You and Deej can have your debate.
In a perfect world not hiding someone past would be the best option, but not hiding it does lead to persecution which in some cases is incorrect.
I don't understand how that persecution is incorrect. In America, criminal records are public. I can request a background check on anyone who applies for a job with me. I can do so for several reasons. There is the safety of my other employees, the protection of my assets, the reputation of my business, and my peace of mind. There is a very high likelihood, in this case, that what I don't know could hurt me. Public safety is more important than someone's feelings when that person has already infringed upon public safety.
People make snap judgements based on what they have done in the past rather than looking at their skills.
In a free country, I have the right to make that snap judgment. If the government feels that all these criminals need to be hired, then they can do that. But I, as a business owner, have the right to exclude someone from employment based on anything other than gender, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, or, well I think that's all of them. With all the calls for transparency in government, I am surprised that there are some out there who feel that that the government should be helping felons perpetuate a lie.
I really believe that criminal or not everyone should be judged on their individual merit.
And you don't find it odd that you also feel that one's criminal past does not hold weight in an assessment of their merit? I would think that character and integrity are part of a meritorious person. I would also think that character and integrity are something missing in a felon.
Although I would agree that there are some situations where the criminal conviction will and should take priority over that persons rights, for example a child abuser wanting to work at a school.... thats just stupid.
Right you are. And I would think that people who perpetuated massive fraud should be excluded from working with sensitive data. I would think that murderers shouldn't work at a gun shop. I would think that a rapist shouldn't work at a lingerie store. And you know what, to keep these people from working at jobs that there crime should disqualify them from, you need to keep their crime public information. That means that changing one's identity, which is what this debate is about, is a bad idea.
Narrowed maybe, but shut altogether? The price for breaking the law is prison, not a lifetime of persecution.
Just because you've paid your debt to society doesn't mean you should be free and clear of your past. If I am late on every credit card payment, or if my account goes into default, that information stays on my credit report, even after I pay off the account. It is this way so that other credit issuers know that I am a credit risk. If it is so for credit, why should it not be so for public safety?
I already said the sex offenders database makes sense.
Again I already said (even in my previous post) that this would not make sense.
It really depends on the situation, but I would agree thats not the best situation.
Cool, but a case by case basis leaves room for mistakes and corruption.
I think you are missing my point. I'll outline it so no-one else can get confused.
Rehabilitated Prisoners deserve equal opportunities.
Rights are provided by the government. They can go to the park, drive a car, and get protected by the police. Their rights are protected. Privileges however, like employment should not be legislated. And you are not giving them equal rights rights, as it is. You are giving them enhanced rights, in that the government is keeping what should be public information from potential employers, and violating their right to life (peace of mind in the social contract).
People who are likely to offend again do not, and deserve to stay in prison.
No sir. We do not imprison people based on thoughts. Plus, how are we to know if they are likely to repeat the offense? This isn't Minority Report. Some prisoners will come out better, some will fake being better, some will not improve at all, but once they have paid their debt, they get out of prison. What happens to them when they get out is what we are debating about. And I argue that once they get out, there is no reason to coddle them to the detriment of potential employers. I'm sorry, but if one criminal commits a crime against an uninformed employer, that would make the entire program a failure, and I would call the government criminally negligent and liable for all damages.
So then violating the human rights of literally thousands of people on the off chance they might repeat offend is ok?
I don't see how this is a violation of their human rights. It is merely making public information public. Changing a criminals identity is a violation of everyone else's human rights. I have the right to persecute any criminal I want to. I am not an agent of the government, and if I want to avoid a murderer for my own safety, I should be able to. And when in conflict, the rights of one who doesn't violate the social order should go before one who does.
To imply that all criminals have no chance of rehbilitation is a massive generalisation, you've obviously been reading hte tabloids too much.
Fine, granted. Of course to assume that they all do is naive.
I think I've already argued on this point.
Typical Wrestlezone debating, twisting my words. Refer to my Rehabilitation good, repeat offenders bad part.
Really? I thought the typical Wrestlezone debating was taking the least pragmatic side, most anti-business side that you could.
If the evidence points to that person yes, but just arresting them because they did it before is ridiculous.
I agree. But then again, not being forced to be put into a situation with increased danger just to make someone feel a little better about the rape they committed seems ridiculous.
Like I have already said there are cases where giving them a new identity is a good thing, and cases where it's a bad thing.
And because the government is so reliable at setting boundaries. You are asking a body which says that someone who makes $15,000 a year is financially solvent an ineligible for welfare to decide which criminal is fit for a new identity and which isn't. You don't see this situation becoming political? You don't see a magistrate with ambition being scared to deny a minority this status to avoid the fear of charges of racism in a political campaign? In a situation where the danger is possible, I think we side with public safety over second chances for rapists. As I have said, we are debating the merits of hiding a FELONY from an employer. How does this not sound ludicrous to you?
