Do the time, paid for the crime, welcome back to all Social rights? (1 Viewer)

[joko104]

It is this kind of SJW PCism progressive-fascist government control freakism **** demanding erasing truth, reality and history on behalf of the most violent, dangerous sociopaths people on earth is why decent people made Trump president in a grassroots revolution. There is NO criminal that progressive-fascists don't love and no decent working family ordinary person they don't despise.

Sure, the super rich progressive-fascists have their own body guards and don't have to rent, so have no reason to care how many people are victimized. They just want criminal's votes and use the attacks by THEIR criminals they so love to demand agreeing to be disarmed - because only criminals should have guns. Otherwise don't care about us peasants.

 

[joko104]

I have never advocated for the government to hide anyone's criminal conviction record - invent another straw man to slay. See post #5.

I stand corrected. Please accept my apology.

That said, I do think a person having a FELONY DUI (meaning many OR really hurt someone) should be government protected secrets. A landlord not renting to a DUI felon does not ruin the person's life. One well recognized reason to convict people is to be a lesson to others. One reason DUIs have dropped here is one reason - more people know how much it messes up your life. That is what has reduced it - not their ability or not to rent an apartment or house.

Topics like this really set me off. I have seen, heard, even experienced, what victims of sadists and sociopaths do to people. Many, many times. People who haven't can live in the false fantasyland of ideology. I live in reality.

When the government figures out a way to ERASE the suffering and lose of the victim as if in never happened is when I will agree the victimizer's suffering for his/her misdeeds will be erased as if it never happened. Not before.

To claim no one has a right to know this about someone and MUST rent them a room in their home or in the apartment complex - even if unanimously convicted by a jury or in a trial - REALLY sets me off.

I would not exclude ANY crime for which the verdict was in a court of record. (Municipal courts and other traffic type courts are not courts of record - and the Supreme Court sees those really as just tax collecting departments for which guilt may never be used in any other trial - civil or criminal.)

Again, my apology for misrepresenting your position. I don't entirely agree with you (felony DUI) but I was not accurate.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You are disavowing your message above? The OP is exactly whether the government should outlaw learning a person's criminal record, isn't it? You said you agree, didn't you?

The OP never mentioned outlawing anything. I suppose one could (as you seem to have) decide that the OP implied that some desired changes in the law be made (although none were stated). I did so in post #5, but it was limited to dropping a specific non-violent felony (DUI/DWI) conviction from prohibiting (legal) gun possession for life.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I stand corrected. Please accept my apology. Topics like this really set me off. I have seen, heard, even experienced, what victims of sadists and sociopaths do to people. To claim no one has a right to know this about someone and MUST rent them a room in their home or in the apartment compex - even if unanimously convicted by a jury or in a trial - REALLY sets me off.

Again, my apology. Seriously.

Your apology has been accepted.

 

[joko104]

The OP never mentioned outlawing anything. I suppose one could (as you seem to have) decide that the OP implied that some desired changes in the law be made (although none were stated). I did so in post #5, but it was limited to dropping a specific non-violent felony (DUI/DWI) conviction from prohibiting (legal) gun possession for life.

I go beyond that on guns than you. I don't care WHAT crime it was. IF the person has fully served their time, including probation, and paid any required restitution, I believe 100% of legal rights should be restored. But their record stays. Yes, I mean ALL crimes, even the worst. However, nearly always release is from a life sentence and they are on probation for life - meaning NEVER fully serving their time and therefore no guns. I could see an exception for a limited set of crimes (murder, rape, aggravated assault).

I also think that before any plea bargain is accepted, the accused MUST be notified IN WRITING all the rights they lose by pleading guilty. Voting. Gun rights. Many types of jobs etc. This isn't done nor required.

 

[joko104]

What about landlord's privacy? If the landlord served 3 years for raping a child (it happens, some serve no time), should the single woman desperately needing housing for her and her young child be banned from knowing the criminal record of the landlord?

Does the OPer want to extend the same "privacy" to landlords as to tenants?

 

[Captain Adverse]

What about landlord's privacy? If the landlord served 3 years for raping a child (it happens, some serve no time), should the single woman desperately needing housing for her and her young child be banned from knowing the criminal record of the landlord?

