- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,271
- Reaction score
- 28,078
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Would this extend to corporations as well? If an auto maker is found to have been criminally negligent in the creation or sale of a product, would that be hidden as well?
......
At issue for me is the concern that convicted felons who cannot re-integrate into society upon release, will most certainly return to a life of crime. It may surprise most people but there are approximately 65 million adult American citizens with a criminal record. This makes them effectively un-employable because they are asked on most job applications if they have been convicted of some level of crime (misdemeanor or felony). If they say yes, they don't get the job. If they say no, a background check results in their being fired a few months after hire for "lying on their application."
....
I am sorry but I believe that is more often myth than reality. The things that led them to becoming felons would be more the issue than society shunning them. I know too many felons who have good jobs to believe that to be the sole factor in somebody not being able to get a job as often as some would have you believe. In addition, two of my businesses require bonds on some employees and the remaining people to be bondable i.e. no felonies. I have no control over that. I simply cannot hire felons in those businesses.
If our justice system was designed to rehabilitate criminals, I'd agree to making conviction records inaccessible. Unfortunately, our criminal justice system is designed to segregate and punish convicts, which makes criminals bitter and does little to meliorate their threat to society. As a result, convicts are are more likely to commit crimes and employers should be cognizant of the risk.
If we were going to implement a blackout like you advocate, I'd add in a stipulation that a citizen should be allowed to see what records the government has on them.
I saw a poll which asked "Should Criminal Records Be Erased After the Sentence is Served?" I think the pollster asked the wrong question (for the right reasons though).
The REAL question should be about public access. Thanks to data-mining companies and Background Check services, every-ones dirty laundry is open to the public. That's because we all seem to think we have a right to know everyone else's secrets, while at the same time wanting to keep our own from public view.
At issue for me is the concern that convicted felons who cannot re-integrate into society upon release, will most certainly return to a life of crime. It may surprise most people but there are approximately 65 million adult American citizens with a criminal record. This makes them effectively un-employable because they are asked on most job applications if they have been convicted of some level of crime (misdemeanor or felony). If they say yes, they don't get the job. If they say no, a background check results in their being fired a few months after hire for "lying on their application."
Our society works on the presumption that if a person has commited even one crime he/she is no longer to be trusted, ever! This leads to a form of social exile, forcing ex-felons to congregate and associate leading to eventual recidivism.
Rather than erasing a record upon release, why not simply leave the record access to police agencies, prosecutors, and the courts? That's the question. Your thoughts?
Would you want a convicted child molester living in your neighborhood, regardless of whether or not he was "bitter?"
Well I'm not a big fan of sex offender registration laws. That's because a lot of people on such registries aren't serial offenders or child molesters, just people who screwed up in some way people in that particular state considered sexually immoral enough to charge them with a crime.
For example, only 11 states require a person to be 18 before they can consent to sex and in several of those there is no close-in-age defense. Therefore, in some of them if a person aged 18 has sex with a person aged 16, they can be charged with one or more sex offenses. Interestingly, 16 is the age of consent in 31 states and the District of Columbia, while 17 is the age of consent in the remaining 8. So you can see just crossing a state line can lead to something that is legal in one state being illegal and registerable in another. There are more examples of differing things that place a person on the sex offender list without being either a pedophile or serial rapist, but I don't need to go into those.
My preference is to identify offenders that are a true threat and either keep them in prison, or send them to a mental facility..don't send them back out into society. But if the system releases a person back into society, I believe they deserve the presumption that they are rehabilitated and should be given the chance to re-integrate.
Actually it is not a myth. I spent some time as an adjudicator in my state's Unemployment office. During interviews with several dozen employers regarding the firing of individuals who lied about prior convictions on their applications, I asked would they have been hired if they told the truth. In EVERY single case I was told they would not have hired the individual if he had told the truth.
I think only allowing the only judicial system access to criminal records is a fair compromise.And after awhile those records should disappear completely,because you shouldn't receive extra punishment because of something you did 10 or 15 years ago.I saw a poll which asked "Should Criminal Records Be Erased After the Sentence is Served?" I think the pollster asked the wrong question (for the right reasons though).
The REAL question should be about public access. Thanks to data-mining companies and Background Check services, every-ones dirty laundry is open to the public. That's because we all seem to think we have a right to know everyone else's secrets, while at the same time wanting to keep our own from public view.
At issue for me is the concern that convicted felons who cannot re-integrate into society upon release, will most certainly return to a life of crime. It may surprise most people but there are approximately 65 million adult American citizens with a criminal record. This makes them effectively un-employable because they are asked on most job applications if they have been convicted of some level of crime (misdemeanor or felony). If they say yes, they don't get the job. If they say no, a background check results in their being fired a few months after hire for "lying on their application."
