Search This Blog

Tuesday, May 19, 2020

Debtors' prison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 18th-century debtors' prison at the Castellania in Valletta, now the offices of the Health Ministry in Malta
 
A debtors' prison is a prison for people who are unable to pay debt. Through the mid-19th century, debtors' prisons (usually similar in form to locked workhouses) were a common way to deal with unpaid debt in Western Europe. Destitute persons who were unable to pay a court-ordered judgment would be incarcerated in these prisons until they had worked off their debt via labour or secured outside funds to pay the balance. The product of their labour went towards both the costs of their incarceration and their accrued debt. Increasing access and lenience throughout the history of bankruptcy law have made prison terms for unaggravated indigence illegal over most of the world. 

Since the late 20th century, the term debtors' prison has also sometimes been applied by critics to criminal justice systems in which a court can sentence someone to prison over willfully unpaid criminal fees, usually following the order of a judge. For example, in some jurisdictions within the United States, people can be held in contempt of court and jailed after willful non-payment of child support, garnishments, confiscations, fines, or back taxes. Additionally, though properly served civil duties over private debts in nations such as the United States will merely result in a default judgment being rendered in absentia if the defendant willfully declines to appear by law, a substantial number of indigent debtors are legally incarcerated for the crime of failing to appear at civil debt proceedings as ordered by a judge. In this case, the crime is not indigence, but disobeying the judge's order to appear before the court. Critics argue that the "willful" terminology is subject to individual mens rea determination by a judge, rather than statute, and that since this presents the potential for judges to incarcerate legitimately indigent individuals, it amounts to a de facto "debtors' prison" system.

History

Medieval Europe

During Europe's Middle Ages, debtors, both men and women, were locked up together in a single, large cell until their families paid their debt. Debt prisoners often died of diseases contracted from other debt prisoners. Conditions included starvation and abuse from other prisoners. If the father of a family was imprisoned for debt, the family business often suffered while the mother and children fell into poverty. Unable to pay the debt, the father often remained in debtors' prison for many years. Some debt prisoners were released to become serfs or indentured servants (debt bondage) until they paid off their debt in labor.

By region

Council of Europe

Article 1 of Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits the imprisonment of people for breach of a contract. Turkey has signed but never ratified Protocol 4.

France

France allows for contrainte par corps, now denominated contrainte judiciaire, for money owed to the State by solvent debtors aged from 18 to 65; its length is limited following the amount of the debt and aims to pressure the debtor to pay his debts, consequently the owed money stays owed to the State.

Germany



In the late Middle Ages, and at the beginning of the modern era, public law was codified in Germany. This served to standardize the coercive arrest (Pressionshaft), and got rid of the many arbitrary sanctions that were not universal. In some areas (like Nürnberg) the debtor could sell or redistribute their debt. 

In most of the cities, the towers and city fortifications functioned as jails. For certain sanctions there were designated prisons, hence some towers being called debtors' prison (Schuldturm). The term Schuldturm, outside of the Saxon constitution, became the catchword for public law debtors' prison.

In the early modern era, the debtor's detainment or citizen's arrest remained valid in Germany. Sometimes it was used as a tool to compel payment, other times it was used to secure the arrest of an individual and ensure a trial against them in order to garnish wages, replevin or a form of trover. This practice was particularly disgraceful to a person's identity, but had different rules than criminal trials. It was more similar to the modern enforcement of sentences (Strafvollzug) e.g. the debtor would be able to work off their debt for a certain number of days, graduated by how much they owed.

The North German Confederation eliminated debtors' prisons on May 29, 1868.

At present a comparable concept to debtors' prison still exists in various forms in Germany:
  • A maximum of 6 weeks coercive arrest for failure to pay fine (Bußgeld).
  • A maximum of 6 months coercive arrest for failure to issue an oath of not being able to pay any kind of liability.
  • As an alternative sentence, if a fine (Geldstrafe) is not paid, up to 6 months.
  • As a personal arrest for the securing of a foreclosure or garnishment on wages.
  • Failure to pay child support as ordered by court, which is a crime under the Penal Code.

England and Wales

A mid-Victorian depiction of the debtors' prison at St Briavels Castle.
 
In England, during the 18th and 19th centuries, 10,000 people were imprisoned for debt each year. A prison term did not alleviate a person's debt, however; an inmate was typically required to repay the creditor in-full before being released. In England and Wales, debtors' prisons varied in the amount of freedom they allowed the debtor. With a little money, a debtor could pay for some freedoms; some prisons allowed inmates to conduct business and to receive visitors; others (including the Fleet and King's Bench Prisons) even allowed inmates to live a short distance outside the prison—a practice known as the 'Liberty of the Rules'—and the Fleet even tolerated clandestine 'Fleet Marriages'.

Life in these prisons, however, was far from pleasant, and the inmates were forced to pay for their keep. Samuel Byrom, son of the writer and poet John Byrom, was imprisoned for debt in the Fleet in 1725, and in 1729 he sent a petition to his old school friend, the Duke of Dorset, in which he raged against the injustices of the system. Some debtor prisoners were even less fortunate, being sent to prisons with a mixture of vicious criminals and petty criminals, and many more were confined to a single cell.

The father of the English author Charles Dickens was sent to one of these prisons (the Marshalsea), which were often described in Dickens's novels. He became an advocate for debt prison reform, and his novel Little Dorrit dealt directly with this issue.

The Debtors' Act of 1869 limited the ability of the courts to sentence debtors to prison, but it did not entirely prohibit them from doing so. Debtors who had the means to pay their debt, but did not do so, could still be incarcerated for up to six weeks, as could those who defaulted on debts to the court. Initially, there was a significant reduction in the number of debtors imprisoned following the passage of the 1869 Act. By 1870, the total number of debtors imprisoned decreased by almost 2,000, dropping from 9,759 in 1869 to 6,605 in 1870. However, by 1905 that number had increased to 11,427.

