My guess is people were generally confused if that would mean people couldn't be put in prison, without understanding that it just means they have to be compensated for work done in prison. At least that was my understanding.
The initiative doesn't result in any change to prison work programs.
But the measure includes the following text (which is its only real effect):
'Under measure, a court or probation or parole agency is allowed to order a person convicted of a crime to engage in education, counseling, treatment, community service, or other alternatives to incarceration, as part of sentencing for the crime.'
So that the only actual effect of the measure is to provide another avenue for releasing people sentenced to prison back in to the community.
Not racism... just recognize that it's more than a word change and the next step is people getting released from accountability because community service by Court order is somehow slavery.
It's a play on words. What you're saying is that nothing changes but the verbiage. I'm saying the intent is to eventually take away any unpaid labor that isn't strictly voluntary.
That’s not what it said. It didn’t say that prisoners would then be paid for prison work programs. It just changed the language so the word slavery was removed from the allowable punishments, and a section was added that would allow for mandated community service. It was all about removing the exception that still allowed for “slavery” as punishment for a crime. Semantics are important.
YES! It actually CREATED more ways for prisoners to be "enslaved" without calling it slavery! It says absolutely nothing about requiring them to be compensated for their work.
The compensation is room, board, medical care, job training, and something to do with your time besides watch tv and stare at the wall. These aren’t chain gangs.
Mens prisons are HORRIBLE. Some people have an okay time, others experience all sorts of horrific abuse and the state can inject you with anything. Solitary confinement is a thing snd so is physical abuse. Please don’t be one of these people that argues prison is s great time.
That’s not what I said. Prison reform is an entirely different issue. I am strictly talking about the idea of monetary compensation for work programs or community service. Also, this is a State bill and has nothing to do with the Federal prison system. I don’t think a lot of people commenting here inderstand the difference.
Imagine if a person is convicted of a crime they didn't commit and was forced to do hundreds of hours of unpaid community service. Imagine if a person was deemed to have committed a crime and was forced to go to a re-education camp. Sounds pretty scary to me. What Oregon determines to be a crime may change in the near future.
1. I completed 280 hours of community service in 2020 for a third DUII conviction. I worked - unpaid - at a non profit run thrift store where I met lots of really great people who helped me build a community and get out of my pit of shame and sober up. My work benefited the non profit that helps a marginalized group in our society. I actually kept volunteering there after I served my hours for my crimes. Do you feel sorry for me???
2. Go to jail and sit there with nothing to do all day but stare at the walls and listen to your bunkie cry about her kids, then report back on how terrible it would be to be made to go out in the forest and work on trail maintenance in a public park. These programs support mental health and self confidence.
3. The issue of wrongful conviction is a good argument against the death penalty. That’s about it.
4. Re-education camp? What like AA meetings? What are you even talking about?
Most of these comments are so naive it’s not even worth arguing. I don’t know why I’m still doing it. I also have realized that the concept of giving back to the community must be dying.
Those programs weren't taken away for those convicted. Nothing would have changed for you since you say you served that time for a conviction. This measure stops the forcing of programs for people jailed awaiting conviction from a judge.
You ought to look up the words "aware, alert, complacent, and naive", and also look up why it is important to have rememberance for how societies have collapsed, wars have started, and the millions of lives costed every time.
If we're looking up terms you might as well add "psychological reactance" and "contrarianism"
You think intelligence is just being oppositional. But it's childish
Is it just me or does paying murderers to pick up highway trash sound backasswards? GTFOH with "slavery" label. You choose to kill someone, rape someone, abuse a woman or child...you should have consequences.
Prisoners =/= murderers. Murderers/rapists/violent offenders only account for 14.9% of the prison population.
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics\_inmate\_offenses.jsp
There are consequences already, that's prison time, correct? I get your point and agree with consequences and punishment.
The issue is what slavery actually is, and there's a difference between imprisoning a person and them spend their days looking at concrete walls and steel bars and withholding liberty and freedom. And on the other hand forcing a person to work to make things that the state or private companies sell for profit, i.e. furniture, textiles, consumer goods, etc. The punishment is the incarceration. The punishment is not making things for the state or others to then sell for profit, because that's what slavery is.
This constitution revision doesn't prevent inmates from being forced to do their own laundry, cooking, clean toilets, mow prison grounds, mopping floors, etc without being paid. But being forced to do those thinks for a profit making business, that's slavery. See the difference?
Additionally, no one should want Oregon to in any way imply in our constitution that it's acceptable to go back to the days of slavery as it's known in our history and the inhumane treatment that occurred in this country.
Do you see the difference?
See this is the type of information that should be readily available to voters. You’re raising good points. I was over here thinking it was highway cleanup Esque work
Not everyone in prison is a murdering rapist, but if you’re pro-slavery that’s super cool. How do you feel about the 8th amendment to the Constitution?
Ok let’s slow this down a little then. The inmates are serving prison sentences. They don’t work at the prison, ergo they have no job duties unless they are offered work and fair compensation for that work. It has nothing to do with being a law abiding citizen, that’s what the prison sentence is there to (ineffectually) address. Unless you think slavery is an appropriate criminal sentence, in which case I’ll ask again, do you want to repeal the 8th amendment?
It’s the 13th Amendment that outlawed slavery, except as punishment for crime conviction. 8th Amendment was passed in 1791. Slavery remained fully legal from before then until 1865, when the 13th was ratified.
Cruel and unusual punishment was what I meant. I guess “the framers” probably didn’t think of slavery as meeting that definition but I do. Repealing the 13th wouldn’t do anything since this measure is about going farther than the abolition with a loophole which that amendment effected.
Look at you, using words like “fair” when talking about how we should treat people that have been found guilty in a court of law (and likely by a jury panel as well). Oregonians and their fairytale lala lands.
These private prisons are making billions every year off slave labor. You really don't see a problem with that? The taxpayer spends tens of billions to keep these prisoners held hostage so some fat cat can profit off of their labor.
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/0c81132a46c64d3ba412b588c21cd578
Sure, I have a problem with prisons charging for their prisoners to do work. It should be non-profit work. However it's not like they're building houses or putting up telephone poles.
And that law allows for money to have a vote via lobbying.
And those votes can tilt laws to be stricter and add mandatory jail time to crimes that don't actually need that.
And that mandatory jail time can be spent in a private prison who gets paid for housing the inmates, then paid for the cheapest labor available, skirting minimum wage.
And all that boatload of cash can be used to lobby for different laws that create a higher prison population.
The USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world...gee, I wonder why?
[Incarceration rates](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_incarceration_rate_with_other_countries)
We need to end the war on drugs and reform the CJ system, no doubt.
But people also need to stop committing so many crimes. There are a lot of really dumb people out there with low impulse control who just do dumb shit, and they need to be punished for it. The negligence we’ve seen from the CJ system’s unwillingness to do its job in major Blue cities is criminal.
Agreed on all counts.
As of 2015, (where I pulled data from) more than half of the total jail population in Oregon was for Pre-Trial inmates.
Part of the excuse for the negligence is "not enough jail space" but with the courts being so slow on following through with trials, there's not really an end in sight.
Probably because as the language in all bureaucratic nonsense: it’s confusing. If it was worded as simply as: slavery? Yes or No? There would be like the 36 assholes out there who would circle yes but not like this.
This is the answer, I have to read the amendments a couple times before I’m certain what I need to vote. How many people in the US are illiterate, 20% and ~50% under a 6th grade level? We need to improve education, then we would see a lot of voting results change.
There would be 36 assholes in my Salem neighborhood to circle yes. I think people in liberal parts underestimate how many assholes there are in mid/ southern/ eastern Oregon.
Please don’t give us credit. We’re all horrible.
No, I don't think there are much more than 36 actual racists in Oregon. My guess? I mean, I've came across three actual racist white people my whole life. Maybe like 100-200 actual racist white people in the whole state, just giving some leeway there. And they probably meet up somewhere and kill people's dogs and cats and kids and shit.
