There are times when we need to know about someone’s criminal past and times when we don't.
Do I want to know if the guy applying to be a middle school teacher has a rape charge on his record? Yeah, I do. Do I care if the guy applying to be an office administrator stole some beer when he was 19? Not really.
But the law never deals with things in moderation, it's only capable of making silly all sweeping judgements that fuck over whole swathes of people.
There are times when we need to know about someone’s criminal past and times when we don't.
Do I want to know if the guy applying to be a middle school teacher has a rape charge on his record? Yeah, I do. Do I care if the guy applying to be an office administrator stole some beer when he was 19? Not really.
But the law never deals with things in moderation, it's only capable of making silly all sweeping judgements that fuck over whole swathes of people.
Well in the UK and NZ at least, criminal record rehabilitation laws do allow what you seek, sorta
There are times when we need to know about someone’s criminal past and times when we don't.
Do I want to know if the guy applying to be a middle school teacher has a rape charge on his record? Yeah, I do. Do I care if the guy applying to be an office administrator stole some beer when he was 19? Not really.
But the law never deals with things in moderation, it's only capable of making silly all sweeping judgements that fuck over whole swathes of people.
Well in the UK and NZ at least, criminal record rehabilitation laws do allow what you seek, sorta
In the UK plenty of jobs ask you to state if you've ever been convicted of a crime, if you lie about it and they find out they're legally allowed to fire you for breach of contract.
There are times when we need to know about someone’s criminal past and times when we don't.
Do I want to know if the guy applying to be a middle school teacher has a rape charge on his record? Yeah, I do. Do I care if the guy applying to be an office administrator stole some beer when he was 19? Not really.
But the law never deals with things in moderation, it's only capable of making silly all sweeping judgements that fuck over whole swathes of people.
That sort of thinking is a pretty slippery slope...and an understandable one. I mean, you point out a very reasonable concern with a teacher that has a rape charge on their record, or a police officer that has been convicted of a violent crime in the past.
You can also make a legitimate case that - all other things being equal between two candidates, a trucking company would want to choose the guy without reckless / drunk driving charges on his record. The retail store will want to choose someone without a history of shoplifting. While some things like trucking can be dealt with in a regulatory fashion - such as the state refusing to issue a CDL to anyone with certain marks on their driving history, the law is normally a blunt instrument.
The law isn't a scalpel that can address every possible case. I don't see a straightforward solution to this problem that doesn't cause some legitimate concerns for employers in the ability to screen employees during the hiring process, while still protecting the rights of individuals convicted of past crimes. The best solution I can think of is allowing employers to ask questions about past criminal history, but having laws that expressively prohibit employers from excluding individuals for past criminal history, unless that criminal history is directly related to their position.
This won't prevent all discrimination, and in many cases employers will conveniently find other reasons to pass over individuals with criminal history. It will allow some means of recourse for people who are discriminated against, and force companies with those policies to defend them in a court of law. While not perfect it would be a big step in the right direction, and I believe the majority of employers would simply exclude that criteria from their hiring process to avoid litigation.
There are times when we need to know about someone’s criminal past and times when we don't.
Do I want to know if the guy applying to be a middle school teacher has a rape charge on his record? Yeah, I do. Do I care if the guy applying to be an office administrator stole some beer when he was 19? Not really.
But the law never deals with things in moderation, it's only capable of making silly all sweeping judgements that fuck over whole swathes of people.
Well in the UK and NZ at least, criminal record rehabilitation laws do allow what you seek, sorta
In the UK plenty of jobs ask you to state if you've ever been convicted of a crime, if you lie about it and they find out they're legally allowed to fire you for breach of contract.
Not necessarily. Most job types do not require such disclosure. The list is quite narrow and usually pretty obvious. So a doctor, person who works or cares for children/vulnerable adults, lawyer sure. Otherwise, not so much.
Plenty of employers ask all the same even where it may not be lawful. If they have no legal requirement to do so then eventually someone might make a claim. If not, then they get away with it.
There are times when we need to know about someone’s criminal past and times when we don't.
Do I want to know if the guy applying to be a middle school teacher has a rape charge on his record? Yeah, I do. Do I care if the guy applying to be an office administrator stole some beer when he was 19? Not really.
But the law never deals with things in moderation, it's only capable of making silly all sweeping judgements that fuck over whole swathes of people.
Well in the UK and NZ at least, criminal record rehabilitation laws do allow what you seek, sorta
In the UK plenty of jobs ask you to state if you've ever been convicted of a crime, if you lie about it and they find out they're legally allowed to fire you for breach of contract.
Not necessarily. Most job types do not require such disclosure. The list is quite narrow and usually pretty obvious. So a doctor, person who works or cares for children/vulnerable adults, lawyer sure. Otherwise, not so much.
