|
| Thread: San Franscisco considers declaring ex-cons a protected minority group |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
posted July 25, 2011 08:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
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.
Here is the thing:
If doing a crime makes it impossible to get a job, and the dole program sucks on the top of that, you will use your contacts from prison, or your family members in order to get a job.
Now... if you where jailed over 2-3 years, there is a high chance that your family will either shun you, or be so alien to you that it won't become a way to get a job.
That means you are left with your criminal buddies.
If you are lucky, some of them might set you up with some connections, and you then aquire a honest job.
HOWEVER: If you are not that lucky your only option left is crime.
Getting mentally ruined and being alienated by society along with losing a large portion of your free lifespan is bad enough, and can in some cases actually be "equal to the crime", but getting being FORCED to get back into organized crime after the first jail sentance is under no circumstances OK.
Either you defend why you think its "OK", to support criminals in continuing to make more crime, or you stop making such stupid and thoughtless statements.
____________
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted July 25, 2011 08:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
HOWEVER: If you are not that lucky your only option left is crime.
Getting mentally ruined and being alienated by society along with losing a large portion of your free lifespan is bad enough, and can in some cases actually be "equal to the crime", but getting being FORCED to get back into organized crime after the first jail sentance is under no circumstances OK.
Either you defend why you think its "OK", to support criminals in continuing to make more crime, or you stop making such stupid and thoughtless statements.
You somehow got that I support criminals in continuing to make more crime by saying "That person has the chance before they choose to commit a crime."?
What I said is that maybe the person should not commit the crime in the first place. They would not be in the position they are now, where their job prospects are ruined and they have a stigma attached to them. I don't support criminals continuing to make crime. I don't even know how you came to that conclusion.
As to "stupid" and "thoughtless," perhaps you should choose your words more carefully?
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 25, 2011 09:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As to "stupid" and "thoughtless," perhaps you should choose your words more carefully?
Agreed.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 25, 2011 09:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
HOWEVER: If you are not that lucky your only option left is crime.
Getting mentally ruined and being alienated by society along with losing a large portion of your free lifespan is bad enough, and can in some cases actually be "equal to the crime", but getting being FORCED to get back into organized crime after the first jail sentance is under no circumstances OK.
Either you defend why you think its "OK", to support criminals in continuing to make more crime, or you stop making such stupid and thoughtless statements.
You somehow got that I support criminals in continuing to make more crime by saying "That person has the chance before they choose to commit a crime."?
Take a look at what you said, and the context.
What was asked was if one should be "forced" to re-earn societies "trust", which would require that one must aquire a job, but to get a job you need society trust before.
And that means we have a paradox here: Either you have contacts, and get a job, or you are permanently on the dole.
And lets say the dole only lasts for 3 years, that means its back to crime after those 3 years, or becoming homeless.
Being homeless is the worst fate a normal civilian get get into if it is against his or her will.
You will do anything to avoid becoming homeless, unless you realize that "its not that bad" so you end up embracing it.
Quote:
What I said is that maybe the person should not commit the crime in the first place. They would not be in the position they are now, where their job prospects are ruined and they have a stigma attached to them. I don't support criminals continuing to make crime. I don't even know how you came to that conclusion.
But you do support that a "clean man out of jail that has served his sentence" do not get to acquire a job he or she is qualified for, no?
Besides, what happened before the crime is irrelevant, if it still was relevant beyond "he should not be in unwatched interaction with minors" or similar, then frankly WTF is the point about having a juridical system and prisons?
But before we get into any more silly misunderstandings.
I want some answers:
1. A man who has been convicted of fraud, should he work in banking or other similar organizations?
2. Should a rapist be allowed to work with children?
3. Should a actual child rapist be allowed to work with children?
4. Should a engineer who has been convicted of "theft" be allowed to get a job that requires his or her degree?
5. Should or should not a employer have access to the criminal record regarding hiring a person to a occupation, and the information in the criminal record is unrelated to what the occupation entails?
(I hope i managed to phrase question 5 correctly in English)
Quote:
As to "stupid" and "thoughtless," perhaps you should choose your words more carefully?
Do so yourself too then.
____________
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted July 25, 2011 09:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Take a look at what you said, and the context.
What was asked was if one should be "forced" to re-earn societies "trust", which would require that one must aquire a job, but to get a job you need society trust before.