Thats not really what you said originally though was it? Your backtracking just a tad there, you said everyone else should get in font of them, that they don't deserve to earn a living... not that they should be given some kind of probation period. They are two completely different things.
I'm not talking about a government probation. I never said they shouldn't be employed either. Talk about twisting words. I said the wirld needs ditch diggers too. I said that if a brokerage house doesn't want to hire the smartest identity thief in the world that is up to them, and changing identities takes way that choice? Is this freedom or is this more Obamican politics that involve more control for the government and less freedom for the people. Why don't we just make the government a national human resources department and allow them to decide who gets what job? Sounds a little Soviet to me, but it's the next step. The government takes freedom from law abiding citizens, hides the identity of criminals and you call this freedom? You call this capitalism? And you don't see that the risks far outweigh the benefits and that the restrictions on freedom harm the law abiding in favor of FELONS? I don't understand how you think this is all right.
Why does the job make a difference? So a convicted rapist is more likely to rob a bank than you or me? Makes perfect sense to me.
In a word, yes.
Why dont we just nail them all to a cross and throw rocks at them? Your not far off suggesting something like that.
Who's putting words in who's mouth now? If an employer wants to hire a rapist who kidnapped, drugged, and beat a woman, then he can. I never said he couldn't. I just think that the employer should be armed with all the pertinent information about the applicant, and being that criminal record is usually indicative of character and integrity, I would call that pertinent information.
Again you lack a fundamental understanding of how socialising someone at a young age about the importance of right and wrong can seriously affect how you behave later in life.
No, I really don't. I understand it just fine. But you lack a fundamental understanding of common sense. I don't understand how you think that anyone thinks rape is an acceptable form of social interaction. I don't need to be told how children develop. I have a college education. I am also smart enough to understand that people can still learn after age six. I also think that no one needs to be taught that rape is wrong.
In the first few years you learn the most and that learning defines what kind of person you will turn out to be, it can take years of therapy to undo damage that is done in the early years. That being true if someone for the first few years of their lives grows up around people who tell them and show them that this is okay then there is a very high chance they will end up doing these things, through no fault of their own.
There is absolutely zero instance where a rapist rapes someone through no fault of himself. Making excuses for criminals is another standard argument of the soft on crime left.
But before you say it, yes there are cases where people are just idiots and do it regardless... those people are the people that should stay in prison.
For their prescribed sentence, and not a day longer, because that is the law. Now, I ask you, if you think these people should stay in prison, or if they should be arrested based on their intentions to do more harm, as you said earlier, but they have to leave prison because their sentence is up, why should we hide their identity? Is this one of those cases where a magistrate should decide? That's good, because there's never been a conman or parolee who has convinced someone he is fit to be reintegrated into society only to commit a crime. Ask Michale Dukakis and Mike Huckabee how this worked during their governorships.
Yes you did, the terms "MURDERER" tattooed on their head springs to mind.
So that was a little harsh.
Because you know someone who walks into a job interview with that on their head is going to get that job no doubt.
Come on, debate the topic, not one little statement.
You openly encouraged and implied that criminals should never no matter the circumstances be given a second chance,
Nope. I argued that the rights of the law abiding citizens should be held in higher esteem than those of FELONS. I also argued that hiding this information is an infringement upon freedom. You never denied this.
I argue that there are occasions where people should be given a second chance
I did too. I also argued that if a convicted felon has to work harder to succeed maybe he should have thought about that before he raped someone.
but your narrow mindedness prevents you from seeing this point.
First you call me an idiot, and now narrow minded. It's cool, I resort to personal attacks when I think I'm overmatched too. But it's OK. But please, keep calling me names. It shows how bad your argument is. And then accuse me of twisting words, and then twist my words, what was it, three times that I counted? And then, call me a typical WZ debater and then go ahead and completely ignore the post and throw in what amounts to soundbites where you make yourself look like the moral superior and talk down to me. You only do it because you know that giving criminals fake identities for employment purposes is in fact a violation of public safety, a violation of freedom, and anti-everything that the western world stands for. I never argued that convicted felons should have to be homeless and unemployed. I argued that employers should have access to all pertinent information about applicants, and you cannot deny that a criminal past is not pertinent to hiring. Do you think the integrity, honesty, and character are not important in hiring? If you do, then you have never had a management or human resources position, and have no idea what you're talking about. Do you not think that a criminal past is indicative of someone who lacks in integrity, honesty, and character? If not, then I don't know what you're on about, because I would think that that is the definition of lacking character.
I think I took it off topic first. From the first post to this one, we have gone over so many important ideas. This is becoming one of my favorite threads. There has been some good debate in here.
