Should a conviction still be allowed to hold ex-felons back?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

How does one feed their family or themselves while getting into such a business when people don't want to hire them or take them on. How many sprinkler companies can a heavily populated urban area support? Now thankfully there are businesses that hire felons. They don't hire every felon who applies, but they look at the whole applicant, not just the felony.

Feed their families? Most newly released felons don't have families, they have child support payments.

Would you hire him to fix your garage? (Had he not been your client that is.)

Absolutely, he came highly recommended. He did all my parents' garage door work when they built their McManshion.

However that says nothing about the risks of the employer. And plenty of ex-felons are not in for violent crimes (or sexual harassment), why would an employer fear to hire them for the negligent hiring reasons?

That depends on the job. Would you hire a guy with a felony DUI charge to deliver pizza for you? Would you hire someone with a drug conviction to be a cashier? Probably not, and the first could get you sued.

A) you've made an assumption that ex-felons are dangers to society. B) Society doesn't get to kick people to the curb. The Constitution doesn't grant rights, it protects inherent ones. People deserve to have their rights protected.

Okay then, what Constitutional right are you suggesting keeps felons from experiencing what they're experiencing right now? That paragraph is almost as silly as something I'd expect from a 10ther.

So you can kick them to the curb and then put them back in prison or you could make an effort to teach them something different.

When there are limited resources and sticking 'em back in the pokey is more cost effective and protects society from them, that's just fine. Not everyone is able to be rehabilitated.

I'm all for second-chance programs like drug courts, but in most cases, once they have that felony conviction, they've earned it.

Not with sex-offenders we're not. We're really bad at predicting which person will reoffend. There are actual tools (supported by research) that can assess the likelihood of reoffending by non-sex offender felons, and then can give areas to work on such as obtaining employment, replacing antisocial thinking with prosocial thinking, etc. But they don't work well with sex offenders.

Cool.. well, since we're so bad at predicting, we should just let convicted child molesters run daycare centers, right? It wouldn't be fair to them if we said that they had a far better than average chance of recidivism. I mean, after all, they have served their debts to society and we can't accurately predict whether they'll reoffend.

So OK needs to get it's shit in order. here, DOC gets cut, and everyone works mandatory OT. My state's broke as hell too. But either we want prison to be rehabilitative or punishing or both. We claim both but don't do a lot of the rehabilitation that would actually reduce crime and make society safer.

Citation needed.

It's on a different scale, but it's the same thought process. So, you've kept speeding, but you didn't get caught? (Also mostly here, talking about non-violent offenders. But there's a difference between the 22 year old involved in violent crime and the 30 year old too. And your use of raping and killing is just as dramatic an overstatement. Rapists would be sex offenders, see previous comments. Murderers would not be out after a 10 year bit in any state I'm aware of.

You made the comparison, not I. I agree, it was absurd. Thinking one does no harm in speeding is not the same as thinking one does no harm in committing a felony. And a murderer could be out in less than 10 or not even serve time depending what kind of homicide crime he's convicted of.

Drug dealers, car thieves? Same logic. "They have insurance. I need the money. Everyone does it, I just got caught. They're out to get me. " They get busted and say "i'll never do that again." And then they do it again.

Yeah, actually, I was recently a victim of several petty felonies like that. One of our movers stole my checkbook and decided to write himself a few paychecks. Guy was dumb as dirt--signed his real name, legibly to the signature line. I'm a cooperating state's witness now. I wasn't damaged in the least because my bank took care of everything, but I'm going to do what I can to make sure this idiot does time and never gets a job again where the employer places him in a position of trust.

Had he had this felony record before the moving company hired him, I would have a viable cause of action for negligent hiring. Or at least my bank would since I'm not really damaged.

Felons never come from good families though right? So you're "safe." That's your silver spoon talking.

Yes I am.

As long as you think of ex-felons as "damaged people" you're going to keep thinking like this. I'm not saying that the guys who work with me are even qualified to be a receptionist, I'm saying they're qualified to be hired and work fixing your roof, washing your car, or making your stuff in a factory.

But why would any of those employers employee felons when there were equally qualified non-felons out there?

[DrPhil]

I hate McMansions. That is all.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Feed their families? Most newly released felons don't have families, they have child support payments.

This is why I say citation needed. I haven't met all the guys in our program, but many of them have families. And even if they "only" have child support payments, are those children supposed to suffer too?

Absolutely, he came highly recommended. He did all my parents' garage door work when they built their McManshion.

But he's a felon. So not all felons are created equal, huh?

That depends on the job. Would you hire a guy with a felony DUI charge to deliver pizza for you? Would you hire someone with a drug conviction to be a cashier? Probably not, and the first could get you sued.

