Right, but if we assume this imprisonment has had any deterring effect, then why are you adamant about keeping them on a list?tuckergustav wrote:
If you want to argue in extremes, then I can't help you...Turquoise wrote:
Logically then, any sex criminal should be locked away for life. There's no sense in letting someone back into society who continually is haunted by a completely public record.tuckergustav wrote:
I believe that the registry is a part of that "time".
All that does is create a situation where the person is more likely to snap and do it all over again.
So if protection is really your aim here, then you should either support life imprisonment for sex crimes or you should probably reconsider your view....
The idea of prison and punishments of crimes is largely put in place to deter people from committing those crimes in the first place. And to punish those that choose to commit the crimes anyways.
Hmmmm, his investment, his store, his lifes work, and has know right t oknow anything aobut the people that work for him.....yeah right.Turquoise wrote:
He has no right to know things about an employee that have no relevance to the job offered.lowing wrote:
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'?
Also, can't think of too many businesses where trustworthy, reliabilty,dependabilty and honesty is not relevant
It's the level of trust that matters, but I can already see that it's never shades of grey with you...lowing wrote:
Hmmmm, his investment, his store, his lifes work, and has know right t oknow anything aobut the people that work for him.....yeah right.Turquoise wrote:
He has no right to know things about an employee that have no relevance to the job offered.lowing wrote:
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'?
Also, can't think of too many businesses where trustworthy, reliabilty,dependabilty and honesty is not relevant
The "deterring effect" was suppost to take place BEFORE they committed the crime, and went to prison. not afterTurquoise wrote:
Right, but if we assume this imprisonment has had any deterring effect, then why are you adamant about keeping them on a list?tuckergustav wrote:
If you want to argue in extremes, then I can't help you...Turquoise wrote:
Logically then, any sex criminal should be locked away for life. There's no sense in letting someone back into society who continually is haunted by a completely public record.
All that does is create a situation where the person is more likely to snap and do it all over again.
So if protection is really your aim here, then you should either support life imprisonment for sex crimes or you should probably reconsider your view....
The idea of prison and punishments of crimes is largely put in place to deter people from committing those crimes in the first place. And to punish those that choose to commit the crimes anyways.
Level of trust?...It is a multi million dollar store and HIS/HER lifes investment...where do you put that level of trust?Turquoise wrote:
It's the level of trust that matters, but I can already see that it's never shades of grey with you...lowing wrote:
Hmmmm, his investment, his store, his lifes work, and has know right t oknow anything aobut the people that work for him.....yeah right.Turquoise wrote:
He has no right to know things about an employee that have no relevance to the job offered.
Also, can't think of too many businesses where trustworthy, reliabilty,dependabilty and honesty is not relevant
who are you or I, to tell a person who has risked and invested into his store, that he has no right to know anything about who he employes?
I seriously doubt that if you bought a store, you would have no applicationd and conduct no interviews.
Last edited by lowing (2010-04-21 20:23:48)
When you fill out your app...it will ask for the date of conviction I believe...so, an employer can make that choice.
An employer can be held legally responsible for the actions of their employees...
having a job is not a right...it is a contract between two individuals(employer and employee) that can be terminated at will.
An employer can be held legally responsible for the actions of their employees...
having a job is not a right...it is a contract between two individuals(employer and employee) that can be terminated at will.
...
An even more logical option would be to execute them...Turquoise wrote:
Again, if you really feel this way, then life imprisonment for sex criminals is the only logical option...
I don't assume that...the threat of imprisonment is suppose to be the deterrent...if they do the crime and are imprisoned...they were not deterred and are then punished for that crime...Turquoise wrote:
Right, but if we assume this imprisonment has had any deterring effect, then why are you adamant about keeping them on a list?tuckergustav wrote:
If you want to argue in extremes, then I can't help you...Turquoise wrote:
Logically then, any sex criminal should be locked away for life. There's no sense in letting someone back into society who continually is haunted by a completely public record.
All that does is create a situation where the person is more likely to snap and do it all over again.
So if protection is really your aim here, then you should either support life imprisonment for sex crimes or you should probably reconsider your view....
The idea of prison and punishments of crimes is largely put in place to deter people from committing those crimes in the first place. And to punish those that choose to commit the crimes anyways.
...
When you are 18 you know it is legally wrong is attack a person. I don't care if they have changed or not, at the time they knew what they were doing was wrong.JohnG@lt wrote:
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.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
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.Turquoise wrote:
The owner of a Taco Bell doesn't need to know about someone's past crimes.
