Peterson on Prisons, Part II

Jonathan Peterson and I continue our discussion of prisons, commodification, and privatization, together with UVA Law 3Ls Ryan Fitzgerald and Mary Talkington.  Peterson is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Loyola New Orleans and the paper we’re discussing is forthcoming in the Routledge Handbook on Commodification, edited by Elodie Bertrand and Vida Panitch. (As mentioned in the last episode, I have a chapter in the Handbook as well) 

Jonathan’s research specializations are in philosophy of law and political philosophy. His current research focuses on political authority, social justice, criminal law, and punishment. 

Jonathan’s paper is an important read for anyone interested in prison reform. We hope you enjoy this final portion of our discussion. 

Jonathan Peterson's webpage at Loyola New Orleans: http://cas.loyno.edu/philosophy/bios/jonathan-peterson 

Transcript

[00:00] Kim Krawiec: You'll have to do that with one of our criminal law people, Jonathan, because you've already exhausted my very limited knowledge of the criminal justice system. Hey, hey, everybody. Welcome to the Taboo Trades Podcast, a show about stuff we aren't supposed to sell, but do anyway. I'm your host, Kim Krabbik.

[00:24] Kim Krawiec: Jonathan Peterson and I continue our discussion of prisons, commodification, and privatization, together with UVA law three L's Ryan Fitzgerald and Mary. Talking to Peterson is an associate professor of philosophy at Loyola New Orleans, and the paper we're discussing is worth coming in the Rutledge Handbook on Commodification, edited by Elodi Bertrand and Vita Panic. As mentioned in the last episode, I have a chapter in the handbook as well. Jonathan's research specializations are in Philosophy of Law and political Philosophy. His current research focuses on political authority, social justice, criminal law, and punishment. Jonathan's paper is an important read for anyone interested in prison reform. We hope you enjoy this final portion of our discussion.

[01:12] Kim Krawiec: We actually have a question next from Ryder relating specifically to this issue of transparency and private contracts.

[01:21] Reidar Composano: Yeah, so there was a recent case in Washington State relating to Geo's operation of a nice detention center. I'm from Washington and I remember this case kind of being a big deal at the time. Long story short, the court found that geo violated Washington State law by paying detained workers only a dollar a day. Of course, neither of the state and the federal law didn't require geo to pay workers minimum wage. But geo's contract with Ice required Geo comply with all state and local laws and its operation and program. And it was through that that they found that geo didn't uphold the Washington State minimum wage law. I thought this was an interesting example because it seems like an unusual case in the sense that the private agreement provided more transparency and more help for prisoners than the public version due to the specifics of the contract language. And I'd love to hear how if all this case fits into your chapter.

[02:15] Jonathan Peterson: It's a great example and I wasn't familiar with it. So thank you for that. It's interesting. Obviously, there may be some issues about this distinction between punitive incarceration and immigration detention that might or might not be relevant. But one of the things that if I'm sort of giving a kind of cynical answer, I'll give a sort of cynical answer and then an optimistic one or more optimistic response, I would want to see how things actually worked and whether there were sort of workarounds even for something like this. Because if you think about the way that wages work in prison systems, in public prison systems, so it's actually a very small number of people who are employed by external private companies. The ACLU has a report out just this year on prison labor, and they suggest it's less than 1% of the people who are engaged in prison labor that are actually employed by private industries.

[03:29] Kim Krawiec: Are the rest of them doing work for the government? What are the rest of them doing then? Or is that just the total that's employed?

[03:36] Jonathan Peterson: Yes, according to the ACLU report, there are about 80% of people who are engaged in prison labor, are engaged in maintenance and operations, work for the prisons.

[03:53] Kim Krawiec: For the prison itself, paid or unpaid.

[03:57] Jonathan Peterson: But most of them are around 6%, I think are working. According to this report, again, are working in community works programs like things like where you go out and pick up trash or clean up after hurricanes and things like that. And then there's another 6% that are employed in industries that are run by the departments of Corrections, like the case in Louisiana or Georgia or Oklahoma or where the prisoners are employed to do things like make license plates or office furniture that gets sold. But the bulk of them are working just for maintenance kitchens, laundries groundskeeping, other kinds of work like that.

[04:44] Reidar Composano: That was the case here. That was the kind of work they were doing.