Plenty of employers ask all the same even where it may not be lawful. If they have no legal requirement to do so then eventually someone might make a claim. If not, then they get away with it.
I know I'm about to use the bane of reasonable discourse here, but personally nearly every job application form I've ever filled out has a section for a criminal record.
I guess it depends what kind of job you're applying to. White collar stuff is less likely to ask because that's just submitting a CV and doing an interview, but anything you apply to with an application form, which is pretty much all retail/low wage work, they do tend to slip in a bit in the end about your record.
There are times when we need to know about someone’s criminal past and times when we don't.
Do I want to know if the guy applying to be a middle school teacher has a rape charge on his record? Yeah, I do. Do I care if the guy applying to be an office administrator stole some beer when he was 19? Not really.
But the law never deals with things in moderation, it's only capable of making silly all sweeping judgements that fuck over whole swathes of people.
That sort of thinking is a pretty slippery slope...and an understandable one. I mean, you point out a very reasonable concern with a teacher that has a rape charge on their record, or a police officer that has been convicted of a violent crime in the past.
You can also make a legitimate case that - all other things being equal between two candidates, a trucking company would want to choose the guy without reckless / drunk driving charges on his record. The retail store will want to choose someone without a history of shoplifting. While some things like trucking can be dealt with in a regulatory fashion - such as the state refusing to issue a CDL to anyone with certain marks on their driving history, the law is normally a blunt instrument.
The law isn't a scalpel that can address every possible case. I don't see a straightforward solution to this problem that doesn't cause some legitimate concerns for employers in the ability to screen employees during the hiring process, while still protecting the rights of individuals convicted of past crimes. The best solution I can think of is allowing employers to ask questions about past criminal history, but having laws that expressively prohibit employers from excluding individuals for past criminal history, unless that criminal history is directly related to their position.
This won't prevent all discrimination, and in many cases employers will conveniently find other reasons to pass over individuals with criminal history. It will allow some means of recourse for people who are discriminated against, and force companies with those policies to defend them in a court of law. While not perfect it would be a big step in the right direction, and I believe the majority of employers would simply exclude that criteria from their hiring process to avoid litigation.
The worst case scenario of hiring a rapist teacher is he rapes some kids, the worst case scenario of hiring a shop lifter to work in walmart is walmart loses a couple of bucks of stock before the idiot gets caught on camera and fired. They're not exactly comparable, we can afford to run the risk of not forcing people to disclose minor crimes in job interviews if it means that doing one stupid thing doesn't force people into criminal behaviour for the rest of their lives.
Every job I've worked - even white collar stuff - has at some point in the hiring process either had me fill out a full application with my job history, etc in addition to my resume / interview, or complete a short questionnaire that asks basic identity stuff, if I'm eligible to work in the US & a US citizen, and if I've been convicted of a crime.
Anecdotally, not every place will disqualify you for any conviction in your past. I've gotten several jobs (good ones) with a drunk driving conviction when I was 19, although granted that's very minor compared to what we're talking about here. Also anecdotally (friends with people who have done hiring all over), you're more likely to be rejected from a crappy / mediocre job than a good one simply based on criminal history because there is a larger pool of capable applicants for the crappier jobs.
I've always been of the opinion that other than for specific 'crime/job' combinations that once you leave prison that should be the end of it. An employer can't ask you about it. If youve been to prison you have been punished and 'rehabilitated' for your crime. You have no further debt to society. If society feels you still do, then they should apply a longer or harsher sentence.
If society feels that you can never pay back the debt of even a minor crime we should execute everyone found guilty of anything, and clearly not even the worst tea party geese want to do that.
I've always been of the opinion that other than for specific 'crime/job' combinations that once you leave prison that should be the end of it. An employer can't ask you about it. If youve been to prison you have been punished and 'rehabilitated' for your crime. You have no further debt to society. If society feels you still do, then they should apply a longer or harsher sentence.
If society feels that you can never pay back the debt of even a minor crime we should execute everyone found guilty of anything, and clearly not even the worst tea party geese want to do that.
But such a solution might lead to some people having the opportunity to be repeat offenders, unlike the current system where
I've always been of the opinion that other than for specific 'crime/job' combinations that once you leave prison that should be the end of it. An employer can't ask you about it. If youve been to prison you have been punished and 'rehabilitated' for your crime. You have no further debt to society. If society feels you still do, then they should apply a longer or harsher sentence.
If society feels that you can never pay back the debt of even a minor crime we should execute everyone found guilty of anything, and clearly not even the worst tea party geese want to do that.
This is something I would get behind if the goal of our prison system was actually rehabilitation. It's sad that prison reinforces corporations' justification for asking about criminal history even for minor crimes.
