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.
Hi.This is John Robert.I am impressed with this blog.I got the information that i require.Here is some thing for you.I think you can find some useful information from here.
==================================================
JOHN
We all know the effect a felony will have on someone's future. It has a life long effect (housing, working, voting etc). My question is should it be this way? Do you think after a certain period of time felonies should only be accessible to law enforcement officials (excluding sex offender registries from this thread, they should always be accessible)? If so, how long should a person have to wait? If not, what is your reasoning behind this?
Felonies can ruin peoples lives, for the victim and offender. The problem with this scenario is the infamous crimes when the offender is the victim as well, of coarse I'm talking about drug possesion that often constitutes as a felony even when it's for personal use. For offenses like these, and "wobblers" as well I do not believe one should hold that monkey on their back for mistakes that they have made in the past. They have done their time, let them move on with their life. For other situations where the offender has been involved with theft or violence, employers and housing managers need that kind of information to make good judgements.
Knowing that your life will be ruined if you commit a felony is a deterrent. Can't handle getting your life screwed up? Don't screw up!! Besides, I don't care about the felon...what about the victim?
So, you have a 14-16 year old, heck make them 18, who does something stupid or has an ounce of weed (this was a felony in the 70s). They're required to pay for the rest of their lives? Doesn't make sense, but does open the door for a life of crime since nothing else is available.
In our environment, 14-16 year olds are pretty consistently treated as adults in the criminal system.
If some one stay out of trouble for over 10 years...but many don't do that, most are in trouble with the law over and over and IMo innocent people should be protected from these people that is why they are called "felons"!
A misdemenor is different.....so I guess I would keep them with the name and the consequences, after all they did something which wasn't good and we know what is right and what is not...so should they, otherwise we ill always have to make up excuses for these felons, meanwhile they are taking stuff so we have to pay more and we are the once who are double victims.
So, you have a 14-16 year old, heck make them 18, who does something stupid or has an ounce of weed (this was a felony in the 70s). They're required to pay for the rest of their lives?
Yes, if they're stupid.
Juvenile offenses are not on the record, which shows you don't know what you're talking about.
Adult offenses can be sealed, expunged or purged from public view, but if they're getting bad advice from you, they'll never know that.
You can get into troubled waters. If a person serves his time for embezzlement from a bank, and then goes and applies for a job at a bank, that prospecrive employe maybe ought to know that he is hiring a convicted embezzler.
I would propose that it be illegal to discriminate against a person on the basis of a crimininal record, unles the nature of the crime related directly to the safety of the party that has a need to know. Such as the embezzlement example. However, such a criminal past needs to be even more openly available, so a prospective bride can know whether her intended has been convicted for spousal abuse, which I don't think is currently available to the general public.
I disagree with the OP about sex offenders, since they actually have a much lower recidivism rate than most other feloniies. If you are advocating a policy of fairness, it makes no sense for you to cherry-pick your favorite crime and have it excluded. If sex offenses are as serious as you have been led to believe they are, the coutrs would take that into account in sentencing.
We all know the effect a felony will have on someone's future. It has a life long effect (housing, working, voting etc). My question is should it be this way? Do you think after a certain period of time felonies should only be accessible to law enforcement officials (excluding sex offender registries from this thread, they should always be accessible)? If so, how long should a person have to wait? If not, what is your reasoning behind this?
I think it should be dropped at ten or fifteen years. The reason is that criminals who are committed to a life of crime-- or even likely to repeat-- usually do it within a pretty short period of time after release. If someone goes an extended period without committing a crime, in my experience, they're not going to again.
Having a criminal record doesn't deter anyone from committing crimes. (If someone's so short-sighted that they'll risk prison, the record really doesn't mean much.) If someone feels they're getting their vengeance because of the record, it seems to me that you'd just support longer sentences instead.
It seems peculiar to me to keep kicking a person when they're down in an effort to keep them down... but I guess that's human nature. Society needs punching bags.
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.
