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

[beerftw]

He lied to you. Don't believe meth heads.

He was charged multiple times with meth and only one time on child porn, which at the time was a mandatory lifelong sex offender registry in texas. They got him on that charge after a meth bust, when they caught him on parole thinking he was too smart to be caught using meth, only they went through his computers and decided to charge him with more.

He was screwed either way, but texas decided to charge him with more than what they raided him for.

 

[ecofarm]

He was charged multiple times with meth and only one time on child porn, which at the time was a mandatory lifelong sex offender registry in texas. They got him on that charge after a meth bust, when they caught him on parole thinking he was too smart to be caught using meth, only they went through his computers and decided to charge him with more.

He was screwed either way, but texas decided to charge him with more than what they raided him for.

You'll excuse me if I dismiss the second hand claims of a meth head. And I suggest you re-evaluate any relationship you have with the meth head, as he is in fact guilty of child porn.

 

[Divine_Wind]

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.

Yes. Either return their rights or keep them locked up. If they're dangerous enough, either execute them or otherwise figure out a way to neutralize them forever.

 

[beerftw]

You'll excuse me if I dismiss the second hand claims of a meth head. And I suggest you re-evaluate any relationship you have with the meth head, as he is in fact guilty of child porn.

THe guy never fought the charge in any way even though it was by any standard bs as he had a stricter charge against him. Currently he is on the straight and narrow, however no one plans to protect him if he ever goes back to meth.

The only sympathy I have is that I was a former coke head, but I never went through prison or ever had intervention, my own friends did not care, I had to get sober on my own and decided on my own that doing coke was bad mmmkay and that it was up to me to stay clean, for him he had been in jail multiple times for it, he has been clean so far however again no one would come to his defense if he went back to the habit.

 

[ecofarm]

THe guy never fought the charge in any way even though it was by any standard bs as he had a stricter charge against him. Currently he is on the straight and narrow, however no one plans to protect him if he ever goes back to meth.

The only sympathy I have is that I was a former coke head, but I never went through prison or ever had intervention, my own friends did not care, I had to get sober on my own and decided on my own that doing coke was bad mmmkay and that it was up to me to stay clean, for him he had been in jail multiple times for it, he has been clean so far however again no one would come to his defense if he went back to the habit.

You got lied to by a child porn convicted meth head. Never trust meth heads, especially those convicted of child porn.

 

[beerftw]

You got lied to by a child porn convicted meth head.

Not so much I can spot a methhead a mile away, plus he currently has access to computers but his parole officer has full at any time random access to all his computer files and browsing history.

He is indeed a former methhead, he has no denial of it, the 16 year old thing was decided y a court who decided she looked like she maybe that age, not actual age variation.

 

[ecofarm]

He is indeed a former methhead, he has no denial of it, the 16 year old thing was decided y a court who decided she looked like she maybe that age, not actual age variation.

He lied to you. He's a meth head and he was convicted of child porn. Of course his story is "just one sixteen year old that looked older". And of course that's an obvious lie.

You are way too trusting of meth heads convicted of child porn.

 

[btthegreat]

Pulling out what I think are a couple of key points:



You are insisting that they be allowed to transfer the risk to others against their will - to make it harder on the innocent. That is certainly unjust, and more unjust, frankly, than the existence of stigma for released criminals.



Please tell me where you can get a job or rent an apartment without providing personal information. I'll wait.

You aren't insisting on privacy - you are insisting that certain highly relevant areas of information be forbidden as part of an exchange because you think those areas of information will harm a portion of the populace you want to help. That's not privacy, that's just enabling.

Privacy is maintained. I have no right to walk up to any person and demand that - and enforce the demand that - they provide me with a work history to include any criminal past. I sure as heck, however, have the right to require provision of that history as a condition of me hiring you to represent me and take my money.



It's part of it, I certainly agree; and I'm a major fan of programs that try to put this portion of the populace into work and communities. But, as you pointed out - they had no record when they committed the crime, so, clearly the presence of a record isn't what drove them to it, but rather their own inclinations. Decisions such as the ones you are addressing here should be made by the individual assessment by the provider of the degree to which they have altered - or not altered - those inclinations. That is why the most successful reintegration programs also carefully screen who they bring in.

Has it occurred to you that someone may have changed in the course of a decade? Has it occurred to you that the same guy who learned to steal when he was 17 and was convicted at 19 before he was even a mature adult,, might have been a member of a group of youths that stole, or impulsive and angry or someone who stole because he was addicted to a drug, might not be in the same demographic or any of those things when he comes out. Now he is a 35 year old who's prefrontal lobe is fully developed, still has the skill set to use, to get money, and he still could look up his old buds that still are in that life, but that really isn't what he wants anymore. He wants to go straight, and he wants to stay away from trouble, and the drugs or alcohol and prove to Mom or his wife, or his kid he can make it.

