Now Liberals want Affirmative Action for Ex-Cons (suspected, rates, laws)

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by freemkt

A lot of people are banished to the Sucky Job Sector for either bad credit or a criminal record.

Then I guess it pays to be responsible and abide by the laws.

Originally Posted by Jadex

Would you rather they go back to commiting crimes because they can't find a decent job.

There is nothing that bars them from conducting their job search in another country.

Originally Posted by Jadex

Doing time is about paying your debt. Where does it say u pay for the rest of ur life?

I say they should pay for the rest of their life. Part of the reason that you have crime is because you tolerate it.

The moment you adopt a Zero-Tolerance Policy you will see crimes decrease drastically.

Originally Posted by ChocLot

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.

Again, they are free to start their job search in another country. They are also free to employ themselves.

There was a guy in Dayton, Ohio who would park his car full of type-writer parts in the trunk and then go pound pavement all day long. He would go into a business and offer to repair their type-writers, and if they didn't need to be repaired, then he would offer products for sale, and if they didn't need those, he would offer to clean their type-writers --- for free.

He made the rounds on each business once a month and eventually they started buying his products and paying him to repair their type-writers and he eventually parlayed that into Smith Corona Office Typewriters and then later sold copier and fax machines and repaired them, and sold the parts, ink and toner and paper.

And then he sold it to IKRON for $17.8 Million.

Not everyone will be so lucky, but it does show that if you have a plan and you work it, you can be successful to some degree.

Perhaps you *******s should stop teaching people to rely on government for everything and teach people how to be self-reliant and make their own way in life, without government involvement.

That would go a long way to help at least some convicts.

Originally Posted by Glitch

According to whom?

Convicted felons cannot vote, or own a firearm, and they have their ability to travel restricted.

Looks to me like a convicted felon continues paying for their crime for the rest of their life.

Good. Since you are willing to tolerate crime and there is no long any shame in crime, it is like a badge of honor worthy of government protection. You employ them if you want. You can let them live in your home too, to keep them off the streets.

Originally Posted by mistygrl092

I think it really depends on the offense. For drug users, I do not think a felony should be involved, unless dealers. For violent offenders, I am not sure they can be rehabilitated. Some are better locked up.

Originally Posted by Jadex

Everyone has commited a crime.

Wrong answer.

Originally Posted by EdwardA

The fact of the matter is that employers can and have been sued for hiring felons that have committed crimes at the workplace. So unless San Francisco plans on idemnifying businesses from lawsuits that arise from hiring felons this isn't going anywhere.

Utah couple sues moving company for hiring felons - ABC 4.com - Salt Lake City, Utah News

That's absolutely correct.

Originally Posted by ButterBrownBiscuit

Their inability to find employment is a major reason why many of these people reoffend.

There's no evidence to support that. They commit crimes because they are criminals. That's what they do.

Originally Posted by Workin_Hard

So "for the greater social good" business owners should be prompted to hire criminals? What about the increased risk the business owner takes in doing so? How will he/she be compensated when things go bad - a .67 probability based on an earlier post?

I'm sure we can tax the "rich" for that.

Originally Posted by nr5667

I'm a bit curious about those who think felons should be discriminated against because they committed a crime - if that's the case, do you support keeping every felon in jail for life?

No, I support warehousing 2nd Offenders on Devil's Island, the former French Penal Colony.

For 3rd time offenders, I support stripping them of their US Citizenship, handing them a brown bag lunch, $10, a parachute and then kicking their goat-smelling asses out of the back of a C-130 over Myanmar, or Somalia, or Zimbabwe, or Afghanistan.

Since they are such bad-asses, I'm sure they'll do so well.

Originally Posted by SamBarrow

I am aware of this. Sorry but I'm not really seeing your point here.

He never has one.

Originally Posted by no1brownsfan

Well, bad credit was in fact brought up. And I oppose it...

That's because you're ignorant of reality. As a former police officer, detective sergeant and private investigator who did background checks and consulted on hiring, bad credit leads to problems and problem employees.

I would of course, never recommend blatantly discriminating merely because of bad credit. Each individual instance must be examined, but in 90% of the cases bad credit indicates an employee who cannot exercise good judgment, who has high absentee rates and how has a propensity to engage in fraud and theft.

Originally Posted by no1brownsfan

... as well as drug testing...

You ever see what an employee looks like with a fork-lift prong through his head? That's what happens when you hire drug addicts.

Originally Posted by freemkt

Hey I've got a great suspended license story. I spent two months in the hospital with my car at the end of the driveway (furthest from the street past the back line of the house), with another car behind it closer to the street, and by the time I got out of the hospital, my car had a bunch of tickets because the tags were expired, the tickets had defaulted, and my license was suspended for the unpaid tickets.

What did that say about my character?

