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.
How about these criminals make a personal choice to not commit crimes when they get out and are
"rehabilitated." For you liberals that want PEDOPHILES to drive school buses and work in schools, I hope these rehabilitated sex offenders take jobs where your kids go to school. I hope they drive the school buses that drop your kids off in front of your house.
In fact, if you bleeding heart appeasers and enablers want to solve the problem with ex-cons just hire them and house them all. Their should be at least a 1:1 ratio of criminals to liberals. It is a match made in heaven imo
Would you rather they go back to commiting crimes because they can't find a decent job.
Doing time is about paying your debt. Where does it say u pay for the rest of ur life?
Now I don't think someone convicted of a sexual crime should be able to work around kids.
Jadex,
A quick question- what keeps you from committing crimes?
How about these criminals make a personal choice to not commit crimes when they get out and are
"rehabilitated." For you liberals that want PEDOPHILES to drive school buses and work in schools, I hope these rehabilitated sex offenders take jobs where your kids go to school. I hope they drive the school buses that drop your kids off in front of your house.
In fact, if you bleeding heart appeasers and enablers want to solve the problem with ex-cons just hire them and house them all. Their should be at least a 1:1 ratio of criminals to liberals. It is a match made in heaven imo
Hey, Captain Melodramatic. Not a single liberal supported pedophiles working with children. In fact, they all said that criminals should be restricted from places of work that involve the crime they went in for, for example child molesters should not be allowed in schools.
I know reading is hard, but do try it before ranting.
As distasteful as it may be, criminals have the right to apply for any job & they cannot be discriminated against for their crimes. However, if the crime is deemed related to the job that they are applying for, they can be rejected. For instance, someone who has been convicted of child molestation would not be accepted in a position that works with minors as the crime would be considered job related.
I will never hire a convicted felon, under any circumstances. The only people I will hire are those who are able to obtain a military security clearance, which automatically excludes convicted felons.
aquablue,
I don't think you understood what was being said. As I mentioned earlier, applicants for at least government jobs go thru background checks. If they fail to disclose a conviction on their application, they are immediately rejected. If a conviction that they do have is deemed job related, they are rejected for that position. So with your scenario of pedophiles driving school buses, if that were a government position, it would never happen. I would assume private companies as well would do the same type of background screening as well. Personally, I have a problem w/men who have raped women being able to go thru the whole job process, but that's just me. So this really is not a "liberals want pedophiles to work w/your children" situation at all. That's a ridiculous thing to even say in the first place.
I think it's a terrible shame that many ex-convicts are not given a full chance to rehabilitate once they reenter society. They've paid their debt; they have a right to earn a living. Otherwise, you risk them falling back into the unsavory things they were doing to land in jail.
Trying to imagine the circumstances in which a murderer would be allowed to reenter society. Are we talking manslaughter? Wouldn't necessarily have a problem working with a convicted rapist. I could just as easily get raped by a stranger on the street.
Wow. Very liberal.
For one thing, our current economy has degraded to the point where an employer has a choice of about 1,000 very intelligent, hard-working, experienced, amiable, educated, and energetic applicants for every single job. They don't need to try to weigh the merits of those with handicaps, and a criminal history is a risk in more than one way. Not only is the person less likely to succeed in the job than a "perfect" candidate, but also an employer may find himself sued if he hired someone who hurts another employee. Nothing is as good a predictor of future behavior as past behavior, like it or not. And while lawyers may love it, the employer should not be put in a catch-22 where he is sued whether he rejects the convicted murderer or rapist, or hires him and has another employee sue him when attacked.
I agree that some things our Justice System goes after, like drug use, should not be a crime at all. But drug use (like alcoholism or cigarette smoking) has other effects also, such as increasing absenteeism and health care costs, and making the employee less reliable. So it is important that the nature of the crime is known, for an employer to make a valid decision. In some cases incarceration would not make a candidate more risky as an employee, such as when a battered wife kills an abusive husband.
