Yeah that sounds pretty bad. Seems like his issue more that he avoided the consequences that society and our government has decided for that crime due to his status and wealth, which is a much larger problem. That is a bit different from someone being sentenced appropriately and serving out that sentence then being unable to lead a normal life due to systemic problems, both regulatory and within broader society, that essentially make that crime impossible to move forward from.
This is a deeply unsatisfactory response. Turner may have avoided the consequences that "society" has decided for sexual assault, but he didn't avoid the consequences that government established. It's not like his sentence departed from any statutory or common-law requirements/expectations; it was imposed by a judge in accordance with the accepted principles, and he served the term in accordance with the rules about incarceration and release. You talk about "someone being sentenced appropriately" as though that is a thing that actually happens or is even possible in the first place. For any given crime and conviction, there will be a wide range of opinions about an appropriate sentence. Former MMA fighter Jon Koppenhaver/War Machine was recently sentenced to life in prison with an opportunity for parole in 36 years after torturing his ex. Some people think that's a reasonable sentence, some people think it's too harsh and he should be able to get out when he's closer to 50 than 70.
And I still don't understand why just spending a prescribed amount of time in a cell means that individuals should accept that someone has changed in a way that means they are less likely to do the thing that got them in trouble in the first place. It's certainly possible that someone would come out of jail reformed and completely trustworthy, but the system isn't set up to generate that outcome, why pretend that it is?
Yeah that sounds pretty bad. Seems like his issue more that he avoided the consequences that society and our government has decided for that crime due to his status and wealth, which is a much larger problem. That is a bit different from someone being sentenced appropriately and serving out that sentence then being unable to lead a normal life due to systemic problems, both regulatory and within broader society, that essentially make that crime impossible to move forward from.
This is a deeply unsatisfactory response. Turner may have avoided the consequences that "society" has decided for sexual assault, but he didn't avoid the consequences that government established. It's not like his sentence departed from any statutory or common-law requirements/expectations; it was imposed by a judge in accordance with the accepted principles, and he served the term in accordance with the rules about incarceration and release. You talk about "someone being sentenced appropriately" as though that is a thing that actually happens or is even possible in the first place. For any given crime and conviction, there will be a wide range of opinions about an appropriate sentence. Former MMA fighter Jon Koppenhaver/War Machine was recently sentenced to life in prison with an opportunity for parole in 36 years after torturing his ex. Some people think that's a reasonable sentence, some people think it's too harsh and he should be able to get out when he's closer to 50 than 70.
And I still don't understand why just spending a prescribed amount of time in a cell means that individuals should accept that someone has changed in a way that means they are less likely to do the thing that got them in trouble in the first place. It's certainly possible that someone would come out of jail reformed and completely trustworthy, but the system isn't set up to generate that outcome, why pretend that it is?
The reason that people say that he wasn't sentenced appropriately was because he got a sweetheart deal from a judge that turns out to have a checkered history when it comes to the prosecution of sexual assault and rape. Yes, Turner did technically serve his sentence as per the government, but there's a strong feeling that the government handled him with kid gloves.
And I still don't understand why just spending a prescribed amount of time in a cell means that individuals should accept that someone has changed in a way that means they are less likely to do the thing that got them in trouble in the first place. It's certainly possible that someone would come out of jail reformed and completely trustworthy, but the system isn't set up to generate that outcome, why pretend that it is?
That's possibly a good point in the US system, because it is not designed for rehabilitation, it's designed mostly for punishment.
If your system of justice is designed for rehabilitation, then what you said is basically the whole point. They go through the process which is designed to end when they are in a condition where recidivism is very unlikely.
It's part of why I personally want to basically reform the prison/justice system in the US completely to start doing something that helps people, instead of hurting people for the sake of "revenge" and "punishment". But overall there's not a lot of political will to even start talking about that from what I can see.
And I still don't understand why just spending a prescribed amount of time in a cell means that individuals should accept that someone has changed in a way that means they are less likely to do the thing that got them in trouble in the first place. It's certainly possible that someone would come out of jail reformed and completely trustworthy, but the system isn't set up to generate that outcome, why pretend that it is?
Here's a story from my state that has a couple angles to it, seems relevant for this thread. The number one pitcher on the number one-ranked college baseball team has had his juvenile sex offense conviction reported on by the Oregonian.
