Civlian Inmates for Military Labor?

//
//

A friend emailed me this Army Reg posting on the “Civilian Inmate Labor Program” for Military Installations, AR 210-35.

This AR is Unclassified and was revised/published on 14 January 2005.

(I have the Publication uploaded to the site so you can go to the bottom, click and download it if the links don’t work)

The basic jist of this Army Regulation is about using Low  risk, low security inmates for use as cheap (relatively) labor on military installations.  The Revision “Provides Army policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor programs and civilian prison camps on Army installations.”

The sources of labor are ostensibly

• All Federal Inmates, both housed ON the base and OFF the base
• State and Local inmates who are housed in correctional facilities that are leased on Federal/Military Property under Section
  2667, Title 10, United States Code (10 USC 2667)
• As well as State inmates participating in demonstration project authorized under Section 1065, Public Law (PL) 103–337

The purpose of this program is to

“(1) Providing a source of labor at no direct labor cost to Army installations to accomplish tasks that would not be
possible otherwise due to the manning and funding constraints under which the Army operates.
(2) Providing meaningful work for inmates and, in some cases, additional space to alleviate overcrowding in nearby
corrections facilities.
(3) Making cost–effective use of buildings and land not otherwise being used.”

Basically the Army is looking at the massive inmate population in the Country and saying “The government is paying for their food, health and housing costs, why not use them to dig ditches and pick up trash, etc. on base?”

Seem reasonable right?  At first glance this seems pretty smart, why not use them for menial labor instead of hiring people to do the job since we are already paying for everything for them now!

Well a few things bother me

1. It seems pretty Federal overall, mostly only Federal inmates, unless its for a “demonstration project”, then local or state inmates could be used.  There is no guidance or overview of how many “demonstration projects” are allowed or can be active at one time.  It is conceivable to think that there could be thousands of  “demonstration projects” brought into active service which would de facto make it ok for the military to use as many local and state inmates as they would like.
2. I find a real and present conflict of interest in the penal system which is paid for by the state (federal and state) who then use that inmate population as cheap labor for projects within the boundaries of said state.  One could see the possibility of a system starting to take hold where these inmates begin to be used because of a “why not” mentality, the state gets used to this in their budgets, but if the inmate population declines they will come to a crossroads.  Either get their fiscal situation under control or “find” more inmates.  If history has anything to teach us is that states love to push back true fiscal fixes in favor of easier ones, they would rather rob peter to pay paul, in this arrest peter to keep paul from having to cut back his spending.
3. This program is believed to be at the time of this publication productive enough that the military has 4 pages on how to establish “civilian inmate prison camps” on military installations.  In my opinion this program should be seen as temporary and as a “if we can manage it” type of program not one that require camps, dining facilities and medical care.  If you cant get the inmates to the base, work then get back within the day it shouldn’t be done.
4. If this program became popular enough you could see “civilian inmate prison camps” established and grown on every single base, which will destroy a big part of the local economy who rely on jobs around the base, not to mention the wishy washy morality of the military using civilian inmates as labor “of no cost to the Army”

While I don’t want to sound tin foil hat, I do believe this is something that should raise an eyebrow, not enough to go WHAAAAT!!! but more of a “huh” and for further thought to be given.

Personally i don’t see it as something to be OVERLY concerned about, but it is something to keep an eye on and be aware of in case other programs are implemented that might expand this program, etc.

The Publication can be Read by clicking the link and downloading the PDF below.

AR 210-35