Kamala Harris, as California’s Attorney General, is facing renewed scrutiny for her office’s controversial decisions to keep hundreds of black men in prison past their release dates to use them as a source of cheap labor. According to court filings and media reports, these inmates were held beyond their scheduled release to ensure the state’s labor programs continued, including firefighting efforts during California’s wildfires, where prisoners earned as little as $2 a day.
This troubling revelation, first reported in 2019 by The Daily Beast, raised concerns about Harris’s record as a prosecutor and has since become a central point of criticism against her. For many, her actions not only reflect poor judgment but also conjure images of forced labor akin to slavery—a system that disproportionately targeted black and marginalized communities.
The issue came to light when, in 2014, Harris’s office argued that certain inmates, specifically non-violent offenders, should remain incarcerated longer, despite being eligible for release. This occurred against the backdrop of a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Plata, which found California’s prisons to be overcrowded to such an extent that they violated the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
To comply with this ruling, the state was ordered to reduce its prison population, allowing some non-violent, second-time offenders who had served at least half of their sentences to be considered for parole. However, Harris’s legal team resisted this mandate, citing a concern that releasing these individuals would drain the prisons of labor necessary to support various state programs.
In a court filing from September 2014, lawyers for Harris made it clear that California’s inmate labor force was essential to several key programs, including firefighting efforts. The state’s wildfire situation, exacerbated by severe drought, was used as a justification for why these inmates should remain in prison. The prison labor program not only involved firefighting but also tasks like collecting trash and maintaining public parks.
The court filings reveal the legal team’s argument: “Extending 2-for-1 credits to all minimum custody inmates at this time would severely impact fire camp participation—a dangerous outcome while California is in the middle of a difficult fire season and severe drought.” The implication was clear: letting these inmates out early would leave the state short of workers, even if those workers were being paid almost nothing.
The prison labor program, particularly the use of inmates as firefighters, has long been a point of contention in California. These programs, while framed as opportunities for rehabilitation, have often drawn criticism for exploiting incarcerated individuals, many of whom come from low-income and minority communities. Inmates working in these programs typically earn only a few dollars a day, often risking their lives without proper compensation or benefits like those available to professional firefighters.
In the case of Harris, critics argue that her defense of the prison labor program represents a serious conflict with her self-described image as a “progressive prosecutor.” The fact that her office fought to keep non-violent offenders in prison for the sake of cheap labor has only added fuel to the fire of those questioning her commitment to criminal justice reform.
Harris’s decision also highlights the systemic problems within the U.S. criminal justice system, where prison labor has often been described as modern-day slavery. The fact that inmates—particularly black men—were kept behind bars to provide cheap labor mirrors the long history of racial injustice in the United States. It raises questions about how those in positions of power, even those claiming to be reformers, have used the system to maintain control and benefit the state financially.
Another significant point of criticism from Harris’s tenure as California’s top law enforcement official is her aggressive stance on marijuana-related offenses. During her time as Attorney General, Harris oversaw the prosecution of over 1,500 individuals for marijuana violations. This was at a time when public opinion was shifting in favor of decriminalization, and California itself would later legalize recreational marijuana.
For many, Harris’s prosecutorial record on marijuana disproportionately affected communities of color, who have historically faced harsher penalties for drug-related offenses compared to their white counterparts. This has added to the perception that Harris’s policies, despite her progressive rhetoric, did more harm than good to marginalized populations.
Further complicating Harris’s record is the case of Jamal Trulove, a San Francisco man wrongfully convicted of murder while Harris was the city’s district attorney. Trulove’s conviction, which was ultimately overturned on appeal, resulted in him spending more than six years in prison. The appeals court found significant misconduct by Harris’s office, which had allowed a flawed case to proceed.
WATCH:
The city of San Francisco was later ordered to pay Trulove $13.1 million in damages for the wrongful conviction, and Harris has yet to publicly address her office’s role in the case. For many, the Trulove case remains a stark reminder of the failings of Harris’s prosecutorial approach and the harm it caused to individuals caught in the criminal justice system.
Kamala Harris’s record as California Attorney General continues to be a source of controversy, particularly regarding her office’s defense of cheap prison labor and her aggressive stance on drug-related offenses. As she remains a prominent political figure, these issues have resurfaced, raising questions about her commitment to reform and her ability to lead a justice system that often targets the most vulnerable.