Even besides the public's-thirst-for-blood angle, the people running the prisons have no incentive to reduce recidivism either because hey, slave labor. They want to maximize your chances of fucking up after release, because they can't keep you there making fridges indefinitely (yet). So they do the next best thing, they use the people's complacency towards/approval of things as they are to lobby for policies that directly cause high recidivism which guarantees a healthy pool of slaves to choose from.
With the system as it is there is no other way this could have shaken out. The fuckers running this thing are doing the only logical thing from their perspective. It'd be hard to blame them if they weren't profiting on huge-scale injustice and misery and making the country less safe in the process.
There are times when we need to know about someone’s criminal past and times when we don't.
Do I want to know if the guy applying to be a middle school teacher has a rape charge on his record? Yeah, I do. Do I care if the guy applying to be an office administrator stole some beer when he was 19? Not really.
But the law never deals with things in moderation, it's only capable of making silly all sweeping judgements that fuck over whole swathes of people.
That sort of thinking is a pretty slippery slope...and an understandable one. I mean, you point out a very reasonable concern with a teacher that has a rape charge on their record, or a police officer that has been convicted of a violent crime in the past.
You can also make a legitimate case that - all other things being equal between two candidates, a trucking company would want to choose the guy without reckless / drunk driving charges on his record. The retail store will want to choose someone without a history of shoplifting. While some things like trucking can be dealt with in a regulatory fashion - such as the state refusing to issue a CDL to anyone with certain marks on their driving history, the law is normally a blunt instrument.
The law isn't a scalpel that can address every possible case. I don't see a straightforward solution to this problem that doesn't cause some legitimate concerns for employers in the ability to screen employees during the hiring process, while still protecting the rights of individuals convicted of past crimes. The best solution I can think of is allowing employers to ask questions about past criminal history, but having laws that expressively prohibit employers from excluding individuals for past criminal history, unless that criminal history is directly related to their position.
This won't prevent all discrimination, and in many cases employers will conveniently find other reasons to pass over individuals with criminal history. It will allow some means of recourse for people who are discriminated against, and force companies with those policies to defend them in a court of law. While not perfect it would be a big step in the right direction, and I believe the majority of employers would simply exclude that criteria from their hiring process to avoid litigation.
The worst case scenario of hiring a rapist teacher is he rapes some kids, the worst case scenario of hiring a shop lifter to work in walmart is walmart loses a couple of bucks of stock before the idiot gets caught on camera and fired. They're not exactly comparable, we can afford to run the risk of not forcing people to disclose minor crimes in job interviews if it means that doing one stupid thing doesn't force people into criminal behaviour for the rest of their lives.
Chances are every employee steals from walmart in some fashion thanks to the shit poor treatment and pay.
The easy thing to do with the issue posed by the question "have you been convicted of a crime?" on a job application, would be to ban the question for the hiring process, unless an employer can make a compelling case for needing to know that information. Incidentally, the state could also force employers to ask more nuanced questions instead of the simple "have you been convicted of a crime ever?"
For example, a school would instead ask "have you have been convicted of rape, sexual assault or pedophilia?" Since they could make a case that such individuals should not be working in a school environment. They don't need to know if someone shoplifted when they were 19 and they shouldn't be given the opportunity to fuck someone out of a job for such a mistake.
We have BFOQs for companies that want to narrow the potential applicants for a position into specific genders, beliefs, etc. For instance, Hooters gets to hire girls for its waitresses because that's the (dumb, imo) appeal of going to Hooters.
I would feel comfortable saying that a similar system, where you would need to show compelling evidence that needing to know someone's criminal history for a position is valid, is probably the way it needs to go.
The easy thing to do with the issue posed by the question "have you been convicted of a crime?" on a job application, would be to ban the question for the hiring process, unless an employer can make a compelling case for needing to know that information. Incidentally, the state could also force employers to ask more nuanced questions instead of the simple "have you been convicted of a crime ever?"
For example, a school would instead ask "have you have been convicted of rape, sexual assault or pedophilia?" Since they could make a case that such individuals should not be working in a school environment. They don't need to know if someone shoplifted when they were 19 and they shouldn't be given the opportunity to fuck someone out of a job for such a mistake.
California doesn't allow you ask that question on the initial job application or hiring form.
They may ask you after they've assessed your ability to do the job (for example, at the end of a job interview).
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
There are times when we need to know about someone’s criminal past and times when we don't.
Do I want to know if the guy applying to be a middle school teacher has a rape charge on his record? Yeah, I do. Do I care if the guy applying to be an office administrator stole some beer when he was 19? Not really.
But the law never deals with things in moderation, it's only capable of making silly all sweeping judgements that fuck over whole swathes of people.
