|
| Thread: San Franscisco considers declaring ex-cons a protected minority group |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted July 23, 2011 04:45 PM |
|
|
Maybe there is one, only the justice representatives can access to penal record. What has to do your ability to perform a job with the fact you were in jail years ago? Unless there is real conflict I can't see.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 23, 2011 04:57 PM |
|
|
The ex-criminal will still have to account for his time on any kind of job application.
"I see your resume shows nothing for the last six years. What have you done for that time?"
"Er...."
And of course most people believe they have a right to know who was and who was not a criminal. And there are good reasons for that. Have you heard, for example, of Megans Law?
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 23, 2011 05:10 PM |
|
|
Megan's law sounds pretty awful...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 23, 2011 05:20 PM |
|
|
Michigan's law also includes the registration of criminals as sex offenders for certain crimes, even without any sexual element, such as Kidnapping or 3 offenses Public Vulgarity/Indecency (Swearing in Public).
Now just imagine your face is on all papers as sex offender because you got out of control one day and said snow. Where goes the world?
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 23, 2011 05:22 PM |
|
|
Serving your time (most criminals serve less than the jury imposed) only means the criminal received the penalty for his crimes that the jury imposed. It does not mean the legal system has now declared the ex-con to be a trustworthy member of society. The penal system in the US was one originally of punitive measures. Penal---penalize, punish. It was not about rehabilitation. But at some point the politicians decided to change the model to a rehabilitation model. Since that time the penal system has been less effective and recidivism has increased.
The legal system can't make a person have a change of heart and thus have a change in lifestyle. All it can do is impose punishment for crime. The idea that a department of corrections can correct criminal behavior has failed.
There will never be a system that makes people say, "Oh, he did his time so now he is trustworthy." So ex-cons will always have to prove themselves trustworthy once they serve their time. A person who has truly learned his lesson and had a change of heart will not turn to crime just because times are tough in the free world.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2011 05:51 PM |
|
|
It seems I'm at odds with everyone else in this thread, since my opinion is that a "correctional facility" does nothing to correct a criminal.
The reason why the populace isn't adopting a position of "served the penalty, dept cancelled", because the penalty, the way it is done, simply isn't cancelling the debt. Putting a person away together with other criminals doesn't do anything to "CORRECT" them - on the contrary. Prison is a hard thing, and prison has its OWN rules - which have nothing to do with the rules outside prison.
The longer prison time lasts, the more dominating those rules become.
If we really want to integrate ex-cons into society again, we have to do a lot more than putting them behind bars with others of their kind.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 23, 2011 05:52 PM |
|
|
I find your statement to be unenlightened, elodin, and I rather doubt crime is so much worse now than, say, a hundred years ago.
I also think it's easy to fall into old habits, when reintegration is impossible, especially when things get tough on the money side. The age old question: "Is it okay to steal bread for your family when it is not obtainable through legitimate means?" and with that I mean that people will act nasty when pushed into corners.
Besides, a purely punitive system causes an overcrowding of prisons (a big problem in Belgium, by the way.)
I'm not claiming that people who committed a crime shouldn't be punished or not imprisoned, but taking measures to prevent crime or measures that make it easier for criminals to get reintegrated into society would cost the government less money in the long run (and of course would prevent more crime from happening, which is something we all desire, since crime is supposed to be harmful to society at large.)
Obviously, making a law that's basically the social-judicial equivalent of affirmative action isn't the right course of action.
And of course, there are people we would never want to see integrated into society, but I doubt this law wasn't made with people like the man who was commanded to brutally slaughter twenty people with a blunt axe by Geoffrey the friendly house snail in mind.
The next line is a humoristic aside and totally hyperbolic and shouldn't be responded to in a serious way:
By the way, did you know there was no such thing as crime in the Soviet Union? I have the distinct impression, you don't like how the Soviet Union was run, though.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 23, 2011 05:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It seems I'm at odds with everyone else in this thread, since my opinion is that a "correctional facility" does nothing to correct a criminal.