Some of London's debtors' prisons were the Coldbath Fields Prison, Fleet Prison, Giltspur Street Compter, King's Bench Prison, Marshalsea Prison, Poultry Compter, and Wood Street Counter. The most famous was the Clink prison, which had a debtor's entrance in Stoney Street. This prison gave rise to the British slang term for being incarcerated in any prison, hence "in the clink". Its location also gave rise to the term for being financially embarrassed, "stoney broke".

A form of debtors' prison still exists in England, whereby it is still possible to be sent to prison for non-payment of Council Tax (a form of property tax). Imprisonment for non-payment of council tax is not competent (i.e., applicable) in any other nation of the United Kingdom.

Scotland

Imprisonment for the non-payment of debt was competent at Scots common law, but the effect of imprisonment for such stood in marked contrast to the position in England even after the execution of the Treaty of Union in 1707. As Viscount Dunedin observed in 1919, it was 'in direct contradistinction to the view of the law in England, that imprisonment was in no sense a satisfaction of the debt'; the purpose for imprisonment for debt was not to discharge the obligation to pay, but rather to act as a compulsitor to force the debtor into revealing any hidden assets. The Scots law allowing the imprisonment of debtors was grounded in large part by an Act of Sederunt of 23 November 1613, which introduced the process of 'horning' whereby the creditor would demand the payment of the debt by a certain date. If the debtor did not satisfy the payment of the debt within this stipulated time-period, the creditor could have the debtor 'put to the horn' by a messenger-at-arms. The execution of horning would have to be registered in the General Register of Hornings in Edinburgh. On registration, a warrant for the arrest of the debtor could then be issued. The formal process of 'horning' was not formally abolished until the passing of s.89 of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 (c 18), though in practice imprisonment for the non-payment of debts had ceased to be relevant in Scotland since the passing of s.4 of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1880 (c 34). Imprisonment remains competent in cases in which a court order, or order ad factum praestandum is breached by a debtor.

While imprisonment for debt was competent in Scots law, it was provided that debtors who were within the bounds of Holyrood Park (the whole of which was deemed a sanctuary) were exempt, and accordingly, till the abolition of imprisonment for debt, many debtors lived in lodgings within the bounds of the park. Such persons were subject to the Bailie of the Park, who had power, in certain cases, to imprison them himself, in the Abbey Jail.

Greece

Ιmprisonment for debts, whether to the tax office or to a private bank, was still practiced until January 2008, when the law changed after imprisonment for unpaid taxes, as well as other debts to the government or to the social security office, was declared unconstitutional after having been practiced for 173 years; imprisonment was, however, still retained for debts to private banks. The situation regarding imprisonment (προσωποκράτηση (prosōpokrάtēsē): custody) for debts to the government is still unclear, as courts continue to have this ability for criminal acts.

India

The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended, contains provisions for criminal penalties, including imprisonment, if someone defaults on a debt or a payment obligation.

Section 28A of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (As amended by the Securities Laws(Amendment) Act, 2014) contains provisions for penalties, including imprisonment, for failure to pay back investors or the authorities.

In India, courts have been known to jail financial defaulters as a way to coerce them to pay back their victims or the government. For example, in the case of Subrata Roy, his bail was conditional on him paying back huge amounts to the investors or the regulators.

Malta

An eighteenth century debtors' prison is found within the Castellania in Valletta, Malta, now used as offices by the Ministry for Health. It remained in use as a prison until the nineteenth century. In line with the European Convention Act, no person is to be deprived of his liberty because of the incapability to fulfill a contractual obligation.

United Arab Emirates

Debtors in the United Arab Emirates, including Dubai, are imprisoned for failing to pay their debts. This is a common practice in the country. Banks are not sympathetic to the debtors once they are in prison, so many just choose to leave the country where they can negotiate for settlements later. The practice of fleeing UAE to avoid arrest because of debt defaults is considered a viable option to customers who are unable to meet their obligations.

United States of America

Early debtors' prisons (colonization–1850)

Many Colonial American jurisdictions established debtors' prisons using the same models used in Great Britain. James Wilson, a signatory to the Declaration of Independence, spent some time in a debtors' prison while still serving as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Fellow signatory Robert Morris spent three years, from 1798 to 1801, in the Prune Street Debtors' Prison, Philadelphia Henry Lee III, better known as Henry "Light-Horse" Lee, a Revolutionary War general and father of Robert E. Lee, was imprisoned for debt between 1808 and 1809 where he made use of his time by writing "Memoirs of the War".

Debtors' prisons were prevalent throughout the United States up until the mid-1800s. Economic hardships following the War of 1812 with Great Britain helped swell prison populations with simple debtors. This resulted in significant attention being given to plights of the poor and most dependent jailed under the widespread practice, possibly for the first time. Increasing disfavor over debtors' prisons along with the advent and early development of U.S. bankruptcy laws led states to begin restricting imprisonment for most civil debts. At that time growing use of the poorhouse and poor farm were also seen as institutional alternatives for debtors' prisons. The United States ostensibly eliminated the imprisonment of debtors under federal law in 1833 leaving the practice of debtors' prisons to states.
Changes to state debtors' prisons
Kentucky 1821 – save where fraud was shown or suspected
Ohio 1828
Maryland 1830 – for debts under $30
New Jersey 1830
Vermont 1830
Massachusetts 1831 – exempted females for any amount and males with debts under $10
New York 1832, Connecticut 1837, Louisiana 1840, Missouri 1845, Alabama 1848, Virginia 1849
Historic preservation
  • Accomac, Virginia – constructed 1782–1783, converted to a "gaol [jail] for debtors" in 1824, closed 1849
  • Tappahannock, Virginia – constructed prior to 1769, converted to other uses 1849
  • Worsham, Virginia – authorized 1786, constructed as a "gaol [jail] for debtors" 1787, closed sometime between 1820 and 1849

Modern debtors' prisons (1970–current)

While the United States no longer has brick and mortar debtors' prisons, or "gaols for debtors" of private debts, the term "debtor's prison" in modern times sometimes refers to the practice of imprisoning indigent criminal defendants for matters related to either a fine or a fee imposed in criminal judgments. To what extent a debtor will actually be prosecuted varies from state to state. This modern use of the term debtors' prison arguably has its start with precedent rulings in 1970, 1971 and 1983 by the U.S. Supreme Court, and passage of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978.

