> how is it wrong to make them at least cover their own costs?

Very wrong. Prison provides a service to society. We pay for that service out of our own pockets for our own benefit.

This should be true whether you think prison should be about punishment or reform. This should be true regardless of who runs the prison.

If society is unwilling to pay the costs to segregate the population into guilty and not-guilty fractions, they should shut down the prisons and see how expensive that gets.

Trying to offset the costs of that service through literal slavery is insane, immoral, and not in anyone's interest. No crime validates being turned into a slave. Someone being in prison has already been stripped of their freedom, and going further to lease them out as underpriced labor not only fucks with the labor market, but it should not be considered "just" punishment when PRISON is supposed to be the punishment.

Making prisoners pay $2 for fifty cent ramen is just as unethical. If you are unwilling to pay the price for a society without criminals, imprison less people, make fewer criminals, or deal with the consequences. Functioning society has costs. Trying to escape those in such cruel ways is childish, selfish, and stupid.

Start by explaining why slavery would ever not be wrong.

Are you against court-ordered community service?

It seems borderline, given that the person has a choice of when and where to perform it. But I don’t want to be near any borderlines here, so, yes. Morality aside, it seems very ineffective both in terms of punishment/rehabilitation and for getting value out of the person.

Well we're talking about morality, so is it morally wrong? I'm fairly sure you'd say conscription is morally wrong, but is jury duty morally wrong? I'm not sure a government can continue to exist without forcing people to work in one form or another.

As I said, it’s borderline.

Jury duty is an interesting question. I’m not a huge fan of the jury system, although it may be the best of bad alternatives. Maybe there’s no good way around this one.

I get that you’re trying to trip me up (and succeeding a bit), but penal labor isn’t difficult or borderline or anything like that. It’s a straightforward “we can make money by forcing that person to work, and it’s not illegal.” There’s no justification beyond, they’re a criminal so they deserve it. Obviously, criminal punishment has to involve violation of certain rights, but I don’t see any reason for it to involve violating this right besides liking money and wanting more of it.

Well I've already mentioned covering costs as a reason. Anything beyond that seems like a slippery slope.

You seem to think that forcing anyone to work is a slippery slope, and considering where we are now, there probably is some merit to that idea.

“Covering costs” is just a different way to say “we like money and we can get some by enslaving that person.” It’s not a moral justification for anything.