Posted on 01/15/2019 6:55:26 PM PST by NohSpinZone
Have the other officers be people who do not have the assets to interest a trial lawyer. We’re not talking about a Fortune 500 company here.
Hey, I hope they can make it work; I think re-entry programs are critical if they don’t want criminals to spend their whole lives outside of the law.
While I know my opinion would not meet legal muster, I would contend that an employer hiring a released con should be able to make a good faith reliance on the state's determination that the person was no longer a threat. If the person posed an ongoing threat, the state should not have released him and liability for subsequent acts should fall on the con himself, the judge who who failed to impose an adequate sentence to keep the threat away from the public and/or the parole board who reintroduced the threat to the public before the full sentence had been served.
Makes sense; again, if the STATE insured the employer against the loss, it could work - and your explanation provides solid reasoning as to why the state should do so.
Lots of negative comments on here. I, for one, hope this company flourishes. As much as any company in California can flourish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.