Luke Heimlich sex crime surfaces as Oregon State baseball nears College World Series
As a teenager, Heimlich pleaded guilty to a single charge of sexually molesting a 6-year-old female family member. Heimlich registered as a sex offender in Benton County after arriving at Oregon State. When he was cited in April for missing an annual update, it put the case in Oregon court records for the first time.
OSU's top pitcher was 15 years old when the crime occurred in his family's home in Puyallup, Washington, according to court documents obtained last week by The Oregonian/OregonLive through a public records request. Juvenile court records in Washington, unlike in Oregon, are not automatically confidential.
Follow up from today: Luke Heimlich will not pitch Friday for Oregon State in NCAA baseball super regionals
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
I feel that forgiving felons their crimes is important specifically because of how difficult it is.
But I also think it's absolutely, positively, 100% necessary to do in a society that lets felons come out of imprisonment and back into society.
Luke Heimlich did something horrible 5 years ago. Luke Heimlich has subsequently accepted guilt, stuck to the terms of his probation and avoided jail time specifically by seeking rehabilitation. As a result, he's been assessed by the state as being at low risk of offending again.
It's not easy for someone to forgive a man who probably ruined someone else's life. But I don't think that punishing him further is going to help the victim either.
This is a story of rehabilitation gone right and some people are trying to spin it into a miscarriage of justice.
Your comments on forgiveness are interesting. I have always thought about forgiveness as something between a perpetrator and the people actually affected. I don't think it's for those of us who were never involved to weigh in on.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
As a society we've agreed on a justice system. If the system is not satisfactory we should reform it, but we should in the meantime still abide by it. That includes accepting that those who leave the system have paid their debt.
As a society we've agreed on a justice system. If the system is not satisfactory we should reform it, but we should in the meantime still abide by it. That includes accepting that those who leave the system have paid their debt.
That's just it, though. Far too many people are of the mindset that any consequences that derive from being a convicted felon is the fault of the person for committing the felony, not the system.
I have been told, multiple times, to my face, "Well they should have thought of that before doing X" when I bring up things like lifetime voter disenfranchisement, or the inability to get a job.
Your comments on forgiveness are interesting. I have always thought about forgiveness as something between a perpetrator and the people actually affected. I don't think it's for those of us who were never involved to weigh in on.
I mean, perpetrators and victims aren't in a vacuum. The case SiG posted is a great example of a lot of people feeling like Luke Heimlich should still be considered a criminal and, as such, should not be allowed a normal life.
The forgiveness society has to give is not the same kind as the forgiveness victims would give.
Such a weird intersection of justice becoming revenge and apathy letting it happen.
I'd be fine if they updated the legal terminology and perhaps re-drafted the types of felonies and such to include high-risk recidivism crime to have additional monitoring requirements. In practice that should be what parole is for, but it really isn't. People on parole may as well be indentured servants with the abuses and lack of agency they have in their day to day lives. It's not rehabilitation to chain a dog to a tree and beat them every day and then one day let them loose and wonder why they bit someone. There has to be something better than a non-zero chance for someone to succeed after serving a sentence or meeting the legal criteria of justice done.
I feel that forgiving felons their crimes is important specifically because of how difficult it is.
But I also think it's absolutely, positively, 100% necessary to do in a society that lets felons come out of imprisonment and back into society.
Luke Heimlich did something horrible 5 years ago. Luke Heimlich has subsequently accepted guilt, stuck to the terms of his probation and avoided jail time specifically by seeking rehabilitation. As a result, he's been assessed by the state as being at low risk of offending again.
It's not easy for someone to forgive a man who probably ruined someone else's life. But I don't think that punishing him further is going to help the victim either.
This is a story of rehabilitation gone right and some people are trying to spin it into a miscarriage of justice.
I think we all need more forgiveness in society.
And "sex offender" as a label has grown into one of the worst examples of the flaws with the system too. The category has grown beyond reason, and you end up with things like indefinite incarceration beyond the sentence and shit.
I feel that forgiving felons their crimes is important specifically because of how difficult it is.
But I also think it's absolutely, positively, 100% necessary to do in a society that lets felons come out of imprisonment and back into society.
Luke Heimlich did something horrible 5 years ago. Luke Heimlich has subsequently accepted guilt, stuck to the terms of his probation and avoided jail time specifically by seeking rehabilitation. As a result, he's been assessed by the state as being at low risk of offending again.
It's not easy for someone to forgive a man who probably ruined someone else's life. But I don't think that punishing him further is going to help the victim either.