[04:48] Jonathan Peterson: Yeah. So the thing is, when you're a prisoner and you're working for a private industry is often the case that the private industry will pay and I think being required to pay minimum wage. Right. But what happens is that they pay the minimum wage to the prison and then the prison pays a wage to the inmate, which is adjusted for things like restitution room and board and so on and so forth. So the prisoner doesn't actually get the minimum wage. They get something significantly less. Now, I don't know, I'm just sort of thinking trying to think this through. But like if the immigration detention contract that is subject to the law, I mean, I wonder whether it would leave open the possibility that they could turn around and charge the inmates for their immigration detainees for their room of work or something like that and thereby sort of get around that problem. But on the other hand, I do think that that's kind of a heartening example where you're right, that I think you've identified a case where a private contract might actually, legally speaking, serve to benefit the affirmation of certain kinds of rights that are important.

[06:08] Kim Krawiec: Rahima also had a question related to immigration detention.

[06:12] Rahima Ghafoori: Hi, Jonathan? Yeah. Mike Writer. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on commodification in this context. To the extent that you can speak on it, and because this is a civil rather than criminal setting, I think the question of whether or not this work is voluntary still stands. And so, in your opinion, why do you think that the Vitamin Administration left immigration detention out of its promises on ending the use of private prisons? Do you think it's semantics like inmate versus detainee or the distinction between citizens versus non citizens or the use of punishment in one setting and not the other? Does that provide a great enough difference in the two, or is it that commodification is seen as less problematic in one setting than the other?

[06:58] Jonathan Peterson: Yeah, great question. I wish I had an answer for it. It's unclear to me, but I think that it's interesting to think about some of the incentives that are there which may affect this. I don't know. So the ACLU says that reports that about 79% of people as of September 21 who are held in immigration detention facilities are held in privately run facilities. And one thing that was pointed out earlier about various kinds of reforms have led to a decline in the incarcerated population. Right? So, for example, in 2019, there was a sentencing reform in Louisiana that led to, like, a 9000 person decrease in the prison population. And I think we fell out of the number one spot, at least for a bit. But what happened was that private prison companies in Louisiana pivoted to immigration detention, right? And so what they did was then they signed contracts with Ice to make that led to an increase in the number of people who were in immigration detention in Louisiana by about $6,000, where we moved towards a lower level of incarceration. We replaced that with, like, higher levels of people that were in immigration detention. And it might be that there are just, like, powerful it's hard to know, but there could be lobbying kind of things going on there. It's hard to say. But I don't know why Biden is ignoring that. I think it's really unfortunate that he is, but I don't think that it has anything to do I mean, I think in some ways, depending again on the theory of punishment you have, forcing people who are requesting asylum or whatever to engage in labor is worse from a moral point of view, right? Like, not even people who haven't even committed a crime. Like, that strikes me as worse. And so I don't think it has to do with any kind of principled distinction, but I can only speculate.

[09:28] Kim Krawiec: Thank you, Caroline.

[09:29] Caroline Gozigian: Hi, Jonathan. I'm switching gears here. So you mentioned in your article that the first hurdle for arguments regarding commodification of inmate labor is that prison labor might not count as market activity. You provide several reasons to push back on the claim that prison labor is not market activity. The first being that it could be argued that when the state permits private firms to hire prisoners and accept payments for that labor, it is engaged in market activity. The second being that Brennan and Dawarski's market definition is likely best understood to be defining an idealized version of a market. And we must consider nonideal and real world markets to assess claiming complication. And the last reason being that there is no reason to support a sharp distinction between penal activity and economic activity as if they are mutually exclusive. So my question is, do you think that any of these arguments are more compelling than others in overcoming the hurdle that you mentioned.

[10:27] Jonathan Peterson: Well, I'd love to hear what you guys think about these arguments. I can imagine getting so I like the argument that we need to look at non ideal markets and that those operate on us on a continuum of voluntariness and that there are different factors that can affect the voluntariness of your participation in the market. I can imagine getting pushback from somebody who would want to say, for example, distinguish the case of someone who's forced to take a particular job because they need snap benefits and the case of someone who is in a situation where they're coerced to labor because they're in prison. Part of the argument, I think, depends on the idea that that's a continuum of voluntariness and if you don't buy that, then you probably won't be compelled by the argument. But I do kind of think that to me, the argument, I think makes a lot of sense.

[11:21] Kim Krawiec: We have Megan. Megan and I had a long discussion about jails as opposed to prisons just because we felt like it basically. So Megan, to go ahead and ask your question.