That is actually going to be a lot of people coming out. They are moving in with a friend or a parent or a sibling or to a half way house and what they need is a source of consistent income FAST. Mom, or buddy, or half way house cannot afford to take care of ex-con for long for free. There will be pressure come up with rent money, or the electric bill or groceries because it costs money to house feed etc an extra body. Then there are kids that have not seen a dime of child support in years, or spouses sitting on section 8 housing and then there is that restitution bill coming due.

If we make it hard to get that first job with an application and an interview , when we know that he has skills he can use that do not require that application background check, and when we know he has lots of job 'opportunities' using those past skill and plenty of personal references to get those jobs, we are begging him to go right back into the same cycle we spent 100's of thousands of dollars to get him out of.

I don't have the answer here to your employer concern , but I do know that we have every interest in helping this guy get a living wage within a couple of months because there won't be much longer for our goals for his release to be achieved . If he needs money to keep a roof and a shower and some food, and he needs it bad enough, no amount of counseling and drug rehab or anger management classes, will do anyone any good.

We have to solve this problem of convicts unable to find jobs, , because it won't be his problem alone for long! There is a real time clock here and the fewer employers who will give this guy a job, the more likely we have thrown away a lot of money .

 

[joko104]

I know a guy convicted on the flimsiest of charges for child porn( the texas govt deemed the woman in the pic looked like she may have possible maybe been 16, so they charged him without further investigation. This was of course a blatent violation, as his original charge was legit ie being caught with meth, but the other charge was a stretch. Either way the govt there required him to get a job upon release for parole, most often it is minimum wage slave labor jobs, who lobby the prison system to guarantee prisoners who have no choice but to put up with extreme hours and work for nearly no pay or go back to prison, often the prison system and employers are working together making sure prisoners on parole are stuck working xyz job to ensure they have to work for that company, and unless there is someone on the outside to provide them a job they are stuck with that company until out of parole, it is basically a bribery system,, and a very corrupt one at that.

Hell of a defense you put up why the government should force an elderly woman raising her teenage grand daughter otherwise alone to rent him her the newly vacant boarding room in her house.

"He may be a meth head, but he says the government didn't prove the porn he had actually was child porn. Maybe she really was 17."

I can see how that didn't play with the jury or judge. :lol:

 

[joko104]

Has it occurred to you that someone may have changed in the course of a decade? Has it occurred to you that the same guy who learned to steal when he was 17 and was convicted at 19 before he was even a mature adult,, might have been a member of a group of youths that stole, or impulsive and angry or someone who stole because he was addicted to a drug, might not be in the same demographic or any of those things when he comes out. Now he is a 35 year old who's prefrontal lobe is fully developed, still has the skill set to use, to get money, and he still could look up his old buds that still are in that life, but that really isn't what he wants anymore. He wants to go straight, and he wants to stay away from trouble, and the drugs or alcohol and prove to Mom or his wife, or his kid he can make it.

That is actually going to be a lot of people coming out. They are moving in with a friend or a parent or a sibling or to a half way house and what they need is a source of consistent income FAST. Mom, or buddy, or half way house cannot afford to take care of ex-con for long for free. There will be pressure come up with rent money, or the electric bill or groceries because it costs money to house feed etc an extra body. Then there are kids that have not seen a dime of child support in years, or spouses sitting on section 8 housing and then there is that restitution bill coming due.

If we make it hard to get that first job with an application and an interview , when we know that he has skills he can use that do not require that application background check, and when we know he has lots of job 'opportunities' using those past skill and plenty of personal references to get those jobs, we are begging him to go right back into the same cycle we spent 100's of thousands of dollars to get him out of.

I don't have the answer here to your employer concern , but I do know that we have every interest in helping this guy get a living wage within a couple of months because there won't be much longer for our goals for his release to be achieved . If he needs money to keep a roof and a shower and some food, and he needs it bad enough, no amount of counseling and drug rehab or anger management classes, will do anyone any good.

We have to solve this problem of convicts unable to find jobs, , because it won't be his problem alone for long! There is a real time clock here and the fewer employers who will give this guy a job, the more likely we have thrown away a lot of money .

Yes, who we should deny employment to is people with no criminal records. Criminals should take priority over non-criminals. The worst the crimes they committed, the more they should be able to cut to the front of the line. After all, the worse the criminal record the harder it is to get job. Therefore, the more important we deny the job to others, and certainly not to people with perfect criminal records.