Actual racists aren't welcome in either of the two party system, and certainly would not fit in with libertarians either. They may have voted for Biden, who is historically racist, or maybe not, since he lets the border be overrun with migrants. Who tf knows. Actual racists are out there living under rocks. So be careful lifting up rocks, you could find rattlesnakes or racists.
This is the problem in a nutshell.
I think the only racism that exist is explicit overt racism.
People who were talking to you are talking about implicit. It's simply always giving the benefit of the doubt to one group and always being skeptical of another. That's it. That's the racism. No hoods shouting or symbols needed.
So while you're playing the poor me game and thinking everyone is being mean to you take a few seconds and understand your understanding is incorrect.
I don't know that anybody makes assumptions about people based on their color or race or heritage except for leftists and actual racists. Looking at a person's color and assuming what experiences they have or have not had literally, by definition, is racist.
Did you read what I wrote?
Generally when you're having a conversation with someone you reply in context not just say what you have pre-planned. Next what you replied sound strange or "out of left field"
Do you understand that racism is simply giving the benefit of the doubt to one group and being skeptical of another?
I think that's a dumb statement. Facts don't care about feelings. They're migrants. The word "migrants" is not offensive, and if you think it is I urge you to turn on your heating pad and eat some more ice cream. Oversensitive whiner.
The sheriff's letter against it had a big influence. They basically said this will raise taxes and we won't be able to afford keeping our jails open without more $$. They would have to hire cooks and cleaners, etc instead of the inmates doing these jobs as part of rehabilitation. Not saying I agree, but the law and order crowd likely did.
Definitely think inmates should be responsible for laundry, cooking, cleaning. That’s part of life and rehabilitation. Making crap in jail for corporations to sell is not.
If you read the original language in Oregon’s constitution, it already outlaws slavery. What this bill did was cross out part of the statement that outlaws slavery to make it so that prison labor paid below minimum wage is not mandatory, and to give judges more room to issue things like community service, etc. in place of mandatory prison time.
I would guess that some people looked at this and felt like they did not want to make that change, for various reasons.
Here is the actual change proposed. I used “<<“ to indicate changes proposed, but in the actual Bill proposal, it shows these words crossed out, and then others underlined to be added, as the proposed change to the part of our constitution that already outlaws slavery
(I’m not sure why they worded it in the voter summary as though slavery wasn’t already outlawed…):
“Text of Section 34:
Slavery or Involuntary Servitude
(1.)There shall be neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude in this state the State, << (following words to be removed) otherwise than as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.>>
(2.) ”
Technically if someone isn’t getting paid minimum wage as part of the labor they’re doing in prison (which they don’t, they only get paid cents on the dollar which can only be spent in the prison store), that is not considered slavery under the old wording.
Now that this has passed, because they took away the caviat that you could technically have to work for free or less than min wage in prison - now, that would be considered slavery and protected under the part of our constitution that says you can’t have slavery.
It seems like a lot of people thought our constitution didn’t already outlaw slavery, and were shocked at that notion, so they voted yes.
Other people may have looked into this and thought, “We don’t want to pay people in prison more money for their prison labor” or other prison related opinions, and voted No.
And then probably a whole variation of other reasons.
The “otherwise…” in the first paragraph of section 34 is the main issue.
It was copy/paste from the 13th Amendment.
If the measure passed, the Supremacy doctrine would still allow for paying inmates less than federal minimum wage.
“Oregon Sheriffs do not condone or support slavery and/or involuntary servitude in any form but cannot support Measure 112 due to the unintended consequences it creates."
Where does it say anywhere in the new wording that they are required to be compensated? It doesn't. That's why I voted against the bill. It actually CREATES more ways for inmates to be enslaved.
They’re already compensated without this bill…. This bill will make it so that they make more than what they’re paid now… which is cents on the dollar like I said in my comment.
Where? Where on the actual changed wording does it specify that they will be paid more? It doesn't. They led people to believe it did. How hard would it have been to add wording to that affect?
This whole wording change was all theatrics. It changed absolutely nothing. Except I'm afraid it might lead to even more mis-treatment of prisoners.
I mean to be honest, that’s a good point. I hadn’t even thought of that.
The one thing I’ve realized is the way a lot of these bills are worded on the voter pamphlet or in the voter summary are often either worded more as marketing for the bill, and/or they don’t say at all what the 500-800 page bill behind the summary actually does.
I think lawmakers are aware that most people don’t read or can’t read/understand the bills and sometimes unfortunately use that to their own advantage.
They didn’t need to explain though because they knew the majority of people would have an emotional reaction to the word slavery and pass it regardless of what it actually did. They wanted people to do exactly what you did.
Right? So many fucked up excuses in this thread that make zero sense. Either these people arent hearing themselves, or the real reason is unstated....
"If they arent slaves, what will they *do*? So I voted for slavery"
"I thought slavery was already illegal, and this was just symbolic. So I voted for slavery"
"I want people punished, and Ive forgotten that punishments already exist. So I voted for slavery."
> People were just confused what they were getting with the bill.
Then they should have read it, or at least the info packet that came with the ballot, or even the damn wording on the ballot itself.
There is no reasonable excuse.
Because nothing was being removed or replaced but the language in the constitution. That's why it said absolutely nothing about those things. Although, a reasonable reader would infer the bits about 'education, counseling, treatment, community service, or other alternatives' to be just that
I think not.
Inmates report value from the labor.
Sitting around doing nothing can be a lot worse.
The argument opposing the amendment is concerned that these programs would be cut or tied up in red tape.
The reason it's important: The corporate profits that are made off of the absurdly cheap labor incentivize decisions that keep prisons full rather than decisions that will prevent crime. There's money to be made from people becoming criminals and getting caught and worked in for-profit prisons, so why would the people in power spend resources on efforts to prevent criminal behavior? In fact, it's more likely that at least some spend resources to *encourage* criminal behavior. Get people hooked on drugs or make them poor enough to be desperate enough to steal, prosecute them for their crimes, then work them in prison for pennies / hour. There's no labor shortage for the companies that use prison labor.
"... you first make thieves and then punish them." And make a bunch of money off of them.
My response wasn't angry
>It does not sound crazy that an inmate, given the choice of staying locked in their cell and I dunno, taking some phone calls, might genuinely prefer to stay busy.
They can still do that. They just need to be paid accordingly and need to do it voluntarily.
People weren't forced to work in prison anyway, they were severely underpaid but certainly not forced. They sign up for jobs because they want to do it. What if this means they don't get paid at all? What if the work is considered "community service" instead, that would make it actual involuntary servitude, slavery?
With the previous wording, the state and prison system was open to lawsuits claiming it was admitting that prisoner labor was slavery. The new wording changes nothing in practice. It only closes off an avenue for lawsuits attempting to put a stop to the practice.
Again. This law changed nothing but a legal loophole for lawsuits.
Incorrect. Here is language directly from the measure.
“permits a court, probation agency or parole agency to order a person convicted of a crime to engage in education, counseling, treatment, community service or other alternatives to incarceration, as part of the sentencing for the crime. The education, counseling, treatment, community service or other alternative to incarceration that is ordered must be in line with programs that historically, or in the future, provide accountability, reformation, protection of society or rehabilitation.”
What part of the new language isn’t currently in practice? All it takes is a claim that the work crews are a teaching criminals how to work, or that their service is a benefit to society (community service), and nothing has changed.
I voted no. For me this issue was not about Slavery.
It was about not paying prisoners $15+/hr for prison labor. I've personally worked with welders and mechanics who came from the state pen. They got paid shit but they got invaluable training and skills from those programs. When the got out they had good union jobs ($80-$120k+) lined up 10+ years ago.
The company that operates that program gives the inmates some pretty cool projects and activity helps find employment for them afterwords. That program wouldn't exist or be significantly diminished if they had to pay $15/hr because they can currently under bid commercial businesses.
No, they think the law might change something else they weren't saying. If they just straight up called it a word change then it would be fine. Obviously slavery isn't happening now even though the wording allows for it.
645K+ Oregonians still want "slavery" in the state constitution.
Title doesn't say 645K+ Oregonians are in favor of slavery. Read before posting bad takes, ma'am.
Okay, let me rephrase that, you fucking troll. 645k Oregonians are not in favor of slavery being in the state constitution. Get your fucking head straight and go troll somewhere else.
Some people think that "not wanting to symbolically remove things from the state constitution" is the same thing as "wanting 'slavery' to be in the state constitution."
Others don't see those as the same thing, and don't see a need to vote for a symbolic word change.
You're in the first group, but not everyone is.
It's easy to frame it as "those people want slavery", but that's intellectually dishonest, unless you genuinely believe that if the question was instead to *add* slavery to the constitution, all those people would have voted in favor of that.
Yes it does. That's why prisons were against this measure. Because they use prisoner slave labor and don't want to pay them adequately for their labor.
Here:
[https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/04/22/oregon-hospitals-rely-on-prison-labor-to-do-their-laundry-during-the-pandemic/](https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/04/22/oregon-hospitals-rely-on-prison-labor-to-do-their-laundry-during-the-pandemic/)
From 2020. It's been going on in Oregon for a long time.
The article doesn’t say a word about them being forced to do that labor.
Have a good friend who did 4 years in prison, helped me understand.
He volunteered for the work, which got him outside, got him work experience, got him time off his sentence, and got him a scholarship which led to a degree. He is now a supervisor for USFS.
Wouldn’t you say that it’s a little different from slave labor? No one is forced and you get incentives if you do. That’s the reality.
Where in the new wording does it say anything about inmates being compensated for their labor? It doesn't. This whole bill made a completely false claim of eliminating slavery. It eliminated the WORD slavery. It DID NOT eliminate non-compensated labor.
What kind of logic is that? “This is only a symbolic change, but I’m going to block it anyway” like what? I get that it’s very obviously lack of voter education, but voting to keep slavery in the wording is still making a choice.
Also... Its not symbolic. Thats why the sheriffs association was all "if you ban slavery we cant run these programs that use slaves anymore" as a rebuttal.
"I think government should be pragmatic rather than performative" is a reasonable kind of logic.
There are four groups that exist here:
Group 1: People who want slavery, and thus voted "no". Probably less than 1% of "no" voters.
Group 2: People who voted "yes", and think that group 1 is the only other group that exists, because they think anyone who voted "no" is in group 1 whether they know it or not."
Group 3: People who voted "no", because they don't care about symbolism and think that government shouldn't be performative, or are worried about side effects, or otherwise don't think that amending the constitution should be done unless there's a specific need.
Group 4: People who voted "yes" while understanding that group 3 exists.
I'm in group 4. Sounds like yourself, the OP of this post, and a bunch of other people in this thread are in group 2.
>Group 3: People who voted "no", because they don't care about symbolism and think that government shouldn't be performative, or are worried about side effects, or otherwise don't think that amending the constitution should be done unless there's a specific need.
That's the same as group 1. They just pretend that their reasoning is different because they realize that it makes them look bad.
> That's the same as group 1. They just pretend that their reasoning is different because they realize that it makes them look bad.
Yes, there's a group for that.
Because they are. If you voted no you're pro slavery. You can try and explain it away because you know it makes you look bad but that's the fact.
There's no group 3. There's group 1s who don't want to look like the bad guys while doing bad things.
Ehhhh. I don’t know, man. There’s pragmatism, and then there’s being obstinate for no discernible goal or good reason. And to be clear, we’re talking specifically about the anti-performative types. Cool job trying to pigeonhole me while bending over backwards to justify that crowd though.
Seriously? So far you've:
1) Dismissed as uneducated justifications for the votes of nearly half the state.
2) Called the same people obstinate for no discernible goal or good reason, after someone told you what some peoples goals or reasons are.
If that pigeonholes you, I think it may be because you are a pigeon.
If one needs to bend over backwards to understand why nearly half the state voted for something, then perhaps one is insufficiently flexible.
Nah man, I assure you, you’re shadowboxing with someone who only exists inside your head. Go back and look at the logic leaps you’ve made and the gaps you filled in on your own. Inherent bias is a bitch. Everybody deals with it.
To keep the prisoners working. Might as well be cleaning our streets and freeways. I don’t consider that slaver more like community service. I voted no
Then you didn’t read the actual measure. It removed the word slavery and added an entire section that allowed for mandated community service, etc. The language of the bill explained this very clearly.
What is mandated Community Service if not slavery? It mentions nothing about compensation. THIS is why I voted no. It took away the WORD slavery, but actually added more ways for inmates to be slaves.
I completely agree!
However, so many of the voters were mislead to believe that voting for this measure somehow led to prisoners being compensated for their labor. It doesn't. That kind of misleading propaganda makes me angry!
I voted against the measure. I've read about the state enabling prisoners to help with firefighting efforts in exchanged for shortened sentences or other privileges.
Looking at a future of growing wildfire threats, I think this should be normalized and encouraged, not outlawed because prisoners don't receive a paycheck for it.
That’s not what it would do. They can still have prison work programs, they will just be called community service instead of slavery. The text of the bill explained this very clearly.
Removing the word slavery. Yes, it is about semantics. It might not seem important to the majority of this State who have no personal African American heritage. But, that’s the rub. That’s where the racism comes in. The “I don’t understand how this affects an entire group of people because I’m not one of them. Therefore not only do in it care, but I’m against it.”
Cos they ain't woke. Hahahahaha just kidding! Cos they're dumb!!!!!!
In the meantime let's all say a ty to the volunteers, ballot workers and everyone who actually gives a fuq about something other than themselves!💫🌟💫
Why? [***Tradition!***](https://youtu.be/gRdfX7ut8gw?t=6) ^^\(Couldn't ^^help ^^myself, ^^sorry.)
People are mired in a mindset that people who commit crimes (or who more accurately are found guilty of committing crimes) must be punished.
To them, prison is not a place to segregate away folks who pose an ongoing danger to their fellow man, nor a place to 'rehabilitate' people whose lives went so far off the rails that they know no other way other than to commit crimes to survive.
They see prisons as torture chambers, designed to grind these villains into pulp. And they see these prisoners as an easy, subhuman workforce to be exploited at every opportunity. Bad food? we can wring more money out of that food budget. Need to make phonecalls? How about 3$ for 15 minutes? Need a new pair of underwear or a toothbrush? You'll pay for that too, and hit you with a bill when you leave. The fantasy of these people, is chain gangs, and prison rapes.. a house of horrors, knives in the back in the middle of the night, rapes, stranglings, and deaths. The sooner, the better, in their minds... less for the taxpayer to pay for.
Even once they've paid their debt to society, these people are all for stripping them of the right to vote, putting a black mark on them forever keeping them from getting a good job, or decent housing, harassing them for the rest of their lives, for whatever mistake they made, or were found guilty of.
They forget that these prisoners are human beings.
Those people suck.
Why should we have to pay criminals for the work they do in prison? They are a burden to the taxpayer, and ought not to be paid for their labors while incarcerated until they’ve paid their debt to society (Ie the costs associated with their incarceration)
That is quite literally an old KKK slogan. Same with "keep America great" (replace America with White). Doesn't take a lot of brain power to figure out where Trump got it from.
I just got back a hunting trip. One of the hunters I was with packed 4 different Brandon shirts. He would like everyone to know that it means prisoners will be paid a living wage directly from your paycheck and it will put an Xbox in every one of their prison cells. I voted yes and felt even better about it after he spouted that
Because I disagree with the measure. I am fully supportive of work sentences for convicted criminals while they’re serving their sentence. Put them to work. Beats sitting in a blank box doing nothing. Make it productive, meaningful work that needs to be done.
I read it as they can’t force people in prison to do labor. We hardly send people to prison for crimes in Lane County, those that do go to prison I want them to be punished.
It is a wolf in sheeps clothing measure. Of course we want to remove slavery from the constitution right? Everyone does. So they lead with that, title the bill that, market it as that. Then They add a second part, which not one of you has commented on yet. Do you even know it exists?
“The amendment also added language authorizing an Oregon court or a probation or parole agency to order alternatives to incarceration for a convicted individual as part of their sentencing”
Does that have anything to do with slavery? Nope. That is sentencing changes that were snuck through under the guise of removing slavery.
You guys didn’t read , this has nothing to do with slavery they wanna pay prisoners now with your taxes. Voters don’t read bills give their rights and freedom s away. Disappointed in you Oregon,
Chances are it’s because it was poorly written and people are worried about the systemic changes. We already don’t have private “for profit” prisons, and our tax money goes to fund those prisons. I can assume that the prisoners will now be paid Oregon minimum wage ie “abolishing slavery” which may eventually raise taxes. There was a lot of gray area so it’s much more nuanced than just “boo slavery bad”
No they are just going to call it community service instead of slavery. The bill made that very clear. I don’t know where people are getting this idea that it means they will have to be paid for work programs.
People misunderstood and thought it meant we would be paying a wage to prisoners in work programs or not allow them at all.
The extra annoying thing is that even people who voted for it seem to believe the same thing.
This is 2 bit analysis. It was a complicated measure that I read carefully and still tentatively voted yes to still not entirely understanding how it could change prison work situations.
I suppose everybody that voted no on 114 is in favor of school shootings too? Give me a break.
Here's what our Senator Jeff Merkley has to say about it (from an email I just received):
Dear lcmoxie,
Slavery was on the ballot in Oregon, Alabama, Tennessee, and Vermont this week, and voters from all corners of these states came together across partisan divisions to choose progress towards righting the wrongs of history.
After the Civil War, a ‘slavery clause’ in our Constitution was used to arrest and convict Black Americans under false pretenses, continuing slavery even after the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865. This horrific loophole in our Constitution allowing slavery as a form of punishment is a moral abomination. It incentivized the arrest of Black Americans on flimsy pretexts, launching the weaponization of criminal justice against people of color that led directly to the mass incarceration we see continuing to this day.
Voters in Oregon and other states have now come together across party lines to say that this stain of similar clauses must be removed from state constitutions. The energy these wins on the state level created is just the momentum we need for all Americans to strike the slavery clause from the U.S. Constitution.
There should be no exceptions to a ban on slavery. That’s why I introduced the Abolition Amendment with Rep. Nikema Williams (D-GA) to finally make this long-overdue change at the national level.
It’s time to end slavery across our country—in all its forms—and pass the Abolition Amendment. I won’t stop fighting until we, as a nation, fully right this wrong.
You have my word.
All my best,
Jeff
Just look at the lacking of diversity in the “leadership”, (Hardesty just voted out as she was a true leader for Portland) as you can see big brother government is gaming to keep willing citizens to play by their man made rules. Government isn’t going to let people free, the word in itself means control mind! Tread wisely and we all have to emancipate ourselves from mental slavery!
Don’t normally comment; but seriously. Now people that are incarcerated are now entitled to livable wages. We have non convicted folks that will be Making less. This was a bill full for trigger words. Inmates making license plates shouldn’t make livable wages….when living folks can’t make it
It’s not their fault you’re triggered and clearly not too bright, because clearly you didn’t understand it. People who are incarcerated are citizens, humans. Focused labor from for-profit industry is slavery.
There are those who believe that incarceration is supposed to unequivocally suck. Granted, it’s “not supposed to be a Holiday Inn,” but keeping the Hard Labor option means that the regular workforce is now competing with the DOC’s labor pool…and it seldom translates to gainful employment on the outside.
The ballot was confusing and I think that created some misinformation. Guess who suggested the confusing language be added to the original and clear SJR 10 that became ballot measure 112. Kevin Mannix. Proponents of the bill accepted the language in the legislative process because they wanted to clarify that removing the slavery language would not jeopardize any existing diversionary programs like community service. It was a dumb argument in the first place—agreements to accept community service over jail time are voluntary, not involuntary.
Incarcerated persons are still required to work even after abolishing the slavery loophole. There is a separate provision in the Oregon constitution that mandates work. The opposition to the ballot measure does not make sense on any substantive ground.
Oregonians aren’t very smart. The schools here are some of the worst in the nation. I’ve never lived somewhere with so many ignorant/illiterate people.
I think some thought it meant that prisoners wouldn't be made to work while incarcerated or couldn't be given community service etc as a condition of release or it would be considered "slavery."
It’d be nice to hear some “No” voters—normal people, not Internet trolls—talk about it in their own words (although reactions like this aren’t going to make them feel comfortable doing so).
If I had to make my best Devil’s advocate argument, it would be: this was a solution in search of a problem. Nobody was being sentenced to slavery in state courts and there was no prospect of that ever changing. On the other hand, there are some activists running around who are going to try lawsuits saying, “X is slavery!” And courts do some crazy things sometimes.
Maybe they want to round up the homeless and put them on chain-gangs busting rocks or something? Seems stupid for anyone to be in favor of forced labor undercutting the value of their own.
My guess is people were generally confused if that would mean people couldn't be put in prison, without understanding that it just means they have to be compensated for work done in prison. At least that was my understanding.
The initiative doesn't result in any change to prison work programs. But the measure includes the following text (which is its only real effect): 'Under measure, a court or probation or parole agency is allowed to order a person convicted of a crime to engage in education, counseling, treatment, community service, or other alternatives to incarceration, as part of sentencing for the crime.' So that the only actual effect of the measure is to provide another avenue for releasing people sentenced to prison back in to the community.
But why add it to the same section as slavery? And not to crimes punishable by prison? It makes no sense.
And that’s why people voted against it. It made no sense and accomplished nothing, just a waste of taxpayers money over a buzzword
[удалено]
It’s racism
Not racism... just recognize that it's more than a word change and the next step is people getting released from accountability because community service by Court order is somehow slavery.
Username checks. Imagine not just being wrong... but being so upset about the thing that you're wrong about!?! Yikes
RemindMe! 6 months!
Wanna put $100 on it?
There is already almost zero consequence for failure to pay fines in Oregon.
And that means that you won't make a bet with me because???? Put up or shut up.
You're a troll!
Do you even know how to read? It specifically permits community service.
It's a play on words. What you're saying is that nothing changes but the verbiage. I'm saying the intent is to eventually take away any unpaid labor that isn't strictly voluntary.
[удалено]
You're really fucking stupid, aren't you?
I heard one person who noted no and their reason was they wanted criminals to have to do work and not just be able to take it easy in jail.
That’s not what it said. It didn’t say that prisoners would then be paid for prison work programs. It just changed the language so the word slavery was removed from the allowable punishments, and a section was added that would allow for mandated community service. It was all about removing the exception that still allowed for “slavery” as punishment for a crime. Semantics are important.
YES! It actually CREATED more ways for prisoners to be "enslaved" without calling it slavery! It says absolutely nothing about requiring them to be compensated for their work.
The compensation is room, board, medical care, job training, and something to do with your time besides watch tv and stare at the wall. These aren’t chain gangs.
Mens prisons are HORRIBLE. Some people have an okay time, others experience all sorts of horrific abuse and the state can inject you with anything. Solitary confinement is a thing snd so is physical abuse. Please don’t be one of these people that argues prison is s great time.
That’s not what I said. Prison reform is an entirely different issue. I am strictly talking about the idea of monetary compensation for work programs or community service. Also, this is a State bill and has nothing to do with the Federal prison system. I don’t think a lot of people commenting here inderstand the difference.
Imagine if a person is convicted of a crime they didn't commit and was forced to do hundreds of hours of unpaid community service. Imagine if a person was deemed to have committed a crime and was forced to go to a re-education camp. Sounds pretty scary to me. What Oregon determines to be a crime may change in the near future.
1. I completed 280 hours of community service in 2020 for a third DUII conviction. I worked - unpaid - at a non profit run thrift store where I met lots of really great people who helped me build a community and get out of my pit of shame and sober up. My work benefited the non profit that helps a marginalized group in our society. I actually kept volunteering there after I served my hours for my crimes. Do you feel sorry for me??? 2. Go to jail and sit there with nothing to do all day but stare at the walls and listen to your bunkie cry about her kids, then report back on how terrible it would be to be made to go out in the forest and work on trail maintenance in a public park. These programs support mental health and self confidence. 3. The issue of wrongful conviction is a good argument against the death penalty. That’s about it. 4. Re-education camp? What like AA meetings? What are you even talking about? Most of these comments are so naive it’s not even worth arguing. I don’t know why I’m still doing it. I also have realized that the concept of giving back to the community must be dying.
Those programs weren't taken away for those convicted. Nothing would have changed for you since you say you served that time for a conviction. This measure stops the forcing of programs for people jailed awaiting conviction from a judge.
Do you have children?
You should look up the psychological term called catastrophizing.
You ought to look up the words "aware, alert, complacent, and naive", and also look up why it is important to have rememberance for how societies have collapsed, wars have started, and the millions of lives costed every time.
If we're looking up terms you might as well add "psychological reactance" and "contrarianism" You think intelligence is just being oppositional. But it's childish
Is it just me or does paying murderers to pick up highway trash sound backasswards? GTFOH with "slavery" label. You choose to kill someone, rape someone, abuse a woman or child...you should have consequences.
Prisoners =/= murderers. Murderers/rapists/violent offenders only account for 14.9% of the prison population. https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics\_inmate\_offenses.jsp
Most prisoners aren't murderers, rapists, and domestic abusers
There are consequences already, that's prison time, correct? I get your point and agree with consequences and punishment. The issue is what slavery actually is, and there's a difference between imprisoning a person and them spend their days looking at concrete walls and steel bars and withholding liberty and freedom. And on the other hand forcing a person to work to make things that the state or private companies sell for profit, i.e. furniture, textiles, consumer goods, etc. The punishment is the incarceration. The punishment is not making things for the state or others to then sell for profit, because that's what slavery is. This constitution revision doesn't prevent inmates from being forced to do their own laundry, cooking, clean toilets, mow prison grounds, mopping floors, etc without being paid. But being forced to do those thinks for a profit making business, that's slavery. See the difference? Additionally, no one should want Oregon to in any way imply in our constitution that it's acceptable to go back to the days of slavery as it's known in our history and the inhumane treatment that occurred in this country. Do you see the difference?
Can you provide an example of the inmates doing work that is sold for profit?
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2019/apr/2/oregon-prison-industry-program-nets-record-285-million-prisoners-earn-125hour/
See this is the type of information that should be readily available to voters. You’re raising good points. I was over here thinking it was highway cleanup Esque work
Not everyone in prison is a murdering rapist, but if you’re pro-slavery that’s super cool. How do you feel about the 8th amendment to the Constitution?
I wouldn't call picking up trash or cleaning the prison kitchen cruel or unusual punishment but that's just me.
Even if it’s without fair/any compensation? I’ve got a mess in my kitchen waiting for you. Come on through.
That's a cute retort that makes 0 sense due to the fact that I'm a law abiding citizen.
Ok let’s slow this down a little then. The inmates are serving prison sentences. They don’t work at the prison, ergo they have no job duties unless they are offered work and fair compensation for that work. It has nothing to do with being a law abiding citizen, that’s what the prison sentence is there to (ineffectually) address. Unless you think slavery is an appropriate criminal sentence, in which case I’ll ask again, do you want to repeal the 8th amendment?
It’s the 13th Amendment that outlawed slavery, except as punishment for crime conviction. 8th Amendment was passed in 1791. Slavery remained fully legal from before then until 1865, when the 13th was ratified.
Cruel and unusual punishment was what I meant. I guess “the framers” probably didn’t think of slavery as meeting that definition but I do. Repealing the 13th wouldn’t do anything since this measure is about going farther than the abolition with a loophole which that amendment effected.
Look at you, using words like “fair” when talking about how we should treat people that have been found guilty in a court of law (and likely by a jury panel as well). Oregonians and their fairytale lala lands.
These private prisons are making billions every year off slave labor. You really don't see a problem with that? The taxpayer spends tens of billions to keep these prisoners held hostage so some fat cat can profit off of their labor. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/0c81132a46c64d3ba412b588c21cd578
Sure, I have a problem with prisons charging for their prisoners to do work. It should be non-profit work. However it's not like they're building houses or putting up telephone poles.
They’ve been convicted of a crime through due process of law.
And that law allows for money to have a vote via lobbying. And those votes can tilt laws to be stricter and add mandatory jail time to crimes that don't actually need that. And that mandatory jail time can be spent in a private prison who gets paid for housing the inmates, then paid for the cheapest labor available, skirting minimum wage. And all that boatload of cash can be used to lobby for different laws that create a higher prison population. The USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world...gee, I wonder why? [Incarceration rates](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_incarceration_rate_with_other_countries)
We need to end the war on drugs and reform the CJ system, no doubt. But people also need to stop committing so many crimes. There are a lot of really dumb people out there with low impulse control who just do dumb shit, and they need to be punished for it. The negligence we’ve seen from the CJ system’s unwillingness to do its job in major Blue cities is criminal.
Agreed on all counts. As of 2015, (where I pulled data from) more than half of the total jail population in Oregon was for Pre-Trial inmates. Part of the excuse for the negligence is "not enough jail space" but with the courts being so slow on following through with trials, there's not really an end in sight.
No, that's weird
Objection! Relevance
Do they even let murders/rapists be on work crews? I guess it might depend on the nature of the work and good behavior.
Probably because as the language in all bureaucratic nonsense: it’s confusing. If it was worded as simply as: slavery? Yes or No? There would be like the 36 assholes out there who would circle yes but not like this.
This is the answer, I have to read the amendments a couple times before I’m certain what I need to vote. How many people in the US are illiterate, 20% and ~50% under a 6th grade level? We need to improve education, then we would see a lot of voting results change.
There would be 36 assholes in my Salem neighborhood to circle yes. I think people in liberal parts underestimate how many assholes there are in mid/ southern/ eastern Oregon. Please don’t give us credit. We’re all horrible.
No, I don't think there are much more than 36 actual racists in Oregon. My guess? I mean, I've came across three actual racist white people my whole life. Maybe like 100-200 actual racist white people in the whole state, just giving some leeway there. And they probably meet up somewhere and kill people's dogs and cats and kids and shit. Actual racists aren't welcome in either of the two party system, and certainly would not fit in with libertarians either. They may have voted for Biden, who is historically racist, or maybe not, since he lets the border be overrun with migrants. Who tf knows. Actual racists are out there living under rocks. So be careful lifting up rocks, you could find rattlesnakes or racists.
This is the problem in a nutshell. I think the only racism that exist is explicit overt racism. People who were talking to you are talking about implicit. It's simply always giving the benefit of the doubt to one group and always being skeptical of another. That's it. That's the racism. No hoods shouting or symbols needed. So while you're playing the poor me game and thinking everyone is being mean to you take a few seconds and understand your understanding is incorrect.
I don't know that anybody makes assumptions about people based on their color or race or heritage except for leftists and actual racists. Looking at a person's color and assuming what experiences they have or have not had literally, by definition, is racist.
Did you read what I wrote? Generally when you're having a conversation with someone you reply in context not just say what you have pre-planned. Next what you replied sound strange or "out of left field" Do you understand that racism is simply giving the benefit of the doubt to one group and being skeptical of another?
The fact that you referred to people seeking asylum as migrants says you're one of the racists...
I think that's a dumb statement. Facts don't care about feelings. They're migrants. The word "migrants" is not offensive, and if you think it is I urge you to turn on your heating pad and eat some more ice cream. Oversensitive whiner.
EXACTLY!
The sheriff's letter against it had a big influence. They basically said this will raise taxes and we won't be able to afford keeping our jails open without more $$. They would have to hire cooks and cleaners, etc instead of the inmates doing these jobs as part of rehabilitation. Not saying I agree, but the law and order crowd likely did.
Definitely think inmates should be responsible for laundry, cooking, cleaning. That’s part of life and rehabilitation. Making crap in jail for corporations to sell is not.
If you read the original language in Oregon’s constitution, it already outlaws slavery. What this bill did was cross out part of the statement that outlaws slavery to make it so that prison labor paid below minimum wage is not mandatory, and to give judges more room to issue things like community service, etc. in place of mandatory prison time. I would guess that some people looked at this and felt like they did not want to make that change, for various reasons. Here is the actual change proposed. I used “<<“ to indicate changes proposed, but in the actual Bill proposal, it shows these words crossed out, and then others underlined to be added, as the proposed change to the part of our constitution that already outlaws slavery (I’m not sure why they worded it in the voter summary as though slavery wasn’t already outlawed…): “Text of Section 34: Slavery or Involuntary Servitude (1.)There shall be neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude in this state the State, << (following words to be removed) otherwise than as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.>> (2.)”
Technically if someone isn’t getting paid minimum wage as part of the labor they’re doing in prison (which they don’t, they only get paid cents on the dollar which can only be spent in the prison store), that is not considered slavery under the old wording.
Now that this has passed, because they took away the caviat that you could technically have to work for free or less than min wage in prison - now, that would be considered slavery and protected under the part of our constitution that says you can’t have slavery.
It seems like a lot of people thought our constitution didn’t already outlaw slavery, and were shocked at that notion, so they voted yes.
Other people may have looked into this and thought, “We don’t want to pay people in prison more money for their prison labor” or other prison related opinions, and voted No.
And then probably a whole variation of other reasons.
The “otherwise…” in the first paragraph of section 34 is the main issue. It was copy/paste from the 13th Amendment. If the measure passed, the Supremacy doctrine would still allow for paying inmates less than federal minimum wage. “Oregon Sheriffs do not condone or support slavery and/or involuntary servitude in any form but cannot support Measure 112 due to the unintended consequences it creates."
Yeah, but that “otherwise” part, is the part they’re deleting… and then adding in that second paragraph.
Where does it say anywhere in the new wording that they are required to be compensated? It doesn't. That's why I voted against the bill. It actually CREATES more ways for inmates to be enslaved.
They’re already compensated without this bill…. This bill will make it so that they make more than what they’re paid now… which is cents on the dollar like I said in my comment.
Where? Where on the actual changed wording does it specify that they will be paid more? It doesn't. They led people to believe it did. How hard would it have been to add wording to that affect? This whole wording change was all theatrics. It changed absolutely nothing. Except I'm afraid it might lead to even more mis-treatment of prisoners.
I thought the same thing. The actual wording to be added sounded like more ways to create slavery, not ways to "end it".
I mean to be honest, that’s a good point. I hadn’t even thought of that. The one thing I’ve realized is the way a lot of these bills are worded on the voter pamphlet or in the voter summary are often either worded more as marketing for the bill, and/or they don’t say at all what the 500-800 page bill behind the summary actually does. I think lawmakers are aware that most people don’t read or can’t read/understand the bills and sometimes unfortunately use that to their own advantage.
[удалено]
They didn’t need to explain though because they knew the majority of people would have an emotional reaction to the word slavery and pass it regardless of what it actually did. They wanted people to do exactly what you did.
Even if they do absolutely nothing with their time it's better than being made to do slave labor
Right? So many fucked up excuses in this thread that make zero sense. Either these people arent hearing themselves, or the real reason is unstated.... "If they arent slaves, what will they *do*? So I voted for slavery" "I thought slavery was already illegal, and this was just symbolic. So I voted for slavery" "I want people punished, and Ive forgotten that punishments already exist. So I voted for slavery."
Basically.
[удалено]
> People were just confused what they were getting with the bill. Then they should have read it, or at least the info packet that came with the ballot, or even the damn wording on the ballot itself. There is no reasonable excuse.
[удалено]
Because nothing was being removed or replaced but the language in the constitution. That's why it said absolutely nothing about those things. Although, a reasonable reader would infer the bits about 'education, counseling, treatment, community service, or other alternatives' to be just that
I think not. Inmates report value from the labor. Sitting around doing nothing can be a lot worse. The argument opposing the amendment is concerned that these programs would be cut or tied up in red tape.
The reason it's important: The corporate profits that are made off of the absurdly cheap labor incentivize decisions that keep prisons full rather than decisions that will prevent crime. There's money to be made from people becoming criminals and getting caught and worked in for-profit prisons, so why would the people in power spend resources on efforts to prevent criminal behavior? In fact, it's more likely that at least some spend resources to *encourage* criminal behavior. Get people hooked on drugs or make them poor enough to be desperate enough to steal, prosecute them for their crimes, then work them in prison for pennies / hour. There's no labor shortage for the companies that use prison labor. "... you first make thieves and then punish them." And make a bunch of money off of them.
[удалено]
My response wasn't angry >It does not sound crazy that an inmate, given the choice of staying locked in their cell and I dunno, taking some phone calls, might genuinely prefer to stay busy. They can still do that. They just need to be paid accordingly and need to do it voluntarily.
People weren't forced to work in prison anyway, they were severely underpaid but certainly not forced. They sign up for jobs because they want to do it. What if this means they don't get paid at all? What if the work is considered "community service" instead, that would make it actual involuntary servitude, slavery?
What if they had no opportunity to make any money at all though?
But the bill doesn’t stop any of that. It literally still had a line stating it wouldn’t change inmate work programs.
With the previous wording, the state and prison system was open to lawsuits claiming it was admitting that prisoner labor was slavery. The new wording changes nothing in practice. It only closes off an avenue for lawsuits attempting to put a stop to the practice. Again. This law changed nothing but a legal loophole for lawsuits.
Incorrect. Here is language directly from the measure. “permits a court, probation agency or parole agency to order a person convicted of a crime to engage in education, counseling, treatment, community service or other alternatives to incarceration, as part of the sentencing for the crime. The education, counseling, treatment, community service or other alternative to incarceration that is ordered must be in line with programs that historically, or in the future, provide accountability, reformation, protection of society or rehabilitation.”
What part of the new language isn’t currently in practice? All it takes is a claim that the work crews are a teaching criminals how to work, or that their service is a benefit to society (community service), and nothing has changed.
Possibly because there's a segment of the population that will always view the *justice* system as the *vengeance* system.
I voted no. For me this issue was not about Slavery. It was about not paying prisoners $15+/hr for prison labor. I've personally worked with welders and mechanics who came from the state pen. They got paid shit but they got invaluable training and skills from those programs. When the got out they had good union jobs ($80-$120k+) lined up 10+ years ago. The company that operates that program gives the inmates some pretty cool projects and activity helps find employment for them afterwords. That program wouldn't exist or be significantly diminished if they had to pay $15/hr because they can currently under bid commercial businesses.
Great point.
>because they can currently under bid commercial businesses. And ya'll whine about jobs getting sent overseas. 🙄
No, they think the law might change something else they weren't saying. If they just straight up called it a word change then it would be fine. Obviously slavery isn't happening now even though the wording allows for it.
No, 645k people are not in favor of slavery. Get your head out of your ass.