Does the OPer want to extend the same "privacy" to landlords as to tenants?

This is not a reasonable argument for several reasons.

First, applicant's for housing do not typically check the backgrounds of the owner/landlord of a place they are applying to rent from.

Second, all States have some form of sex offender registry which IS available to neighborhood residents and other interested parties. So there is already a remedy for your "landlord rapist" privacy issue.

Finally, I do believe that a person's prior criminal background should not exclude them from most housing (except per law for sex offenders), and typical jobs with some exclusions (example law enforcement positions).

So I would have no problems with landlords who own rental property in sex offender exclusion zones from checking the State registry. But as I stated in the other thread, I agree with the law which fines a landlord for doing a criminal background check solely for the purpose of excluding someone from available housing. For the reasons I have already expressed.

 

[What if...?]

I would have said yeas, because I agree with the concept overall, but I can see a "variance" in say restoring the right to bear arms to someone who used a firearm to commit a crime or kill somebody. Seems like an abuse of the right might be a reason to limit one's ability to do so again.

I do agree that it creates an endless cycle that some (many?) could have escaped from had the hurdles to reintegration not been so (intentionally?) high.

 

[What if...?]

I answer a flat NO.

As a landlord, if I own a duplex or a four-plex, I should not be forced to rent my unit to a convicted rapist or barred from finding out if a potential tenant is a rapist even if he has paid his debt to society, especially if my tenant in the next door unit has a young daughter. Or for that matter if the potential tenant was prosecuted and convicted for property destruction and theft of copper wiring of a prior rental home. That might be pertinent.

As an employer at a business that deals frequently with cash-paying clientele, I should not be barred from finding out whether my potential employee was convicted of theft or embezzlement from a prior employer. Or if the potential employee was convicted of criminal sexual harassment at a prior job, for that matter.

There is no right as an adult person to have your past hidden from any scrutiny. The only people we grant that right to is children without full capacity to make informed decisions. I do not think we should extend that right to otherwise-competent adults.

Sometimes you really screw the pooch. It is not on the rest of society to make life easier for criminals and help keep their pasts hidden. If a landlord or an employer wants to look past a person's prior criminal behavior and give the former convict a chance, it should be their freedom to do so. But the rest of us should not be forced to be kept in the dark, especially when doing so can lead to further harm if and when a former criminal decides to re-offend.

So as an aside, do you feel the same about trump's past? Like his tax returns. Or just criminal conviction past?

 

[What if...?]

Yes, generally but that is with the assumption that exceptions can be made legally. In other words, I would not favor a law that elevates convicted violent felons to a "protected class". I find it to be ridiculous that a felony DUI/DWI conviction is used to deny someone's 2A rights for life.

Hell, it's a felony to go over a hundred miles an hour some places.

 

[What if...?]

I'm not a complete fool. I am aware that some types of sex offenders are suffering from what I consider to be either a mental illness, or a severe lack of self-control and those after often prone to recidivism regardless of treatment. However, many others are people who may have made a mistake in law (ex. statutory rape), or other minor sex offense due to poor judgement, impaired judgement (intoxication), etc. and are not threat. For those our society has a system set up to be removed from registry. In which case there are no longer considered a threat, but might still have a criminal record accessible in a background check.



Well, in that case you still wouldn't know if a non-criminal applicant was a bad choice, right?



So are you saying you would hire a person with a criminal background, as long as they were not convicted of "financial crimes?" :unsure13



Again, the same answer I gave regarding checking housing backgrounds. What difference between an employee who was a total tool at the last job, but you can't get info on it...and a person simply convicted of some crime who has done their time and now wants to get back to a decent life?



When the sole purpose of this "inquiry" is to deny a person housing or employment based on assumption bias, when the person who hasn't got a record might be the current Ted Bundy, or John Wayne Gacy?

Look, I understand where you are coming from. I really do. So perhaps to sweeten the pot, I would advocate government "insurance" programs designed to cover such concerns over damage caused by unprovoked recidivism. After all, IMO it would save the taxpayer money in the long run trying to re-arrest, try, and house repeat offenders. Would you consider this a reasonable option?