In 1970, the Court ruled in Williams v. Illinois that extending a maximum prison term because a person is too poor to pay fines or court costs violates the right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. During 1971 in Tate v. Short, the Court found it unconstitutional to impose a fine as a sentence and then automatically convert it into "a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full." And in the 1983 ruling for Bearden v. Georgia, the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment bars courts from revoking probation for a failure to pay a fine without first inquiring into a person's ability to pay and considering whether there are adequate alternatives to imprisonment.

A year-long study released in 2010 of fifteen states with the highest prison populations by the Brennan Center for Justice, found that all fifteen states sampled have jurisdictions that arrest people for failing to pay debt or appear at debt-related hearings. The study identified four causes that lead to debtors' prison type arrests for debts:
  • State laws that attempt to make criminal justice debt a condition of probation, parole, or other correctional supervision with failure to pay resulting in arrest and reimprisonment.
  • State laws that consider imprisonment as a penalty for failure to pay criminal justice debt. These actions are considered a civil contempt of court charge, thus technically not in violation of state constitutions that prohibit debtors' prisons, but for the same reason those incarcerated must be released immediately if they either pay or prove themselves unable to do so.
  • Citizens choosing jail time under state programs where imprisonment is a way of paying down court imposed debt.
  • States that regularly arrest citizens for criminal justice debt prior to appearing at debt-related hearings, leading in many cases to multi-day jail terms pending an ability to pay hearing.
  • The routine jailing of persons who owe civil debt when such debts are related to child support arrears. Imprisonment for such debt is legally justified by the legal fiction that the incarceration is not for the debt, but rather for not obeying a court order to pay the debt.
In an article in The American Conservative, Michael Shindler argues that another factor responsible for debtors' prison type arrests is that "Whereas indigent defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to a court-appointed lawyer in criminal cases involving incarceration, indigent debtors in state and local courts have no one to defend them against the error and abuse that characterizes debt collection litigation." Similarly, Shindler writes, regarding explicitly illegal debtors' prison type arrests ordered by local judges,"the reason these officials engage in this sort of excessive behavior is often due to ignorance."

In a 2019 report by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law argues that debtors' prisons are likely to appear in states like Arkansas where many people live in poverty and are unable to pay fines and fees, where poor record-keeping exacerbates challenges faced by defendants and where arrest warrants and drivers license suspensions make it even harder for people to pay off court-imposed debt.

Modern examples

In 2014, National Public Radio (NPR) posted a report stating that there were still cases of judges imprisoning people who have not paid court fees. The American Civil Liberties Union has been challenging such policies since 2009.

In September, 2015, the town of Bowdon, Georgia made international news when a sitting municipal judge, Richard A. Diment, was surreptitiously recorded threatening defendants with jail time for traffic violations if they did not provide immediate payment. The incidents caused the Bowdon Municipal Court to be closed for a month in order to implement changes in policy.

Debt bondage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Debt bondage, also known as debt slavery or bonded labour, is the pledge of a person's services as security for the repayment for a debt or other obligation, where the terms of the repayment are not clearly or reasonably stated, and the person who is holding the debt and thus has some control over the laborer. Freedom is assumed on debt repayment. The services required to repay the debt may be undefined, and the services' duration may be undefined, thus allowing the person supposedly owed the debt to demand services indefinitely. Debt bondage can be passed on from generation to generation.

Currently, debt bondage is the most common method of enslavement with an estimated 8.1 million people bonded to labour illegally as cited by the International Labour Organization in 2005. Debt bondage has been described by the United Nations as a form of "modern day slavery" and the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery seeks to abolish the practice.

The practice is still prevalent primarily in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, although most countries in these regions are parties to the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery. It is predicted that 84 to 88% of the bonded labourers in the world are in South Asia. Lack of prosecution or insufficient punishment of this crime are the leading causes of the practice as it exists at this scale today.

Overview

Definition

Though the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 by the International Labour Organization, which included 187 parties, sought to bring organised attention to eradicating slavery through forms of forced labor, formal opposition to debt bondage in particular came at the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery in 1956. The convention in 1956 defined debt bondage under Article 1, section (a):
"Debt bondage, that is to say, the status or condition arising from a pledge by a debtor of his personal services or of those of a person under his control as security for a debt if the value of those services as reasonably assessed is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt or the length and nature of those services are not respectively limited and defined;"
When a pledge to provide services to pay off debt is made by an individual, the employer often illegally inflates interest rates at an unreasonable amount, making it impossible for the individual to leave bonded labour. When the bonded labourer dies, debts are often passed on to children.

Usage of term

Although debt bondage, forced labour, and human trafficking are all defined as forms or variations of slavery, each term is distinct. Debt bondage differs from forced labour and human trafficking in that a person consciously pledges to work as a means of repayment of debt without being placed into labor against will.

Debt bondage only applies to individuals who have no hopes of leaving the labor due to inability to ever pay debt back. Those who offer their services to repay a debt and the employer reduces the debt accordingly at a rate commensurate with the value of labor performed are not in debt bondage.

