Posted on 07/27/2005 7:36:50 AM PDT by twas
Sounds like this guy has a pattern of lawbreaking going on in his life. If you don't won't a record, then don't break the law.
"When he arrived at the first, he recalls, "I'm thinking to myself, `Somebody must be giving out food baskets here.' There were 700 to 800 people." "
This is the funniest part of the article, even funnier than felons not wanting to not be held accountable for their crimes.
As opposed to a guy who has never had a cocaine conviction, and isn't likely to take a trip down cocaine memory lane after he's promoted?
When I was in elementary school, the white school nurse would only check for lice on the white children, since apparently blacks cannot become infested with lice. No one objected.
Wrong thread- whoops.
Not to say I don't sympathize with you (for, if you are a male, as I am, who wasn't young and stupid?), but I don't see any reason for a "young and stupid" "out." If that can get a crime removed because you were young and stupid in the past, it's only a matter of time till it can be used in the present. Your Honor, it's clear my client is young and stupid....
"If the prison system does it's job correctly, the accountant would not be released from jail if there was a good chance he'd commit the crime."
It is only the prison system's job to keep the prisoner behind bars for the length of his sentence. It is not up to the prison system to decide "if there was a good chance he'd commit the crime." Surely you're not talking about the parole mechanism to decide if the prisoner won't commit a crime again.
Bottom line: restricting employment opportunites creates recidivism.
Ah -- reflecting that very attitude that brings that "F" word to mind.
I faced the music. Your post illustrates the ways in which people like me continue to face it nearly three later. *sigh* The lifetime record is handed down not by the law I broke, but by those with timid minds and limited experiences. Given the chance to trade places, I'd pass. I'd rather have a bolder mind, even if its conclusions and empathies are built on rougher experiences that offend narrower sensibilities.
Nobody said life was fair. I accept that it's not, give thanks for my many blessings, and lie on job applications. Methinks that if the situations were reversed, YOU would be the last to be so cavalier. I suspect you're the type who can dish it out, but can't take it.
most states have standards for some form of expungment and some have it limited to ONE case.
Thus ONE indiscretion in early life can be removed.
HOWEVER, if you apply for some sentive job or apply to be a lawyer you have to disclose the expunged offense. (and while there is no record after expungement, there is a record of the expungement.)
It makes sense for CERTAIN crimes to be expungable if the person has earned redemtion by their deeds.
Or ... as opposed to a guy who has NO IDEA how to recognize the signs of cocaine addiction in colleagues, and whose lack of experience with the hard ugliness of cocaine addiction rather makes him the better possibility to become a cocaine user if he falls in with the wrong crowd.
Yeah, I think the expungement thing is iffy at best, I more empathize with the effort than suppor it -- the real culprits here, the guys who do the real damage, are prospective employers who will not look twice at an applicant with any kind of record. Many posts on this thread illustrate that mentality.
"Bottom line: restricting employment opportunites creates recidivism."
BOTTOM line: A system which punishes serious crimes (discounting those that are eventually expungeable under current state systems) with a lifetime mark--a "record"--serves as a deterrent to people. If everyone knows that in time, it will just be "wiped out anyway," where's the disincentive?
Only a generation or two ago, there was an incredible onus on being an unwed mother--and unweds were relatively rare. Over time, this onus has been eroded to the point where, if a girl gets "knocked up" these days, she has made a "lifestyle choice." I am not exaggerating one bit. Many of today's 30- and unders see it that way. What has happened? The number of unwed mothers has grown exponentially.
That is not necessarily a perfectly valid comparison (as no such thing exists), but it's to suggest that, to remove a consequence to a behavior that's bad for the individual and bad for society is to remove a barrier.
As for "restricting employment opportunities"...I am not going to sink to the absurd level I've seen here lately, where people you disagree with are simply declared trolls, disruptors, or told to "go back to DU!", but I see that phrase as Lib-speak. You commit a crime, the nature or fact of which makes me not want you near my enterprise...and I'm restricting your opportunity?
Agree to disagree. Have a good day.
I knew what was right and wrong in my early teens and did not break the law. Th situation is do not break the law unless you are willing to face the bar of justice. And part of that in many cases is a lifetime record.
Sorry, that's not working for me. This fellow's situation: I WAS a LEO in another state, and I'm no longer one, and I'm in a new state, but I want the old rules to apply in the new place? That is fairly tortured. If everything is as you say, I hope he gets a break--but it will derive literally on the mercy of the court, because on the law he is dead-bang guilty as charged.
How much of a deputy could he have been, BTW, to not know the law re guns? Or did he think he should be excepted, because he HAD BEEN a LEO?
And by the way, not to be provocative or snarky, but, as someone who's known a lot of cops, and had a few in the family: There is ALWAYS a story. I'm betting the one you recounted is not the whole thing.
I agree with you, Finny. If I'm an employer, and I reject someone worthy for a crime he did 20 years ago--when of course it can be established that those last 20 are clean--then I'm a jerk. That's the kind of zero tolerance thinking that gets honor students expelled from H.S. because they forgot to take a Midol pill out of an old coat pocket, and wore it that day....
It is used now for downward departures from guidelines. It is "youthful offender" designation for those being tried as adults but just young and stupid. It is only available ONCE.
It should be noted that expungement must be applied. Just as a permanent record might be a disincentive, an EARNED expungemnt might be an INCENTIVE.
Redemption should be rewarded.
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.