Well in the UK and NZ at least, criminal record rehabilitation laws do allow what you seek, sorta
In the UK plenty of jobs ask you to state if you've ever been convicted of a crime, if you lie about it and they find out they're legally allowed to fire you for breach of contract.
Not necessarily. Most job types do not require such disclosure. The list is quite narrow and usually pretty obvious. So a doctor, person who works or cares for children/vulnerable adults, lawyer sure. Otherwise, not so much.
Plenty of employers ask all the same even where it may not be lawful. If they have no legal requirement to do so then eventually someone might make a claim. If not, then they get away with it.
I know I'm about to use the bane of reasonable discourse here, but personally nearly every job application form I've ever filled out has a section for a criminal record.
I guess it depends what kind of job you're applying to. White collar stuff is less likely to ask because that's just submitting a CV and doing an interview, but anything you apply to with an application form, which is pretty much all retail/low wage work, they do tend to slip in a bit in the end about your record.
Sure. Look, well the best thing to do would be to search on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, or check .Gov's guidance
Most states do have record expungement proceedings but their execution is execrable
What's funny is that in my state, you can get quite a few different crimes - including some violent crimes expunged five years after conviction.
But my Drunk Driving when I was 19? Fuck you, that's on your record forever. Better get used to checking 'Yes' in the 'Ever Convicted of a Crime' boxes on job applications. Doesn't matter if you have a perfect driving record and for over a decade after, and have never been accused of another crime...that's going to stick around forever.
Too bad I didn't just brandish a weapon or get convicted of a felony like grand larceny. Then I could have had my record expunged over five years ago.
Most states do have record expungement proceedings but their execution is execrable
What's funny is that in my state, you can get quite a few different crimes - including some violent crimes expunged five years after conviction.
But my Drunk Driving when I was 19? Fuck you, that's on your record forever. Better get used to checking 'Yes' in the 'Ever Convicted of a Crime' boxes on job applications. Doesn't matter if you have a perfect driving record and for over a decade after, and have never been accused of another crime...that's going to stick around forever.
Too bad I didn't just brandish a weapon or get convicted of a felony like grand larceny. Then I could have had my record expunged over five years ago.
Clearly you are more dangerous than the armed robber who stabbed a man.
I don't even feel comfortable sharing these forums with a monster like you.
Most states do have record expungement proceedings but their execution is execrable
What's funny is that in my state, you can get quite a few different crimes - including some violent crimes expunged five years after conviction.
But my Drunk Driving when I was 19? Fuck you, that's on your record forever. Better get used to checking 'Yes' in the 'Ever Convicted of a Crime' boxes on job applications. Doesn't matter if you have a perfect driving record and for over a decade after, and have never been accused of another crime...that's going to stick around forever.
Too bad I didn't just brandish a weapon or get convicted of a felony like grand larceny. Then I could have had my record expunged over five years ago.
Why exactly is it relevant that you are mothers who don't like drunk driving? And isn't it true that you're not an anti-drunk-driving organization so much as you're a neo-prohibitionist organization?
Most states do have record expungement proceedings but their execution is execrable
What's funny is that in my state, you can get quite a few different crimes - including some violent crimes expunged five years after conviction.
But my Drunk Driving when I was 19? Fuck you, that's on your record forever. Better get used to checking 'Yes' in the 'Ever Convicted of a Crime' boxes on job applications. Doesn't matter if you have a perfect driving record and for over a decade after, and have never been accused of another crime...that's going to stick around forever.
Too bad I didn't just brandish a weapon or get convicted of a felony like grand larceny. Then I could have had my record expunged over five years ago.
The question is, were you convicted, or did you plead out? I have an "Adjudication Withheld" on my DUI. Was never actually convicted of anything, did not plead guilty. Did you have a lawyer? Also, Florida only lets you expunge one thing. You don't get to take off a bunch of shit, so you better make it count. But the actual arrest and all that? On my record for 75 years. Basically forever, since I'll be dead before that goes away. Insurance never went up though, which really puzzled me until I just said "fuck it" and called it a mulligan.
Future biotechnology could be used to trick a prisoner's mind into thinking they have served a 1,000 year sentence, a group of scientists have claimed.
Philosopher Rebecca Roache is in charge of a team of scholars focused upon the ways futuristic technologies might transform punishment. Dr Roache claims the prison sentence of serious criminals could be made worse by extending their lives.
Speaking to Aeon magazine, Dr Roache said drugs could be developed to distort prisoners' minds into thinking time was passing more slowly.
So somebody sat there and thought, "Hm, our prison system is pretty awesome, but you know what it needs? To hurt people worse!"