History

Africa

Important to both East and West Africa, pawnship, defined by Wilks as "the use of people in transferring their rights for settlement of debt," was common during the 17th century. The system of pawnship occurred simultaneously with the slave trade in Africa. Though the export of slaves from Africa to the Americas is often analyzed, slavery was rampant internally as well. Development of plantations like those in Zanzibar in East Africa reflected the need for internal slaves. Furthermore, many of the slaves that were exported were male as brutal and labor-intensive conditions favored the male body build. This created gender implications for individuals in the pawnship system as more women were pawned than men and often sexually exploited within the country.

After the abolition of slavery in many countries in the 19th century, Europeans still needed laborers. Moreover, conditions for emancipated slaves were harsh. Discrimination was rampant within the labor market, making attainment of a sustainable income for former slaves tough. Because of these conditions, many freed slaves preferred to live through slavery-like contracts with their masters in a manner parallel to debt bondage.

Americas

  • During the colonial history of the United States, persons bonded themselves to an owner who paid their passage to the New World. They worked until the debt of passage was paid off, often for years.
  • In Peru, a peonage system existed from the 16th century until land reform in the 1950s. One estate in Peru that existed from the late 16th century until it ended had up to 1,700 people employed and had a prison. They were expected to work for their landlord a minimum of three days a week and more if necessary to complete assigned work. Workers were paid a symbolic two cents per year. Workers were unable to travel outside their assigned lands without permission and were not allowed to organise any independent community activity. In the Peruvian Amazon, debt peonage is an important aspect of contemporary Urarina society.

Asia

In the 19th century, people in Asia were bonded to labor due to a variety of reasons ranging from farmers mortgaging harvests to drug addicts in need for opium in China. When a natural disaster occurred or food was scarce, people willingly chose debt bondage as a means to a secure life. In the early 20th century in Asia, most laborers tied to debt bondage had been born into it. In certain regions, such as in Burma, debt bondage was far more common than slavery. Many went into bondage to pay off interest on a loan or to pay taxes, and as they worked, often on farms, lodging, meals, and clothing fees were added to the existing debt causing overall debt and interest to increase. These continued added loan values made leaving servitude unattainable.

Moreover, after the development of the international economy, more workers were needed for the pre-industrial economies of Asia during the 19th century. A greater demand for labor was needed in Asia to power exports to growing industrial countries like the United States and Germany. Cultivation of cash crops like coffee, cocoa, and sugar and exploitation of minerals like gold and tin led farm owners to search for individuals in need of loans for the sake of keeping laborers permanently. In particular, the Indian indenture system was based on debt bondage by which an estimated two million Indians were transported to various colonies of European powers to provide labor for plantations. It started from the end of slavery in 1833 and continued until 1920.

Europe

Classical antiquity

Debt bondage was "quite normal" in classical antiquity. The poor or those who had fallen irredeemably in debt might place themselves into bondage "voluntarily"—or more precisely, might be compelled by circumstances to choose debt bondage as a way to anticipate and avoid worse terms that their creditors might impose on them. In the Greco-Roman world, debt bondage was a distinct legal category into which a free person might fall, in theory temporarily, distinguished from the pervasive practice of slavery, which included enslavement as a result of defaulting on debt. Many forms of debt bondage existed in both ancient Greece and ancient Rome.
Ancient Greece
Debt bondage was widespread in ancient Greece. The only city-state known to have abolished it is Athens, as early as the Archaic period under the debt reform legislation of Solon. Both enslavement for debt and debt bondage were practiced in Ptolemaic Egypt. By the Hellenistic period, the limited evidence indicates that debt bondage had replaced outright enslavement for debt.

The most onerous debt bondage was various forms of paramonē, "indentured labor." As a matter of law, a person subjected to paramonē was categorically free, and not a slave, but in practice his freedom was severely constrained by his servitude. Solon's reforms occurred in the context of democratic politics at Athens that required clearer distinctions between "free" and "slave"; as a perverse consequence, chattel slavery increased.

The selling of one's own child into slavery is likely in most cases to have resulted from extreme poverty or debt, but strictly speaking is a form of chattel slavery, not debt bondage. The exact legal circumstances in Greece, however, are far more poorly documented than in ancient Rome.
Ancient Rome
Nexum was a debt bondage contract in the early Roman Republic. Within the Roman legal system, it was a form of mancipatio. Though the terms of the contract would vary, essentially a free man pledged himself as a bond slave (nexus) as surety for a loan. He might also hand over his son as collateral. Although the bondsman might be subjected to humiliation and abuse, as a legal citizen he was supposed to be exempt from corporal punishment. Nexum was abolished by the Lex Poetelia Papiria in 326 BC, in part to prevent abuses to the physical integrity of citizens who had fallen into debt bondage.

Roman historians illuminated the abolition of nexum with a traditional story that varied in its particulars; basically, a nexus who was a handsome but upstanding youth suffered sexual harassment by the holder of the debt. In one version, the youth had gone into debt to pay for his father's funeral; in others, he had been handed over by his father. In all versions, he is presented as a model of virtue. Historical or not, the cautionary tale highlighted the incongruities of subjecting one free citizen to another's use, and the legal response was aimed at establishing the citizen's right to liberty (libertas), as distinguished from the slave or social outcast.

Cicero considered the abolition of nexum primarily a political maneuver to appease the common people (plebs): the law was passed during the Conflict of the Orders, when plebeians were struggling to establish their rights in relation to the hereditary privileges of the patricians. Although nexum was abolished as a way to secure a loan, debt bondage might still result after a debtor defaulted.

European Middle Ages

While serfdom under feudalism was the predominant political and economic system in Europe in the High Middle Ages, persisting in the Austrian Empire till 1848 and the Russian Empire until 1861 (details), debt bondage (and slavery) provided other forms of unfree labour.

