The Glade 4.0

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... on_LEADTop


The logic apparently is, if minorities comit more crimes, and thus have criminal records, not hiring former criminals is a form of discrimination, and thus opens your company to a discrimination lawsuite unless you have re-evaled the ex-con, under special circumstances.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

I love comic crimes.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

That's not dysfunctional or anything.

_________________

cursed spelling.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

I don't want to live on this planet anymore

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

zomg those damned liberals!

This is actually a huge problem with our criminal justice system. Quite frankly, once you're released from prison, nobody should be able to access your criminal record.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

As my sarcasm meter is off warenty I can not tell if it is in jest. Presuming no joke intended (or for those who would actually agree to that) should all criminal records be sealed (like those commited by children)? Some crimes but not others? Including sex offenders?

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

Yeah I can't wait for Sticky Fingers the clown to be hired to do birthday parties because some idiot social engineer decided that past crimes don't predict future behavior .....

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

This is asinine, and has nothing to do with any "problem" with our criminal justice system. Criminal records are public records because trials are public.

Past behavior is a predictor of future behavior. People have a right to freedom of association.

And no, no matter how many times you repeat it, this does not make every crime have a "life sentence". If other people don't want to hire you or associate with you because you're a felon, that's perfectly within their right. Getting released from prison does not somehow obligate everyone else to forget you ever did anything.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

We need to do more to reintegrate those who have paid their debt, but There is space between where we are now and criminal history cannot be used/asked.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

This always comes up, and if it were just a freedom of association thing I'd have no problem with it. The problem is that close to half of all existing jobs are legally barred to felons. Anything in healthcare, finance, law, or education, anything dealing with security bonding, and in some states any job where you are ever left alone with a customer. The employer can't decide that you've reformed and hire you anyway, it's illegal for him to do so.

Which is why we need to look at how we deal with free association in this country as a whole rather than giving carve-outs to whomever one party or the other feels they can garner votes from

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Why should other people be put at risk so that an employer can decide that? What qualifies an employer to decide this?

People have this idea that because you've served your jail sentence that somehow that means you're not a felon anymore, anf have "paid your debt to society". So what? If someone goes bankrupt I may work out something so they can pay their debt but that doesn't mean once it's paid I should just forget it and loan them more money.

Anyhow, far less than half the adults of working age are felons so close to half of all jobs being off limits ought not to be a serious problem.

There might be room for a more "nature of the crime" based approach; for example a former embezzler is not likely to go on a rampage so they might be fine as an armed guard (at least, for things other than money). A former murderer who never stole a thing might be perfectly fine as a lawyer.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye, who's deciding it currently? It's not like the government has some expert panel that decides whether felons are reformed or not and then gives them clearance to work in those fields if they feel they are capable.

And it's interesting to see how quickly you're willing to ditch "freedom of association" when it goes the other way. Suddenly, we can't trust individuals to make these kinds of decisions because they might not be "qualified."

The big problem I have is that barring you from employment is punishment. These "rules" change constantly. Which means we are punishing people further after they have served their sentence. If you want to make it part of their sentence, fine. But you cannot keep punishing people for the same crime.

Now, if private citizens don't want to work with a felon, they shouldn't be forced to.

They aren't. They can quit.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

No, obviously not.



Because those fields involve things that affect third parties in very serious ways. Freedom of association applies once third parties are sufficiently protected.

What constitutes fields where there's too much danger to third parties is the purview of the legislature to decide. There's no reason you should be able to hire a known embezzler to work in your bank; the customers should not have to risk their money to find out if its safe or not.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Barring people from certian jobs is not punishment.. and in any case, if there's lifelong "punishment" for all felons, so what? Just getting out of jail doesn't magically mean that punishment has to end there.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, it doesn't. But, the punishment needs to be set at sentencing, not mutable per the whims of whomever is elected.

This. We have a process for sentencing. Post-conviction sentencing by legislature as a blanket act does not fall under that process.

Convicted as a sex offender because you were drunk and peed by a school? That probably shouldn't get you a lifetime ban from ever working with kids. Molested a child? That probably should.

And that's something that should be set at the time of sentencing, as judged by the crime and it's severity and associated risk, not something done as a blanket, post-conviction addition to everyone in a particular category.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

I don't see that this is a punishment.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

How would a restriction on one's rights in the situation being discussed not be a punishment? The restriction flows directly from the conviction of a crime.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

There is no restriction of "rights" going on, and it was not imposed on the individual. It's a restriction imposed on society at large : If you meet criteria A, you may not perform occupation B. It's no different than saying you cannot fly fighter jets without adequate eyesight. The person is legally incompetent for the position, in the same way as any other form of legal incompetence.

It is a consequence, but it is not a punishment. Now, if you want to argue that the type of felony should more closely pertain to which jobs the person is incompetent for, then fine, I can agree with that. If you want to argue people should be able to petition for removal of incompetence on a case-by-case basis, fine, I can go with that.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's not really correct at all. Eyesight is an inherent physical quality. Being a felon is not. Additionally, it doesn't speak to competence in any way. It speaks to exclusion.

They can still be fully competent to do the job, yet restricted from doing so. Again, name me any such restriction that is a direct result of the prior actions of an individual.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I don't see that "inherent physical quality" matters at all.

And yes, it speaks to competence - legal competence. I'm not talking about physical ability to do the job. A blind person is legally incompetent to drive, because of their physical inhibition. A felon is legally incompetent to hold certain jobs because they're a felon. The principle is long-established as a matter of precedent.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."