You're not at odds with me. I don't disagree with this statement.
On the other hand, who says that it is the burden of society to make sure that criminals get "corrected" - supposing society could do this even if it was required to. Should not criminals correct themselves?
Just a thought.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted July 23, 2011 05:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Michigan's law also includes the registration of criminals as sex offenders for certain crimes, even without any sexual element, such as Kidnapping or 3 offenses Public Vulgarity/Indecency (Swearing in Public).
Odd. I have yet to encounter either one as a sex offense when searching through OTIS. Usually the only thing that comes up on the sex offender registry is criminal sexual conduct. I love finding that on a records search, too, because it makes custody cases so much easier.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 23, 2011 06:06 PM |
|
|
If people have certain duties and obligations towards society, shouldn't society care about its people?
Well, obviously since criminals shirked their responsibilities towards society, they don't necessarily have any rights and they are given their second chance, which maybe is enough of a privilege they get from society (even though this second chance has to be taken and proven time and again and are impeded by certain things, like this aforementioned Megan's law.)
Though, I think they have a semblance of a right to being given better odds at reintegration, which the above paragraph vaguely and poorly tries to explain.
Quote:
Odd. I have yet to encounter either one as a sex offense when searching through OTIS. Usually the only thing that comes up on the sex offender registry is criminal sexual conduct. I love finding that on a records search, too, because it makes custody cases so much easier.
Thank God the world isn't completely bananas.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 23, 2011 06:28 PM |
|
|
A person should be given a chance to prove that he/she can be a productive member of society.
Also it is no secret what JJ said concerning the contradiction of a 'correctional facility', but I also agree that we should intead discuss a solution, and not one that branches off the current judicial system  . This just a suggestion .
Britain has this magical thing: Open prisions, (No Pun intended)
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2011 06:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
It seems I'm at odds with everyone else in this thread, since my opinion is that a "correctional facility" does nothing to correct a criminal.
You're not at odds with me. I don't disagree with this statement.
On the other hand, who says that it is the burden of society to make sure that criminals get "corrected" - supposing society could do this even if it was required to. Should not criminals correct themselves?
Just a thought.
That's not the point in this thread. Here the point is that people are supposed to "give them a chance", even though the state does nothing to support this. If the criminals couldn't "correct" themselves in freedom - what makes anyone think they could do so when teamed up with others of their kind?
Which is my gripe. I don't trust ANYONE who was served longer time in a more serious correctional facility: if it doesn't break people it makes them harder, yet.
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2011 10:59 PM |
|
Edited by shyranis at 23:04, 23 Jul 2011.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Michigan's law also includes the registration of criminals as sex offenders for certain crimes, even without any sexual element, such as Kidnapping or 3 offenses Public Vulgarity/Indecency (Swearing in Public).
Odd. I have yet to encounter either one as a sex offense when searching through OTIS. Usually the only thing that comes up on the sex offender registry is criminal sexual conduct. I love finding that on a records search, too, because it makes custody cases so much easier.
Sounds like they use generic terms in the database, Public vulgarity/indecency" could easily fall under than blanket term because it's criminal in that state and probably sexual. So could kidnapping in fact as it is a criminal act.
Edit: Yes, the penal system always needs more work. Usually it's an evolving system, but all it's been evolving to in North America in the last 50 years is adding more people per prison.
I do agree that ex-cons are certainly not a protectable minority. Not until we actually fix the system anyway. There are some individual companies that are (far too) few, but they specifically hire ex-cons as soon as they are released to help them reintegrate into society. Too bad they can only help a tiny handful at a time. Maybe they should try starting up some sort of alcoholics anonymous-like program for ex-cons.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted July 24, 2011 04:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A person should be given a chance to prove that he/she can be a productive member of society.
That person has the chance before they choose to commit a crime.
As to CSC being a blanket term in Michigan, it is not. CSC is only for crimes of a sexual nature. The only way someone who has been charged with kidnapping could appear on the Sex Offender's Registry is if they committed CSC as well. They would not be on that registry for the crime of kidnapping on its own.