Billions of people wake up every day and don't go assault strangers, their exgirlfriends, bosses and so on. To say "I did this when i was younger" isn't an viable excuse when billions of people seem to go on through life perfectly fine without assaulting other people.
Ding Ding Ding.tuckergustav wrote:
I don't assume that...the threat of imprisonment is suppose to be the deterrent...if they do the crime and are imprisoned...they were not deterred and are then punished for that crime...
Harsh punishment keeps people in check. This is a fact that is constantly confirmed through history. Lesser punishments for crimes will lead to an increase in crime.
Last edited by Marlo Stanfield (2010-04-21 20:28:13)
Never been in a bar fight? Or a fight at a party? A lot of people do every day and each of those stupid alcohol fueled fights can end up with both parties in jail.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
When you are 18 you know it is legally wrong is attack a person. I don't care if they have changed or not, at the time they knew what they were doing was wrong.JohnG@lt wrote:
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.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
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.
Billions of people wake up every day and don't go assault strangers, their exgirlfriends, bosses and so on. To say "I did this when i was younger" isn't an viable excuse when billions of people seem to go on through life perfectly fine without assaulting other people.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Nope never been in a bar fight or a fight at a party.JohnG@lt wrote:
Never been in a bar fight? Or a fight at a party? A lot of people do every day and each of those stupid alcohol fueled fights can end up with both parties in jail.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
When you are 18 you know it is legally wrong is attack a person. I don't care if they have changed or not, at the time they knew what they were doing was wrong.JohnG@lt wrote:
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.
Billions of people wake up every day and don't go assault strangers, their exgirlfriends, bosses and so on. To say "I did this when i was younger" isn't an viable excuse when billions of people seem to go on through life perfectly fine without assaulting other people.
You realize you are making excuses for crime right?
No I don't. Ipay for it I have the right to bitch about it.JohnG@lt wrote:
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.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 employersTurquoise wrote:
I'm sure they want only the best and brightest at McDonald's.
You are trying to tell me that a criminal has more rights than a law abiding citizen. THe store owner has no right to know who he is hiring, and the criminal has a right to a job...it does not work that way nor should it.
I am not saying the ex con should not get hired, I am saying the owner has the right to know who he is hiring, and you are an idiot if you think that is wrong
Last edited by lowing (2010-04-21 20:32:45)
Hmm.. I have a state employee in my department that has a felony conviction. He's a dependable, hard working son of a bitch. Oh and I was the guy that hired him.
S3v3N wrote:
Hmm.. I have a state employee in my department that has a felony conviction. He's a dependable, hard working son of a bitch. Oh and I was the guy that hired him.
lowing wrote:
I am not saying the ex con should not get hired, I am saying the owner has the right to know who he is hiring,
I never said the criminal has a right to a job. I said he should be hired on the merits he shows to the employer. I guarantee you wouldn't recognize 99% of the people that have served time and if it's not noticeable in a job interview, why should it be brought up?lowing wrote:
No I don't. Ipay for it I have the right to bitch about it.JohnG@lt wrote:
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.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
You are trying to tell me that a criminal has more rights than a law abiding citizen. THe store owner has no right to know who he is hiring, and the criminal has a right to a job...it does not work that way nor should it.
I am not saying the ex con should not get hired, I am saying the owner has the right to know who he is hiring, and you are an idiot if you think that is wrong
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I heard sociopaths are fairly nice people when you first meet them.JohnG@lt wrote:
I never said the criminal has a right to a job. I said he should be hired on the merits he shows to the employer. I guarantee you wouldn't recognize 99% of the people that have served time and if it's not noticeable in a job interview, why should it be brought up?
Because the owner has the right to know who works for him. He has the right to an informed decision on who he brings into his life and livelihood. He has the right to choose.JohnG@lt wrote:
I never said the criminal has a right to a job. I said he should be hired on the merits he shows to the employer. I guarantee you wouldn't recognize 99% of the people that have served time and if it's not noticeable in a job interview, why should it be brought up?lowing wrote:
No I don't. Ipay for it I have the right to bitch about it.JohnG@lt wrote:
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.
You are trying to tell me that a criminal has more rights than a law abiding citizen. THe store owner has no right to know who he is hiring, and the criminal has a right to a job...it does not work that way nor should it.
