1983
DOI: 10.1086/449094
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prison Labor and Prison Industries

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0
1

Year Published

1989
1989
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
7
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The ability of the BFOQ approach to reconcile these interests is an important advantage, given the persistent influence of “less eligibility” concerns on penal policy (Hawkins 1983). Garland (2001) has correctly observed that rehabilitative interventions—and reentry programming can surely be interpreted as reminiscent of rehabilitation—can only be justified in this day and age if they are seen as compatible with the interests of other stakeholders.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The ability of the BFOQ approach to reconcile these interests is an important advantage, given the persistent influence of “less eligibility” concerns on penal policy (Hawkins 1983). Garland (2001) has correctly observed that rehabilitative interventions—and reentry programming can surely be interpreted as reminiscent of rehabilitation—can only be justified in this day and age if they are seen as compatible with the interests of other stakeholders.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, during the course of punishment, offenders should be “less eligible” for goods, services, and opportunities. Hawkins (1983) has observed that the principle of less eligibility has had a persistent influence on penal policy, affecting solutions to the problem of prisoners, work, and prison.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the one hand, opponents of prison industries 2 have argued for more than a century that prison labor (1) is bad for society in that it creates fertile terrain for corruption between politicians and corporations that, perversely, benefit from harsher punishment; (2) is bad for companies that do not use prison labor which must compete with companies that do; (3) is bad for non‐prisoners whose wages and work conditions are adversely impacted by the forced extraction of labor from prisoners 3 ; and (4) is bad for inmates who are often exploited (e.g., Bair 2008; Debs 1899; Frey 1913; Khalek 2011; Parenti 2001; Raghunath 2009). On the other side of what is often a stark divide, advocates of having prisoners work for private companies and/or for the state have argued, over the same time period, that such work (1) is good for society in that it offsets or reduces the costs to the government of punishment; (2) is good for the private sector in that it helps build infrastructure and creates a better trained workforce with a better work ethic; (3) has little or no impact on “free” workers, insofar as competition is indirect or nonexistent—sometimes even bringing jobs “back home” that were previously outsourced abroad; and (4) is good for inmates who learn job skills and the mentalities needed to hold down steady work after release (e.g., Butler 1886; Derrick, Scott, and Hutson 2004; Flanagan and Maguire 1993; Garvey 1998; Gill 1931; Hawkins 1983; Pratt 1913). 4 The debate, as such, is both empirical and ideological—and those advocating for each side have a proclivity for making broad, sweeping claims.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[…] la mayoría de los prisioneros están encarcelados por periodos de tiempo relativamente cortos, el interés de una carrera laboral dentro de la cárcel es probable que sea de una limitada relevancia para el prisionero promedio. (Hawkins, 1983) Como hemos señalado el tiempo medio de estancia en las cárceles españolas era superior a la media europea. Con todo eso, destacan un período inferior a dos años con un 64,3% de las mujeres ingresadas en la prisión.…”
Section: Rasgos Característicos De Las Mujeres De América Latinaunclassified