This is a story of rehabilitation gone right and some people are trying to spin it into a miscarriage of justice.
I think we all need more forgiveness in society.
And "sex offender" as a label has grown into one of the worst examples of the flaws with the system too. The category has grown beyond reason, and you end up with things like indefinite incarceration beyond the sentence and shit.
Which I think is acerbated by these not being normal crimes, I'm generally pro-rehabilitation but I think that certain sexual crimes might be a special case. Not just because they are especially heinous, but some I think do stem from people being "broken" - I don't think that some of these people can be rehabilitated any more than someone who's gay. If this is the case, and I don't know if it is, then I think we need to expand how they fit into society on release - definitely need more definition between crimes that'd get you on the register. Can't be a useful tool if it's too broad, and the harm it can cause is horrendous.
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
I feel that forgiving felons their crimes is important specifically because of how difficult it is.
But I also think it's absolutely, positively, 100% necessary to do in a society that lets felons come out of imprisonment and back into society.
Luke Heimlich did something horrible 5 years ago. Luke Heimlich has subsequently accepted guilt, stuck to the terms of his probation and avoided jail time specifically by seeking rehabilitation. As a result, he's been assessed by the state as being at low risk of offending again.
It's not easy for someone to forgive a man who probably ruined someone else's life. But I don't think that punishing him further is going to help the victim either.
This is a story of rehabilitation gone right and some people are trying to spin it into a miscarriage of justice.
I think we all need more forgiveness in society.
And "sex offender" as a label has grown into one of the worst examples of the flaws with the system too. The category has grown beyond reason, and you end up with things like indefinite incarceration beyond the sentence and shit.
Which I think is acerbated by these not being normal crimes, I'm generally pro-rehabilitation but I think that certain sexual crimes might be a special case. Not just because they are especially heinous, but some I think do stem from people being "broken" - I don't think that some of these people can be rehabilitated any more than someone who's gay. If this is the case, and I don't know if it is, then I think we need to expand how they fit into society on release - definitely need more definition between crimes that'd get you on the register. Can't be a useful tool if it's too broad, and the harm it can cause is horrendous.
So, here's the big question. What should society do with them, then? This is something no one wants to touch with a ten foot pole.
I mean, if they cannot be rehabilitated (which, honestly, we could know if studies about it weren't taboo), what should we do about those who offended? Should they be kept behind bars for life? And what about those who have not offended yet but are aware of their condition and seek help. As it stands, they have no recourse and basically are just told "come back after you've committed a crime", which is pretty monstrous for everyone involved.
It dawned on me that class issues have also likely led to our justice system be terrible, on top of the shitty bigotry and many people looking for an excuse to justify treating someone like shit as well. I'm wondering how many people that push for harsher penalties have heard or witness a well to do asshole leverage their wealth to get the kids glove treatment. So they get mad because they perceive the system as not working and push for harsher penalties that end up screwing over people that aren't wealthy, while the rich continue to use their wealth to weasel out of facing the proper consequences.
That said their is also a fair bit of bigotry involved and many people just being assholes, looking for an excuse to justify it. Factoring in how arrests and convictions disproportionately hit minorities, some of the mindset behind never forgiving is bigotry and trying to find ways to keep those groups down. It's why I greatly dislike the concept of removing one's right to vote and why I feel that should be limited to some very specific crimes (voter fraud, treason, tampering with votes and threats of violence to achieve a political goal be that suppressing the vote or scaring away people that run against their preferred candidate). Right now it's too easy for people to be shits towards other groups, make a bullshit law or use bullshit approaches to silence a group.
On that note, we then get to some just looking for an excuse to be an asshole to others without negative consequences for their actions. Going to the OP, I suspect a fair bit of the bellyaching Karla Holomka has little to do with people being afraid that she was convicted for murder and just assholes looking for an excuse to treat others like shit. This is a big reason why I don't like tough on crime approaches. These approaches don't make society better, they don't fix problems and are just a mean spirited farce that pretends to be justice (especially, galling when it's someone that belongs to a faith that stresses forgiveness and they go on and on about what a great follower of their faith they are).
I feel that forgiving felons their crimes is important specifically because of how difficult it is.
But I also think it's absolutely, positively, 100% necessary to do in a society that lets felons come out of imprisonment and back into society.
