On the other hand, denying them access to an affordable communication line to their families -- in an age when such services are cheaper than water,† for the general population -- is arguably cruel and unusual punishment.

And to the prisoners' families -- it's most especially cruel.

† Okay, the calls need monitoring, which increases the cost somewhat. But not by much, and not nearly in proportion to the rates they're currently being gouged for, in some states.

> Okay, the calls need monitoring

There is an honest question as to whether they do in all cases. How is listening to the phone calls of someone in prison for shoplifting or drunk driving not a complete waste of resources?

If it became known they weren't being listened to, they'd be paid by people who were being listened to to act as a communication line.

You don't tell them they aren't being listened to, you just don't bother listening to them. And maybe you do random sampling.

But what problem are you identifying that doesn't already exist via mob attorneys?

I was just acknowledging that the need may exist in the worst possible cases. For the greater sake of demolishing the (perceived) justifications that are touted for this largely wasteful, predatory and vindictive practice.

I'm certainly not a constitutional lawyer, so I ask out of curiosity: has the 13th amendment been interpreted this way?

I feel that there's a difference between slavery as punishment (i.e. being explicitly sentenced to slavery) vs. slavery incidental to punishment (i.e. being explicitly sentenced to imprisonment, and then the private prison deciding to enslave you during your sentence).

Incidental, but morally, there is no difference. Public prisons also take advantage of this clause.

And yes, this has absolutely been interpreted in this way. Unpaid, or grossly underpaid prison labour is extremely common in the US.

That is true about unpaid labour, but my understanding was that this isn't forced on to the prisoners. I understand that prisoners are given the option to work, and reap various benefits in return (modest pay, extra hours outdoors in the case of road crews, and potentially leniancy for "good behavior" at parole hearings).

>I'm certainly not a constitutional lawyer, so I ask out of curiosity: has the 13th amendment been interpreted this way?

No.

see my other post

This is not 'settled' as much as it has been ignored by the courts.