Perhaps a compromise would be full restoration and removal of records after say five or ten years with no further criminal behavior.

Some might be really tricky and be crimeing the whole ten years, but it should cull most of the the irredeemable.

I know this doesn't help the newly released, but might serve to give them an acheivable goal while they deal with the tribulations. Some hope.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Perhaps a compromise would be full restoration and removal of records after say five or ten years with no further criminal behavior.

In some State jurisdictions this already exists for misdemeanors, and felonies called "Wobblies." A wobbly is a felony charge which could be reduced to a misdemeanor. It's called "expungement."

Some might be really tricky and be crimeing the whole ten years, but it should cull most of the the irredeemable.

Yes, and if it were up to me, certain classes of actual felony convictions should be expungable too. Then there is always the Governor's pardon.

I know this doesn't help the newly released, but might serve to give them an acheivable goal while they deal with the tribulations. Some hope.

I agree, and IMHO Pardons should be made more available based simply on good behavior.

IMO it is important for an ex-con to have a reasonable chance at a pardon, followed by a right to have that record expunged.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Sometimes it depends on the crime. If it was pit bull fighting, he never be allowed to get another dog (any breed) for the rest of his life. Same goes to puppy mill breeders. If it was marijuana-related, doctors should not be allowed to prescribe it to that patient for the rest of his/her life even if doing so is legal in the state. (They would find out from legal authorities if this was the law, so patients can't lie.) And under NO circumstances should anyone who was convicted of a gun violence crime be allowed to buy another one. But generally criminals should be allowed to get rights back after paying for the crime.

 

[HIP56948]

I voted Yes. That Yes comes with the hope that Jails/Prisons would be more toward rehabilitation, Schooling along with some sort of mental health facilities that would truly give an inmate a chance for a fruitful life instead of the reality that's present nowadays: Severe punishment and slavery.
Would it cost more? You bet but I believe it would keep the recidivism down for the benefit of us all.
Plus..it's the right thing to do.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Hell, it's a felony to go over a hundred miles an hour some places.

Hmm... perhaps school zones when the lights are flashing or construction areas when workers are present?

 

[Waddy]

Does the OP own any rental real estate?

Exactly. If you rent to a known violent offender, and then he does something in your apartment building, like rape; YOU WILL BE SUED.

The only way I could support restoring full rights to a violent ex-con is if the landlord, employer or other person responsible for bringing in the ex-con were held harmless from any criminal or civil prosecution.

You will also have to make it illegal for insurance companies to consider criminal backgrounds when quoting insurance rates.

 

[bluesmoke]

This poll is raised to address an issue of concern after noting replies in a recent thread about a California city passing a law making it illegal for landlords to do a criminal background check before renting to a potential resident.

I have seen other issues at various times concerning how Society should deal with people who have been convicted of various crimes, served their punishment, and been released back into society.

Most often, after claiming agreement with the thread title, the actual reaction is to support restrictions, impediments, and otherwise act in ways designed to continue to punish after release. Thus a criminal record becomes a sort of scarlet letter, once noted imbues pariah status on the individual.

Briefly, an individual who is convicted of a crime faces roadblocks in housing and employment when released. Housing and employment are the mainstays of a successful life. They lend stability, improve and maintain self-confidence, and encourage good social behavior.

But many people, out of fear, distrust, or a sense of social retribution, act to discourage reintegration into society. Jobs are denied, housing refused, leaving few options but homelessness and/or a return to criminal behaviors.

IMO this is wrong-headed, and detrimental to both the individual involved and Society as a whole. It acts to encourage a cycle of criminal recidivism, until there is nothing left to do but permanent incarceration at our expense.

Thus the question: Do you believe in, and advocate “Commit the crime, pay the time, WELCOME back to ALL Societal rights and privileges?”

Yes,

No,

Other, explain.

Full disclosure: MY vote is YES, because I've seen this cycle acted out in my neighborhoods, and in my professional experience. I know that desperate people will act out in desperate ways, unless they see some kind of light at the end of the tunnel.