But the only reason you wouldn't hire them for the latter is because you're afraid, so the negligent hiring issue is rather an aside here.

Okay then, what Constitutional right are you suggesting keeps felons from experiencing what they're experiencing right now? That paragraph is almost as silly as something I'd expect from a 10ther.

Voting. And I don't know what a "10ther" is so feel free to keep misconstruing my point.

When there are limited resources and sticking 'em back in the pokey is more cost effective and protects society from them, that's just fine. Not everyone is able to be rehabilitated.

It's not necessarily more cost effective. It's easy. Prisons are full and they're expensive. That's pretty much the case everywhere. Illinois doesn't have the funding to open a new prison or hire new employees.

I'm all for second-chance programs like drug courts, but in most cases, once they have that felony conviction, they've earned it.

Agreed, they earned it. So your options are brand them with it for the rest of their lives or do something to get them back. Subclasses of people are bad.

Cool.. well, since we're so bad at predicting, we should just let convicted child molesters run daycare centers, right?

And you were dissing my argument? I really hope you don't argue like this in court. I'm sure it wins cases but it screws your integrity to shit.

Citation needed.

Citation provided: Click
Click

The putatively beneficial effect of punishment on criminal offenders is examined by estimating a logistic specification of a two-period model of optimal participation in illegitimate and legitimate activities. Estimates are obtained utilizing a sample of parolees released from all adult correctional institutions in the United States during 1972. The conclusion would seem to be that incarceration is not substantially effective in rehabilitation efforts and may even have a result opposite to that intended: increased punishment may increase optimal participation in crime.

Shift in the Juvenile Court System from Rehabilitation to Punishment

Rehab vs. punishment/deterrence is a huge debate. I don't have the citations from work, so these will have to do. I recommend looking at the work of Dr. Latessa.

You made the comparison, not I. I agree, it was absurd. Thinking one does no harm in speeding is not the same as thinking one does no harm in committing a felony. And a murderer could be out in less than 10 or not even serve time depending what kind of homicide crime he's convicted of.

I said felons, you said rapists and murderers. Stop pulling the bullshit of "you said it not me" and have a mature discussion without resorting to hyperbole. I make an effort to do so, I'd appreciate you doing the same. Also, you said murderer, not someone convicted of manslaughter or negligent homicide.

I said repeatedly that they are the same thinking processes and they are. How is thinking it's ok to speed not the same as thinking it's ok to do drugs for example? Both are nominally "victimless" unless something unplanned happens.

Yeah, actually, I was recently a victim of several petty felonies like that. One of our movers stole my checkbook and decided to write himself a few paychecks. Guy was dumb as dirt--signed his real name, legibly to the signature line. I'm a cooperating state's witness now. I wasn't damaged in the least because my bank took care of everything, but I'm going to do what I can to make sure this idiot does time and never gets a job again where the employer places him in a position of trust.

Had he had this felony record before the moving company hired him, I would have a viable cause of action for negligent hiring. Or at least my bank would since I'm not really damaged.

And that's why we tell our guys that writing in to explain their conviction in person rather than just writing it down makes a difference. That guy could earn trust back, slowly, one day after doing his time. Your option is to ensure he doesn't ever have trust again. I know which system I'd prefer to be under, but I'm aware that you have not, in the past, been able to conceive of being in a similar situation as someone less fortunate than you whether chronically unemployed or convicted of a crime, even wrongfully so. However, negligent hiring is an aside for this discussion as it would, for the most part, not apply.

Yes I am.

At least you acknowledge that what you're saying is bullshit then.

But why would any of those employers employee felons when there were equally qualified non-felons out there?

Why not? I know they do, and that our guys can get jobs. Some probably make a point to give guys second chances. Others pay cash. Others find that not a lot of people want to do roof work in 110 degree heat indicies.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Abortion is birth control. Not policing women's bodies means not policing their bodies. Shaming someone for having 6 abortions is the same as shaming someone for having one. If it's her body then it's her body.

Abortion is not birth control. Birth control is to prevent pregnancy from ever occurring. Abortion is the termination of an already occurred pregnancy.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Abortion is not birth control. Birth control is to prevent pregnancy from ever occurring. Abortion is the termination of an already occurred pregnancy.

Birth control prevents birth. While most birth control prevents conception or implantation, it is true that abortion - chemical or surgical does terminate the pregnancy.

The point is, people only get abortions to prevent birth. Not for shits and giggles and because they had a spare afternoon after getting their nails done. Either women have the right to control their bodies or they don't. You can't say that X number of abortions is acceptable but X+1 isn't.

