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.
We do not MAKE them anything. People have the option of choosing how to react to circumstances. You can choose to be angry and "hungry" which is a victim mentality, or you can choose to use the current system as incentive to improve the quality of your life by striving to better yourself and move forward despite your previous mistakes and background.
I have no sympathy for people who have a victim mentality. Life has not been a walk in the park for me or countless other people who have made the choice to move forward.
20yrsinBranson
Absolutely.
When I didn't have money for clothing, I didn't go shoplift - I learned to sew and shopped at thrift stores and Goodwill.
It isn't. Obviously, if the thought of prison time and a felony record isn't enough to "incentivize" folks to "behave," taking away the background check isn't gonna deter crime - if anything - sounds like a "pass" to me.
There are many crimes that don't result in prison time or a felony record. Just about the only consequence there is having a record that would hurt you in the job world.
I don't understand how you want these people to be a help to society if they can't even get a job. I understand they put themselves in that situation. If they don't get a job they will most likely result back to the crime. I've seen it happen.
I don't think the situation is so black and white like some people in here portray.
See here's how I see the problem. if you are a criminal and you get caught, you do the time. Or at least a fraction of it. But now you have a record that goes with you for the rest of your life which in most cases severely impacts it negatively. This, of course, course makes it harder to get you life back on track when people won't hire you for even the most mundane jobs, let alone higher paying white collar jobs. The way to solve this is two part in my opinion. First, there should not be criminal background checks because its still discriminating. Second, I don't believe in parole or getting off time for good behavior. If you did the crime, you should do the time and thats it. That should be a big enough deterrent. For example, somebody catches a drug charge, they are a first time offender and either get a light sentence, or suspended sentence and parole. No! They should be in jail!
"But little jimmy was just dropping acid with his friends behind high school bleachers. He's already been accepted to Carnegie Mellon in the fall!" No. Jail.
"But Big Tyrone has only been charge with aggravated assault in the 3rd degree! He should get parole and be placed in an anger management program!" NO! F that. Jail.
"But, but Lance only sold his mom's prescription drugs because he is emotionally damaged due to his parents divorce 3 years ago and he's dropped out of college because of that too." No lock his punk-a** up.
Whats the point of prison if you don't serve your time or you do serve your time and you are stuck with the stigma of being an ex-con? I mean isn't the purpose of jail meant punish and rehabilitate you until you are ready to be let back into society? I mean couldn't we just save tax-payer money just branding people on their faces the crimes they commit? The time should fit the crime. Period. People shouldn't be let back into society if you think they are going to do the same thing again. Sheesh.
Forget the fear of "the other" for a moment. Whatever happened to the idea that if you do the time, you're done with that issue in your life? What about the concept of rehabilitation?
How long does some young person, who went on a joy ride with his friends, have to pay for that crime? The ease of checking criminal records today can mean that a person has to pay for a mistake they made once, for life. I'm sure there are some of you gubers on this thread that are cheering that idea, but what do you think is the cost to YOU for that kind of policy? And how long do you want to keep paying it?
There are over 2 million people in prison in the US. Most of them are non-violent and will be getting out. What are they supposed to do when they get out? It's not enough to say, you made a bad decision, tough luck. They are people. They will try to survive. They will be doing something with their time on the outside. Wouldn't you rather that they were working and being a contributing member of society? Where is your own self interest?
Wouldn't you rather that they pay their own way when they get out, rather than YOU having to foot the bill? Because you know that is exactly what happens to these people. They either are supported by some social program, or they go back to prison because they can not find a job to support them and their families. Either way, you pay.
85% of American companies now drug test. Why shouldn't a former drug addict, who has completed a drug rehab program, and who has remained clean, and who can pass their employer's drug testing program, qualify for consideration for a job?
Have any of you ever done ANY research into why/how minorities are arrested more often than whites? Are sentenced to do time, and more of it than a white person, for a comparable crime? Have you ever wondered why rich drug addicts get rehab and poor drug addicts get prison? NO?, Don't care? well you should, because it's your money that is fueling this disparity.
Who do you think looks at these criminal and credit checks? Some HR person with NO TRAINING on how to interpret the information on the report. When my employer was considering doing background checks one research company representative told me that the companies that gather and report this information to industry don't provide any instruction on how to interpret the results for fear of litigation. So the HR person is left up to deciding themselves how to weigh the information, and make a decision. Does that sound like a good idea to you?
What about someone who had a messy divorce, and a spouse that ruined their credit before they left. Should that person have to lose the opportunity to get a job because they picked the wrong mate? Or because the 23 year old HR person always pays their bills on time and assumes everyone who doesn't is a deadbeat?
Where is the balance and fairness in this discussion, not just to the ex-offender, but to your own self interest/wallet?
I've said what I have to say, now let's return to the I am superior, saber rattling, "tough on crime" ignorance, that constitutes too much of this thread......
There are many crimes that don't result in prison time or a felony record. Just about the only consequence there is having a record that would hurt you in the job world.
So what are you saying? Some crimes are okay to commit b/c they don't result in a felony record and thus can't keep a person from getting a job? LOL
Most people don't commit crime for one reason: they are law-abiding citizens. I guess if you are a sociopath, it doesn't matter if you "toe the line" and work at being a law abiding citizen. In that scenario, perhaps the thrill of "getting away with it" is worth more than one's integrity.