A return of some rights depending on the crime committed and number of crimes. Yes, that can get complicated. But, I'm not in favor of restoring all rights, such as voting, for murder, rape, and child molestation.

 

[joko104]

This is not a reasonable argument for several reasons.

First, applicant's for housing do not typically check the backgrounds of the owner/landlord of a place they are applying to rent from.

Second, all States have some form of sex offender registry which IS available to neighborhood residents and other interested parties. So there is already a remedy for your "landlord rapist" privacy issue.

Finally, I do believe that a person's prior criminal background should not exclude them from most housing (except per law for sex offenders), and typical jobs with some exclusions (example law enforcement positions).

So I would have no problems with landlords who own rental property in sex offender exclusion zones from checking the State registry. But as I stated in the other thread, I agree with the law which fines a landlord for doing a criminal background check solely for the purpose of excluding someone from available housing. For the reasons I have already expressed.

1. Whether they do or not is irrelevant to whether they should be able to or not.

2. This contradicts your claim, since sex crimes are not the only violent crimes. Why not murder? Aggravated assault? Also, why not property crimes as the greatest risk to a landlord is crimes against their property (theft, malicious damage).

I see you now added employers to your list of who want to require covering up criminal records.

In major criminal cases, prosecutors often say to the jury "send a message to others who might commit such an offense." You oppose that concept.

What about a landlord checking out a person online? Now, generally you don't have to check formal criminal records to learn if the person has a major conviction.

You seem to be expanding to wanting a total cover up of criminal records? Why your war on truth on behalf of the most violent, evil, sadistic, and sociopathic people on earth? Is this personal about you or someone you know?

Have you ever seen anyone violently raped or murdered? Ever know anyone to be financially ruined by a burglary? Know anyone left crippled and disfigured for life by violent crime? I read NO pity for them. NO concerns about their difficulties in life. MOST crimes are done by people around the victims.

Significantly, there is a growing trend of successful lawsuits on the theory that people who rent property have at least some minimal duty to protect those who rent from them - and employers have some responsibility to check employees for background both to protect the other employees and to protect customers. You want that outlawed.

What about companies that "bond" employees and others which is largely about criminal background? Do you want that outlawed too? Could a landlord require tenants to be bonded?

It is interesting that under what you like, a landlord can not learn if a potential renter stole everything out of the last location he rented from after beating the elderly female landlord almost to death with a tire iron - but a landlord still can check to see of the prospective tenant couldn't pay the last landlord rent because that old widow's husband died or the tenant lost his/her job.

So "NO" to the single mom because in the past she missed a month of rent - and "YES" to murderers, violent assailants, terrorists and thieves. Interesting who you most care about.

 

[joko104]

I would have said yeas, because I agree with the concept overall, but I can see a "variance" in say restoring the right to bear arms to someone who used a firearm to commit a crime or kill somebody. Seems like an abuse of the right might be a reason to limit one's ability to do so again.

I do agree that it creates an endless cycle that some (many?) could have escaped from had the hurdles to reintegration not been so (intentionally?) high.

In the past I've referred to this forum as a good place to learn about "white middle America" nuances, values and perspectives. In this, I've noticed that it is very clear nearly everyone on this forum grew up and have lived extremely shelters and protected lives in very favorable and safe situations compared to most people now on earth and who have ever lived. In this, I see viewpoints believing everyone and all the world is exactly and only what they have seen at the end of their own noses.

Anyone who TRULY knows what a violent sadist, what a true violent sociopath is and does, that repeat offenders of any significant crime will do it again, would never even consider this. They can not be cured. It is who and what the person is. They do not change. They are who and what they are. For violent types, the are more of a true hellish real-life nightmare no one can even wrap their heads around.

This also truly is the government seizing landlord's property as it's own - then subjecting the landlord, the landlord's property and everyone else on the property to destruction of their property, theft of their property, and any level of PREDICTABLE violence against any there, including children and elderly.

There are many, many elements of white middle American society I greatly like. But even after over a decade I am astonished at how naive, how much most of you people see yourself as self entitled, somehow YOU just can be harmed, and living a life in platitudes and slogans stemming out of extremely sheltered and protected lives. Thus, we come up with topics such as this. How dare an assisted living center, a daycare center, a person trying to get by thru renting out a room their house from learning the potential employee or tenant is a repeat violent offender, turned the last rent house into a drug lab that had to be bulldozed down or the rent house was destroyed in a police raid - and the police don't pay for that - the list is long.

