Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 47-1-19 (2024)
Leasing or hiring convicts unlawful; lawful public service work
✓ Justia copy: laws through about 2024 (2025 and 2026 sessions missing)
- (1) It is unlawful for any county-housed state inmate or county prisoner or prisoners to be leased or hired to any individual or corporation for any purpose whatsoever. Nor shall they be worked under any contractor; but in working them on county farms, or on the public roads or on any other work, which work must be of an exclusively public character, they shall be under exclusive official control and management.
- (2)
- (a) It is lawful for a state, county or municipality to provide prisoners for public service work for nonprofit charitable organizations as defined under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code if that nonprofit charitable organization provides food to charities. In addition, it is lawful for a state, county or municipality to provide prisoners for public service work for churches according to criteria approved by the Department of Corrections.
- (b) The prisoners participating in the public service work under paragraph (a) shall remain under the exclusive control and management of the county or municipality.
- (c) A prisoner performing public service work under this subsection shall be entitled to earned credits as provided under this chapter.
Codes, Hemingway's 1917, §§ 4014, 4016; 1930, § 4057; 1942, § 7898; Laws, 1908, ch. 109; Laws, 1997, ch. 383, § 1; Laws, 2005, ch. 377, § 1; Laws, 2008, ch. 364, § 1, eff. 7/1/2008.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1996–1996 · leading case: Robert W. Brooks v. George Cnty., Mississippi, George Cnty., Mississippi, Cross-Appellee, Wilbur Ward & Earl Koskela, 84 F.3d 157 (5th Cir. 1996).
Robert W. Brooks v. George Cnty., Mississippi, George Cnty., Mississippi, Cross-Appellee, Wilbur Ward & Earl Koskela, 84 F.3d 157 (5th Cir. 1996). “” See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 47-1-19, 47-1-3. We therefore find that Brooks’s failure to receive compensation for his work on private property over and above the compensation he actually received does not constitute a deprivation of a cognizable property right.”
Brooks v. George Cnty., MS, 77 F.3d 834 (5th Cir. 1996). “” See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 47-1-19, 47-1-3. We therefore find that Brooks’s failure to receive compensation for his work on private property over and above the compensation he actually received does not constitute a deprivation of a cognizable property right.”
Brooks v. George Cnty., MS, 77 F.3d 834 (5th Cir. 1996). “" See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 47-1-19, 47-1-3. We therefore find that Brooks's failure to receive compensation for his work on private property over and above the compensation he actually received does not constitute a deprivation of a cognizable property right.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.