Just for the fun of it, here are some amazing statutes!
    
MCL 750.349 - Kidnapping
Michigan CSC statutes
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 24, 2011 08:00 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 08:03, 24 Jul 2011.
|
@JJ
Quote:
If we really want to integrate ex-cons into society again, we have to do a lot more than putting them behind bars with others of their kind.
States offer quite a few programs for the criminals behind bars. Texas
Quote:
Included in the Rehabilitation Programs Division are:
Treatment Programs
Baby and Mother Bonding Initiative (BAMBI)
COURAGE Program for Youthful Offenders
In-Prison Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Recovery Program
"Innerchange" Faith-Based Pre-Release Program
Sex Offender Rehabilitation Program
Substance Abuse Treatment Program
Services Related to Offenders
Chaplaincy Department
DNA Specimen Collection for Offenders
Faith and Community-Based Liaison
Volunteer Services
Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative Program (SVORI)
Online Course Content
On-line Distance Training
Staff Development
GED, college education, and vocational training are offered. Some of the prisons also have craft shops where offenders can make various things to sell.
What else would you like the state to do, JJ?
The state can't force the criminal to want to change his behavior. The criminal has to come to terms with who he is and decide he wants to change before any change will occur.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 24, 2011 08:52 AM |
|
|
I don't think, it's that easy. Elodin.
Let's make a difference between people doing time because of being the guilty part in any kind of accident, amounting to serious "damage". Drunk-driving and killing someone in the process, for example.
Is it really such a good idea to put someone like that behind bars? The crime at that point was an inability to keep the fingers from the wheel after having consumed a legal drug, not what is called "base motives". Would we really want to put someone like that to people who are there because of base motives? Shouldn't we find different ways for these persons? In this case said person has a problem with the combination of driving and drinking, and rehabilitation should concentrate on that point.
Should someone like that be punished for the crime?
Probably, even though it's of no use for anyone.
I'd say, that such a person should be punished by having to work for "victims" in some way.
Now for "real" crime.
I know, we disagree about this, but my opinion is, that still "circumstances" (neighborhood, family/education) do play a role when it comes to crime, especially in the case of serious crimes. We don't HAVE to discuss this point in general, but in my opinion society can do more on the field of crime prevention - it's fairly well known where most crime blooms, and society should be able to act more resolute to prevent this.
If I'm not completely wrong, the overwhelming majority of really serious offenders have a criminal record that goes back to their youth. It seems that in the area yof youth crimes society isn't doing enough neither.
And then we expect from people who go in with a record as long as my arm that they suddenly change in jail, in the company of others like them?
Why would they? For fear of going in again, maybe for life?
Well, they cope, don't they? Prison isn't killing them, right?
I mean, what do you think how those people see themselves, society and their role in them?
The system believes, at least officially, in REintegration (of offenders) and what you list are all things that are offered with REintegration in mind.
However, (and that's why I stressed the RE) the question is - and in my eyes OBVIOUSLY: were they ever integrated in the first place (and is REintegration therefore even possible).
Yes, I do believe in reintegration as well. But only for those, who ever were integrated in the first place.
Many criminals, however, never have been integrated, so they CANNOT be reintegrated. They would have to be integrated into society first, something which have never been taken place (the reason being the aforementioned "circumstances of life as a kid").
Prison, however, is definitely not OUR society, but a different one, and I seriously doubt that you can integrate an alien to the legal part of our society, by letting him do a certain amount of time in any correctional facility, offering the services you cite. Sure, maybe there are some who do - REintegration is certainly possible -, but it doesn't do to simply say, sink or swim, because the sinkers will make society suffer again and become RE-offenders.
In short, the system is inapt, and statistics tell it without a shadow of doubt.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 24, 2011 07:34 PM |
bonus applied by Corribus on 26 Jul 2011. |
Edited by Elodin at 19:41, 24 Jul 2011.
|
JJ, I agree that criminals were never integrated into society to begin with. Rehabilitation fails because the criminal was never "habilitated." He has a human body like the rest of us but his mind is alien to us. His mind is not different because of a brain disorder but because of the way he has chosen to develop his thinking.