As to having "paid their debt," our jails are extremely overcrowded thanks to the government's idiotic Drug War. And liberal judges have decided that unless we house and feed prisoners better than most humans ever lived in the past, they must be released. So typically even those who couldn't hire a skilled lawyer to get off entirely are only serving 1/2 the time that the crime should merit. Furthermore, many juries hang on the more serious charges, and compromise by convicting on a lesser charge--when the defendant either did the crime, or not. So a torture-murderer caught on the first kill would, on average, merit the death penalty, but may get a sentence of 20 years since the jury compromised on a charge of manslaughter.
No, I don't think someone who served time should have the slate wiped clean in most cases. A thief who works hard and pays back all the money stolen, as well as serving the full time such a crime merits, would have paid for the crime (but our justice system never requires this, since it really cares nothing for the crime victim). On the other hand, the thief has proven capable of stealing from another. The thief lacks the ethics, or empathy, that should prevent us from stealing. Therefore, the thief IS more likely to steal again.
As to working with a convicted rapist, again the circumstances of the crime must be known to make a valid judgement. A conviction on date rape would make it hard to judge whether this person was safe to be in a building with alone, late at night. On the other hand, anyone convicted of attacking and raping a stranger is showing an inherent lack of ethics and morals and respect for other human beings. This type of person can NEVER be trusted, and if you are willing to work with them alone late at night, I suggest either education (if you truly don't see the danger) or counseling (if you enjoy playing russian roulette).
It is simply not true that you "could just as easily get raped by a stranger on the street." Most men would not rape, no matter what the circumstance. A very few have the inclination, and fewer still have made the further step to act on it. Those who have acted on it are far more likely to do it again, statistically. The number of people who would actually have the opportunity and inclination to commit rape on a public street is pretty small: you would have to be pulled into an alley and prevented from screaming. You can, and should, avoid walking alone past dark alleys late at night, and therefore the likelihood you will be raped is very small overall. On the other hand, a co-worker is assumed trustworthy. Many employed women find themselves alone with co-workers, though they know not to walk alone at night by dark alleys. If the co-worker has already committed rape, he is far more likely to do so again, than the co-worker who has never done such a thing.
Hey, Captain Melodramatic. Not a single liberal supported pedophiles working with children. In fact, they all said that criminals should be restricted from places of work that involve the crime they went in for, for example child molesters should not be allowed in schools.
I know reading is hard, but do try it before ranting.
Looks like the liberals and "progressives" in San Fran are feverishly working in ways where your typical felon now has as much right as any else to apply for jobs. No matter if they raped or killed someone. What's more, if an ex-con somehow feels discriminating against by not getting hired they will have a recourse to sue the business. With this, and the judges and prison deacons giving sexual favors to inmates, being a criminal has never included these many perks in the US.
Why Ex-Con Job Seekers Shouldn't Be Discriminated Against - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/why-ex-con-job-seekers-shouldnt-discriminated-against-092711018.html - broken link)
This is a tough debate because... most business owners don't feel comfortable hiring an ex-con for understandable reasons, but at the same time, an ex-con has paid his/her debt to society, so should be given a second chance IF he/she is qualified for the position.
This is a tough debate because... most business owners don't feel comfortable hiring an ex-con for understandable reasons, but at the same time, an ex-con has paid his/her debt to society, so should be given a second chance IF he/she is qualified for the position.
good points.
The bolded is the key part. Considering the competition for employment, many applicants are very well qualified, perhaps over qualified. When determining which applicant to select for the job, a lot of times it will come down to smaller details and "the little things" that may put one candidate over the top. With a felony on ones record, it will be hard to make it to the final cut to even be considered for a job. That is the way it should be imo. Free market and competition should determine the outcome. If one candidate has lived a cleaner, crime free life, and has the same education and experience level as a person who has committed crime, the company hiring should be able to consider this during the hiring process.
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.
