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.
But here is the question. How does that happen if a lot of businesses don't want to hire felons?
There are a lot of companies that do hire felons. People are just quick to assume companies don't.
I know quite a few Telecom & Data companies that will give some felons a chance. Caterpillar will hire felons. State Farms Corporate headquarters has felons working at it. Many retail stores I know for a fact will hire felons, like Macy's, JcPenny's and Sears. Many times it depends on the exact conviction, the time since conviction and how the person portrays themselves.
Having a second chance (most felons have had far more than a second chance) has nothing to do with saying nothing ever happened and that is exactly what the thread is about, wiping the slate clean as if nothing happened.
Well, something did happen and it seems those who favor removing felony convictions from the record are only concerned with the criminal and not the victims. If one wants to say that what happened to the victim can't be changed, then all the more reason not to ever remove the record.
If a business or someone wants to put some trust into a convicted felon so that in some way the convicted can integrate back into society, no issues there.
The people who believe a felony record should in some way expire would scream to the world if that were to happen for those who murdered or in any way harmed celebrities, liberal political figures, certain musicians and so on. Same people weep for Linsay Lohan and the next punk of the month, Justin Beiber.
You know (I thought I'd chime in here because there's a lot of confusion in regards to international travel and criminal records). I run a marathon here near Niagara Falls which starts in Buffalo, NY and finishes right at Niagara Falls (Ontario). Anyway, during the expo all participants must go through customs a day early to ensure there'll be no problems for not just the runners but spectators, vendors, volunteers, etc.
You'd be shocked to see how many people from Canada and the US who have, say, a DUI from 1972 discover they aren't admissible across the border because of this. Whether you have a passport or not, and even if its NOT a felony, you really have to contact Canada Border Services Agency (or US Customs) even if you have something as trivial as an expired Order for Protection - it can ruin your entire trip and waste thousands of dollars that could've been cleared up with a phone call beforehand.
Personally I think this has gone too far, as those with single DUI charges from the 70's or OFP's are unlikely dangers to society, but border services isn't fooling around these days.
There are victimless crimes that will result in a felony convection.
Back in the 60's it was a felony to posses a ounce of pot.
Today it is a petty misdemeanor to posses a ounce and a half and in some states it's legal.
Should this person still carry the felony around their neck
or can they get it removed from their record?
No one has said to expunge violent offenders records.
Poor Lindsay, so many do so much more and never get caught and if they do nothing happens...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife
Having a second chance (most felons have had far more than a second chance) has nothing to do with saying nothing ever happened and that is exactly what the thread is about, wiping the slate clean as if nothing happened.
Well, something did happen and it seems those who favor removing felony convictions from the record are only concerned with the criminal and not the victims. If one wants to say that what happened to the victim can't be changed, then all the more reason not to ever remove the record.
If a business or someone wants to put some trust into a convicted felon so that in some way the convicted can integrate back into society, no issues there.
The people who believe a felony record should in some way expire would scream to the world if that were to happen for those who murdered or in any way harmed celebrities, liberal political figures, certain musicians and so on. Same people weep for Linsay Lohan and the next punk of the month, Justin Beiber.
There are victimless crimes that will result in a felony convection.
Back in the 60's it was a felony to posses a ounce of pot.
Today it is a petty misdemeanor to posses a ounce and a half and in some states it's legal.
Should this person still carry the felony around their neck
or can they get it removed from their record?
No one has said to expunge violent offenders records.
Poor Lindsay, so many do so much more and never get caught and if they do nothing happens...
The "victimless" crime. Wow.
There are also people who in the 60s stole from others to buy pot. A crime affects society as a whole, there is no such thing as a victimless crime. The solution isn't deciding to commit a crime and try to get the record of it removed, the solution is not committing the crime in the first place.
The popular tactic is to say something was bad then but not now. So what? Changing only one context of the argument isn't valid unless you are willing to do it for everything.
Poor Lindsay. Oh boy. Funny how it comes down to what others do as an excuse. Yeah, lets all share the responsibility of those who bear none.
A young man who has worked for me for about eight years is a convicted felon.
He has a key to my house and lets my dogs out if I work a long day, or even if I'm gone for a few days.
Seriously, it depends. In this guy's case, his felony was drunk driving (in 2004) and it was his second offense. He was blasted and when cops came up behind him, apparently he thought it would be a good idea to lead them on a chase, hence felony drunk driving.
Obviously a really stupid idea. He crashed the car and the only person he hurt was himself, he got a broken arm. I know his family and I know him....he did some very stupid things as a young man and has been clean as a whistle since but that felony will follow him for life.
Fair? I don't know. I think this needs to be determined on a case by case basis.
Do you think a felony should stay on a person's record after he has served his time or completed probation? I don't think it should. I think the court system keeps people down. If a person serves his time and learns from his mistake, why should he have a felony on his record forever? He's basically screwed. He will never be able to get a decent job and probably commit more crimes. I just think it's so unfair. The government should at least not let employers see these felonies.
I agree with your concept to a point.
I have no problem if a record is kept OPEN for a certain amount of time. This would depend on the severity of the violation to decide how long.
Second, after a certain amount of time it can be put in an undiscloed record status ONLY available to law enforcement personel regarding the investigation of a crime.
Third, it should not be open to anyone else.
Fourth, after a period of time it could be erased. This is also dependent of the type of crime and severity of it.
Lastly, there should be a more specific criteria as what the individual had done since he/she committed the crime. Did he/she go to college and improved his life, done community service on his own? What is his standing in the community? OR did he just stay out of trouble and nothing else.
These two factors would be used to decide how long a record should still stay or undisclosed.
I suppose that there could be a time when a record could be erased after a long period of time and the individual never got in trouble anymore, 20, 25, 30 years depending on the type of crime? Take care.
First to those saying felons can't get good jobs it just isn't true. It is much more difficult to find a job that fits your skills, especially if the conviction might have been related to that industry, but not impossible. For example I have a very good friend who was convicted of felony DUI twice, I don't know why he was so stupid just that he was at the time, he has a job that pays just above $20/hr, providing him with means to support his family and also with job happiness.
He also paid his debt to society in that he completed all the requirements of his sentence set out in front of him; and not just the he got through it, but actually adhered to all the rules of his home detention and probation sentence and to this day doesn't go to bars. He is what you would call reformed. In the state of Indiana he is unable to get complete expungement of his record for another 4 years and even then it will be an uphill battle and according to the lawyer he went to see it will be unlikely to succeed as that requirements are very strict and the circumstances are limited. Someone like him should be able to get his record cleared, non-violent stupid felon. Someone who violently assaulted people should not be able to. They can draw a line in the sand on this and it be for the betterment.
Misdemeanors like a DUI? Sure. Something serious that warrants a felony? Hell no. They did the crime and now have to live with the consequence.
Trouble is - and it depends on the state - you can get a felony for not very much at all. I have more sympathy for the guy that gets done for possession of Marijuana than the person who gets a DUI. There is a lot more chance that a DUI will hurt another person than the marijuana user.
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.