And that means we have a paradox here: Either you have contacts, and get a job, or you are permanently on the dole.
And lets say the dole only lasts for 3 years, that means its back to crime after those 3 years, or becoming homeless.
Being homeless is the worst fate a normal civilian get get into if it is against his or her will.
You will do anything to avoid becoming homeless, unless you realize that "its not that bad" so you end up embracing it
The problem with your hypothetical, my answer, and your reaction to it is that my answer was not directed at your hypothetical. You came up with a hypothetical 2-days after I had already posted. You had the answer to another question, wanted to instigate an argument, and created your own question to fit the answer.
It's like some twisted form of Jeopardy!
Quote:
But you do support that a "clean man out of jail that has served his sentence" do not get to acquire a job he or she is qualified for, no?
Besides, what happened before the crime is irrelevant, if it still was relevant beyond "he should not be in unwatched interaction with minors" or similar, then frankly WTF is the point about having a juridical system and prisons
Did I say that? I said that he or she had a chance at finding a job or having a future before he or she became a convict. I did not discuss how a great chance it was. I don't care how hard a life they have had. All I know is that your chances of finding a job are better before having a criminal records than not.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 25, 2011 09:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Take a look at what you said, and the context.
What was asked was if one should be "forced" to re-earn societies "trust", which would require that one must aquire a job, but to get a job you need society trust before.
And that means we have a paradox here: Either you have contacts, and get a job, or you are permanently on the dole.
And lets say the dole only lasts for 3 years, that means its back to crime after those 3 years, or becoming homeless.
Being homeless is the worst fate a normal civilian get get into if it is against his or her will.
You will do anything to avoid becoming homeless, unless you realize that "its not that bad" so you end up embracing it
The problem with your hypothetical, my answer, and your reaction to it is that my answer was not directed at your hypothetical. You came up with a hypothetical 2-days after I had already posted. You had the answer to another question, wanted to instigate an argument, and created your own question to fit the answer.
It's like some twisted form of Jeopardy!
'That is what is called "irrelevant" Mr. Jones.'
Quote:
Did I say that? I said that he or she had a chance at finding a job or having a future before he or she became a convict. I did not discuss how a great chance it was. I don't care how hard a life they have had. All I know is that your chances of finding a job are better before having a criminal records than not.
Ah, but do you support it?
That was the question and intent!
(it means that being convicted will reduce your chance to get a job you actually qualify for, and please remember to answer about the case to case basis, because that was the actual question).
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 17, 2012 05:46 AM |
|
|
OK, this happened in Chicago, not in San Fran, but it has to do with a crime committed by a group that usually has special protection----a group of teens.
An elderly man was out picking up aluminum cans to supplement his social security income. Three teens saw him and decided to play a "game" of "pick 'em out and knock 'em out" and recorded the attack on a cell phone and posted the video on the internet (which is how they were caught.) When they punched him in the jaw he fell over backwards, striking his head on the concrete (you can hear the loud crack when his head hits to concrete.) They left him bleeding on the ground but returned a few minutes later to rob him. They went on to rob another elderly man. The man they attacked died the next day in the hospital. The three teens are being charged with first degree murder as adults.
What do you think? The teens are 16, 17, and 18 years old. Should the poor wittle teens be punished like adults or should they be cut some slack?
The democrats controlling the state of Illinois abolished the death penalty last year so they won't be facing that punishment, unfortunately. I have no sympathy for someone who makes a game out of injuring others.
____________
Revelation
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 17, 2012 11:44 AM |
|
|
Ideally I want their parents and teachers to get some of the punishment too, they are responsible for not raising those kids properly.
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 17, 2012 12:04 PM |
|
|
|
And the gran father/mother too, for not raising parents properly. For teachers too!
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted July 17, 2012 12:53 PM |
|
|
I think when you're 16 you're generally mature enough to be judged as an adult.
I'n against death penalties either way though.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 17, 2012 02:25 PM |
|
|
Anyone who is stupid enough to post something like that on the internet is obviously a lost cause.
I.e., compost them.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted July 17, 2012 03:01 PM |
|
|
They are old enough to know right from wrong. They should be tried as adults. They'll get life with the possibility of parole most likely.
