Should prisoners have a record?
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Oooh, I'm scared. You wanna play prison yard rules, tough guy?
You've got the depth of a puddle, so run along and play. The adults are talking serious issues here.
Lol don't worry. I don't bully people, especially weakling who only know how to put words into people's mouth.
-
let's say there is a child rapist.
he apply and got a job in your kid's school because they don't have his records.
not cool.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
let’s say you have kids. the kid skipped homework. you punished him
next day, the kid skip school.do you think
> should punish this kid more since he did not learn his mistake the first time.
> just punish him normally, and try not to remember this is one defiant kid?I presume you are only refering to one kid.
I would punish him more as well as talk to him to make sure that he understands his mistake and why he hate been punished.
The increased punishment is to teach the kid to know that the more he don't repent, the heaviler his punishment would be, and also to prevent him from continuing being late.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
let's say there is a child rapist.
he apply and got a job in your kid's school because they don't have his records.
not cool.
agree with you
-
Originally posted by crimsontactics:
Lol don't worry. I don't bully people, especially weakling who only know how to put words into people's mouth.
Very good then. Run along now, before I put something else in your mouth.
-
Originally posted by Aaron8209:
Must give em Chance...2 Times...First time jail NO recoRD.2nd Time Then blah blah
Why don't we just give them a record to prevent them from committing crime a second time? Wouldn't it be better for both the society and the prisoners themselves? Their record will be lesser.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Very good then. Run along now, before I put something else in your mouth.
Just a quick question. Are you a clone of lionnoisy?
Cause you sound just like him when he loses.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
let's say there is a child rapist.
he apply and got a job in your kid's school because they don't have his records.
not cool.
You're right, it's not cool.
This comes back to the "disqualified person" point that was mentioning to oldbreadstinks. It would go towards ensuring that schools would know not to hire this guy (checking with the school equivalent of the disqualified-person registry would be a mandatory selection procedure), and at the same time not disadvantage him if he applies to be, say, a construction worker.
-
Originally posted by crimsontactics:
Just a quick question. Are you a clone of lionnoisy?
Cause you sound just like him when he loses.
Awwww, I thought you were going to grow up, dry up and blow away.
Listen up, monkey boy. The topic of conversation here is whether or not ex-cons should have a record. I'm tired of accommodating you, so if you don't have anything to add to the topic at hand, go play marbles or do whatever kids of your age do. You're boring.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
You're right, it's not cool.
This comes back to the "disqualified person" point that was mentioning to oldbreadstinks. It would go towards ensuring that schools would know not to hire this guy (checking with the school equivalent of the disqualified-person registry would be a mandatory selection procedure), and at the same time not disadvantage him if he applies to be, say, a construction worker.
However, I think it is more of a social stigma rather than the record that causes potential employers to not hire him. Its like the first thing everyone feel for a child rapist would be pure disgust, as he had harm an innocent being for his own pleasure.
-
Originally posted by crimsontactics:
Why don't we just give them a record to prevent them from committing crime a second time? Wouldn't it be better for both the society and the prisoners themselves? Their record will be lesser.
Why don't you read this thread and see the arguments on both sides of this debate before reinventing the wheel and painitng yourself as original?
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
You're right, it's not cool.
This comes back to the "disqualified person" point that was mentioning to oldbreadstinks. It would go towards ensuring that schools would know not to hire this guy (checking with the school equivalent of the disqualified-person registry would be a mandatory selection procedure), and at the same time not disadvantage him if he applies to be, say, a construction worker.
so.... how do you ensure this guy don't become a school teacher?
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Why don't you read this thread and see the arguments on both sides of this debate before reinventing the wheel and painitng yourself as original?
Thats my personal opinion, anything wrong with it? Or is it just that you have no other ways to rebute and are so desperate to use personal attack instead?
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
so.... how do you ensure this guy don't become a school teacher?
That simply defeats the purpose sky.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Well and good, but let's flip things around. If a banker got out of jail after a sentence for fraud, would it be right if he applied to be a waiter and was refused because he had a record?
I'm glad you raised the issue of sensitive positions. It becomes a moot point when someone is convicted of fraud, since the convict becomes a disqualified person. Now, you may ask, given that the person is disqualified by the court, how is this different from a prison record?
Simple. The "disqualified person" status precludes the person from holding a financially-sensitive position, but if the person applies for an unrelated position, he or she is not disadvantaged by the criminal record.
actually i was thinking more along the lines of "employer decides whether the person in question is disqualified" if a bank still wants to hire someone known for fraud they had better come up with a very good explaination. though extremely unlikely i'm willing to accept that choice if convinced by a very very good good reason.
at least for me the record's for me to judge whether the guy's trustworthy, if he ended up being unable to work as a waiter, i really do not think its the fault of the restaurant or the police records. it is the guy's fault in the first place for getting the record.
not to mention if the restaurant do discrimate and found out much later he commited fraud before due to a lack of police records the backlash might be worse.
while open to giving a second chance, i honestly feel its up to the person involve to fight to convince us its worth it rather than giving it to them straight away. i honestly cannot accept allowing people to pretend they've never commited a crime and hope no one digs it up and life goes on happily ever after.
when you're talking about human society in general, we're not god, there's no jesus dying for you and as long as you repent you go to heaven forgiven of all sins. maybe for a small number of us there is but not for most of us.