Modern practice

Though the figures differ from those of the International Labour Organization, researcher Siddharth Kara has calculated the number of slaves in the world by type, and determined that at the end of 2011 there were 18 to 20.5 million bonded laborers. Bonded laborers work in industries today that produce goods including but not limited to frozen shrimp, bricks, tea, coffee, diamonds, marble, and apparel.

South Asia

Although India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh all have laws prohibiting debt bondage, it is estimated by Kara that 84 to 88% of the bonded laborers in the world are in South Asia. Figures by the Human Rights Watch in 1999 are drastically higher estimating 40 million workers, composed mainly of children, are tied to labor through debt bondage in India alone.

Brick kilns

Child labor in brick kilns in South Asia

Research by Kara estimates there to be between 55,000 and 65,000 brick kiln workers in South Asia with 70% of them in India. Other research estimates 6,000 kilns in Pakistan alone. Total revenue from brick kilns in South Asia is estimated by Kara to be $13.3 to $15.2 billion. Many of the brick kiln workers are migrants and travel between brick kiln locations every few months. Kiln workers often live in extreme poverty and many began work at kilns through repayment of a starting loan averaging $150 to $200. Kiln owners offer laborers "friendly loans" to avoid being criminalized in breaking bonded labor laws. Bonded brick kiln laborers, including children, work in harsh and unsafe conditions as the heat from the kiln may cause heat stroke and a number of other medical conditions. Although these laborers do have the option to default on loans, there is fear of death and violence by brick kiln owners if they choose to do so.

Rice harvesting

Workers storing rice in India in 1952

An essential grain to the South Asian diet, rice is harvested throughout India and Nepal in particular. In India, more than 20% of agricultural land is used to grow rice. Rice mill owners often employ workers who live in harsh conditions on farms. Workers receive such low wages that they must borrow money from their employers causing them to be tied to the rice mill through debt. For example, in India, the average pay rate per day was $0.55 American dollars as recorded in 2006. Though some workers may be able to survive minimally from their compensation, uncontrollable life events such as an illness require loans. Families, including children, work day and night to prepare the rice for export by boiling it, drying it in the sun, and sifting through it for purification. Furthermore, families who live on rice mill production sites are often excluded from access to hospitals and schools.

Sub-Saharan Africa

Though there are not reliable estimates of bonded laborers in Sub-Saharan Africa to date from credible sources, the Global Slavery Index estimates the total number of those enslaved in this region is 6.25 million. In countries like Ghana, it is estimated that 85% of people enslaved are tied to labor. Additionally, this region includes Mauritania, the country with the highest proportion of slavery in the world as an estimated 20% of its population is enslaved through methods like debt bondage.

A worker preparing fish caught off the coast of South Africa

Fisheries

The Environmental Justice Foundation found human rights violations in the fisheries on the coasts of South and West Africa including labor exploitation. Exporter fish companies drive smaller businesses and individuals to lower profits, causing bankruptcy. In many cases, recruitment to these companies occurs by luring small business owners and migrant workers through debt bondage. In recruiting individual fishers, fees are sometimes charged by a broker to use ports which opens the debt cycle.

Domestic labor

After countries began to formally abolish slavery, unemployment was rampant for blacks in South Africa and Nigeria pushing black women to work as domestic workers. Currently, estimates from the International Labour Organization state that between 800,000 and 1.1 million domestic workers are in South Africa. Many of these domestic servants become bonded to labor in a process similar to other industries in Asia. The wages given to servants are often so poor that loans are taken when servants are in need of more money, making it impossible to escape. The hours of working for domestic servants are unpredictable, and because many servants are women, their young children are often left under the care of older children or other family members. Moreover, these women can work up to the age of 75 and their daughters are likely to be servants in the same households.

Prostitution

A 1994 report of Burmese prostitutes in Thailand reports compulsory indebtedness is common for girls in forced prostitution, especially those transported across the border. They are forced to work off their debt, often with 100 percent interest, and to pay for their room, food and other items. In addition to debt bondage, the women and girls face a wide range of abuses, including illegal confinement; forced labor; rape; physical abuse; and more.

Consequences

Revenue

The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that $51.2 billion is made annually in the exploitation of workers through debt bondage. Though the employers actively take part in accruing the debt of laborers, buyers of products and services in the country of manufacturing and abroad also contribute to the profitability of this practice. Global supply chains that deliver goods throughout the world are most likely tainted with slave labor. The reason for this includes convoluted supply chain management that crosses many international borders, ineffective labor laws, corporates claiming plausible deniability, global political-economic restructuring and well-intended consumers. This effort to eradicate modern day slavery resonates with well meaning individuals who purchase fair-trade items, hoping they are making a difference. The fair trade industry is estimated to exceed $1.2 billion annually (Davenport & Low 2012). Unfortunately, this is barely a dent into the global economy. International labor laws need to be created by various authorities such as the International Labor Organization, World Trade Organization, Interpol and the United Nations that have teeth to adequately punish the wrongdoers.

On-going cycle

In many of the industries in which debt bondage is common like brick kilns or fisheries, entire families are often involved in paying of the debt of one individual, including children. These children generally do not have access to education thus making it impossible to get out of poverty. Moreover, if a relative who still is in debt dies, the bondage is passed on to another family member, usually the children. At the International Labour Organization Convention, this cycle was labeled as the "Worst Forms of Child Labor." Researchers like Basu and Chau link the occurrence of child labor through debt bondage with factors like labor rights and the stage of development of an economy. Although minimum age labor laws are present in many regions with child debt bondage, the laws are not enforced especially with regard to the agrarian economy.

