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.
Is prevailing answer in this thread is to just let them eat cake?
Pretty much.
I could care less if murderers, rapists, and child molestors get a job after serving their time, if they get out.
But if you punch someone and it is considered felony assault, or if you have the extreme misfortune of being involved in a car wreck that is your fault and somebody dies (vehicular manslaughter), then you should not be held back from gaining employment.
I've often wondered if many ex-cons commit crimes like selling drugs or breaking into houses simply because they can't find legitimate jobs. A man's gotta eat.
...I've often wondered if many ex-cons commit crimes like selling drugs or breaking into houses simply because they can't find legitimate jobs. A man's gotta eat.
My guess is not many.
More likely they don't like the work they find and/or the fact they will have to work very hard to get ahead.
Easier just to rip someone off and hope you don't get caught.
In the final analysis we are going to pay for criminals no mater what unless they get a job.
It costs $40-50k per year to incarcerate them
Welfare programs $61320 per year (including administration costs) Money spent on welfare recipients exceeds average U.S. income - BizPac Review
having as many of them work as possible is probably the best option.
I could care less if murderers, rapists, and child molestors get a job after serving their time, if they get out.
But if you punch someone and it is considered felony assault, or if you have the extreme misfortune of being involved in a car wreck that is your fault and somebody dies (vehicular manslaughter), then you should not be held back from gaining employment.
I've often wondered if many ex-cons commit crimes like selling drugs or breaking into houses simply because they can't find legitimate jobs. A man's gotta eat.
Right. So those ex-cons had no other option, they couldn't work at Subway, McDonalds, etc and so they committed some crime? They were forced into crime by society when they really wanted to be good people. Honest people find a way to survive without breaking the law.
It seems like a lot of you are out of touch with reality. One can pretty much get a felony for spitting on the street.
Second DUI in some states? Convicted felon.
Retail theft of more than $100 in some states as a young teenager? Convicted felon.
Punch some guy in a bar at 21? Could be felony assault.
It it's bad enough that a minor mistake will still continue to limit employment prospects due to automatic dismissal of resumes/applications that disclose the mistake, people seem to still make assumptions about people as shown in all of the threads about convictions.
Someone who stole $100 item at a store when 20 should not be put in the same category with someone who actually spent time in prison for armed robbery. And the whole purpose of the system is to rehabilitate. If employers refuse to hire people, ever, who have made mistakes, it is leaving few options for trying to live a normal life.
Some states have passed a law which states certain felonies (class D) and certain offenses will be eligible for restricted access after 8 years with no issues.
It hurts to see some of the responses who obviously have no exposure to anything outside of their little bubble, and paint everyone with the same brush.
It seems like a lot of you are out of touch with reality. One can pretty much get a felony for spitting on the street.
Second DUI in some states? Convicted felon.
Retail theft of more than $100 in some states as a young teenager? Convicted felon.
Punch some guy in a bar at 21? Could be felony assault.
It it's bad enough that a minor mistake will still continue to limit employment prospects due to automatic dismissal of resumes/applications that disclose the mistake, people seem to still make assumptions about people as shown in all of the threads about convictions.
Someone who stole $100 item at a store when 20 should not be put in the same category with someone who actually spent time in prison for armed robbery. And the whole purpose of the system is to rehabilitate. If employers refuse to hire people, ever, who have made mistakes, it is leaving few options for trying to live a normal life.
Some states have passed a law which states certain felonies (class D) and certain offenses will be eligible for restricted access after 8 years with no issues.
It hurts to see some of the responses who obviously have no exposure to anything outside of their little bubble, and paint everyone with the same brush.
We are defined by the choices we make, and the choices we make define our characters. Every action you cited was a choice. At the time those choices were made, there was the opportunity to make a different choice. The choice that was made was a measure of the character of the individual. All the whitewash and justification in the world will not change that.
An employer does not want to hire a thief. A client does not want a business sending a criminal into his home or allowing a criminal to have access to personal or financial information. That's just simple truth and not something that is worthy of outrage.
No offense, but I think you're a little out of touch if you think a person can be charged with a felony (let alone convicted) for "spitting on the sidewalk" in the US. You can't even be charged with a felony for stealing $100 (unless you use force to do it). Most people are concerned with those who commit violent crimes or who are prone to steal everything that isn't bolted down.
If the prosecutor wants to spin "spitting on the sidewalk" into "risking a catastrophe" (the spit could spread a dangerous disease...) or "endangering the welfare of a minor" (...which a child could get), then yes, spitting on the sidewalk can be a felony. There was a case in PA where both those charges were levied because someone started a fire in a metal trash can outside a school.
Quote:
Honest people find a way to survive without breaking the law.
Yeah. Right. So an honest and intelligent person convicted of a felony either wrongly, or disproportionately, should accept that they'll never do better than living in a rathole with 5 other people for minimum wage? Following the rules in a rigged game is for chumps.
If the prosecutor wants to spin "spitting on the sidewalk" into "risking a catastrophe" (the spit could spread a dangerous disease...) or "endangering the welfare of a minor" (...which a child could get), then yes, spitting on the sidewalk can be a felony. There was a case in PA where both those charges were levied because someone started a fire in a metal trash can outside a school.
Yeah. Right. So an honest and intelligent person convicted of a felony either wrongly, or disproportionately, should accept that they'll never do better than living in a rathole with 5 other people for minimum wage? Following the rules in a rigged game is for chumps.
Were they convicted of those felonies? Or just charged?
Also, law abiding citizens = chumps. Gotcha
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.