What next? It is a crime to do a background check for someone a woman meets thru online personal ads - because a violent man who can't get a date will then be forced to assault women? That logic is identical to the logic of the OP.

 

[JMaximus]

...

If our criminal justice system actually dished out time proportionate to the crime, I might say 'yes', but given the laxity of the system, I cannot justly vote against society stepping in where the state fails by instituting measures to protect itself from repeated victimization by the worst among us.

 

[Captain Adverse]

If our criminal justice system actually dished out time proportionate to the crime, I might say 'yes', but given the laxity of the system, I cannot justly vote against society stepping in where the state fails by instituting measures to protect itself from repeated victimization by the worst among us.

Arguably, if our jails and prisons weren't so full of people who engaged in "victimless" crimes (i.e. prostitution, drug use, small drug sales, etc.) we could put the real criminals away for more appropriate periods of time.

That is still no excuse, IMHO, for "recycling" via social mechanisms leading to recidivism.

 

[joko104]

Here is a local case as example. No, I don't prove it because I don't have to. The principle applies:

A highly educated and professional woman was being evicted for non-payment of rent. In court, with great difficulty as she went in and out of being rational, she explained the house was killing her somehow and she had met the young family that was going to move it after her. She had lost her job - a professional job - because the house was destroying her in her opinion - when she could talk - then phase out into babbling. She just knew it was the house. She refused to leave so it didn't also destroy those children.

Crazy people. The house is hurting me, the CIA is sending x-rays thru the house and other paranoia isn't uncommon. Fortunately, something about this didn't add up to the judge. The judge (who told me this) didn't believe for a minute the house had anything to do with it. He's heard lots of crazy tenants, including about the property being evil etc. But something was harming her maybe. Maybe environmental. Maybe someone was drugging her. Maybe something otherwise she was doing. He thought the woman needed to know it was NOT the house, so at least she could try to explore what it is. The judge ordered the state Pest Control Board to test the air in the house.

She was correct. The previous tenants had used the house for a drug lab. The entire house structure was saturated with the fumes of these chemicals that literally were destroying her brain and health. The house was bulldozed down. Sadly, they told the judge the damage to her brain and health is permanent, lifelong. All the judge could do is tell her that she's a "true hero" - that she saved an entire family - a black woman who had saved an entire white family.

The OPer and from what I see all progressive government-control freak Democrats on this thread want it to be illegal for a landlord to know if prospective tenants have convictions as drug dealers or for drug manufacturing. They want it government ordered secret of who did this to that rent house. They want to make certain those who did this to this woman - and to the landlord who lost the house, everything in it and all income from - even had to spend massive sums to destroy the house and then costs of all going to a toxic landfill - can do this to another house, another person, to an entire family.

Destroy the last rent house - destroy the next and the next and the next - destroying lives and killing people along the way - all government ordered secrets regardless of convictions for doing so.

CRY FOR THE CRIMINALS. To hell with the victims. That is how bizarre many middle white Americans are completely naive living their sheltered little lives in the fantasyland of sloganism.

Of the most bizarre things about white middle America, this is one of them - but it tends to overwhelmingly be Democrats who love criminals, make excuses for them, blame others, blame society, and don't give a damn about victims or preventing anyone from being one. Why? They just know it will never happen to them - and if asked they will explain they are just too smart to be victims themselves. Typically, they will claim victims caused it to happen by not being enough on the lookout and other idiocies.

Don't even think about a landlord being able to check to see if the rent house is going to be turned into a drug dealer's drug house - and all that comes with that and to the neighborhood. Cry for the drug dealers and meth makers, protect them from their past victimizations and crimes.

 

[Overitall]

This poll is raised to address an issue of concern after noting replies in a recent thread about a California city passing a law making it illegal for landlords to do a criminal background check before renting to a potential resident.

I have seen other issues at various times concerning how Society should deal with people who have been convicted of various crimes, served their punishment, and been released back into society.