Policy initiatives

The United Nations

Debt bondage has been described by the United Nations as a form of "modern day slavery" and is prohibited by international law. It is specifically dealt with by article 1(a) of the United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery. It persists nonetheless especially in developing countries, which have few mechanisms for credit security or bankruptcy, and where fewer people hold formal title to land or possessions. According to some economists, like Hernando de Soto, this is a major barrier to development in these countries. For example, entrepreneurs do not dare to take risks and cannot get credit because they hold no collateral and may burden families for generations to come.

South Asia

India was the first country to pass legislation directly prohibiting debt bondage through the Bonded Labor System (Abolition) Act, 1976. Less than two decades later, Pakistan also passed a similar act in 1992 and Nepal passed the Kamaiya Labour (Prohibition) Act in 2002. Despite the fact that these laws are in place, debt bondage in South Asia is still widespread. According to the Ministry of Labor and Employment of the Government of India, there are over 300,000 bonded laborers in India, with a majority of them in the states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Odisha.

In India, the rise of Dalit activism, government legislation starting as early as 1949, as well as ongoing work by NGOs and government offices to enforce labour laws and rehabilitate those in debt, appears to have contributed to the reduction of bonded labour there. However, according to research papers presented by the International Labour Organization, there are still many obstacles to the eradication of bonded labour in India.

Sub-Saharan Africa

In many of the countries like South Africa, Nigeria, Mauritania, and Ghana in which debt bondage is prevalent, there are not laws that either state direct prohibition or appropriate punishment. For example, South Africa passed the Basic Conditions of Employment Act of 1997 which prohibits forced labor but the punishment is up to 3 years of jail. In addition, though many of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have laws that vaguely prohibit debt bondage, prosecution of such crimes rarely occurs.

Blockade of Africa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Blockade of Africa
Part of the Suppression of the Slave Trade
HMS Brisk and Emanuela.jpg
HMS Brisk capturing the slave ship Emanuela.
Date1808–1870
Location
Result Atlantic slave trade suppressed by 1865
Belligerents
 United Kingdom
 United States (from 1841 to 1861)
African slave traders
Commanders and leaders
Sir George Collier
Commodore Bullen
Matthew C. Perry
Jozé Antonio de la Vega
Francis Bowen

The Blockade of Africa began in 1808 after the United Kingdom outlawed the Atlantic slave trade, making it illegal for British ships to transport slaves. The Royal Navy immediately established a presence off Africa to enforce the ban, called the West Africa Squadron. Although the ban initially applied only to British ships, Britain negotiated treaties with other countries to give the Royal Navy the right to intercept and search their ships for slaves. A notable exception was the United States, which refused such permission. The 1807 Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves technically abolished the intercontinental slave trade in the United States but the ban was not widely enforced and many of the slave ships which escaped the blockade were destined for the southern United States.

From 1819, some effort was made by the United States Navy to prevent the slave trade. This mostly consisted of patrols of the shores of the Americas and in the mid-Atlantic, the latter being largely unsuccessful due to the difficulty of intercepting ships in mid-ocean. As part of the Webster–Ashburton Treaty of 1842 it was agreed that both countries would work together on the abolition of the slave trade, which was deemed piracy, and to continue the blockade of Africa. US Navy involvement continued until the beginning of the US Civil War in 1861; the following year the Lincoln administration gave the UK full authority to intercept US ships. The Royal Navy squadron remained in operation until 1870.

United Kingdom involvement

"The Abolition of the Slave Trade or the inhumanity of dealers in human flesh exemplified in Captn. Kimber's treatment of a young Negro girl of 15 for her virjen (sic) modesty." by Isaac Cruikshank, 1792. Shows an incident of an enslaved African girl whipped to death for refusing to dance naked on the deck of the slave ship; Briton Captain John Kimber was denounced before the House of Commons by William Wilberforce over the alleged incident.
 
The Slave Trade Act 1807 stated that:
The African Slave Trade, and all manner of dealing and trading in the Purchase, Sale, Barter, or Transfer of Slaves, or of Persons intended to be sold, transferred, used, or dealt with as Slaves, practised or carried on, in, at, to or from any Part of the Coast or Countries of Africa, shall be, and the same is hereby utterly abolished, prohibited, and declared to be unlawful.
Under this Act if a ship was caught with slaves there was a fine of £100 per enslaved person. This fine was usually paid by the ship's captain. 

In order to enforce this, two ships were dispatched to the African coast, their primary mission was to prevent British subjects from slave trading, and also to disrupt the slave trades of the UK's enemies during the Napoleonic Wars.

Diplomacy

The original 1807 Act only allowed for British ships to be searched. Unfortunately, many ships were able to find loopholes around this act. This caused more acts to be passed in the late 1800's. Almost 30,000 Africans were still illegally imported. However, in 1810, under considerable diplomatic pressure, a convention with Portugal was signed widening the mandate of the Royal Navy. In 1815, Portugal strengthened their anti-slavery legislation by abolishing all trade north of the equator, allowing the Royal Navy a much freer hand. With the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars, Britain obtained treaties with several other powers including France, which abolished its trade entirely in 1815 (but did not commit to right of search), and Spain, which agreed to cease trade north of the equator in 1818, and south of the equator by 1820. A clause was also inserted into the Congress of Vienna which called for the eventual abolition of the trade by all signatories. In 1826, Brazil signed an agreement similar to that of Portugal, and ceased trade north of the equator.

The UK's slave trade suppression efforts attempted to remain within the primitive international laws of the time: slavers had to be tried in courts. British vessels were taken to Vice admiralty courts, and those of foreign states which had treaties with the UK were taken to Courts of Mixed Commission. Mixed Commission Courts had representation from both the UK and the other nation in question, to ensure a fair trial. Many were established at key points along the coast of Africa and its islands. However the reluctance of other powers greatly curtailed the ability of the courts to operate; sometimes the foreign representation would never arrive, or arrive exceptionally late. The Brazilian ambassador, in spite of the court opening in 1826, did not arrive until 1828, and he reversed all judgements carried out in his absence upon his arrival.