The only reason you would ever do this is to hurt another human being. It doesn't make victims' families feel better (unless they're psychos who get off on vengeance), it doesn't make the public feel better, it just hurts someone for the sake of hurting them.
And again, what's the criteria for whether or not we break someone's mind by forcing them to serve a solitary confinement sentence for 1000 years in their mind? Because we've killed innocent people before. This would be worse.
Future biotechnology could be used to trick a prisoner's mind into thinking they have served a 1,000 year sentence, a group of scientists have claimed.
Philosopher Rebecca Roache is in charge of a team of scholars focused upon the ways futuristic technologies might transform punishment. Dr Roache claims the prison sentence of serious criminals could be made worse by extending their lives.
Speaking to Aeon magazine, Dr Roache said drugs could be developed to distort prisoners' minds into thinking time was passing more slowly.
So somebody sat there and thought, "Hm, our prison system is pretty awesome, but you know what it needs? To hurt people worse!"
The only reason you would ever do this is to hurt another human being. It doesn't make victims' families feel better (unless they're psychos who get off on vengeance), it doesn't make the public feel better, it just hurts someone for the sake of hurting them.
And again, what's the criteria for whether or not we break someone's mind by forcing them to serve a solitary confinement sentence for 1000 years in their mind? Because we've killed innocent people before. This would be worse.
I've seen this episode of The Outer Limits. It wound up with the scientist who created the machine destroying it.
This is one way you know that our punitive justice culture has gotten way out of hand. I don't know what it's going to take to convince people that we need to be going the other direction but this shit is just ridiculous.
EDIT: And yeah, these are just philosophers, but the fact that we're toying with the concept at all is scary.
Future biotechnology could be used to trick a prisoner's mind into thinking they have served a 1,000 year sentence, a group of scientists have claimed.
Philosopher Rebecca Roache is in charge of a team of scholars focused upon the ways futuristic technologies might transform punishment. Dr Roache claims the prison sentence of serious criminals could be made worse by extending their lives.
Speaking to Aeon magazine, Dr Roache said drugs could be developed to distort prisoners' minds into thinking time was passing more slowly.
So somebody sat there and thought, "Hm, our prison system is pretty awesome, but you know what it needs? To hurt people worse!"
The only reason you would ever do this is to hurt another human being. It doesn't make victims' families feel better (unless they're psychos who get off on vengeance), it doesn't make the public feel better, it just hurts someone for the sake of hurting them.
And again, what's the criteria for whether or not we break someone's mind by forcing them to serve a solitary confinement sentence for 1000 years in their mind? Because we've killed innocent people before. This would be worse.
I've seen this episode of The Outer Limits. It wound up with the scientist who created the machine destroying it.
A lot of good science fiction becomes science fact at some point. Maybe not in a 1:1 way, but who thought 50 years ago that we'd all be carrying Star Trek communicators around with us all the time?
i wouldn't really worry about this ever happening since, even if it did work and you could subject someone to that kind of treatment without breaking their mind, you'd never get pubic support for. convicted criminals are discriminated against after serving life sentences as it is. can you imagine the outrage if people saw them being freed after 8 hours? a sentence can't just be based on the prisoners perception of time but the public's/victim's too.
i wouldn't really worry about this ever happening since, even if it did work and you could subject someone to that kind of treatment without breaking their mind, you'd never get pubic support for. convicted criminals are discriminated against after serving life sentences as it is. can you imagine the outrage if people saw them being freed after 8 hours? a sentence can't just be based on the prisoners perception of time but the public's/victim's too.
We don't have any studies on what the psychological/physiological effects of long-term mind imprisonment are. I'd be willing to bet that a person would not be fit for release after that kind of trauma, though.
This theoretical punishment does not rehabilitate. It punishes exclusively. After being convinced mentally that I had been imprisoned for 1,000 years, I'd be pissed and probably closer to the mindset of a rabid dog than an actual person.
If this became an actual thing in the future, it would not be an "8 hours later and you've paid your debt to society; welcome back, citizen" situation. It would be a "you are sentenced to torture for the rest of your life" situation.
I mean the exercise was flawed from the moment it started. "How can we punish someone worse than any other punishment?" is not a question that really ever needs to be answered.
Fuck, look at the example she gave of a person who came close to destroying the world. Is that a person I don't want around any science equipment? Yep. Do I give a shit if Dr. Doom is experiencing an eternity in the Phantom Zone? Not really, no. Punishing this mad genius is way less important than making sure they aren't endangering anyone.
i wouldn't really worry about this ever happening since, even if it did work and you could subject someone to that kind of treatment without breaking their mind, you'd never get pubic support for. convicted criminals are discriminated against after serving life sentences as it is. can you imagine the outrage if people saw them being freed after 8 hours? a sentence can't just be based on the prisoners perception of time but the public's/victim's too.