The rehabilitation programs don't hold up a mirror and make criminals look at themselves. Until a criminal sees himself for who he is and WANTS to change he will not change no matter how much money you pump into the system. Instead of holding up a mirror and showing the criminal that he is scum that needs to change the rehabilitators make excuses for the criminal and the criminal is more than happy to agree that somebody else (society, Mommy, Daddy, his friends, the TV shows, ect) is responsible for his crimes. So the criminal in "rehabilitation" never sees himself for who he is or holds himself accountable for his actions.
Criminals don't think like the rest of us or behave like the rest of us. They tend to be very self-centered and manipulative people. They want what they want, they want it now, They will not take "no" for an answer, and they'll do what it takes to get it. People are a means to get what the criminal wants. The criminal starts off violating the rights of others in small ways and moves on to more heinous ways of getting what he wants. The criminal thinks the world revolves around him and that he deserves what he wants. He has a right to it.
The criminal may go on for years committing crime but usually sooner or late he gets caught. When caught, does the criminal confess and take responsibility for what he did? Ordinarily, no. The criminal starts off denying his guilt. "I'm innocent" often eventually becomes "It wasn't my fault" when there is no longer any doubt of guilt.
Criminals are often liars. They will tell you what they think will cause you to have sympathy towards them to try to get out of or minimize the consequences of their crimes. There are lots of excuses they will offer. But remember that other people were in their shoes and had a different response instead of turning to crime.
During my time in law enforcement I've heard every excuse in the book. Here are a few common pleas for sympathy.
Excuses for Criminal Behavior Debunked:
[A.] Being "Abused"
1) Remember criminals are usually liars. The abuse likely never occurred.
2) Plenty of people were abused that did not turn to crime. They instead go on to become responsible adults.
3) The criminal is usually an abuser of others. As a child he abused his parents and siblings and manipulated them to get what he wanted.
[B.] "My environment made me do it."
1) Environment may facilitate crime of course. Such things as poorly patrolled neighborhoods, and police that don't respond to calls from the citizens can make it easier for criminals to "do their thing." Nonetheless, it is the criminal who commits the crime, not the law enforcement that failed to do their duty.
2) Plenty of people were in the same environment who remained honest. law-abiding citizens.
3) The criminal often takes advantage of the environment. Such as poorly patrolled areas in which to commit his crimes. The environment did not make him do it. He used the environment to facilitate his crimes.
[C.] "I just hung out with the wrong crowd."
1) Everyone experiences peer pressure from the womb to the tomb.
2) The criminal chose his friends. Criminals chose friends with similar values.
3) Other people who had some of the same friends did not turn to crime.
[D]I'm not mentally competent.
1) The criminal took a series of steps to plan and carry out the crime.
2) The criminal tried to cover up the crime.
3) Criminals have the ability to reason. They have free will. They exercised their free will to make themselves into who they are. The criminal is not mentally ill--he just prefers a life of crime. He knows right from wrong and when it suits him he abides by the law. He has no remorse for his actions though when caught he may try to convince others that he does. Sympathy play. Manipulation. A skill the criminal has been practicing all his life.
JJ, you say,"Let's make a difference between people doing time because of being the guilty part in any kind of accident, amounting to serious "damage". Drunk-driving and killing someone in the process, for example." BUT driving drunk is not an accident. First of all, it is seldom that a person causes a wreck or gets caught DWI the first time he has driven drunk. Secondly, the person is sober before he starts drinking. He can either deny himself access to alcohol or deny himself access to transportation and there will be no DWI. Thirdly, I have had a few beers myself but I've already made the decision not to get behind the wheel after even one beer. Yes, the drunk driver should be incarcerated for his crimes AND pay back the victims of his crime. Drunk driving IS real crime. It is criminally negligent behavior. A willful disregard for human life.
