BF2S Forums Sex offender laws need to be reworked

Turquoise wrote:

mcminty wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

So you don't believe employers should be able to find out the past records of potential employees?

I'll chime in here..

Last year when I applied to become a civilian instructor at my old cadet squadron, part of the paperwork included an "Australian Federal Police Working With Children" background check. You have to sign this legal document stating you've done nothing, etc while simultaneously getting a national police check. While the police check costs money, it is up to the person applying for the job to pay for it. The results of that check are sent to your potential employer, who compares the two. Having previously signed a legal document, if you have lied at this point, you are fucked.

System works.

If you're working with children or are working as any form of governmental authority, I can see why that would be necessary.

I don't think it's necessary for jobs like being a janitor, cashier, fast food employee, etc.

I realize it might be a little strange how my stance is nuanced like this, but John brought up some good points.  The importance of the job (and its risk factors) should determine the thoroughness of the check.

Bottom line an employer has the right to know who they hire and trust with the job....get over it.

Last edited by lowing (2010-04-21 18:41:49)

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

NO employee's background is irrelevant to a prospective employer. SOrry for that reality check

I'm sure they want only the best and brightest at McDonald's.

nope, I am sure they well settle for someone they can trust with the money in the cash register, and the food they prepare. Again, sorry for the reality check of the wants and needs of prospective employers

What are they going to do the food? Criminal =/= automatic sociopath. You also realize that these evil criminals were once the law-abiding citizens any other employee is, too?

lowing wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

lowing wrote:

nope, I am sure they well settle for someone they can trust with the money in the cash register, and the food they prepare. Again, sorry for the reality check of the wants and needs of prospective employers

What are they going to do the food? Criminal =/= automatic sociopath. You also realize that these evil criminals were once the law-abiding citizens any other employee is, too?

Feed their friends for free sell it and keep the money for themselves.

Yup they might have been law aboiding cititzens once, then they proved themselves otherwise....what is your point?

Time served really isn't time served in your mind.

Hell, with your mindset, you might as well execute everyone that goes to prison.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

What are they going to do the food? Criminal =/= automatic sociopath. You also realize that these evil criminals were once the law-abiding citizens any other employee is, too?

Feed their friends for free sell it and keep the money for themselves.

Yup they might have been law aboiding cititzens once, then they proved themselves otherwise....what is your point?

Time served really isn't time served in your mind.

Hell, with your mindset, you might as well execute everyone that goes to prison.

Nope, but do you really think if you owned a business, you have no right to know, or should have no right to ask the background of the people asking you for a fuckin job?? Really?

Why don't you go play with your like minded buddy who thinks violent criminals should have 3 chances ( 3 victims) in order to prove themselves

tuckergustav wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

true...as a female, I also would like to know if there are yellow dots(rapists) all over my neighborhood or not...

If we limited the registry to rapists and pedos, then I guess it would be more acceptable, although murderers would need to be included as well.

I would just rather have the info...although there are people who are listed for "silly" things like peeing in public or being in a 18/16 yr old situation, there are also people who plea to a lesser charge as well.

As a female and a mother I don't think that sexual criminals should be given the benefit of the doubt...

....so you don't believe in time served either....  hmmm

Turquoise wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If we limited the registry to rapists and pedos, then I guess it would be more acceptable, although murderers would need to be included as well.

I would just rather have the info...although there are people who are listed for "silly" things like peeing in public or being in a 18/16 yr old situation, there are also people who plea to a lesser charge as well.

As a female and a mother I don't think that sexual criminals should be given the benefit of the doubt...

....so you don't believe in time served either....  hmmm

I believe that the registry is a part of that "time".

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, but do you really think if you owned a business, you have no right to know, or should have no right to ask the background of the people asking you for a fuckin job?? Really?

Why don't you go play with your like minded buddy who thinks violent criminals should have 3 chances ( 3 victims) in order to prove themselves

I didn't say that.  If you actually read my previous posts, you'd see that I suggested that the importance and risks of the job should determine the level of access to their past.

The owner of a Taco Bell doesn't need to know about someone's past crimes.  The owner of a bank or the principal of a school does.

Don't you think that the owner needs to protect their other employees?  Would you want to be the guy that was stuck closing up at midnight alone with someone that had been convicted of a violent crime against a coworker in the past?

Turquoise wrote:

The owner of a Taco Bell doesn't need to know about someone's past crimes.

Yes, yes they would. Any job that involves any sort of interaction with other people would require someone who doesn't have a tendency to stray from the accept/approved course of behavior(LAW) within a society.

tuckergustav wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, but do you really think if you owned a business, you have no right to know, or should have no right to ask the background of the people asking you for a fuckin job?? Really?

Why don't you go play with your like minded buddy who thinks violent criminals should have 3 chances ( 3 victims) in order to prove themselves

I didn't say that.  If you actually read my previous posts, you'd see that I suggested that the importance and risks of the job should determine the level of access to their past.