No matter how many (I suspect mythical) women there are having abortions once a month because they can't bother with prophylactic measures.

[33girl]

IMO the women who don't take any responsibility for their bodies and contraception ARE having abortions for shits and giggles. I hope they are mythical, but I'm quite afraid they're not.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I hate McMansions. That is all.

So do I! Most of them are so ugly and have no character what so ever. I'd take a 80-90 year old craftsmen style house over a McMansion any day of the week.

[DrPhil]

They aren't mythical but they aren't as prevalent as people claim. This is particularly the case when people talk about poor people and racial and ethnic minorities.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

IMO the women who don't take any responsibility for their bodies and contraception ARE having abortions for shits and giggles. I hope they are mythical, but I'm quite afraid they're not.

Isn't having an abortion taking responsibility? Have you ever met anyone who had one for fun?

It's kind of like the mythical welfare "queens" popping out 12 babies to by a Cadillac. Or all those women who get pregnant to trap a man. There are people who are not as responsible as you would like them to be, or even with a warped view of the world, but most of these images are urban legends with very few instances of actual truth mixed in.

And if someone believes that an abortion is not killing a baby, the only limitations on having them would be financial cost and their own body's health and safety. There's no moral problem with having them every month, it's just impractical and unhealthy. (And probably impossible.)

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

So do I! Most of them are so ugly and have no character what so ever. I'd take a 80-90 year old craftsmen style house over a McMansion any day of the week.

Some are stunningly beautiful but a waste of design and size because they are 4 feet from the next house and too close to the street. What's the point of stuffing mansions in neighborhoods designed for smaller houses? What's the point of buying a mansion when you don't have a large front and back lawn to match the house? Spend your money on property where you can landscape and have a big lawn to mow. It's bad enough that newer houses tend not to have attics and/or basements.

I also prefer older styled houses and "plantation columns. I won't go on that rant.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Some are stunningly beautiful but a waste of design and size because they are 4 feet from the next house and too close to the street. What's the point of stuffing mansions in neighborhoods designed for smaller houses? What's the point of buying a mansion when you don't have a large front and back lawn to match the house? Spend your money on property where you can landscape and have a big lawn to mow. It's bad enough that newer houses tend not to have attics and/or basements.

I also prefer older styled houses and "plantation columns. I won't go on that rant.

Very much agree.

Though I fear I will never live in either. My parents have a 50's style ranch and I'll be living in apartments til kingdom come.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Some are stunningly beautiful but a waste of design and size because they are 4 feet from the next house and too close to the street. What's the point of stuffing mansions in neighborhoods designed for smaller houses? What's the point of buying a mansion when you don't have a large front and back lawn to match the house? Spend your money on property where you can landscape and have a big lawn to mow. It's bad enough that newer houses tend not to have attics and/or basements.

I also prefer older styled houses and "plantation columns. I won't go on that rant.

You have to build close if you live in any sort of a city these days, could you imagine the property taxes you'd pay on an acre lot in Houston or dallas proper? If I was to build new I'd build uber-modern, off the grid, fabulousness....

http://www.trendir.com/house-design/...exas.html#more

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

You have to build close if you live in any sort of a city these days, could you imagine the property taxes you'd pay on an acre lot in Houston or dallas proper? If I was to build new I'd build uber-modern, off the grid, fabulousness....

http://www.trendir.com/house-design/...exas.html#more

That depends on how much you can afford and what parts of the city you want to live in.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Isn't having an abortion taking responsibility? Have you ever met anyone who had one for fun?

It's kind of like the mythical welfare "queens" popping out 12 babies to by a Cadillac. Or all those women who get pregnant to trap a man. There are people who are not as responsible as you would like them to be, or even with a warped view of the world, but most of these images are urban legends with very few instances of actual truth mixed in.

And if someone believes that an abortion is not killing a baby, the only limitations on having them would be financial cost and their own body's health and safety. There's no moral problem with having them every month, it's just impractical and unhealthy. (And probably impossible.)

Like I said, I hope these ARE mythical. But some people just have a "it won't happen to me" outlook on life and act with very little concern for themselves or others.

We're never going to agree on this so I'll just chime in and say I hate McMansions also.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Like I said, I hope these ARE mythical. But some people just have a "it won't happen to me" outlook on life and act with very little concern for themselves or others.

We're never going to agree on this so I'll just chime in and say I hate McMansions also.

LOL it's ok. I just think it's hypocritical to judge some people for having a medical procedure and not others. (As if you think it's murder, or at least morally fraught, then you would judge all)

I have no opinion on McMansions but I hate new housing developments because they don't have enough trees.