"It is sad that one of our school bus drivers with 3 prior DUIs and 2 convictions for possession of meth, an assault with a deadly weapon charge and 7 speeding tickets - not counting the 9 juvenile court convictions, whose body tested at 3 times the legal drunk level and positive for meth - just killed 26 school children, the family of 5 in the motor home and himself driving on the wrong side of the highway on ice at 80 mph. Pursuant to state law, we are an equal opportunity employer so didn't know his criminal record.
Besides, the man seemed to really need a job and we were afraid he'd shoot up the school if we didn't hire him. It's hard not having a job you know. It could have put a man like him over the edge. So, candidly, it could have been a whole lot worse. It could have been 50 children. The system worked. "

 

[joko104]

Has it occurred to you that someone may have changed in the course of a decade? Has it occurred to you that the same guy who learned to steal when he was 17 and was convicted at 19 before he was even a mature adult,, might have been a member of a group of youths that stole, or impulsive and angry or someone who stole because he was addicted to a drug, might not be in the same demographic or any of those things when he comes out. Now he is a 35 year old who's prefrontal lobe is fully developed, still has the skill set to use, to get money, and he still could look up his old buds that still are in that life, but that really isn't what he wants anymore. He wants to go straight, and he wants to stay away from trouble, and the drugs or alcohol and prove to Mom or his wife, or his kid he can make it.

That is actually going to be a lot of people coming out. They are moving in with a friend or a parent or a sibling or to a half way house and what they need is a source of consistent income FAST. Mom, or buddy, or half way house cannot afford to take care of ex-con for long for free. There will be pressure come up with rent money, or the electric bill or groceries because it costs money to house feed etc an extra body. Then there are kids that have not seen a dime of child support in years, or spouses sitting on section 8 housing and then there is that restitution bill coming due.

If we make it hard to get that first job with an application and an interview , when we know that he has skills he can use that do not require that application background check, and when we know he has lots of job 'opportunities' using those past skill and plenty of personal references to get those jobs, we are begging him to go right back into the same cycle we spent 100's of thousands of dollars to get him out of.

I don't have the answer here to your employer concern , but I do know that we have every interest in helping this guy get a living wage within a couple of months because there won't be much longer for our goals for his release to be achieved . If he needs money to keep a roof and a shower and some food, and he needs it bad enough, no amount of counseling and drug rehab or anger management classes, will do anyone any good.

We have to solve this problem of convicts unable to find jobs, , because it won't be his problem alone for long! There is a real time clock here and the fewer employers who will give this guy a job, the more likely we have thrown away a lot of money .

Typical progressive government control freakism - always the same.

You wrote "what WE need to do..." But REALLY what you mean is what the government needs to force YOU to do..."

"We" NEVER means "I" in the context of progressive government police state fascism. "We" always means "YOU." "We" need to control "YOU" and to punish "YOU" if "YOU" don't do what "WE" tell YOU to do at YOUR own expense and risks. If this causes "YOU" problems, "YOU" will be responsible for what "WE" ordered "YOU" to do.

 

[joko104]

Example:

City government bans businesses putting short blunt 4 inch tall spikes in the recesses in the outside store front and bans barbed wire on a fence around the sides and back. Then the government is fining that business for any graffiti and liter - as the business is going out of business because no customer will approach a store with a dozen bums begging, sleeping and urinating in front of their daytime hang out and fair weather night time sleeping locale.

After all, a person has to urinate and sleep somewhere, don't they?

 

[cpwill]

Has it occurred to you that someone may have changed in the course of a decade?

In fact I'd expect it, especially from a decade in prison. That change, however, may be positive, may be negative, or may be a mixture of both.

Trying to offload the risk of finding out what kind of change they experienced onto innocent civilians without their consent strikes me as poor policy. Offering insurance for those who complete programs designed to prepare one for reintegration, as was later suggested, strikes me as the wiser option to achieve your goal of making it easier for the actually-reformed to find employment.

 

[BahamaBob]

Convicted felons make terrible tenants.
First, they have a tough time getting and holding jobs. Without a job, forget about getting rent.
Second, almost all felons are repeat offenders. Some may have been convicted of a dozen crimes. Career criminals are more common than you would think.
Third, scum hang around with scum. Their felon buddies will be hanging around your rental. Many of these people are always on the look for a mark. They will be checking out the other tenants. The chances of crimes being committed to these other tenants will increase greatly.
Fourth, a great many of these people abuse drugs and or alcohol.
Fifth, these people are more likely to be violent.

This is a terrible idea. It will lead to a innocent people being victims and finical loss for landlords.

 

[btthegreat]

In fact I'd expect it, especially from a decade in prison. That change, however, may be positive, may be negative, or may be a mixture of both.

Trying to offload the risk of finding out what kind of change they experienced onto innocent civilians without their consent strikes me as poor policy. Offering insurance for those who complete programs designed to prepare one for reintegration, as was later suggested, strikes me as the wiser option to achieve your goal of making it easier for the actually-reformed to find employment.