Our society works on the presumption that if a person has commited even one crime he/she is no longer to be trusted, ever! This leads to a form of social exile, forcing ex-felons to congregate and associate leading to eventual recidivism.
Rather than erasing a record upon release, why not simply leave the record access to police agencies, prosecutors, and the courts? That's the question. Your thoughts?
I don't know about the US, but in Canada when a criminal background check is done no conviction/sentence information related to the person is disclosed to anyone other than the person. If you try to get a job in business where the security of people or property is involved, or if you want to purchase a gun, or if you want to volunteer in an activity involving children, I believe you should be required to have a criminal background check done. Particularly, as it relates to involvement with children, the general public demands it. As long as your "rap sheet" isn't disclosed to anyone other than police or yourself, I see no problems here.
I think only allowing the only judicial system access to criminal records is a fair compromise.And after awhile those records should disappear completely,because you shouldn't receive extra punishment because of something you did 10 or 15 years ago.
I saw a poll which asked "Should Criminal Records Be Erased After the Sentence is Served?" I think the pollster asked the wrong question (for the right reasons though).
The REAL question should be about public access. Thanks to data-mining companies and Background Check services, every-ones dirty laundry is open to the public. That's because we all seem to think we have a right to know everyone else's secrets, while at the same time wanting to keep our own from public view.
At issue for me is the concern that convicted felons who cannot re-integrate into society upon release, will most certainly return to a life of crime. It may surprise most people but there are approximately 65 million adult American citizens with a criminal record. This makes them effectively un-employable because they are asked on most job applications if they have been convicted of some level of crime (misdemeanor or felony). If they say yes, they don't get the job. If they say no, a background check results in their being fired a few months after hire for "lying on their application."
Our society works on the presumption that if a person has commited even one crime he/she is no longer to be trusted, ever! This leads to a form of social exile, forcing ex-felons to congregate and associate leading to eventual recidivism.
Rather than erasing a record upon release, why not simply leave the record access to police agencies, prosecutors, and the courts? That's the question. Your thoughts?
that they don't get hired is a big assumption on your part, I hired a guy back in the 80's that shook his young son and killed him. He was a young father at the time of the incident and had became a positive contributor to society after his return. He made manager with our company. The public deserves access to criminal records in case people do not choose the right path when getting out. It should be just like your credit report and follow you around the rest of your life.
No, it is not a big assumption on my part. I recognize that there are job opportunities for people with criminal records. Some states even have special programs to find re-employment for them (but which often suffer from abuse by unscrupulous employers). In many cases they find work in construction or as truckers (some of these eventually become independent truckers). However, the vast majority of them find it very difficult to get work, especially in our current job market. As I mentioned in a prior reply, I know this for a fact due to a recent period of employment within my State unemployment office.
We not only handled people who have lost their jobs, but also people who are seeking employment. This includes recently released felons who need help finding work. They come out willing and able, participate in job training programs and are diligent work searches, and yet the bulk (approximately 80%) remain frustrated in their efforts. This because many of the biggest employers (banks, fast food chains, companies like Wal-Mart, Target, CVS, etc.) openly declare they will not hire people with criminal records. Beyond this, facing the glut of skilled and unskilled unemployed, H.R. departments use an honest answer about criminal records as one more method used to weed out job applications to a manageable number before beginning the hiring process.
Furthermore, over the last few years since the government declared the “War on Terror,” background check have become extremely easy due to data-mining companies. News agencies haven’t helped because they typically lump people with criminal records into any story concerning threats to the “security of our nation.” I am reminded of one example a couple of years ago where all the major news networks were reporting how unsafe our commercial harbors were due to the fact that a significant portion (30% or so?) of the truckers who made pick-ups and deliveries had criminal records. Needless to say this helped “security” by reducing employment opportunities in trucking for people with criminal records. We haven't even touched on felons who are required to register as sex offenders.
I could go on and on, but the fact remains, easy access to criminal records has proven a nightmare for the majority of felons seeking honest work after release back into our society.
As it should be, liability is far to great to hire a felon that cause harm to others in the workplace.
Exactly the presumption that prevents employment and drives these people back into a life of crime. Whatever happened to the idea that Justice balances the scales? That you do the crime, then do the time, so that you've paid for your offense when you are released back into society?
Might as well go back to the example of feudal Japan, where there were no such things as prisons. If a person was accused of any crime and judged guilty by his lord, the only punishment was death.
I guess we should continue to loan money to people with bad credit history and bankruptcy on their records?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?