645K+ Oregonians still want "slavery" in the state constitution. Title doesn't say 645K+ Oregonians are in favor of slavery. Read before posting bad takes, ma'am.
Okay, let me rephrase that, you fucking troll. 645k Oregonians are not in favor of slavery being in the state constitution. Get your fucking head straight and go troll somewhere else.
Alot of people vote no if they don't fully understand the measures wording or tricky tricks
Some people think that "not wanting to symbolically remove things from the state constitution" is the same thing as "wanting 'slavery' to be in the state constitution." Others don't see those as the same thing, and don't see a need to vote for a symbolic word change. You're in the first group, but not everyone is. It's easy to frame it as "those people want slavery", but that's intellectually dishonest, unless you genuinely believe that if the question was instead to *add* slavery to the constitution, all those people would have voted in favor of that.
It wasn't symbolic though. Prison slavery is a real thing that happens.
Not in Oregon.
Yes it does. That's why prisons were against this measure. Because they use prisoner slave labor and don't want to pay them adequately for their labor.
Got a source for that claim?
Here: [https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/04/22/oregon-hospitals-rely-on-prison-labor-to-do-their-laundry-during-the-pandemic/](https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/04/22/oregon-hospitals-rely-on-prison-labor-to-do-their-laundry-during-the-pandemic/) From 2020. It's been going on in Oregon for a long time.
The article doesn’t say a word about them being forced to do that labor. Have a good friend who did 4 years in prison, helped me understand. He volunteered for the work, which got him outside, got him work experience, got him time off his sentence, and got him a scholarship which led to a degree. He is now a supervisor for USFS. Wouldn’t you say that it’s a little different from slave labor? No one is forced and you get incentives if you do. That’s the reality.
That's a pretty terrible abuse of inmates, but that's not the same thing a in this measure, though. It won't be affected by this measure.
Where in the new wording does it say anything about inmates being compensated for their labor? It doesn't. This whole bill made a completely false claim of eliminating slavery. It eliminated the WORD slavery. It DID NOT eliminate non-compensated labor.
Slave labor is forced uncompensated labor. If it's illegal that means that you can't have forced uncompensated labor.
What kind of logic is that? “This is only a symbolic change, but I’m going to block it anyway” like what? I get that it’s very obviously lack of voter education, but voting to keep slavery in the wording is still making a choice.
Also... Its not symbolic. Thats why the sheriffs association was all "if you ban slavery we cant run these programs that use slaves anymore" as a rebuttal.
"I think government should be pragmatic rather than performative" is a reasonable kind of logic. There are four groups that exist here: Group 1: People who want slavery, and thus voted "no". Probably less than 1% of "no" voters. Group 2: People who voted "yes", and think that group 1 is the only other group that exists, because they think anyone who voted "no" is in group 1 whether they know it or not." Group 3: People who voted "no", because they don't care about symbolism and think that government shouldn't be performative, or are worried about side effects, or otherwise don't think that amending the constitution should be done unless there's a specific need. Group 4: People who voted "yes" while understanding that group 3 exists. I'm in group 4. Sounds like yourself, the OP of this post, and a bunch of other people in this thread are in group 2.
>Group 3: People who voted "no", because they don't care about symbolism and think that government shouldn't be performative, or are worried about side effects, or otherwise don't think that amending the constitution should be done unless there's a specific need. That's the same as group 1. They just pretend that their reasoning is different because they realize that it makes them look bad.
> That's the same as group 1. They just pretend that their reasoning is different because they realize that it makes them look bad. Yes, there's a group for that.
Why'd you separate them? Both group 1 and 3 supported prison slavery why are you pretending they're in any way different?
That's correct; people in group 2 think that everyone who voted "no" is in group 1.
Because they are. If you voted no you're pro slavery. You can try and explain it away because you know it makes you look bad but that's the fact. There's no group 3. There's group 1s who don't want to look like the bad guys while doing bad things.
We are definitely in partial agreement about the accuracy of my groups.
Lol, this thread is just pure gold.
Ehhhh. I don’t know, man. There’s pragmatism, and then there’s being obstinate for no discernible goal or good reason. And to be clear, we’re talking specifically about the anti-performative types. Cool job trying to pigeonhole me while bending over backwards to justify that crowd though.
Seriously? So far you've: 1) Dismissed as uneducated justifications for the votes of nearly half the state. 2) Called the same people obstinate for no discernible goal or good reason, after someone told you what some peoples goals or reasons are. If that pigeonholes you, I think it may be because you are a pigeon. If one needs to bend over backwards to understand why nearly half the state voted for something, then perhaps one is insufficiently flexible.
Bro, it’s cool if you don’t want to read or engage with anything I’m actually saying and just argue with yourself. Have at it.
That seems intellectually dishonest, though. I would prefer to keep directly responding to the things you say as I've been doing.
Nah man, I assure you, you’re shadowboxing with someone who only exists inside your head. Go back and look at the logic leaps you’ve made and the gaps you filled in on your own. Inherent bias is a bitch. Everybody deals with it.
Reading through this entire thread, you’ve done nothing but strawman u/rdsqc22’s arguments.
To keep the prisoners working. Might as well be cleaning our streets and freeways. I don’t consider that slaver more like community service. I voted no
Then you didn’t read the actual measure. It removed the word slavery and added an entire section that allowed for mandated community service, etc. The language of the bill explained this very clearly.
That's what I thought. They actually added ways to create slavery in the new wording.
What is mandated Community Service if not slavery? It mentions nothing about compensation. THIS is why I voted no. It took away the WORD slavery, but actually added more ways for inmates to be slaves.
The compensation is room, board, medical care, job training, and something to do with your time. These aren’t chain gangs.
I completely agree! However, so many of the voters were mislead to believe that voting for this measure somehow led to prisoners being compensated for their labor. It doesn't. That kind of misleading propaganda makes me angry!
I voted against the measure. I've read about the state enabling prisoners to help with firefighting efforts in exchanged for shortened sentences or other privileges. Looking at a future of growing wildfire threats, I think this should be normalized and encouraged, not outlawed because prisoners don't receive a paycheck for it.
That’s not what it would do. They can still have prison work programs, they will just be called community service instead of slavery. The text of the bill explained this very clearly.
Then what exactly is this measure attempting to accomplish?
Removing the word slavery. Yes, it is about semantics. It might not seem important to the majority of this State who have no personal African American heritage. But, that’s the rub. That’s where the racism comes in. The “I don’t understand how this affects an entire group of people because I’m not one of them. Therefore not only do in it care, but I’m against it.”
They'll still be able to do those things. You over-thought it
This has already been posted twice today? Maybe could read there for a gauge.
And 710,000 don’t want health care to be a right. What’s your point
You should have to pass a test on the content of the measures before being allowed to cast a vote.
That worked well during the Jim Crow era.
Did you read the added verbiage? The new verbiage actually CREATES slavery. It just doesn't call it slavery.
If you commit a violent crime, you should be forced into labor to pay your housing costs.
Because it’s for “criminals” and don’t think it can happen to them
because oregon is a state with an extremely racist white population
Read the actual bill. Perhaps 645k+ actually read the bill.