In addition to the issues with Mixed Commission Courts, the Navy's mandate to police the trade was also found to be lacking and built on a series of complicated and often weak diplomatic treaties between other states. The agreements were signed reluctantly and therefore very weak in practice. When policing foreign vessels, there had to be slaves on board at the time of seizure for the accused slaver to be convicted. Unlike in Britain's 1807 act, there was no equipment clause, meaning that slave ships carrying what was obviously equipment for transporting slaves, but without slaves on board at the time of search, could not be seized. This major flaw, which greatly curtailed the Navy's efforts, and caused some naval officers to fall foul of the law, was not rectified until the 1830s. Frustrated with the lack of progress, in 1839 the British government subjected Portuguese vessels to British jurisdiction, and did the same to Brazilian vessels in 1845. This was an unprecedented step which subjected foreign vessels to the much more stringent British law, and much stricter penalties for slave trading.

However, some nations, such as the United States, resisted British coercion. The US believed strongly in freedom of the seas and, on several occasions, refused to allow the Royal Navy right of search. Knowing that many slavers would fly false US flags to avoid being boarded, some slavers were even registered in southern US states. This caused several diplomatic incidents as frustrated officers would often board ships with US flags, directly contravening their orders, to capture slavers. In the US Congress there was fierce opposition to this, with John Forsyth stating in 1841 that “the persistence” of British cruisers was “unwarranted,” “destructive to private interests” and “[would] inevitably destroy the harmony of the two countries.” In 1842 there was a thaw in diplomatic relations and the US allowed visitation to US vessels, but only if a US officer was also present.

With the beginning of the 1850s Portugal had completely ceased slave trading (1836) and Spain had all but ceased, but Cuba was still an active slave port. Brazil continued to defy British intervention, and the Brazilian trade was not extinguished until 1852 when Palmerston began using force under the Pax Britannica doctrine.

West Africa Squadron

HMS Black Joke and the prizes she captured during the blockade.

The British Royal Navy commissioned the West Africa Squadron in 1807, and the United States Navy did so as well in 1842. The squadron had the duty to protect Africa from slave traders, this squadron effectively aided in ending the transatlantic slave trade. In addition to the West Africa Squadron, the Africa Squadron had the same duties to perform. However, they faced a problem with finding enough sailors for the coastline of Africa. The Liberian coastal Kru people were hired as these sailors, which allowed the West African Squadron to patrol the coast of Africa effectively. Following the 1807 Act, two ships had been dispatched to the African Coast for anti-Slavery patrol.

By 1818 the squadron had grown to six ships with a naval station established in 1819 at what is now Freetown and a supply base at Ascension Island, later moved to Cape Town in 1832.

The resources were further increased; in the middle of the 19th century there were around 25 vessels and 2,000 personnel with a further 1,000 local sailors. Between 1808 and 1860 the West Africa Squadron captured 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans.

Unfortunately this did not exactly reduce the number of deaths of African Slaves. Thousands of Africans lost their lives if the captain of a slave ship knew they were being approached by a squadron vessel. The captain would order for the slaves to be thrown overboard still shackled. Very few would make it to shore.

The end of the trade

In spite of the Britain's best efforts to pursue suppression through diplomatic means the trade persisted. Public opinion was beginning to turn against the anti-slavery efforts due to their huge costs, the diplomatic repercussions they caused and the damage caused to other trade. Opposition in the Commons emerged from anti-coercionists, who were opposed to the use of British coercion of other nations and prolonged military action against slavers. The anti-coercionists were a mixed group of free trade activists and anti-slavery advocates who saw the only way to end the trade was to establish a legitimate commerce with Africa. Their leader, Thomas Fowell Buxton, advocated a renewed naval effort until legitimate commerce could be established. In 1839 he published The African Slave Trade and its Remedy which contained a top-to-bottom critique of the British efforts thus far. The work was highly influential and gave Buxton a leading role in the planning of the Niger expedition of 1841, to attempt to establish trading posts along the Niger River to create an alternative to slave trading. Although the plan had offered a long term solution to the slave trade, unfortunately the expedition ended in abject failure with many of the Europeans falling ill. In 1845 Buxton died with his ambitions unfulfilled.

From 1845 the anti-coercionist cause became much more radical and much less concerned with the plight of Africans, this "new generation" of anti-coercionists did not include the abolitionists. Free trade advocates such as William Hutt were vehemently opposed to naval actions and argued the trade would eventually die naturally and the UK's interference was unwarranted. Such was their influence there was even a motion in the Commons to end all naval activity, which came dangerously close to ending the West Africa Squadron and also the career of the prime minister John Russell who threatened resignation should the motion be carried.

To prevent a repeat of this, swift action was taken. Brazil was still one of the largest slave trading nations and continued to defy British diplomatic calls to cease trading. In 1846 Palmerston returned as foreign secretary and in 1850 permitted Royal Naval vessels to enter Brazilian waters in order to blockade slavers on both sides of the Atlantic. By 1852 the Brazilian trade could be said to be extinct. “For Palmerston … the naval campaign on the coast of Brazil had brought the long drawn-out saga of the Brazilian slave trade to a resolution within twelve months.”

The many years of British pressure on the United States to join vigorously in fighting the Atlantic slave trade had been neutralised by the southern states. However with the onset of the US Civil War, the Lincoln administration became eager to sign up, humanitarian and military objectives combined. To the North, Anti-Slavery was an important military tool with which to harm the Confederate economy. It also won praise, sympathy and support on the international stage, and dampened international support for the Southern States who vehemently defended their right to keep slaves. In the Lyons–Seward Treaty of 1862, the United States gave the UK full authority to crack down on the trans-Atlantic slave trade when carried on by US ships. With the end of hostilities the UK and the US would continue cooperating, and in 1867 Cuba under much pressure from the two nations gave up its trade.