I am not saying the ex con should not get hired, I am saying the owner has the right to know who he is hiring, and you are an idiot if you think that is wrong
Fine, then make all crimes punishable by either death or life imprisonment. The way the system is set up now they will just end up back in jail anyway. Either that or they suck off the government tit for the rest of their life because they can't find anyone that will hire them. Either way, it gives Republicans a reason to expand government spending.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
I heard sociopaths are fairly nice people when you first meet them.JohnG@lt wrote:
I never said the criminal has a right to a job. I said he should be hired on the merits he shows to the employer. I guarantee you wouldn't recognize 99% of the people that have served time and if it's not noticeable in a job interview, why should it be brought up?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Is it cool if he hires a private investigator to take naked pictures of your wife as a prerequisite for employment? Ok with that?lowing wrote:
Because the owner has the right to know who works for him. He has the right to an informed decision on who he brings into his life and livelihood. He has the right to choose.JohnG@lt wrote:
I never said the criminal has a right to a job. I said he should be hired on the merits he shows to the employer. I guarantee you wouldn't recognize 99% of the people that have served time and if it's not noticeable in a job interview, why should it be brought up?lowing wrote:
No I don't. Ipay for it I have the right to bitch about it.
You are trying to tell me that a criminal has more rights than a law abiding citizen. THe store owner has no right to know who he is hiring, and the criminal has a right to a job...it does not work that way nor should it.
I am not saying the ex con should not get hired, I am saying the owner has the right to know who he is hiring, and you are an idiot if you think that is wrong
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
you're an idiot, and this post proves you have no real argument against what was posted.JohnG@lt wrote:
Is it cool if he hires a private investigator to take naked pictures of your wife as a prerequisite for employment? Ok with that?lowing wrote:
Because the owner has the right to know who works for him. He has the right to an informed decision on who he brings into his life and livelihood. He has the right to choose.JohnG@lt wrote:
I never said the criminal has a right to a job. I said he should be hired on the merits he shows to the employer. I guarantee you wouldn't recognize 99% of the people that have served time and if it's not noticeable in a job interview, why should it be brought up?
Last edited by lowing (2010-04-21 20:45:06)
No, I just have a firmer grasp on the argument than you do. You're talking about employer privilege to dig into a persons history and invade their privacy. You don't have a problem with this and are making every attempt to justify the invasion. I just took it to a reasonable extreme from which you recoiled.lowing wrote:
you're an idiot, and this post proves you have no real argument against what was posted.JohnG@lt wrote:
Is it cool if he hires a private investigator to take naked pictures of your wife as a prerequisite for employment? Ok with that?lowing wrote:
Because the owner has the right to know who works for him. He has the right to an informed decision on who he brings into his life and livelihood. He has the right to choose.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Galt that naked picture of wife thing made no sense at all. A persons criminal history may impact their job the curviness of their wife wouldn't.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, I just have a firmer grasp on the argument than you do. You're talking about employer privilege to dig into a persons history and invade their privacy. You don't have a problem with this and are making every attempt to justify the invasion. I just took it to a reasonable extreme from which you recoiled.lowing wrote:
you're an idiot, and this post proves you have no real argument against what was posted.JohnG@lt wrote:
Is it cool if he hires a private investigator to take naked pictures of your wife as a prerequisite for employment? Ok with that?
No you took it completely, and stupidly out of the realm of rational discussion within the context of the discussion. It made no sense and is a dumb fuck analogy.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, I just have a firmer grasp on the argument than you do. You're talking about employer privilege to dig into a persons history and invade their privacy. You don't have a problem with this and are making every attempt to justify the invasion. I just took it to a reasonable extreme from which you recoiled.lowing wrote:
you're an idiot, and this post proves you have no real argument against what was posted.JohnG@lt wrote:
Is it cool if he hires a private investigator to take naked pictures of your wife as a prerequisite for employment? Ok with that?
What if the job is at a PR firm and the wife will be arm candy and seen in photos? Reasonable then?Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Galt that naked picture of wife thing made no sense at all. A persons criminal history may impact their job the curviness of their wife wouldn't.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, I just have a firmer grasp on the argument than you do. You're talking about employer privilege to dig into a persons history and invade their privacy. You don't have a problem with this and are making every attempt to justify the invasion. I just took it to a reasonable extreme from which you recoiled.lowing wrote:
you're an idiot, and this post proves you have no real argument against what was posted.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat