Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The story of this will live on the internet forever. So.. Regardless of getting it expunged, it'll still be at least a bit of a sword hanging over her head for the rest of her life.
Personally, I think that's probably punishment enough.. I see no reason to toss jail time on top of it. A fine? Oh yes. Though, again, I waffle a bit on how much good that will do since her parents will likely cover that.
I'm fine with a monetary fine and some community service. I think the latter could be the most effective.
Now.. She gets in trouble AGAIN. Pending on what it is.. This will likely turn into a very different conversation. The whole 'fool me once' thing. Though.. I don't think she really ever fooled anyone.
The problem is, what would be a terrible thing to most of us - the notoriety, the public criticism, having your glamour shots posted all over the internet while people talk about what a disgusting liar you are - may not be a bad thing in Carlee's mind. She seems to be eating up the attention and doesn't care what anyone else thinks of her.
The girl doesn't have a humble bone in her body and it really isn't hard to see where she gets it from.
Could Carlee's car and even her parents' house be seized if it was determined that the car and house were in some way used during the commission and cover up of her crimes? I suspect the ability to pay fees/fines will not solely be based on Carlee's own income and assets, or lack thereof.
Her car.. Yes, because it was used in the commission of a crime. Her parents house? No. We could back and forth that one probably, but.. There's ZERO chance that any court is going to allow that to happen. A home has completely different rules than any other property. If you ever watched Breaking Bad, the scene where Jesse was trapped in the RV with Hank trying to gain access.. Quite apt.
Would they do it, so far as the car? Well, depends on Alabama civil forfeiture laws. I kinda doubt it.. Doesn't seem worthwhile. But.. I also don't know if a misdemeanor would qualify.. It may have to be a felony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L00k4ward
One could request to remove personal information fro the internet - tedious, but doable..
You're not going to have all these news sites remove the stories about it. That's news, not personal information.
The problem is, what would be a terrible thing to most of us - the notoriety, the public criticism, having your glamour shots posted all over the internet while people talk about what a disgusting liar you are - may not be a bad thing in Carlee's mind. She seems to be eating up the attention and doesn't care what anyone else thinks of her.
The girl doesn't have a humble bone in her body and it really isn't hard to see where she gets it from.
How do we know Carlee is eating up the attention? Has she been heard from, or even talked to the police. since the event?
Lebonte is making some great posts. I agree with his thought that a person coming out of prison faces a hard enough road in attempt to assimilate back into society. Strapping on a huge bill for their incarceration will kill what chance they have.
You made the choice to join the military and with that comes moves. Carlee does not appear to have a choice. Being forced to move to another state and change your name is not a choice most would make unless they are forced to. So this would be very bad for Carlee.
It's interesting that, on the one hand, you write that Carlee is destined to a life of hardship where employment, etc., will be incredibly difficult based on where she lives. On the other hand, you balk at the notion of a relatively easy fix to that. I did choose to join the military. In order to escape from the increased possibility of life difficulties via employment opportunities, etc., Carlee would also have a choice, namely moving to a state where employers are limited in digging into (to include asking about) someone's misdemeanor criminal past vs. staying in a state where they are not. As I've mentioned, that would be an easy choice for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry
And again you have failed to address the reality that most every employer does a Google search on any applicant. People may have short memories but Google does not. If there is a choice in candidates, and every decent job will have competition, she will not be chosen plain and simple. Hell given her behavior at the spa she may not even be able to land a job as the receptionist at a place like that.
To the contrary, I addressed that point multiple times in this thread. Specifically, I mentioned that some folks might be surprised by how many employers don't conduct such internet searches of applicants (to include some of the legal and government jobs that I've held in the past). Sources I've found say anywhere between 66% and 77% of employers do so: https://www.monster.com/career-advic...job-applicants ; https://blog.kavaliro.com/blog/80-of...e-an-interview ; https://www.idginsiderpro.com/articl...takeaways.html In my anecdotal experience with legal and government jobs, this has not been a common practice, primarily out of fear of running afoul of anti-discrimination laws (as this post alludes to: https://www.rudmanwinchell.com/why-e...cover%20letter.) or just because they don't see the need to do so. Even on the high end, that still leaves roughly a fifth of employers (to include executive recruiters) who do not do so.
