^^How does that sum it up? I can't possibly think of every single case that I would deem necessary to stay on a record for life. Can you think of all crimes that a human being can do?
Printable View
^^How does that sum it up? I can't possibly think of every single case that I would deem necessary to stay on a record for life. Can you think of all crimes that a human being can do?
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you're saying that all crimes should be on record for life, but that employers should just ignore that?
No. I'm trying to say that YOU might as well make all crimes on record for life. I was pointing out your "open clause" style of deciding what crimes should carry lifetime consequences.
I was expecting to see a few heinous things listed. The reality is that you didn't even really know. I saw very minor things like drug possession on your list, followed by an admission that you couldn't even really think of it all. It almost sounds more like you were struggling to think of some things that SHOULDN'T carry lifetime consequences. Or perhaps, that you were trying to sugar-coat the fact that you want lifetime consequences for all crimes.
Maybe this will make you happy, misdemeanors can be wiped off after a while and as long as there is no repeat behavior, and felonies should always stay on. But since nothing makes you happy, why should I even care. Apparently you would hire a cocaine addict just on a matter of principle.
So you own a bank and one of the applicants was convicted of money laundering. Would you hire him because you think he would do a good job?
Glenn I have absolutely NO desire to cuss 'n discuss ANYTHING with you. I have come to the realization that your mental capacity to rationalize things isn't what it should be. And no matter what kind of a discussion I was in with you... we would never see eye-to-eye on anything.
So... if you think I am/was part of the Salem Witch Trial culture... so be it. You think what you want of me... I don't really give two hoots.
Glenn,
Before the discussion spirals anymore out of control we need to review a few keys points.
1. How is Prr a member of the "Salem Witch Trial" group? I have yet to see her going around accusing people of being witches, nor even have I seen her going around saying that things are "of the devil". Which, however, would be funny. Especally if she found amusing things to call "of the devil", such as mayonnaise.
2. You really should follow Phattonez's advice and research your insults. Calling him a neo-con implies that he once considered himself a liberal and then converted to conservatism (which is a fun phrase to say). I don't think this is the fact.
3. I don't think that Phattonez was attempting to say that all crimes should go on a persons record permanently. Instead he was merely saying that not being well versed in the various laws he could not produce a list of heinous crimes at will. Merely saying that he in fact wants all crimes to stay on a persons record permanently simply because it serves your argument does not make it true.
4. You do not put people who've committed certain crimes in a position in which they can easily repeat those crimes, no matter if they say they are reformed or not. It's irresponsible behavior towards society and the person themselves. For instance, you would not make someone who has committed a bank robbery an armed bank guard. Neither would you make a pedophile a babysitter. Even if the persons are reformed, truly reformed, there is no need to put the temptation on them.
As usual, Glenn, I can understand why you take that view, but I DO NOT agree with it.
First of all, there is a VERY big difference between saying "People should be held responsible for their actions" and "hey, crops are failing, the people are demoralized, so let's say that that weirdo over there is a witch, blame everything on them, and then kill them in public! cool! It's a popular idea! let's keep killing random innocents!".
As you can see, not at all the same thing.
also, I think that most crimes SHLOUD be on record, but it depends on the crime.
You should not get a record for minor felonies, and unless it's a major crime, it is not mentioned to employers unless it is related.
Ie, convicted bank robber will have his crime brought up if he tries to become a bank security guard.
I also think that if a drug user has reformed, it should no longer be referenced after X amount of years. Being turned down for a job for having experimented in high school is a bit stupid, IMO. Same thing if you shoplifted a T-shirt on a dare when you were a teen, or stuff like that.
But in all honestly, If someone has committed murder, rape, or pedophelia, it should DEFINETLY be referenced. If a person has commited a major crime, employers have the right to know just who they're hiring. If they decide to hire them, good for them. If not, the Government should try to find employment of some kind for them.
[/personal opinon]