We don't have any studies on what the psychological/physiological effects of long-term mind imprisonment are. I'd be willing to bet that a person would not be fit for release after that kind of trauma, though.
This theoretical punishment does not rehabilitate. It punishes exclusively. After being convinced mentally that I had been imprisoned for 1,000 years, I'd be pissed and probably closer to the mindset of a rabid dog than an actual person.
If this became an actual thing in the future, it would not be an "8 hours later and you've paid your debt to society; welcome back, citizen" situation. It would be a "you are sentenced to torture for the rest of your life" situation.
existing in that manner it wouldn't be used as it'd be considered 'cruel and unusual'. in order for it to be a viable means of incarceration/punishment then you have to assume that there will minimum adverse effects, mental or otherwise. once you're at that point, what do you think would be more of a deterrent, death or the idea that you could be forced to live 10+ lifetimes locked away from the world and from your friends and family, all within the space of a single day.
i'm not arguing in favour of such a system, and don't think it would get much support even if we did have the tech available but i think that perhaps you're looking at it from the wrong angle. hell, i'd imagine it'd take longer for someone incarcerated in such a fashion to readjust to freedom, leading to them being essentially imprisoned in a more traditional sense anyway.
You're right, and it will probably never happen (at least not in a state-sponsored way). I guess I'm more than a little jaded about the number of people out there who would support this sort of punishment for certain offenders, and wouldn't consider it cruel and unusual. We've already got the folks who say things like, "Death's too good for 'em", "It's too bad they can't literally serve out every one of those life sentences," etc.
You're right, and it will probably never happen (at least not in a state-sponsored way). I guess I'm more than a little jaded about the number of people out there who would support this sort of punishment for certain offenders, and wouldn't consider it cruel and unusual. We've already got the folks who say things like, "Death's too good for 'em", "It's too bad they can't literally serve out every one of those life sentences," etc.
oh i'm well aware of those people, but i do think they'd change their tune when the person in question serves that time in less than 24 hours. they'll be crying out for the old system then or a combination of both. keep someone locked up for the rest of their life while forcing them to endure 1000 years of incarcerating every day. now that is a terrifying prospect.
If we suppose some sort of rehabilitative and/or deterrent effect of imprisonment, you could effectively punish someone without totally ruining their life. The worst part of, say, a two-year imprisonment is that a lot of your place in the world is going to vanish by the time you get out. Your job will be gone, your girlfriend or wife might be gone, any skills you have might have atrophied, and you basically have to start your life over again in many ways. So it seems like this could be a neat way of actually making imprisonment more just and less damaging.
And they mention that at the end of the article.
Except the first 3/4 is all about, "Yeah, we could really fuck up somebody with this tech, isn't that awesome?" Which is really disgusting. This is basically ham-fisted comic book dystopia bullshit made real. (Or hypothetically real.)
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
If we suppose some sort of rehabilitative and/or deterrent effect of imprisonment, you could effectively punish someone without totally ruining their life. The worst part of, say, a two-year imprisonment is that a lot of your place in the world is going to vanish by the time you get out. Your job will be gone, your girlfriend or wife might be gone, any skills you have might have atrophied, and you basically have to start your life over again in many ways. So it seems like this could be a neat way of actually making imprisonment more just and less damaging.
And they mention that at the end of the article.
Except the first 3/4 is all about, "Yeah, we could really fuck up somebody with this tech, isn't that awesome?" Which is really disgusting. This is basically ham-fisted comic book dystopia bullshit made real. (Or hypothetically real.)
Not sure how much you can really rehabilitate someone you're required to keep in some kind of drug-induced haze. I guess there's not a whole lot you can figure out without some hard details on how this stuff would work.
The only way I would consider it worthwhile would be if someone could experience their punishment in a way that allowed the punished to be rehabilitated.
For example, say you're stupid and commit assault. As it stands now you're in prison for 10 years, and when you get out you're ten years older with all of the difficulties that entails.
Using this new technology, your 10 year sentence might feel like ten years to you, but when you wake up it's been a couple of days, maybe a week. You get the memories of the punishment, and you can move on with your life.
Posts
Do I want to know if the guy applying to be a middle school teacher has a rape charge on his record? Yeah, I do. Do I care if the guy applying to be an office administrator stole some beer when he was 19? Not really.
But the law never deals with things in moderation, it's only capable of making silly all sweeping judgements that fuck over whole swathes of people.
Well in the UK and NZ at least, criminal record rehabilitation laws do allow what you seek, sorta
In the UK plenty of jobs ask you to state if you've ever been convicted of a crime, if you lie about it and they find out they're legally allowed to fire you for breach of contract.