But I also touched on the fact that Carlee could easily change her name, as I and Tawana Brawley (and countless others) have done. Background checks could make things more difficult in this regard as her old name would still come up, but I've found that--especially for larger corporations--the background check process is automated and only flags for further review if there are things on your record that warrant it (such as criminal convictions, etc.). Still, this is ultimately a moot point in those "ban the box" states that prohibit employers from conducting a criminal background check until after an employment offer has been extended: https://www.paycor.com/resource-cent...tate-by-state/ And this doesn't even get into the fact that some states and cities severely limit credit checks as a part of the job application process: https://iprospectcheck.com/employment-credit-report/
It's interesting that, on the one hand, you write that Carlee is destined to a life of hardship where employment, etc., will be incredibly difficult based on where she lives. On the other hand, you balk at the notion of a relatively easy fix to that. I did choose to join the military. In order to escape from the increased possibility of life difficulties via employment opportunities, etc., Carlee would also have a choice, namely moving to a state where employers are limited in digging into (to include asking about) someone's misdemeanor criminal past vs. staying in a state where they are not. As I've mentioned, that would be an easy choice for me.
To the contrary, I addressed that point multiple times in this thread. Specifically, I mentioned that some folks might be surprised by how many employers don't conduct such internet searches of applicants (to include some of the legal and government jobs that I've held in the past). Sources I've found say anywhere between 66% and 77% of employers do so: https://www.monster.com/career-advic...job-applicants ; https://blog.kavaliro.com/blog/80-of...e-an-interview ; https://www.idginsiderpro.com/articl...takeaways.html In my anecdotal experience with legal and government jobs, this has not been a common practice, primarily out of fear of running afoul of anti-discrimination laws (as this post alludes to: https://www.rudmanwinchell.com/why-e...cover%20letter.) or just because they don't see the need to do so. Even on the high end, that still leaves roughly a fifth of employers (to include executive recruiters) who do not do so.
But I also touched on the fact that Carlee could easily change her name, as I and Tawana Brawley (and countless others) have done. Background checks could make things more difficult in this regard as her old name would still come up, but I've found that--especially for larger corporations--the background check process is automated and only flags for further review if there are things on your record that warrant it (such as criminal convictions, etc.). Still, this is ultimately a moot point in those "ban the box" states that prohibit employers from conducting a criminal background check until after an employment offer has been extended: https://www.paycor.com/resource-cent...tate-by-state/ And this doesn't even get into the fact that some states and cities severely limit credit checks as a part of the job application process: https://iprospectcheck.com/employment-credit-report/
Let me be as clear as I can be. As I have contended throughout being forced to move to another state, away from her coddling parents and other family members (this appears to be a close family) to a place where she knows nobody after being dependant on family for so long and then being forced to change her name in the process is not in any way EASY to me. That is a huge sacrifice, a dramatic life change for someone so immature, and nobody would want to do all of this unless they are forced to do it.
How would she explain to potential employers no work history in her late 20's if she did in fact change her name? How could she show that she even has a high school degree? Nope I don't see this as an easy fix at all, It's actually a very dramatic life change and again with nothing to show potential employers I don't see this as some quick fix you believe it to be.
And as your own figures show the majority of employers do in fact conduct searches of candidates. So she has just been eliminated from 66%-77% of all jobs she applies for if she retained her name.
Last edited by DaveinMtAiry; 08-02-2023 at 05:52 AM..
In many states, name changes cannot be pursued for the purpose of avoiding debt or any type of fraud.
People with criminal convictions may not be able to pursue name changes depending on the nature of their convictions, or may at a minimum be subject to specific procedural or notice requirements.
In a number of states, petitioners are subject to publication requirements, meaning that they must give notice of their name change in a local newspaper.
In many states, name changes cannot be pursued for the purpose of avoiding debt or any type of fraud.
People with criminal convictions may not be able to pursue name changes depending on the nature of their convictions, or may at a minimum be subject to specific procedural or notice requirements.
In a number of states, petitioners are subject to publication requirements, meaning that they must give notice of their name change in a local newspaper.
Think that basically defeats the purpose of the argument there.
Who would see the notice in the newspaper these days?
Ya know it's hard not to still look at Alabama as a backwards state after reading this.
This applies to the voters as well. How on Earth can someone vote to underfeed prisoners so the warden can fund a vacation home?
Irony irony. If that's not go-to-prison behavior I don't know what is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