Most often, after claiming agreement with the thread title, the actual reaction is to support restrictions, impediments, and otherwise act in ways designed to continue to punish after release. Thus a criminal record becomes a sort of scarlet letter, once noted imbues pariah status on the individual.

Briefly, an individual who is convicted of a crime faces roadblocks in housing and employment when released. Housing and employment are the mainstays of a successful life. They lend stability, improve and maintain self-confidence, and encourage good social behavior.

But many people, out of fear, distrust, or a sense of social retribution, act to discourage reintegration into society. Jobs are denied, housing refused, leaving few options but homelessness and/or a return to criminal behaviors.

IMO this is wrong-headed, and detrimental to both the individual involved and Society as a whole. It acts to encourage a cycle of criminal recidivism, until there is nothing left to do but permanent incarceration at our expense.

Thus the question: Do you believe in, and advocate “Commit the crime, pay the time, WELCOME back to ALL Societal rights and privileges?”

Yes,

No,

Other, explain.

Full disclosure: MY vote is YES, because I've seen this cycle acted out in my neighborhoods, and in my professional experience. I know that desperate people will act out in desperate ways, unless they see some kind of light at the end of the tunnel.

Good topic and I like your perspective on it. I’m still not sure. How do you address recidivism?

The Marshall Project // Error 404

Just because someone has served their time doesn’t guarantee they won’t repeat. Shouldn’t that be considered?

 

[joko104]

A pissed off tenant moving out can do tens of thousands of dollars in damage with a broom handle punching out drywall and windows in 15 minutes. A tenant moving out can steal thousands and tens of thousands of dollars in property - appliances, central air unit, furniture. A tenant can total a house by ripping out the wiring when leaving. One tenant, to get a motor he built up in a bedroom, cut the entire wall out of a house to get it out - and even took the wall.

Landlords know it is a waste of time to sue, but it is a criminal offense.

Drug addicts will do ANYTHING for money. They will steal and destroy a $5000 central air unit for $20 in metal, do $20,000 in damage for $20 in copper wiring. Steal anything. And while drugged up - destroy the property mindlessly or in an irrational rage. The loses to the landlord? HUGE. The effect on everyone? Higher rents to cover bad tenants. Lower income neighborhoods are filling with boarded over and trashed out houses beyond repair - abandoned - by bad criminal tenants. Such houses draw the worst sort of bums and criminals, making the neighborhood dangerous and crushing property values.

But all that is a-ok. Protect the tenants who did this having the right to do again and again and again. They demand YOU can't know what they did and do.

The only concern? For those drug addicts. OMG! Don't let future landlords discriminate against them for financially destroying the previous property owner they rented from.

^THAT is the Democratic Party now. If there is a criminal - they are on his side. If there is a victim of crime - it is the victim's and our fault. If there is an enemy of this country, they are on the enemy's side. Non-citizens over citizens. The most evil and hurtful people alive over good and decent people.

 

[joko104]

Arguably, if our jails and prisons weren't so full of people who engaged in "victimless" crimes (i.e. prostitution, drug use, small drug sales, etc.) we could put the real criminals away for more appropriate periods of time.

That is still no excuse, IMHO, for "recycling" via social mechanisms leading to recidivism.

Your OP has nothing about distinctions between "real" criminals and those who do "victimless crimes" - like small sales of pot laced with secretly meth to the kids at the school across the street not-real criminals. Why are their criminals? It is SOCIETY'S FAULT! We made them commit those crimes.

There is a problem - core problem - with your logic. If lack of housing makes people criminals, why do nearly all criminals having housing when they committed their crime? Explain that if you think you can.

Joe Biden said "Democrats will not longer accept facts." Does the OP have a full list of all facts he wants the government ordered hidden and erased on behalf of convicted criminals?

I bet he doesn't want credit checks outlawed because being in debt isn't a crime and only criminals should be protected from mistakes in their past, correct? Or maybe he does. Does the OPer want car dealers and mortgage companies banned from doing credit checks? Landlords MAY do credit checks - because civil offenses are ok to ban housing for - but not check to see if the person is a murderer?