That sort of thinking is a pretty slippery slope...and an understandable one. I mean, you point out a very reasonable concern with a teacher that has a rape charge on their record, or a police officer that has been convicted of a violent crime in the past.
You can also make a legitimate case that - all other things being equal between two candidates, a trucking company would want to choose the guy without reckless / drunk driving charges on his record. The retail store will want to choose someone without a history of shoplifting. While some things like trucking can be dealt with in a regulatory fashion - such as the state refusing to issue a CDL to anyone with certain marks on their driving history, the law is normally a blunt instrument.
The law isn't a scalpel that can address every possible case. I don't see a straightforward solution to this problem that doesn't cause some legitimate concerns for employers in the ability to screen employees during the hiring process, while still protecting the rights of individuals convicted of past crimes. The best solution I can think of is allowing employers to ask questions about past criminal history, but having laws that expressively prohibit employers from excluding individuals for past criminal history, unless that criminal history is directly related to their position.
This won't prevent all discrimination, and in many cases employers will conveniently find other reasons to pass over individuals with criminal history. It will allow some means of recourse for people who are discriminated against, and force companies with those policies to defend them in a court of law. While not perfect it would be a big step in the right direction, and I believe the majority of employers would simply exclude that criteria from their hiring process to avoid litigation.
Not necessarily. Most job types do not require such disclosure. The list is quite narrow and usually pretty obvious. So a doctor, person who works or cares for children/vulnerable adults, lawyer sure. Otherwise, not so much.
Plenty of employers ask all the same even where it may not be lawful. If they have no legal requirement to do so then eventually someone might make a claim. If not, then they get away with it.
I know I'm about to use the bane of reasonable discourse here, but personally nearly every job application form I've ever filled out has a section for a criminal record.
I guess it depends what kind of job you're applying to. White collar stuff is less likely to ask because that's just submitting a CV and doing an interview, but anything you apply to with an application form, which is pretty much all retail/low wage work, they do tend to slip in a bit in the end about your record.
The worst case scenario of hiring a rapist teacher is he rapes some kids, the worst case scenario of hiring a shop lifter to work in walmart is walmart loses a couple of bucks of stock before the idiot gets caught on camera and fired. They're not exactly comparable, we can afford to run the risk of not forcing people to disclose minor crimes in job interviews if it means that doing one stupid thing doesn't force people into criminal behaviour for the rest of their lives.
Anecdotally, not every place will disqualify you for any conviction in your past. I've gotten several jobs (good ones) with a drunk driving conviction when I was 19, although granted that's very minor compared to what we're talking about here. Also anecdotally (friends with people who have done hiring all over), you're more likely to be rejected from a crappy / mediocre job than a good one simply based on criminal history because there is a larger pool of capable applicants for the crappier jobs.
If society feels that you can never pay back the debt of even a minor crime we should execute everyone found guilty of anything, and clearly not even the worst tea party geese want to do that.
But such a solution might lead to some people having the opportunity to be repeat offenders, unlike the current system where
Wait, hmmm
This is something I would get behind if the goal of our prison system was actually rehabilitation. It's sad that prison reinforces corporations' justification for asking about criminal history even for minor crimes.
With the system as it is there is no other way this could have shaken out. The fuckers running this thing are doing the only logical thing from their perspective. It'd be hard to blame them if they weren't profiting on huge-scale injustice and misery and making the country less safe in the process.
hitting hot metal with hammers
Chances are every employee steals from walmart in some fashion thanks to the shit poor treatment and pay.
But that's probably a whole different thread.
For example, a school would instead ask "have you have been convicted of rape, sexual assault or pedophilia?" Since they could make a case that such individuals should not be working in a school environment. They don't need to know if someone shoplifted when they were 19 and they shouldn't be given the opportunity to fuck someone out of a job for such a mistake.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I would feel comfortable saying that a similar system, where you would need to show compelling evidence that needing to know someone's criminal history for a position is valid, is probably the way it needs to go.
California doesn't allow you ask that question on the initial job application or hiring form.
They may ask you after they've assessed your ability to do the job (for example, at the end of a job interview).
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Sure. Look, well the best thing to do would be to search on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, or check .Gov's guidance
Here is a briefer from a CAB branch too
http://www.thevillage.org.uk/spentconvictions.htm
I host a podcast about movies.
What's funny is that in my state, you can get quite a few different crimes - including some violent crimes expunged five years after conviction.
But my Drunk Driving when I was 19? Fuck you, that's on your record forever. Better get used to checking 'Yes' in the 'Ever Convicted of a Crime' boxes on job applications. Doesn't matter if you have a perfect driving record and for over a decade after, and have never been accused of another crime...that's going to stick around forever.
Too bad I didn't just brandish a weapon or get convicted of a felony like grand larceny. Then I could have had my record expunged over five years ago.
