RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/12/2013 8:43:13 AM)

But let's face it, the 'legal slavery?' threads can be entertaining as hell...




mnottertail -> RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/12/2013 8:57:18 AM)

Great, cuz I own one. You don't know what a fuckin load this legal analysis is offa my mind.

And you can quote me.




MasterCaneman -> RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/12/2013 9:10:28 AM)

"me".

There ya go...




Edwynn -> RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/12/2013 9:54:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

But let's face it, the 'legal slavery?' threads can be entertaining as hell...


Agreed.

They can also be very profitable, if you happen to work for Jones Day, especially if involving children.

http://www.jonesday.com/mlrice/?section=Experience

On July 11, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed an order granting summary judgment to Jones Day client Firestone Natural Rubber Company in a widely publicized case under the Alien Tort Statute.

http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol18/iss1/18/

"The case of Flomo v. Firestone Natural Rubber Company involves child laborers' claims that labor practices on a Liberian rubber plantation violate international norms. Though the case was recently resolved in favor of the defendants at the district court level, the case's complicated procedural and substantive history offers insight into the viability of future child labor claims."


If we're talking about consenting adults, I agree that there is much fun to be had in such a venture, among the crowd here.

But even that Gorean thing would have some age or otherwise legal limit, we might hope.









Edwynn -> RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/12/2013 10:12:31 AM)


First pluck what steps off the boat in Botany Bay or Canberra, tell me you ain't thought about it.

But even ...

First off the boat of those uber-pious heavily-clothed-in-summer Pilgrims, on Plymouth Rock ...



(Oh, Stop!)





BamaD -> RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/12/2013 1:32:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsLadySue

Would you want to see a judge that "crazy" sitting on the bench? I know I wouldn't.

I can't see a judge that crazy walking around free.




Moonhead -> RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/12/2013 1:36:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WebWanderer

Err, okay - how about "kink-friendly judge who wants to go out with a bang"? [:D]

Are there any crimes that carry slavery as a punishment under your legal code? It may not be specifically banned by the constitution, but I'd suspect it might come under cruel and unusual punishments even so.




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/12/2013 1:40:15 PM)

~FR~

Those that are locked up for convicted crimes can be made to do things against their consent, and the exceptions would be anything deemed cruel and unusual. It really is not difficult to understand.




mnottertail -> RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/12/2013 1:44:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: WebWanderer

Err, okay - how about "kink-friendly judge who wants to go out with a bang"? [:D]

Are there any crimes that carry slavery as a punishment under your legal code? It may not be specifically banned by the constitution, but I'd suspect it might come under cruel and unusual punishments even so.


Work without remuneration is slavery by all accounts, and we still have chain gangs in this country to be sure.





Moonhead -> RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/12/2013 1:48:54 PM)

I'd assumed that was what the clause cited in the OP was all about, to be honest. Didn't know they still had chain gangs, but a lot of states are using their prison population as free labour, aren't they?




mnottertail -> RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/12/2013 1:55:15 PM)

Yes, and chain gangs to us is like Bedlam to you, a generic thing. Remember Sherriff Joe the Piggio in Arizona, he was using chain gangs in actuality. And at the time of the amendment slave usage of prisoners was de rigueur. I really don't know how much actual chain gangs are used down south these days. Here they chain them one by one and make them spear litter.

And, after all they are sentenced to 'a life hard labor without the possiblity of parole'. no republican would pay for that boon.






MasterCaneman -> RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/12/2013 2:19:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I'd assumed that was what the clause cited in the OP was all about, to be honest. Didn't know they still had chain gangs, but a lot of states are using their prison population as free labour, aren't they?


Prison labor here is not "free", they do receive a ridiculously tiny wage for their work (.35 to .75 cents an hour), in order for them to buy stuff at the commissary or towards restitution. I've always thought they should get at least minimum wage for their labors (license plates, school desks/lockers, etc.), so they can really pay off their actual financial obligations (fines, restitution, child support) and maybe come out of the joint with more than fifty bucks and no future.




Real0ne -> RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/13/2013 11:50:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I'd assumed that was what the clause cited in the OP was all about, to be honest. Didn't know they still had chain gangs, but a lot of states are using their prison population as free labour, aren't they?