I would say that is something you need to explain to an employer, and a most excellent reason to contact your State legislator to help you get your license back.

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

Most ex convicts were convicted of non violent drug crimes. If they are clean, and served their time, why should they be exempt from government jobs?

Probably because the smoke detectors in the bathrooms will go off every time they smoke their meth (or crack or whatever).

[jwm1964]

Originally Posted by tinman01

Evidenced by the vast majority of citizens who have no problem not committing crimes and who have never been arrested.
Its society who is to blame for criminal behaviors. Our Judges don't have any compassion and no one is willing to understand its not the drug dealers fault. No one offered him a high paying job so he was forced to deal meth. I got it.

Tinman?
Are you in law enforcement?

I dare you to watch this.

Then explain this behavior to me, my children, my family, my co-workers, my fellow church members, my neighbors, my friends.

I beg you to try and explain this to the American people.

And if you won't or can't, I respectfully request you quit talking about something you are either trying to cover up or of which you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Jay F]

The pro-criminal stance is one of the things I most abhor about liberalism. I would like to see it the opposite...protection for non-felons. I believe it should be against the law for a company to hire a felon when a non-felon applies for the same job. We should reward the non-criminals...they are the superior human beings who keep this world civilized.

[aquabluesrq]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

Tinman?
Are you in law enforcement?

I dare you to watch this.

Then explain this behavior to me, my children, my family, my co-workers, my fellow church members, my neighbors, my friends.

I beg you to try and explain this to the American people.

And if you won't or can't, I respectfully request you quit talking about something you are either trying to cover up or of which you have no idea what you are talking about.

LOL at that video. I watched it and it was filled with nonsense. Cool story bro

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by Moth

I agree with you regarding the War on Drugs. Still, we must deal with present realities rather than wishful thinking. That means commenting on law as it is, not as we would wish it.

And that's the problem Moth. The "well it is what it is" attitude. In the meantime our rights and individual liberties are be taken away more and more.

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

No, you haven't "got it".
You quote an argument that was popular 20 years ago
"the only option for minority people living in depressed areas to break the cycle of poverty is to engage in illegal activities".

Again, no, you haven't "got it".
That is not my argument.

I believe the government is passing laws which criminalizes non-criminal behavior thus criminalizes our citizens. The police are empowered to use unconstitutional military tactics which the 'War on Drugs' facilitated against our citizens thus dangerously escalating these situations.

Listen, or in this case actually think about what you read rather than assume what someone means based upon the position they take.

As I said, you illlustrate how difficult it is for people who have not experienced or witnessed this injustice and oppression first hand, to come to grips with the facist state our government is morphing in to.


SWAT style raid on raw milk COOP . . . 1

"they demanded to know how much cash James had at the store. When James explained the amount of cash he had at the store -- which is used to purchase product for selling there -- agents demanded to know why he had such an amount of cash and where it came from."


Another dangerous, illegal and unconstitutional 'power' invested in domestic law enforcement is the confiscation of private property, including 'cash' by alleging, not proving it is connected with criminal activity. This gives police a financial incentive to wrongfully accuse you of a crime or to pursue criminal assumption if they realize they are wrong in their initial assumption.


The confiscation upon allegation is fact not my opinion, and I make a note of differentiting between my opinions and fact.

Think about it, this James Stewart is now sitting in jail with 123K bond facing the possibility of being labelled a criminal for the rest of his life for running what? Guns? Drugs? Numbers? A Prostitution Ring?

NO, for running an organic and raw foods co-op.

This! Hooray for the police state!

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by SamBarrow

Policies like the one in the OP however only serve to make more people complacent with the overcriminalization you're talking about. It's a band aid that distracts from the real problem. Like I said, I agree with you on that issue fully.



They should. But rather than cripple the ability to screen out real criminals therefore making everybody suffer, we should fix the actual problem by decriminalizing those non violent drug "crimes".

Absolutely! But that would put a lot of people out of work. The war on drugs is big business for LE!

[jwm1964]

Originally Posted by aquabluesrq

LOL at that video. I watched it and it was filled with nonsense. Cool story bro

Wow.
Nonsense?
Being harassed for asking for a form to file a complaint?
Tasing an automobile accident victim instead of offering medical aid?
Beating a female bartender behind the bar and being given a misdemenor?

Those who have eyes and still don't see.

I'm not your bro,
I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.
I'm a father of children who fears for them and the country/world they will inherit.

[newhandle]

Ah, you mean Oliver North and Casper Weinberger (if he were alive). Let's not forget Charles Colson's who now is born again.

[Moth]

Originally Posted by no1brownsfan

And that's the problem Moth. The "well it is what it is" attitude. In the meantime our rights and individual liberties are be taken away more and more.

No, I am simply saying the law is clear at this time. Decriminalizing drugs will have widespread results, many positive. But there will still be burglars, rapists, gangbangers and the like.