[11:33] Meghana Puchalapalli: So reading this article made me think about some research I did over the summer about jail commissaries in Indiana. So in Indiana, it's regular practice to allow the chief of police or sheriff or whoever runs the jail to allow their spouse to run the commissary and therefore the couple gets to profit from commissary sales. So yeah, we had a pretty interesting discussion about commodification in jail versus imprisoned and I think that led us to wondering if there's any lessons that we can take from jail privatization that work well or don't work well and how we can apply that to the prison setting.

[12:18] Jonathan Peterson: That's a great question and to be honest, I don't think I know enough about the way that jails work to be able to give a good answer to it. But I will just express a little bit of shock at that sort of nepotistic arrangement, which is, yeah, that's quite something and seems kind of ripe for certain forms of exploitation. I think that, I mean, in terms of like, again, we can ask in terms of like the services that are provided, like whether they're better or worse. And that's obviously going to be the first question that I would go to. But again. I'm going to come back also to the question about who gets to control what's available to inmates because. You know. There have been accusations that wardens and officials have weaponized the commissary in certain ways. Right. So that when they are. For example. Required to provide better personal hygiene products for free. Then they will switch out the good ones in the karmas area for worse ones. And so there's a kind of punitive sort of thing against the prisoners that happens there. And I think in both settings you could imagine that sort of thing happening. But yeah, the idea that there should be that close of a relationship between who is running the prison and who's running the commissary just strikes me as really problematic.

[13:56] Kim Krawiec: Back to Rahima.

[13:58] Rahima Ghafoori: So you mentioned two general buckets of moral arguments against private prisons. So the corruption argument and the equality argument. But I'm wondering, in your opinion, if there are stronger moral arguments to be made, because you express some skepticism with both. And I'm wondering if there are more compelling arguments that go beyond the public versus private debate. Because when you're talking about the morality of prison, I feel like the distinction seems moot. So I'm wondering if there are stronger arguments that go to the ethics of incarceration itself.

[14:30] Jonathan Peterson: Yeah, I think so. And I think you're not alone in thinking that the really important distinction is not between public and private here. Right? So John Faff has argued that private prisons are not drivers of mass incarceration in the way that they're sometimes thought to be. And other people have made that point as well. The ACLU in their recent report claims that prison labor is not a driver of mass incarceration. And so the sorts of privatization, commodification kinds of concerns may not be the most important ones to focus on in terms of thinking about prisons generally and the moral, morality and justice of these institutions. So I think here it's really important to kind of take note of the abolitionist point that prisons are a choice about how to deal with certain behavior that we've decided to categorize in a particular way as a crime or whatever, and we could make other choices about how to deal with that behavior. And so thinking about just like the justification of punishment generally, when punishment is an appropriate response, and to what kinds of behavior, because there are also these concerns about over criminalization and things like that as well. And so I think there is a really interesting and extensive debate to be had about just what it is that justifies incarceration and the way the abolitionists like to put it in locking people away in cages in the first place.

[16:21] Kim Krawiec: Actually, we have a question for Marley that kind of returns to a point you had made earlier about food service on campus.

[16:29] Marley Peters: Yes, I spent a lot of time thinking about, for instance, people in prison. I think there's only so much political capital that comes with them regarding like sometimes there's even confusion about what representative represents who based off of the prison. And then there's all this stuff that goes on with like, gerrymandering and it gets very confusing. So even when you have a well meaning representative, it's hard to get them to advocate for people in prison because they're like, oh, is this part of my district? And it switches and it can be very confusing. And then in some states, people that have a felony aren't even allowed to vote. And then if they are allowed to vote. There's, like, fines and fees. It's very also very confusing to figure out how do you pay that? How much do you owe? XYZ I'm from Florida, so amendment forecast in 2018. And that is exactly what's going on right now, is the whole fines and fees issue. But something that I think is interesting is just like, whenever you bring it from people in prison to bringing it home. So something I was interested in was just that, like you had mentioned at your school, you guys have somebody who does the catering, is also somebody who does like the food service in prisons. Is that what you're saying?

[17:37] Jonathan Peterson: Yes.

[17:38] Marley Peters: And the same thing at UVA. We have the same thing going on with AirMark. And so I just was interested if, during your research, if you found other examples of the ways that people that are just general public are engaging with companies that are benefiting from certain parts of the prison system, or if we are ourselves, benefiting from prison labor, like products that are made in prison. So I'm just interested in highlighting that to people who are listening or the public to show, like, how we are interacting with that, even if we're not even meaning to, and how that might affect our political opinions or where we decide to consume. And I know that schools do protest. NYU had a big protest with their caterer. And so what can we do as a community to understand and be more knowledgeable, right?