United States involvement

The United States Constitution of 1787 had protected the importation of slaves for twenty years. The Pennsylvania Abolition Society held its first meeting at the temporary Capital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1794. On 7 April 1798, the fifth Congress passed an Act that imposed a three-hundred dollars per slave penalty on persons convicted of performing the illegal importation of slaves. It was an indication of the type of behaviour and course of events soon to become commonplace in the Congress.

On Thursday, 12 December 1805, in the ninth Congress, Senator Stephen Roe Bradley of the State of Vermont gave notice that he should, on Monday next, move for leave to bring in a bill to prohibit the importation of certain persons therein described "into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, from and after the first day of January," which will be "in the year of our Lord 1808." His words would be repeated many times by the legislators in the ninth Congress. The certain persons were described as being slaves on Monday, 16 December 1805.

Wary of offending the slaveholders to the least degree, the Senate amended the proposed Senatorial Act, then passed it to the House of Representatives whereat it became meticulously scrutinised and, figuratively, poked and prodded. Cautiously, ever mindful of not inciting the wrath of slaveholders, members of the House produced a bill which would explain the Senatorial Act. The two measures were bound together, with the House bill being called H R 77 and the Senate Act being called An Act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, 1808. The bond measure also regulated the coastwise slave trade. The bond measure was placed before President Thomas Jefferson on 2 March 1807 for his approbation.

The 1807 Act of Congress was modified and supplemented by the Fifteenth Congress. The importation of slaves into the United States was called "piracy" by an Act of Congress that punctuated the era of good feeling in 1819. Any citizen of the United States found guilty of such "piracy" might be given the death penalty. The role of the Navy was expanded to include patrols off the coasts of Cuba and South America. The naval activities in the western Atlantic bore the name of The African Slave Trade Patrol of 1820–61. The blockade of Africa was still being performed in the eastern Atlantic at the same time.

Africa Squadron operations

American naval officer Matthew Calbraith Perry was the executive officer aboard Cyane in 1819, which had escorted the Elizabeth, whose passengers included former slaves moving from the United States to Africa. President James Monroe had the Secretary of the Navy order the American vessel to convoy the Elizabeth to Africa with the first contingent of freed slaves that the American Colonization Society was resettling there. Of the 86 black emigrants sailing on the Elizabeth, only about one-third were men; the rest were women and children. In 1821, Perry commanded Shark in the Africa Squadron. Alligator under the command of Lieutenant Robert F. Stockton was also in the African Squadron in 1821 and captured several slavers. Lieutenant Stockton also convinced the local African chief to relinquish land around Cape Mesurado about which Liberia grew. Stockton became the commander of the US Navy's first screw-propelled steamer, the Princeton, in 1843.

On 26 and 27 November 1842, aboard the Somers in the African Squadron, commander Alexander Slidell Mackenzie ordered the arrest of three crewmen who were plotting to take control of the ship. The three crewmen were convicted; they were hanged on 1 December. This is the only occurrence of Maritime Mutiny at Law in the history of the United States Navy.

Commodore Perry was placed in command of the African Squadron in 1843. Ships which captured slavers while deployed with the African Squadron include Yorktown, Constellation, and the second Constellation, which captured Cora on 26 September 1860, with 705 Africans on board. The first San Jacinto captured the brig Storm King on 8 August 1860, off the mouth of the Congo River, with 616 Africans on board. In her final act, Constitution captured H.N. Gambrill in 1853.

The Navy attempted to intercept slave ships from 1808 (or 1809) to 1866. A small number of ships were intercepted; some of those ships were carrying Africans destined to be sold into slavery, while other suspected ships which had none on board were captured and escorted away from the coast of Africa.

Black Ivory

The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 created a great demand for more slaves to work in the vast new area. Jean Lafitte was a pirate who brought many slaves to the United States and sold them through an organised system established at New Orleans that included many merchants from the vicinity. After he helped Andrew Jackson during the War of 1812, President James Madison issued a proclamation early in 1815 granting him and his men pardons for their misdeeds.

The United States Navy Africa Squadron, Brazil Squadron and the Home Squadron was assigned the task of intercepting the ships which were bringing Africans across the Atlantic Ocean to the slave markets where black ivory found numerous customers. Since the War for Independence had been costly, no American warships were constructed between 1783 and 1795. The Navy Department was created on 30 April 1798, four years after President George Washington had communicated with Congress and expressed his alarm at the outrageous behaviour of Algeria. On 27 March 1794, following communication with President Washington, Congress authorised the purchase or construction of six frigates. These ships included the first Constellation, launched 7 September 1797 and Constitution, a ship that would be briefly employed in the African Squadron. Few new ships were built in the United States after 1801 until Guerriere was launched on 20 June 1814. It proved to be an effective warship in the War with the Barbary Pirates in 1815.

In its early efforts to enforce the law, the Navy used the ports of Charleston, SC and Savannah, GA from 1808 or 1809 to 1812 as home ports for several ships patrolling the Atlantic ocean in that area; however, USS Chesapeake sailed off the west coast of Africa early in 1813. The Navy created the African Squadron for the purpose of intercepting ships with "black ivory" on board; however, very few ships were operating together at any one time, which meant that the "blockade of Africa" was ineffective. More important tasks such as the War of 1812, the ongoing troubles with the Barbary Pirates, the extermination of the pirates in the West Indies from 1819 to 1827, the protection of American shipping in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Peru in the 1830s, the War with Mexico in the 1840s, the voyages to Japan in the 1850s, and transporting of diplomats to other nations left little capability available for use in the African Squadron. Nevertheless, some noteworthy events involving ships while they were assigned to the African Squadron did occur.

Entropy (information theory)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) In info...