Luke Heimlich did something horrible 5 years ago. Luke Heimlich has subsequently accepted guilt, stuck to the terms of his probation and avoided jail time specifically by seeking rehabilitation. As a result, he's been assessed by the state as being at low risk of offending again.
It's not easy for someone to forgive a man who probably ruined someone else's life. But I don't think that punishing him further is going to help the victim either.
This is a story of rehabilitation gone right and some people are trying to spin it into a miscarriage of justice.
I think we all need more forgiveness in society.
And "sex offender" as a label has grown into one of the worst examples of the flaws with the system too. The category has grown beyond reason, and you end up with things like indefinite incarceration beyond the sentence and shit.
Which I think is acerbated by these not being normal crimes, I'm generally pro-rehabilitation but I think that certain sexual crimes might be a special case. Not just because they are especially heinous, but some I think do stem from people being "broken" - I don't think that some of these people can be rehabilitated any more than someone who's gay. If this is the case, and I don't know if it is, then I think we need to expand how they fit into society on release - definitely need more definition between crimes that'd get you on the register. Can't be a useful tool if it's too broad, and the harm it can cause is horrendous.
So, here's the big question. What should society do with them, then? This is something no one wants to touch with a ten foot pole.
I mean, if they cannot be rehabilitated (which, honestly, we could know if studies about it weren't taboo), what should we do about those who offended? Should they be kept behind bars for life? And what about those who have not offended yet but are aware of their condition and seek help. As it stands, they have no recourse and basically are just told "come back after you've committed a crime", which is pretty monstrous for everyone involved.
There are cases of sex offenders asking to be essentially chemically castrated as a part of their plea for parole. Many become aware they're not normal and don't actually want to keep harming others. I don't know how common it is, but it is a thing. The hormones they take to end their sex drive aren't risk free and you can't make someone undergo medical procedures against their wishes.
I think perhaps depending on the offender, it's a mental health issue. Which is another completely fucked part of our care funnel back into profit prisons. It really is depressing and sometimes I think execution would at least have the excuse of being humane.
Sex offenders in general have lower recidivism rates than other types of criminals.
When sex offenders do reoffend, they are more likely to reoffend with non-sexual crimes. This is largely driven by how post-release restrictions (background checks, residency restrictions, Megan's Law) make it virtually impossible for many sex offenders to lead even normal-ish lives.
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.
Sex offenders in general have lower recidivism rates than other types of criminals.
When sex offenders do reoffend, they are more likely to reoffend with non-sexual crimes. This is largely driven by how post-release restrictions (background checks, residency restrictions, Megan's Law) make it virtually impossible for many sex offenders to lead even normal-ish lives.
The notion of what constitutes a sexual offense has become really askew too. There are some really awful human rights violations surrounding the racist implementation of some statutory rape laws in the south and elsewhere.
It's really unfortunate and twisted that any mention of addressing crime as an economic or social issue gets a politician the soft on crime label. It's basically a death sentence for a career.
Anyone recall what happened after the Anders sentence for the 2011 shootings in Norway? Americans lost their shit because he wasn't put to death immediately. We're a violent society which places more value on making others suffer and revenge than rehabilitation and justice and that won't change anytime soon.
I feel that forgiving felons their crimes is important specifically because of how difficult it is.
But I also think it's absolutely, positively, 100% necessary to do in a society that lets felons come out of imprisonment and back into society.
Luke Heimlich did something horrible 5 years ago. Luke Heimlich has subsequently accepted guilt, stuck to the terms of his probation and avoided jail time specifically by seeking rehabilitation. As a result, he's been assessed by the state as being at low risk of offending again.
It's not easy for someone to forgive a man who probably ruined someone else's life. But I don't think that punishing him further is going to help the victim either.
This is a story of rehabilitation gone right and some people are trying to spin it into a miscarriage of justice.
I think we all need more forgiveness in society.
And "sex offender" as a label has grown into one of the worst examples of the flaws with the system too. The category has grown beyond reason, and you end up with things like indefinite incarceration beyond the sentence and shit.
Which I think is acerbated by these not being normal crimes, I'm generally pro-rehabilitation but I think that certain sexual crimes might be a special case. Not just because they are especially heinous, but some I think do stem from people being "broken" - I don't think that some of these people can be rehabilitated any more than someone who's gay. If this is the case, and I don't know if it is, then I think we need to expand how they fit into society on release - definitely need more definition between crimes that'd get you on the register. Can't be a useful tool if it's too broad, and the harm it can cause is horrendous.