[18:26] Jonathan Peterson: There are interesting ways in which we might have interacted with this without even knowing it. And the example that I would go to there is the example of telemarketing. So there was a story a while back in the Intercept that claimed that the Bloomberg campaign for President was using inmates to make campaign calls. And then Bloomberg claimed he didn't know that that was happening. But there are other companies that use inmates as employees and call centers and for telemarketing purposes. So for insurance marketing is one example. There are inmates in prisons in Oklahoma that are employed by an insurance marketing company. There's an energy broker called True Energy based in Texas, which was also used. It also has a contract with Oklahoma prisons to use inmates and call centers as well. And those call centers are operated like they're inside the prison, and the company pays the prison the wages for the people. Now, so there's a chance, obviously, that we could actually have spoken to someone who's in this system, and that's one direct way that this kind of thing has happened internationally. It's also a question because there is evidence that China uses private companies in China may use forced labor of inmates and including Uighurs, to make products that are sold on the market. So we may be dealing with that issue from the goods that we buy in the international market as well. So I do think that we're all probably touched by it in various ways. But again, whether that's going to help get your local representative to advocate is going to be a difficult question.

[20:45] Kim Krawiec: Jonathan, do you know or maybe Marlene, though, so either one of you can answer. When there's this pushback, especially on university campuses, as you would expect to be one of the places where there is potentially some pushback, what is the response or justification that's usually offered by the university for maintaining their contracts? Do either of you know?

[21:06] Jonathan Peterson: I do not, actually. It's a good question.

[21:08] Kim Krawiec: Marley, I'm guessing you don't know.

[21:10] Marley Peters: I think the university, at least at NYU, I think they did agree to cater or to do some kind of like maybe it wasn't all catering, but partially. But yeah, at least at NYU, I know about that, but I'm not sure at other schools.

[21:27] Kim Krawiec: Got it. I just wondered what sort of justification they put forward, whether it was cost savings or we think we're actually helping in some way. I just was wondering sort of how they convinced themselves and possibly their stakeholders that this was an okay contract to have. The next question is also from Marley as well. We have a couple of questions relating to race and commodification, which of course, as you highlight in the paper, Jonathan, is an important issue and one that obviously shouldn't be ignored as we're discussing these questions.

[22:00] Marley Peters: Yeah, I just was also wondering about how will the discussion or the history of, for instance, like, American chattel slavery, then turning into whenever a man's speech came around, okay, now we're doing convict leasing and then we have black codes where we're criminalizing people who are loitering or, you know, whatever, we know the history. And so I just wanted to know how does that fit into the chapter? And do you think that it is going to be something that you're going to frame this whole chapter on? Because when I'm reading it as a black woman, I'm seeing that immediately, and everything I'm seeing is through that lens. And I think that it's very important to show, like, okay, the commodification of imprisoned people has been something that has been going on throughout all of America's history regarding, I mean, since like, 6019, if you agree with that date, which I do. But I'm just interested in how that will frame and then where that's going to be placed in the chapter. And of course, I can't hide my biases already said I think it should be the structure of it. But I just wanted to hear, like, I know that these chapters are work in progress, so I just wanted to hear what your perspective is and what you're thinking whenever you're implementing this conversation.

[23:17] Jonathan Peterson: Yeah, so it's a great question. I think that you're right that at least in kind of to go back to the point that I mentioned at the very beginning about the idea of a symbolic harm, I mean, there are very real harms, of course. Too and not that a symbolic harm wouldn't be a real harm, but there are very real harms of other types that I think are involved in prison labor. Just to take prison labor as an example, one of the interesting things in the ACLU report on prison labor was that they have some specific examples, but they also talk about the way in which people are deprived of basic just like workplace training, workplace safety, sort of protections. And so there's a particular I mean, the example that's often given is the example of people doing agricultural labor at Angola Penitentiary in Louisiana, where it's actually on the grounds of a former plantation, right? And so when you have a system that is disproportionately affecting people of color, particularly black men, but also other people of color and increasingly black women too, then it's hard to ignore the kind of line that can be drawn exactly in the way that you suggested from enslavement to black coast to convict leasing to mass incarceration and the use of prison labor. And I think that's the kind of claim that people like Cecile Hunt make, and I think I quoted him in the draft. I am still trying to figure out how to think about that, because I have on the other hand and I'd love to hear what you think about this. I mean, thinking back to Ruth Wilson Gilmore sort of approach to abolition, I think one of the things that she points out is that there can be some danger in framing mass incarceration as a thing that happens to black people because it's not exclusively a thing that happens to black people. And I think in terms of building some solidarity in the movement to end mass incarceration, it's important that we kind of, like, emphasize how this is like an American problem as well. And so I'm not entirely sure yet how I would frame it. And I'm not entirely sure, especially given the number that only 1% of people who are engaged in labor and incarceration work for private entities, I think there's some complications in sort of exactly how you tell the story. So I'm always open to hearing more about these questions. But that's my thinking so far right now, and I'm still obviously that part of the paper is very much still a work in progress.