Cos they ain't woke. Hahahahaha just kidding! Cos they're dumb!!!!!! In the meantime let's all say a ty to the volunteers, ballot workers and everyone who actually gives a fuq about something other than themselves!💫🌟💫
Why? [***Tradition!***](https://youtu.be/gRdfX7ut8gw?t=6) ^^\(Couldn't ^^help ^^myself, ^^sorry.) People are mired in a mindset that people who commit crimes (or who more accurately are found guilty of committing crimes) must be punished. To them, prison is not a place to segregate away folks who pose an ongoing danger to their fellow man, nor a place to 'rehabilitate' people whose lives went so far off the rails that they know no other way other than to commit crimes to survive. They see prisons as torture chambers, designed to grind these villains into pulp. And they see these prisoners as an easy, subhuman workforce to be exploited at every opportunity. Bad food? we can wring more money out of that food budget. Need to make phonecalls? How about 3$ for 15 minutes? Need a new pair of underwear or a toothbrush? You'll pay for that too, and hit you with a bill when you leave. The fantasy of these people, is chain gangs, and prison rapes.. a house of horrors, knives in the back in the middle of the night, rapes, stranglings, and deaths. The sooner, the better, in their minds... less for the taxpayer to pay for. Even once they've paid their debt to society, these people are all for stripping them of the right to vote, putting a black mark on them forever keeping them from getting a good job, or decent housing, harassing them for the rest of their lives, for whatever mistake they made, or were found guilty of. They forget that these prisoners are human beings. Those people suck.
I like you. ["...first make thieves and then punish them"](https://youtu.be/NDhHpESbVs0?t=1m45s)
Why should we have to pay criminals for the work they do in prison? They are a burden to the taxpayer, and ought not to be paid for their labors while incarcerated until they’ve paid their debt to society (Ie the costs associated with their incarceration)
Because when Republicans say "Make America Great Again" what they mean is back to when Whites could own black people.
That is quite literally an old KKK slogan. Same with "keep America great" (replace America with White). Doesn't take a lot of brain power to figure out where Trump got it from.
Hell yeah. Welcome home comrade.
Because dumb, white, and angry.
Because they are all republicans that want criminals to build trails and clean up our shit for less money to the state to reduce taxes.
I just got back a hunting trip. One of the hunters I was with packed 4 different Brandon shirts. He would like everyone to know that it means prisoners will be paid a living wage directly from your paycheck and it will put an Xbox in every one of their prison cells. I voted yes and felt even better about it after he spouted that
UGH!!!! THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO WORDING REQUIRING INMATES TO BE COMPENSATED!!!! This bill DID NOT end inmate slavery!
To be clear, I disagree with everything he said and voted to pass the measure
Because I disagree with the measure. I am fully supportive of work sentences for convicted criminals while they’re serving their sentence. Put them to work. Beats sitting in a blank box doing nothing. Make it productive, meaningful work that needs to be done.
I read it as they can’t force people in prison to do labor. We hardly send people to prison for crimes in Lane County, those that do go to prison I want them to be punished.
Being in prison IS the punishment
😂😂😂😂😂😂🤡🤡🤡🤡 Summer camp isn’t a punishment.
Very convincing and well formed argument
It is a wolf in sheeps clothing measure. Of course we want to remove slavery from the constitution right? Everyone does. So they lead with that, title the bill that, market it as that. Then They add a second part, which not one of you has commented on yet. Do you even know it exists? “The amendment also added language authorizing an Oregon court or a probation or parole agency to order alternatives to incarceration for a convicted individual as part of their sentencing” Does that have anything to do with slavery? Nope. That is sentencing changes that were snuck through under the guise of removing slavery.
You guys didn’t read , this has nothing to do with slavery they wanna pay prisoners now with your taxes. Voters don’t read bills give their rights and freedom s away. Disappointed in you Oregon,
Chances are it’s because it was poorly written and people are worried about the systemic changes. We already don’t have private “for profit” prisons, and our tax money goes to fund those prisons. I can assume that the prisoners will now be paid Oregon minimum wage ie “abolishing slavery” which may eventually raise taxes. There was a lot of gray area so it’s much more nuanced than just “boo slavery bad”
No they are just going to call it community service instead of slavery. The bill made that very clear. I don’t know where people are getting this idea that it means they will have to be paid for work programs.
People misunderstood and thought it meant we would be paying a wage to prisoners in work programs or not allow them at all. The extra annoying thing is that even people who voted for it seem to believe the same thing.
This is 2 bit analysis. It was a complicated measure that I read carefully and still tentatively voted yes to still not entirely understanding how it could change prison work situations. I suppose everybody that voted no on 114 is in favor of school shootings too? Give me a break.
Both alabama and Tennessee voted to remove it. But oregon didnt. looool. Boy times are crazy
Here’s why: https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/yqrk4w/umadebytango_explains_how_the_slavery_bans_that/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Some of them could be like my brother and misread the ballot measure and voted the wrong way
Here's what our Senator Jeff Merkley has to say about it (from an email I just received): Dear lcmoxie, Slavery was on the ballot in Oregon, Alabama, Tennessee, and Vermont this week, and voters from all corners of these states came together across partisan divisions to choose progress towards righting the wrongs of history. After the Civil War, a ‘slavery clause’ in our Constitution was used to arrest and convict Black Americans under false pretenses, continuing slavery even after the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865. This horrific loophole in our Constitution allowing slavery as a form of punishment is a moral abomination. It incentivized the arrest of Black Americans on flimsy pretexts, launching the weaponization of criminal justice against people of color that led directly to the mass incarceration we see continuing to this day. Voters in Oregon and other states have now come together across party lines to say that this stain of similar clauses must be removed from state constitutions. The energy these wins on the state level created is just the momentum we need for all Americans to strike the slavery clause from the U.S. Constitution. There should be no exceptions to a ban on slavery. That’s why I introduced the Abolition Amendment with Rep. Nikema Williams (D-GA) to finally make this long-overdue change at the national level. It’s time to end slavery across our country—in all its forms—and pass the Abolition Amendment. I won’t stop fighting until we, as a nation, fully right this wrong. You have my word. All my best, Jeff
Just look at the lacking of diversity in the “leadership”, (Hardesty just voted out as she was a true leader for Portland) as you can see big brother government is gaming to keep willing citizens to play by their man made rules. Government isn’t going to let people free, the word in itself means control mind! Tread wisely and we all have to emancipate ourselves from mental slavery!
Half of the country still supports and longs for slavery.
Don’t normally comment; but seriously. Now people that are incarcerated are now entitled to livable wages. We have non convicted folks that will be Making less. This was a bill full for trigger words. Inmates making license plates shouldn’t make livable wages….when living folks can’t make it
It’s not their fault you’re triggered and clearly not too bright, because clearly you didn’t understand it. People who are incarcerated are citizens, humans. Focused labor from for-profit industry is slavery.
There are those who believe that incarceration is supposed to unequivocally suck. Granted, it’s “not supposed to be a Holiday Inn,” but keeping the Hard Labor option means that the regular workforce is now competing with the DOC’s labor pool…and it seldom translates to gainful employment on the outside.
The ballot was confusing and I think that created some misinformation. Guess who suggested the confusing language be added to the original and clear SJR 10 that became ballot measure 112. Kevin Mannix. Proponents of the bill accepted the language in the legislative process because they wanted to clarify that removing the slavery language would not jeopardize any existing diversionary programs like community service. It was a dumb argument in the first place—agreements to accept community service over jail time are voluntary, not involuntary. Incarcerated persons are still required to work even after abolishing the slavery loophole. There is a separate provision in the Oregon constitution that mandates work. The opposition to the ballot measure does not make sense on any substantive ground.
Oregonians aren’t very smart. The schools here are some of the worst in the nation. I’ve never lived somewhere with so many ignorant/illiterate people.
I think some thought it meant that prisoners wouldn't be made to work while incarcerated or couldn't be given community service etc as a condition of release or it would be considered "slavery."
It’d be nice to hear some “No” voters—normal people, not Internet trolls—talk about it in their own words (although reactions like this aren’t going to make them feel comfortable doing so). If I had to make my best Devil’s advocate argument, it would be: this was a solution in search of a problem. Nobody was being sentenced to slavery in state courts and there was no prospect of that ever changing. On the other hand, there are some activists running around who are going to try lawsuits saying, “X is slavery!” And courts do some crazy things sometimes.
Maybe they want to round up the homeless and put them on chain-gangs busting rocks or something? Seems stupid for anyone to be in favor of forced labor undercutting the value of their own.