So, here's the big question. What should society do with them, then? This is something no one wants to touch with a ten foot pole.
I mean, if they cannot be rehabilitated (which, honestly, we could know if studies about it weren't taboo), what should we do about those who offended? Should they be kept behind bars for life? And what about those who have not offended yet but are aware of their condition and seek help. As it stands, they have no recourse and basically are just told "come back after you've committed a crime", which is pretty monstrous for everyone involved.
I've no idea, I think understanding the problem has to be the first step as I don't even know what kind of options exist at the moment. I've seen some write ups of support groups for young paedophiles who've become aware of where feelings lie and have looked for some kind of support system to help them from offending and seen the Louie Theroux documentary on the prisons where convicted child abusers voluntarily (I think) commit themselves to having completed their sentence but in both cases they make it clear that this isn't a proper solution.
Sex offenders in general have lower recidivism rates than other types of criminals.
When sex offenders do reoffend, they are more likely to reoffend with non-sexual crimes. This is largely driven by how post-release restrictions (background checks, residency restrictions, Megan's Law) make it virtually impossible for many sex offenders to lead even normal-ish lives.
I think that's a valid point, but at the same time, it's hard to be that rational when it comes to your own loved ones.
Like, do I want the government to punish a sex offender forever and preclude any chance of returning to a normal life? Not at all. If i found out that the guy who was going to drive my kids on a field trip had murdered some kids twenty years ago, would i be cool with this? Oh fuck no, and it doesn't matter how fully they've served their sentence. In the abstract, they should be given the chance to move on from their past. And i don't necessarily think they should have their past broadcast everywhere they go, because that makes it impossible to move on. But if i found out about it, my capacity for open-mindedness would be pretty damned limited.
For less heinous felonies, though, i would support criminal records being completely confidential. Having to tell everyone for the rest of your life that you robbed a store twenty years ago just means that you have no chance at a normal life.
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.
Sex offenders in general have lower recidivism rates than other types of criminals.
When sex offenders do reoffend, they are more likely to reoffend with non-sexual crimes. This is largely driven by how post-release restrictions (background checks, residency restrictions, Megan's Law) make it virtually impossible for many sex offenders to lead even normal-ish lives.
I think that's a valid point, but at the same time, it's hard to be that rational when it comes to your own loved ones.
Like, do I want the government to punish a sex offender forever and preclude any chance of returning to a normal life? Not at all. If i found out that the guy who was going to drive my kids on a field trip had murdered some kids twenty years ago, would i be cool with this? Oh fuck no, and it doesn't matter how fully they've served their sentence. In the abstract, they should be given the chance to move on from their past. And i don't necessarily think they should have their past broadcast everywhere they go, because that makes it impossible to move on. But if i found out about it, my capacity for open-mindedness would be pretty damned limited.
For less heinous felonies, though, i would support criminal records being completely confidential. Having to tell everyone for the rest of your life that you robbed a store twenty years ago just means that you have no chance at a normal life.
There isn't really middle ground, though.
Abducting and molesting a child or trading nudes with your 16 year old white girlfriend when you're 18 and a minority in Alabama. Depending on where you end up in court both get you on the same list. You don't know if the guy driving the kids on the field trip is one or the other and any effort by them to explain will not help things at all. This isn't supposed to be a gotcha thing aimed at you specifically Jeffe, your argument is totally reasonable and I agree with the example you gave. It's just that in places where there's a hard religious abstinence only crowd, any attempt at Romeo and Juliette laws is seen as encouraging sex and the court system in those places really is totally insane. Once you stuff a little small-town (big R) Racism into the mix, oh boy. Puritanism really dug in like a tick in some places and it shows.
Edit: google searching "teen becomes sex offender for sexting" is so depressing. Especially in states where the offender registry is available online and teenage kids basically can't ever hide or be normal.
dispatch.o on
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
Sex offenders in general have lower recidivism rates than other types of criminals.
When sex offenders do reoffend, they are more likely to reoffend with non-sexual crimes. This is largely driven by how post-release restrictions (background checks, residency restrictions, Megan's Law) make it virtually impossible for many sex offenders to lead even normal-ish lives.
I think that's a valid point, but at the same time, it's hard to be that rational when it comes to your own loved ones.