The risk of someone stealing, mugging or whatever, exists for innocent civilians if they intend to leave their house, or even if they want to stay in their house
Its part of life. It is not assumed by govt, or an employers, because there already is someone to hold accountable, and that is the criminal. I don't see how insurance solves the dilemma anyway because the solution to getting cheap insurance and keeping the rates low is to keep all ex cons off the payroll. You are going to have to provide a positive incentive program like a tax writeoff that off- sets that risk and that is going to be expensive incentive.

 

[joko104]

A very large amount of landlords will not rent to criminals today, atleast not prime property. Where I live it is common with a criminal backround prime apartments will not be rened without passing a criminal background check, but their bottom of the line apartments will be rented to anyone. A couple of realtors near me go by background check and honor system, ie if a criminal out of jail rents their scum apartments in the worst part of town, holds a job and pays their rent taxes etc, those landlords will usually make exceptions and allow them to rent in more upscale neighborhoods, however criminals in general are deemed high risk, often due to tendency to return to crime, ie they may be renters today but in jail tomorrow, hence why renters are skeptical and want solid tenants for their higjher valued properties.

43% likelihood to be arrested for crime and back in prison within a year to be exact. And that is for only the first year and only after being caught. That's huge.

Would you be willing to rent a room to someone with there being a 43% chance that person murder you and your family?

A 43% chance the tenant will turn your house into a meth lab - literally leading to the house having to be bulldozed down?

Turning your apartment complex into drug trafficking central - for which the apartment complex fills up with drug addicts as decent family people flee and rent value crashing as the city is issuing YOU fines for graffiti and litter - never knowing when a police raid may obliterate part of YOUR building in a raid - for which the police have no liability?

43% chance the apartment blows up because of the meth lab - you losing your building.

I think we agree to HELL NO!

 

[beerftw]

Hell of a defense you put up why the government should force an elderly woman raising her teenage grand daughter otherwise alone to rent him her the newly vacant boarding room in her house.

"He may be a meth head, but he says the government didn't prove the porn he had actually was child porn. Maybe she really was 17."

I can see how that didn't play with the jury or judge. :lol:

his dumb ass is still stuck with limited living options because he is on parole. Never believed that high end living should be granted to felons because they have the money. Like in the other post here it is usually an honor system, the bending of the rules usually takes trust and most landlords will not bother renting you anything but bottom of the barrel unless you can prove you are reliable, and that is usually for felonies, for sex offenders it is usually a no go no matter how much you prove you are not going back to crime, as a sex offender in the rental area turns away everyone who has the power to rent elsewhere.

 

[Tryingtogetit]

I believe if it's my house....it should be up to me to decide who I rent to and that I have the right to take all information I collect on a person into account. I'm sorry but renting your home your putting a investment in jeopardy. Your responsible for any damage that may be done not to mention if you have to evict the cost can be extreme. Renting to the wrong person could cost you your investment or more. It's a gamble and you should be able to make your own choice.

Sent from my G9 using Tapatalk

 

[HK.227]

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

ALL? No.

As regards the state.
As many rights as possible should be reinstated with due consideration to risk.
I.e. no mass murderers getting permits for machineguns and naval artillery, and no pedophiles getting around background checks when applying for jobs in kindergartens because "they already paid their debt to society".
OTOH, going on a bender as a teenager and "borrowing" a friends bike should hardly come back and bite you on the butt 20 years later. Risk and proportionality should be used to determine limitations, not punishment for it's own sake.

As regards private individuals.
Absolutely not. In general, the individual's right to determine if they trust you or not overrules your right to be trusted.
Exceptions only for certain biological circumstances and creeds.

 

[molten_dragon]

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

No, I don't believe ex-cons should necessarily get back all rights and privileges in every case. I think in some cases it makes sense for someone to permanently lose certain rights if they commit certain crimes. For example if someone is convicted of voter fraud, I think they should forever lose the right to vote. If someone is convicted of attempted murder using a gun, they should forever lose the right to own guns.

I also think employers have a right to know if someone has been convicted of certain crimes. A bank or trading firm needs to know if someone they're hiring was convicted for insider trading. A daycare needs to know if someone they're hiring was convicted for child abuse or molestation.

What I really think needs to happen is a complete overhaul of the way criminal records are handled. When a search for criminal records is run, it should have to be for a certain purpose, and the search should only return records related to that specific purpose. If there's nothing in the record related to that purpose, then the search should return nothing at all. I'll give an example. Let's say Bob was convicted of insider trading and served 5 years in prison. He gets out and he applies for a job at Charles Schwab. When they run a criminal record check on bob, they note that it's for a finance position and his conviction for insider trading shows up. On the other hand, if Bob was applying for an apartment lease, or a job driving a bus, no results would show up when a criminal record check was run on him, because he has no record relevant to those things.