With more than 2.3 million people locked up, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world. One out of 100 American adults is behind bars — while a stunning one out of 32 is on probation, parole or in prison.


This reliance on mass incarceration has created a thriving prison economy. The states and the federal government spend about $74 billion a year on corrections, and nearly 800,000 people work in the industry.

From some of the poorest towns in America to some of the wealthiest investment firms on Wall Street, CNBC’s Scott Cohn travels the country to go inside the big and controversial business of prisons. We go inside private prisons and examine an Idaho facility nicknamed the “gladiator school” by inmates and former prison employees for its level of violence. We look at one of the fastest growing sectors of the industry, immigration detention, and tell the story of what happens when a hard hit town in Montana accepts an enticing sales pitch from private prison developers. In Colorado, we profile a little-known but profitable workforce behind bars, and discover that products created by prison labor have seeped into our everyday lives — even some of the food we eat. We also meet a tough-talking judge in the law-and-order state of Texas who’s actually trying to keep felons out of prison and save taxpayer money, through an innovative and apparently successful program.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44762286



Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is a company that owns and manages prisons and detention centers and operates others on a concession basis. The company is the largest private corrections company in the United States and manages more than 60 facilities with a designed capacity of 90,000 beds. CCA, incorporated in 1983 by three businessmen with experience in government and corrections, is based in Nashville, Tennessee.[2]

Recognition

CCA was named in 2008 as one of the 100 best corporate citizens by Corporate Responsibility Officer magazine.[8] The national military magazine GI Jobs has highlighted CCA as a solid employer for veterans[9] and also named CCA as one of its "Top 50 Military Friendly Jobs" on four[not in citation given] separate occasions.[10]

The American Correctional Association (ACA) has accredited 90% of CCA's facilities.[citation needed] ACA's Accreditation is a system of verification that correctional agencies and facilities comply with national standards promulgated by the American Correctional Association. Accreditation is achieved through a series of reviews, evaluations, audits and hearings.[11]


Occupancy and profitability

In a 1990s report, Prudential Securities was bullish on CCA but noted, "It takes time to bring inmate population levels up to where they cover costs. Low occupancy is a drag on profits... company earnings would be strong if CCA succeeded in ramp(ing) up population levels in its new facilities at an acceptable rate".[20]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrections_Corporation_of_America


[image]http://i1273.photobucket.com/albums/y410/mypbemotes/charts/l_eqq_2b000b533c011d1af04c0a5ed4e85144_zpsfc2a63cc.png[/image]



its nice to see others are finally taking an interest in america, land of the prison plantations and why the people here need to get off their asses.




Top Shareholders in CCA & GEO
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is the largest for-profit prison company in the United States. As of their latest filing, March 31, 2013, the Company operated 67 correctional and detention facilities, including 51 facilities that it owned, with a total capacity of approximately 92,500 beds in 20 states and the District of Columbia.

Their top institutional investors include:

The Vanguard Group, Inc. owning 12,397,823 shares or 12.29% of common stock (up from 5.38% in 2011)
BlackRock, Inc. owning 5,383,733 shares or 5.34% of common stock (up from 4.99% in 2011)
Fidelity Management and Research LLC owning 5,092,363 or 5.05% of common stock
The GEO Group (GEO) is the second largest for-profit private prison company in the United States operating 55 correctional and detention facilities in 16 states.

As of March 2013, their top institutional investors include:

Scopia Fund Management LLC owning 10,717,268 shares or 14.84% of common stock (up from 12.20% in 2011)
Vanguard Group, Inc. owning 8,997,661 shares or 12.57% of common stock (up from 5.33% in 2011)
Fidelity Management and Research LLC owning 5,338,951 shares or 7.46% of common stock (down from 14.8% in 2011)
BlackRock, Inc. owning 4,655,233 shares or 6.5% of common stock (down from 7.8% in 2011)


land of the free! what a fucking insult.

the best way to insure justice in any country is to invest in its prisons!





MrRodgers -> RE: Technically, the 13th Amendment does NOT ban slavery (7/15/2013 4:08:12 PM)

Well the key words here are 'involuntary servitude.' Does that not legally imply that there must be such a thing as 'voluntary servitude' for which many-a-case...could be made ?




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875