Being a law abiding citizen is not something on a sliding scale. It is like pregnancy. Either you are or you aren't.
Is this what it has come to for black people? Have we reached critical mass......the point where so many black people have criminal records that it is no longer possible to provide opportunities to them without reducing our standards to accommodate them?
Black people....does this make you happy? Or embarrassed?
Personally, I feel that it's a sad commentary on the progress of equality. You fought hard for equality, but yet a life of crime is all that you got out of that fight?
Forget the fear of "the other" for a moment. Whatever happened to the idea that if you do the time, you're done with that issue in your life? What about the concept of rehabilitation?
How long does some young person, who went on a joy ride with his friends, have to pay for that crime? The ease of checking criminal records today can mean that a person has to pay for a mistake they made once, for life. I'm sure there are some of you gubers on this thread that are cheering that idea, but what do you think is the cost to YOU for that kind of policy? And how long do you want to keep paying it?
There are over 2 million people in prison in the US. Most of them are non-violent and will be getting out. What are they supposed to do when they get out? It's not enough to say, you made a bad decision, tough luck. They are people. They will try to survive. They will be doing something with their time on the outside. Wouldn't you rather that they were working and being a contributing member of society? Where is your own self interest?
Wouldn't you rather that they pay their own way when they get out, rather than YOU having to foot the bill? Because you know that is exactly what happens to these people. They either are supported by some social program, or they go back to prison because they can not find a job to support them and their families. Either way, you pay.
85% of American companies now drug test. Why shouldn't a former drug addict, who has completed a drug rehab program, and who has remained clean, and who can pass their employer's drug testing program, qualify for consideration for a job?
Have any of you ever done ANY research into why/how minorities are arrested more often than whites? Are sentenced to do time, and more of it than a white person, for a comparable crime? Have you ever wondered why rich drug addicts get rehab and poor drug addicts get prison? NO?, Don't care? well you should, because it's your money that is fueling this disparity.
Who do you think looks at these criminal and credit checks? Some HR person with NO TRAINING on how to interpret the information on the report. When my employer was considering doing background checks one research company representative told me that the companies that gather and report this information to industry don't provide any instruction on how to interpret the results for fear of litigation. So the HR person is left up to deciding themselves how to weigh the information, and make a decision. Does that sound like a good idea to you?
What about someone who had a messy divorce, and a spouse that ruined their credit before they left. Should that person have to lose the opportunity to get a job because they picked the wrong mate? Or because the 23 year old HR person always pays their bills on time and assumes everyone who doesn't is a deadbeat?
Where is the balance and fairness in this discussion, not just to the ex-offender, but to your own self interest/wallet?
I've said what I have to say, now let's return to the I am superior, saber rattling, "tough on crime" ignorance, that constitutes too much of this thread......
Ummm...I don't think guys who took a "joy ride" are the subject. More likely, we are talking about murderers, rapists, embezzlers, kidnappers, kiddy pervs, bank robbers, and the like.
Here in DC back in the day, they ignored criminal records when they had to increase the police force. The result was a once competent constabulary became riddled with criminals and malcontents. Was it an enlightening move to give these guys a second chance- a second chance to rob and steal, but this time with a badge and gun?
See here's how I see the problem. if you are a criminal and you get caught, you do the time. Or at least a fraction of it. But now you have a record that goes with you for the rest of your life which in most cases severely impacts it negatively. This, of course, course makes it harder to get you life back on track when people won't hire you for even the most mundane jobs, let alone higher paying white collar jobs. The way to solve this is two part in my opinion. First, there should not be criminal background checks because its still discriminating. Second, I don't believe in parole or getting off time for good behavior. If you did the crime, you should do the time and thats it. That should be a big enough deterrent. For example, somebody catches a drug charge, they are a first time offender and either get a light sentence, or suspended sentence and parole. No! They should be in jail!
"But little jimmy was just dropping acid with his friends behind high school bleachers. He's already been accepted to Carnegie Mellon in the fall!" No. Jail.
"But Big Tyrone has only been charge with aggravated assault in the 3rd degree! He should get parole and be placed in an anger management program!" NO! F that. Jail.
"But, but Lance only sold his mom's prescription drugs because he is emotionally damaged due to his parents divorce 3 years ago and he's dropped out of college because of that too." No lock his punk-a** up.
Whats the point of prison if you don't serve your time or you do serve your time and you are stuck with the stigma of being an ex-con? I mean isn't the purpose of jail meant punish and rehabilitate you until you are ready to be let back into society? I mean couldn't we just save tax-payer money just branding people on their faces the crimes they commit? The time should fit the crime. Period. People shouldn't be let back into society if you think they are going to do the same thing again. Sheesh.
I don't understand your aversion to parole? To get parole, you have to spend time in prison first, and then you are released on parole for x number of years. During this time, if it is noticed you are not trying to become a better member of society, you can then be sent back into the prison system easily.
If you believe that prison is supposed to be rehabilitation, then wouldnt good behavior be a sign of rehabilitation? So if the prisoner is rehabilitated, shouldnt they be able to receive the good time and be released sooner?
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.
Small minds have easy solutions