I do not understand why we even attempt to rehabilitate such monsters. The world would be better off without the those three monsters.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 17, 2012 03:08 PM |
|
|
They create jobs I guess.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2012 03:35 PM |
|
|
well in my country, I am of the opinion that from when people are 12 years old, they should be able to get charged
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted July 17, 2012 05:57 PM |
|
|
Technically speaking, they obviously aren't adults since they lack proper judgement but practically, they're above 15 or whatever is the age around your parts.
If your law says they're of proper age to be judged as adults or children then that's that. You should follow your laws.
What will be interesting is seeing how they are trialed. I remember there was a similar case but the kids were doing it methodically. Three kids, only one of which was convicted and only to community service.
The difference is, this time the kids don't seem rich.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 24, 2012 12:32 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 12:34, 24 Jul 2012.
|
In a case of prosecuters protecting two juvenile rapists, the 17 year old rape victim could be prosecuted for contempt of court for revealing the identity of the rapists to the public.
In the article there is a link to a petition to sign to ask the judge to throw out the charges against her. I signed it.
Clicky
Quote:
A Kentucky girl who was sexually assaulted could face contempt of court charges after she tweeted the names of her juvenile attackers.
Savannah Dietrich, the 17-year-old victim, was frustrated by a plea deal reached late last month by the two boys who assaulted her, and took to Twitter to expose them--violating a court order to keep their names confidential.
"There you go, lock me up," Dietrich tweeted after naming the perpetrators. "I'm not protecting anyone that made my life a living Hell." Her Twitter account has since been closed.
Attorneys for the attackers asked a Jefferson District Court judge to hold Dietrich in contempt for lashing out on Twitter. She could face up to 180 days in jail and a $500 fine if convicted. The boys have yet to be sentenced for the August 2011 attack.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 24, 2012 12:43 PM |
|
|
She directly and without shame countered a court order, imho the order was dumb, since not exposing rapists is a bad thing? (I know there are underlying semantics to this, but it still seems like a foolish deal)
The most she should get is a reprimand, not jail sentence of 6months, not to mention the fine. (and hell I'd consider the reprimand as just due-process, she did nothing wrong)
Edit: Apparently the 'juveniles' took images and posted it on the net (confirming this) which just makes this even dumber, she's exposed, and they're not?
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted July 24, 2012 12:49 PM |
|
Edited by Adrius at 12:50, 24 Jul 2012.
|
Ehm, she broke a court order didn't she?
Maybe I'm weird but I don't think the circumstances are enough to allow her to break the law unpunished.
Rape is horrible but the criminals should be punished through the law, not by her hand and especially not when she has been specifically instructed not to do so.
____________
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 24, 2012 12:54 PM |
|
|
It wasn't a court order per-se, the attorneys made a deal if I know anything of law to keep the kiddies identities a secret.
Quote:
The deal would've gone something like thus: "we go admit our crimes without a fuss and not leach any more tax dough, and ya'll give us a boon, let's say our identities kept secret, you know, we don't want to be harassed for our deeds.
Quote:
was sexually assaulted by two boys while at a party. They took pictures of her while she was passed out and in compromised positions and distributed them.
Ah it was on the petition, not very official bet there ya go.
And yes she broke a court order, for which she should be reprimanded AT most, and any judge worth his salt wouldn't let this fly, (the severe punishment) I smells incompetence. Besides even a mentally handicapped individual is capable of being a bureaucrat, the judge was put into place to JUDGE the case, and apply his own wisdom. If we needed a moron to follow the law to the letter, then a computer would be sufficient for the task, but that does not yield justice.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted July 24, 2012 02:41 PM |
|
|
The judge is in the right to throw her in contempt. There was an order. Anonymity of the defendants was part of that order and she violated it.
Is it unfair that she might be punished for this? Yes.
Was the sentence unfair to the victim? Yes.
Was it foreseeable that ignoring a court order would have negative consequences? Yes.
A follow-up reveals the outcome of the contempt request. It has been withdrawn. If she had been found guilty, she faced "a potential sentence of up to 180 days in jail and a $500 fine."
Practically speaking, only an idiot would hold a rape victim in contempt for revealing the identity of rapists, especially if they are elected and want to serve another term. While the judge would be acting within her authority, it would have been political suicide.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
| |
|
|