[26:24] Marley Peters: Yeah, I think just to respond too I think Ruth Wilson Gilmore, I'm a big fan. I read a couple of her books, and so I think that it might be a good point regarding, like, let's not racialize everything because racial things can divide people. But I also think that we have to also call a spade a spade, and if there's history there, then I think we have to acknowledge it. I think what happens a lot sometimes whenever we're reading academic papers that have also to do with American child slavery related to it in some way, it can kind of be put at the end or kind of like a checkbox and be like, oh, I covered it, it's done. But it's kind of at the end. And it's like, wait a second, I don't know if it belongs at the end. I think it belongs at the beginning. And that's not to say that your point or you're quoting for Gilmore is also that like, oh, well, mass incarceration is just a black issue. I mean, it is a black issue, but it's not only it, but black people are Americans, and it's like Americans or black people in America are Americans. And so thus it makes it an American issue. But that is like a whole different trail of thought that we could go on to. But I think that whenever we shy away from it, at least whenever I'm reading that kind of material, it makes me think, like, oh, well, it was a box that was checked. Like it's thrown in at the end, and I think maybe it should be woven throughout or it should be framed in the beginning, because without American slavery, which was racialized, then we wouldn't you know what I mean? Like, the connection would be there and we can't really go back and change history. So I do think that there's a balance to be struck. And so I do see what you're saying when you're pulling from Gilmore, but that's like my perspective, since that's great.

[28:23] Jonathan Peterson: I totally get what you're saying, and certainly I don't think of it as a box to be checked. And so I think I'll think more about how to present that in a way that doesn't give that sort of like, oh, I'm just sort of like paying lip service to it or something. And I mean, generally speaking, I think that's the real, really important aspect of the harm, that this is a part of a pattern of racism and racialized structures that dominates American history. Right. And so, yeah, I'll think more about how I want to present that in the writing of the paper. Thank you.

[29:11] Caroline Gozigian: Okay, McKenna there so my question is more about it's more worldly, I guess, rather than just in America. So I find your argument about commodification and its ties to racism and slavery is to be compelling. And I thought it was really interesting that you mentioned Australia also having a private prison system as well. I guess in my brain I just thought, is it no coincidence that the US. And Australia both have private prison systems due to their colonial past? And, you know, are there other countries with private prison systems, or is this definitely unique to white supremacy colonies?

[29:52] Jonathan Peterson: So there's a great paper by James Byrne and Kimberly Cross and Lina Maria Marmaljo about which is called International Perspectives on the Privatization of Corrections. It's from 2019, and it does a really good job of surveying practices of privatization and corrections around the world. And they basically look at the countries with the top 50 countries with the highest prison populations and focus their analysis on that and describe the practices of privatization that you find throughout the world. So the short answer, I suppose, is that definitely it is the case that there are some countries that have settler or colonial pasts that do and there are some that don't. And so just looking at the top three in terms of incarcerated population size, the top three countries that employ private prisons are the US, brazil and Mexico. Australia doesn't have near the size of private prison population that the US. Does or Brazil does, but also on that list are Japan, South Korea, the UK does. But of course that could tie into the colonial sort of history as well. So there are lots of countries that do have the colonized paths, like Nigeria. Kenya apparently is working on privatizing some things as well, but not all of them.

[31:32] Kim Krawiec: And then we have our last question from Jen. She has a question that she thought would annoy both of us, but I actually really like it, and I think you will also like it.

[31:42] Jennifer Scoler: I hope I don't annoy you.

[31:44] Kim Krawiec: No, you won't.