Making excuses for criminals contributes to them never seeing themselves for who they are and thus to them never changing.
____________
Revelation
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 24, 2011 07:44 PM |
|
|
Elodin:
Saying that certain things tend to facilitate crime isn't making excuses for criminals. As you said, it's the criminal's choice to commit crime. On the other hand, someone raised in a bad neighborhood where law enforcement is poor, drug abuse is rampant, families are weak, honest work is discouraged, and crime is seen as "okay", there is going to be more crime there. Telling the criminal, "It's your own fault" is right, but if crime prevention is the goal, then it takes more than punishment. One of the things punishment is supposed to do is deter potential criminals from committing crime, but if they simply don't take that consideration when they steal or kill, it's not effective. There has to be a cultural, structural change for there to be a significant effect on crime. It has to be more than "I don't want to get caught" - if they even think that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 24, 2011 07:44 PM |
|
|
@ Elo:
No it doesn't. Holding criminals accountable for what they do and identifying the ingredients that encourage crime are not mutually exclusive. When a detective investigates a crime, it's standard protocol to try to identify the motive, because identifying a motive can be used to help trace the crime. Nobody, including you I imagine, sees that as the detective trying to write off the crime.
People should expand their spirit of forgiveness towards people that were dealt a worse hand of cards than they were, because that expands the opportunity for them to get their **** together. They might not go from being white trash to a doctor, but if they can get a basic, stable job and settle down, then that's enough of a success. That doesn't mean opening yourself up to be exploited, but it can start with looking at, for example, a sucky inner city school and realizing that some 3rd party auditing and intervention would be good for both the short and long term.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2011 08:36 AM |
bonus applied by Corribus on 26 Jul 2011. |
|
Elodin, I strongly disagree with your point of view. There are a couple of studies that leave no doubt that there is a strong correlation between the socio-economic situation of the parents of a child and the amount of neglect, abuse and maltreatment they experience and their criminal record later on. (You can doubtlessly find enough sourself if you make a keyword search.)
What a child experiences - translated - is maltreatment of the society the child lives in. In these cases it's "society" (parent(s), neighborhood, others) that is breaking the rules against the child - so all the child is doing is accepting those rules and live by them.
And speaking of society, if you are living in a house, and you are content to watch, how the crap piles in one room or flat or corner - should you really wonder when it starts stinking and vermin is abound? Sure, you can blame the crap, but you let it pile.
So we have a lot of children who are not treated well by those who should treat them decent, while most of the time the rest of society is just sitting by and does nothing. Or IF society does something, it's often not the best thing you can imagine either, and often it's too late by then anyway.
Consequently, those children learn early that they have to sink or swim; no one is protecting them except themselves, and if there are any rules that would protect them, they are somehow not valid for them. They just try to survive.
Consequently they follow their own rules and lash out, mistreat, abuse and violate themselves, if necessary and if useful.
It's what they learned. So they have no love for society or its laws. Where would that come from? So they are not to blame, because they have a good reason to be bitter, but still guilty.
As in, a rabid dog isn't to blame either, but he's still rabid. So there are two problems, actually. The first are the rabid dogs and how to treat them. The second is a strategy to minimize the rabies.
The second is mostly ignored by society.
Also, offenses by negligence - whether there has been a rule or law broken or not; you don't need to actually be under the influence of drugs to be distracted and kill or maim someone; accidents happen, and youths are prone to break rules - are something completely different usually, which is something that you should see:
While we disagree, we both make a difference between criminals who've never been an integral part of the legal society, since their upbringing failed to do that, and those who have been integrated, but somehow erred from the path.
Since the former would have to be newly integrated (provided that's possible), the latter have to be RE-integrated, which is something else.
There is a difference between someone who just robbed a store, steals a car, makes a dash, disregards a red light and flattens a pedestrian and between someone who disregards a red light because he's distracted by something, and they shouldn't be treated equally and of course not serve time together.
A criminal is something else than someone who failed or erred.
|
| |
|
|