-
Originally posted by crimsontactics:
That simply defeats the purpose sky.
so it is ok for this guy to be a school teacher?
my guess is that this record should follow him so schools won't hire this guy. construction company can hire this guy if they don't mind.
i'm not sure about you, but i don't want my kids to be taught by a child rapist.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
let's say there is a child rapist.
he apply and got a job in your kid's school because they don't have his records.
not cool.
this is sterotype
he was a rapist but he turned over a new leaf and likes children.
so he should have the chance to be that
-
Originally posted by crimsontactics:
However, I think it is more of a social stigma rather than the record that causes potential employers to not hire him. Its like the first thing everyone feel for a child rapist would be pure disgust, as he had harm an innocent being for his own pleasure.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere.
The social stigma is precisely the problem in the first place. If I found out that a child rapist was working at my daughter's kindergarten, Hell, I'd be handing out the pitchforks and torches to everyone before heading up the lynch mob. That's just not on.
On the other hand, if I found out that the electrician changing the lights in my office was a child rapist, would I care? As long as I can work without being egulfed in darkness, no.
Is there a risk putting someone back into the environment in which he committed the crime? Yes, and that's where the rehabilitation process needs to be carefully designed to avoid this very situation. If the person's not in placed in an environment where he can get on with his life without repeating the crime, who cares?
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
so it is ok for this guy to be a school teacher?
my guess is that this record should follow him so schools won't hire this guy. construction company can hire this guy if they don't mind.
i'm not sure about you, but i don't want my kids to be taught by a child rapist.
yeah, my opinion is about the same as yours. Just that i feel that there is no way to 100% assure that the guy will not be employed in school if there isn't any records.
-
Originally posted by crimsontactics:
yeah, my opinion is about the same as yours. Just that i feel that there is no way to 100% assure that the guy will not be employed in school if there isn't any records.
you think the rotan is very enjoyable?
-
Originally posted by NG QIBO AARON AUBREY:
this is sterotype
he was a rapist but he turned over a new leaf and likes children.
so he should have the chance to be that
i like stereotype.
help me identify rapist.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
so.... how do you ensure this guy don't become a school teacher?
The short answer is a child rapist's analogue to the disqualified-person's list.
The ex-con's specific crime is sexual assualt against a child, so put him on a "don't let this guy near any kids" list that any child-oriented organisation can refer to when they hire staff. Hell, you can even advertise it as a condition in the recruitment ad - "if you're on tis list, don't bother applying".
If the guy's applying for a job that doesn't bring him anywhere near kids, it won't stigmatise him. This performs the role of keeping society safe and at the same time lets the guy get on with his life after he's paid his dues.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
i like stereotype.
help me identify rapist.
what you toking
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Quit ducking. You're the one who claimed that longer sentences are a deterrent. Now back it up, if you'll please, or concede that your proposal has no basis.
i doubt longer sentances are a deterrance, most of us don't even know what's the jail duration for each crime. i serious do not think "i can't hit her or else i'll get X weeks of jail" is flashing though minds of maid abusers before they slap their maid. for smokers here going for contraband, how many here think of fines/jail when enjoying that early morning puff each morning before your piss or stools even hit the bowl.
only chance of longer jail sentances working as a deterrent is jailing someone 30years for just about anything. littering, spitting, wanking then people would be worried about jail sentances.
with short sentances people are more worried about police records .
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Ah, now we're getting somewhere.
The social stigma is precisely the problem in the first place. If I found out that a child rapist was working at my daughter's kindergarten, Hell, I'd be handing out the pitchforks and torches to everyone before heading up the lynch mob. That's just not on.
On the other hand, if I found out that the electrician changing the lights in my office was a child rapist, would I care? As long as I can work without being egulfed in darkness, no.
Is there a risk putting someone back into the environment in which he committed the crime? Yes, and that's where the rehabilitation process needs to be carefully designed to avoid this very situation. If the person's not in placed in an environment where he can get on with his life without repeating the crime, who cares?
I'm glad you feel this way. I admit I'm a little rude back then and am sorry for it.
To a certain extend, what you say makes sense. However, an electrician will have to make his way into a person's house to change his lights. There will be time when the owner is out and theres only perhaps your teenage daughter or your maid to "jaga" the house while he work. i think you can picture the scenario. What makes you 100% sure that he won't recommit his crime?