[31:46] Jennifer Scoler: But I think the argument that a lot of us as law students have encountered is one that argues that certain work that students do during their schooling, specifically for law students, journal work, or more generally for unpaid externship or internship, is work that should be compensated for. And the lack of compensation for this work rises to a level of exploitation or commodification. I think that, needless to say, in the context of this discussion, this type of work is exceptionally different from labor and private prisons or from any form of imprisonment. But I'd be curious to hear whether you see any similarities in the situations and whether you think there's any merit to the argument.

[32:30] Jonathan Peterson: So yeah, that's not an annoying question to me at all. I'm happy to have it done. I do agree that we're not talking about the same sorts of harms necessarily, or the same level of wrongfulness or injustice. But I also think that universities are increasingly, in the United States at least, are increasingly sites of exploited labor, and you can find that in lots of different places. So I'm not going to trash my university, so I'll make this a more general point. One place where that happens is increasingly as problematic is the use of adjunct teaching. And TAS, I think, are in a similar sort of situation right. Where people who work as Tas are often not compensated fairly for the work that they do, refereeing work for free, or serving as a journal editor and all of those things that go along with what we do in the university. I do think that and again, it sort of depends on how you understand what the baseline is for what people should get and what's fair. But I do. Think that that raises concerns. I'm a little bit inclined to find it more offensive that all of that free labor is monetized by companies who put it behind paywalls and keep that information inaccessible to the vast majority of people than I am about the exploitation of, say, the labor of tenured professors. But I do think that it's problematic that so much of that labor is done for free, for profit companies who then hoard the product and charge crazy prices for access to it.

[34:29] Kim Krawiec: One thing that is different about legal academic publishing, as you might know, Jonathan, is that we don't pay wall anything. Part of why we don't do that, I think, is because we make the students work for free and so they do all the editing and all of the stuff right, that, you know, another there is very little overhead associated with it. And then the return is that all of our stuff is out there for anybody with an internet connection. But anyway, I liked this question. I thought you would like it as well. And there are some other things, such as unpaid externships that Jen mentioned in her example as well, that probably unique to us.

[35:08] Jonathan Peterson: Not to mention the fact that we contract with companies like Era, Mark or Sdexo for certain kinds of services. So in some cases that can have some really perverse implications. So, for example, in my university you get if you're an employee, a faculty member for example, or a full time staff member, my kid could go to school without having to pay tuition. But if you work for sodexo obviously you don't have access to that benefit. And of course, again, you see some issues about race arising there as well as well as potentially issues about gender. There are lots of things I think to be worried about in this sphere.

[36:02] Kim Krawiec: I'm going to return to Ryan and Mary. Do you guys have anything that you want to add? Anything else you want to ask or say?

[36:09] Caroline Gozigian: No, I think that this has really.

[36:11] Jonathan Peterson: Been a wonderful discussion.

[36:13] Rahima Ghafoori: I certainly learned a lot.

[36:15] Caroline Gozigian: It's really been great to hear your thoughts and everything. And I just want to thank you again so much for joining us today.

[36:21] Jonathan Peterson: Thank you.

[36:21] Reidar Composano: I'll let Brian go because I think.

[36:23] Jonathan Peterson: He'S got a hand up.

[36:24] Kim Krawiec: I didn't see it, sorry. Go ahead, Brian.

[36:26] Jonathan Peterson: Actually, this is kind of just like.

[36:27] Reidar Composano: A plug for maybe in the future. I think it'd be really outstanding for future classes to kind of have you on to get into more of a deep dive, kind of into the theories of punishment. I know that's not the topic of what you're writing now, but if you could come back on, I definitely tune in to listen to some expansive discussion over the different theories of punishment because I feel that's really up your will house as a philosopher. And so I just thought I'd throw that out there and appreciate the conversation today. So thanks.

[37:00] Jonathan Peterson: Thanks. I really appreciate that you'll have to.

[37:02] Kim Krawiec: Do that with one of our criminal law people, Jonathan, because you've already exhausted my very limited knowledge of the criminal justice system. Thank you so much for doing this. It was a lot of fun.

[37:13] Jonathan Peterson: Well, thank you for having me. I really enjoyed the conversation and definitely the feedback and just hearing what kinds of responses you all had to the paper will help me as I complete the manuscript.

[37:27] Kim Krawiec: Well, thanks a lot. It was good to see you again.

[37:30] Jonathan Peterson: Good to see you as well, and lovely to meet all of you. Thank you for your questions.