The owner of a Taco Bell doesn't need to know about someone's past crimes.  The owner of a bank or the principal of a school does.

Don't you think that the owner needs to protect their other employees?  Would you want to be the guy that was stuck closing up at midnight alone with someone that had been convicted of a violent crime against a coworker in the past?

I think people are getting confused here.

No one prefers to work with someone with a seedy past.  I think we can all agree on that, right?

However, I can use that same logic with other things.  Let's say I find out that one of my coworkers happens to be gay and also happens to be interested in me.  Since I'm straight, I would find that awkward, and I'd do what I could to avoid spending much time with him.  While being gay isn't criminal, in that particular context, I still find it undesirable.

Yet, if this guy simply accepted the fact that I'm straight and kept his feelings to himself, it wouldn't be a problem.  So, in that particular case, knowledge has a net negative effect, because it doesn't benefit me to know about this guy's feelings, and as long as he doesn't act on them, I'm no worse without knowing.

Similarly, this works with people who have been incarcerated.  If I'm working at a Taco Bell, I know I'm probably going to be around people that don't have a lot of opportunities elsewhere.  This could be due to a lack of education, but it could also be due to a seedy past that prevents them from getting a better job.  Yet, whether or not I know if these people have a seedy past doesn't benefit me except for the condition that they repeat their past bad habits.

If I don't know about their past, then there's a better chance the person can attempt to move on with a relatively normal life.  If I do know (and everyone else working there), then basically, that person is an outcast, regardless of how much he/she is attempting to rebuild his/her life.

With jobs that involve children or great amounts of responsibility, yes, a background check is vital.  I have no argument against that.  However, for everything else, these people should at least be given a chance to start over.  They've served their time already.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-04-21 20:07:17)

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

NO employee's background is irrelevant to a prospective employer. SOrry for that reality check

I'm sure they want only the best and brightest at McDonald's.

nope, I am sure they well settle for someone they can trust with the money in the cash register, and the food they prepare. Again, sorry for the reality check of the wants and needs of prospective employers

Fine, then you lose every right to ever bitch about people stuck on welfare ever again. You also lose the right to point out recidivism rates when promoting harsher punishments.

Turquoise wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I didn't say that.  If you actually read my previous posts, you'd see that I suggested that the importance and risks of the job should determine the level of access to their past.

The owner of a Taco Bell doesn't need to know about someone's past crimes.  The owner of a bank or the principal of a school does.

Don't you think that the owner needs to protect their other employees?  Would you want to be the guy that was stuck closing up at midnight alone with someone that had been convicted of a violent crime against a coworker in the past?

I think people are getting confused here.

No one prefers to work with someone with a seedy past.  I think we can all agree on that, right?

However, I can use that same logic with other things.  Let's say I find out that one of my coworkers happens to be gay and also happens to be interested in me.  Since I'm straight, I would find that awkward, and I'd do what I could to avoid spending much time with him.  While being gay isn't criminal, in that particular context, I still find it undesirable.

Yet, if this guy simply accepted the fact that I'm straight and kept his feelings to himself, it wouldn't be a problem.  So, in that particular case, knowledge has a net negative effect, because it doesn't benefit me to know about this guy's feelings, and as long as he doesn't act on them, I'm no worse without knowing.

Similarly, this works with people who have been incarcerated.  If I'm working at a Taco Bell, I know I'm probably going to be around people that don't have a lot of opportunities elsewhere.  This could be due to a lack of education, but it could also be due to a seedy past that prevents them from getting a better job.  Yet, whether or not I know if these people have a seedy past doesn't benefit me except for the condition that they repeat their past bad habits.

If I don't know about their past, then there's a better chance the person can attempt to move on with a relatively normal life.  If I do know (and everyone else working there), then basically, that person is an outcast, regardless of how much he/she is attempting to rebuild his/her life.

With jobs that involve children or great amounts of responsibility, yes, a background check is vital.  I have no argument against that.  However, for everything else, these people should at least be given a chance to start over.  They've served their time already.

being gay does not equal criminal and untrustworthry.....a convicted felon does.

You still have not answered the question....Do you really think the owner of a "Taco Bell", with all he has invested, has no right to know the background of the people that ask him for a job'?

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The owner of a Taco Bell doesn't need to know about someone's past crimes.

Yes, yes they would. Any job that involves any sort of interaction with other people would require someone who doesn't have a tendency to stray from the accept/approved course of behavior(LAW) within a society.

What if the guy committed an assault when he was 18, served five years in jail and is now 40 years old? Does he still have to list on every single application that he's an ex-con? What about when he's 50? 60? Hell, I'm not the same person I was when I was 18 and it was only 11 years ago.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-04-21 20:12:38)