Clearly you are more dangerous than the armed robber who stabbed a man.
I don't even feel comfortable sharing these forums with a monster like you.
This is an example of why MADD needs to die.
Why exactly is it relevant that you are mothers who don't like drunk driving? And isn't it true that you're not an anti-drunk-driving organization so much as you're a neo-prohibitionist organization?
hitting hot metal with hammers
The question is, were you convicted, or did you plead out? I have an "Adjudication Withheld" on my DUI. Was never actually convicted of anything, did not plead guilty. Did you have a lawyer? Also, Florida only lets you expunge one thing. You don't get to take off a bunch of shit, so you better make it count. But the actual arrest and all that? On my record for 75 years. Basically forever, since I'll be dead before that goes away. Insurance never went up though, which really puzzled me until I just said "fuck it" and called it a mulligan.
So somebody sat there and thought, "Hm, our prison system is pretty awesome, but you know what it needs? To hurt people worse!"
The only reason you would ever do this is to hurt another human being. It doesn't make victims' families feel better (unless they're psychos who get off on vengeance), it doesn't make the public feel better, it just hurts someone for the sake of hurting them.
And again, what's the criteria for whether or not we break someone's mind by forcing them to serve a solitary confinement sentence for 1000 years in their mind? Because we've killed innocent people before. This would be worse.
I need you to literally go find a fate worse than death."
I've seen this episode of The Outer Limits. It wound up with the scientist who created the machine destroying it.
EDIT: And yeah, these are just philosophers, but the fact that we're toying with the concept at all is scary.
A lot of good science fiction becomes science fact at some point. Maybe not in a 1:1 way, but who thought 50 years ago that we'd all be carrying Star Trek communicators around with us all the time?
We don't have any studies on what the psychological/physiological effects of long-term mind imprisonment are. I'd be willing to bet that a person would not be fit for release after that kind of trauma, though.
This theoretical punishment does not rehabilitate. It punishes exclusively. After being convinced mentally that I had been imprisoned for 1,000 years, I'd be pissed and probably closer to the mindset of a rabid dog than an actual person.
If this became an actual thing in the future, it would not be an "8 hours later and you've paid your debt to society; welcome back, citizen" situation. It would be a "you are sentenced to torture for the rest of your life" situation.
Fuck, look at the example she gave of a person who came close to destroying the world. Is that a person I don't want around any science equipment? Yep. Do I give a shit if Dr. Doom is experiencing an eternity in the Phantom Zone? Not really, no. Punishing this mad genius is way less important than making sure they aren't endangering anyone.
existing in that manner it wouldn't be used as it'd be considered 'cruel and unusual'. in order for it to be a viable means of incarceration/punishment then you have to assume that there will minimum adverse effects, mental or otherwise. once you're at that point, what do you think would be more of a deterrent, death or the idea that you could be forced to live 10+ lifetimes locked away from the world and from your friends and family, all within the space of a single day.
i'm not arguing in favour of such a system, and don't think it would get much support even if we did have the tech available but i think that perhaps you're looking at it from the wrong angle. hell, i'd imagine it'd take longer for someone incarcerated in such a fashion to readjust to freedom, leading to them being essentially imprisoned in a more traditional sense anyway.
oh i'm well aware of those people, but i do think they'd change their tune when the person in question serves that time in less than 24 hours. they'll be crying out for the old system then or a combination of both. keep someone locked up for the rest of their life while forcing them to endure 1000 years of incarcerating every day. now that is a terrifying prospect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jaunt
It ... it doesn't go well.
If we suppose some sort of rehabilitative and/or deterrent effect of imprisonment, you could effectively punish someone without totally ruining their life. The worst part of, say, a two-year imprisonment is that a lot of your place in the world is going to vanish by the time you get out. Your job will be gone, your girlfriend or wife might be gone, any skills you have might have atrophied, and you basically have to start your life over again in many ways. So it seems like this could be a neat way of actually making imprisonment more just and less damaging.
And they mention that at the end of the article.
Except the first 3/4 is all about, "Yeah, we could really fuck up somebody with this tech, isn't that awesome?" Which is really disgusting. This is basically ham-fisted comic book dystopia bullshit made real. (Or hypothetically real.)
Not sure how much you can really rehabilitate someone you're required to keep in some kind of drug-induced haze. I guess there's not a whole lot you can figure out without some hard details on how this stuff would work.
For example, say you're stupid and commit assault. As it stands now you're in prison for 10 years, and when you get out you're ten years older with all of the difficulties that entails.
Using this new technology, your 10 year sentence might feel like ten years to you, but when you wake up it's been a couple of days, maybe a week. You get the memories of the punishment, and you can move on with your life.