Like, do I want the government to punish a sex offender forever and preclude any chance of returning to a normal life? Not at all. If i found out that the guy who was going to drive my kids on a field trip had murdered some kids twenty years ago, would i be cool with this? Oh fuck no, and it doesn't matter how fully they've served their sentence. In the abstract, they should be given the chance to move on from their past. And i don't necessarily think they should have their past broadcast everywhere they go, because that makes it impossible to move on. But if i found out about it, my capacity for open-mindedness would be pretty damned limited.
For less heinous felonies, though, i would support criminal records being completely confidential. Having to tell everyone for the rest of your life that you robbed a store twenty years ago just means that you have no chance at a normal life.
I mean, that's a problem, but i would say the solution here is perhaps to make it, perhaps, illegal to disclose someone's prior convictions publicly if they're, say, assessed to no longer be a threat to society?
It feels shitty to say, but it might be necessary to prevent people from knowing The Truth in order to allow convicts back in society, sometimes.
Like, if someone is murdered some kids, spent 15-25 years in prison, came out, maybe they it does need to be kept under wraps because, well, who would knowingly hire a convicted child murderer for any position?
In the case of the baseball player, his conviction was a juvenile one. I believe in most states those records are sealed entirely without a court order opening them up.
I'm normally on the side of rehabilitation and second chances, but sports players represent an interesting point. Are there some jobs that should be considered a privilege? Professional sports is the most obvious candidate because you are greatly rewarded (very high paying), it's a very sought after position, and it is ostensibly for the entertainment of the masses. Seems less than ideal to have to route for someone with a checkered past.
I'm not sure if you could make it a law, but I wonder if most people would support a ban on ex-cons in professional sports leagues.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I'm normally on the side of rehabilitation and second chances, but sports players represent an interesting point. Are there some jobs that should be considered a privilege? Professional sports is the most obvious candidate because you are greatly rewarded (very high paying), it's a very sought after position, and it is ostensibly for the entertainment of the masses. Seems less than ideal to have to route for someone with a checkered past.
I'm not sure if you could make it a law, but I wonder if most people would support a ban on ex-cons in professional sports leagues.
No. That's just a slippery slope to preventing them from having a well-paying job at all, and it probably just slides on down any time unemployment spikes because they're easy targets.
Sex offenders in general have lower recidivism rates than other types of criminals.
When sex offenders do reoffend, they are more likely to reoffend with non-sexual crimes. This is largely driven by how post-release restrictions (background checks, residency restrictions, Megan's Law) make it virtually impossible for many sex offenders to lead even normal-ish lives.
I think that's a valid point, but at the same time, it's hard to be that rational when it comes to your own loved ones.
Like, do I want the government to punish a sex offender forever and preclude any chance of returning to a normal life? Not at all. If i found out that the guy who was going to drive my kids on a field trip had murdered some kids twenty years ago, would i be cool with this? Oh fuck no, and it doesn't matter how fully they've served their sentence. In the abstract, they should be given the chance to move on from their past. And i don't necessarily think they should have their past broadcast everywhere they go, because that makes it impossible to move on. But if i found out about it, my capacity for open-mindedness would be pretty damned limited.
For less heinous felonies, though, i would support criminal records being completely confidential. Having to tell everyone for the rest of your life that you robbed a store twenty years ago just means that you have no chance at a normal life.
I mean, that's a problem, but i would say the solution here is perhaps to make it, perhaps, illegal to disclose someone's prior convictions publicly if they're, say, assessed to no longer be a threat to society?
It feels shitty to say, but it might be necessary to prevent people from knowing The Truth in order to allow convicts back in society, sometimes.
Like, if someone is murdered some kids, spent 15-25 years in prison, came out, maybe they it does need to be kept under wraps because, well, who would knowingly hire a convicted child murderer for any position?
I do not like this proposal. First, on a practical level, it doesn't seem particularly possible. Unless there are no surviving victims or people close to the victims, there will be a core group of people who know what the perpetrator did, and they may have very compelling reasons to not remain silent about what happened. There's an argument to be had about how much (if at all) the government should actively publicize an individual's criminal past, but in a society that values free speech it's hard to see how the government could legitimately prevent victims or people close to them sharing information about what happened.
Second, as a matter of principle, it only makes sense to argue for the suppression of conviction information if you first concede that the information is important and potentially relevant. Granted, there are times when someone's criminal past would only speak to their appropriateness for a position in very general terms, but even then, I think if there's a position with two equally qualified candidates, and one of them has a criminal past, a private enterprise should have the capacity to break the tie in favour of the person who (maybe by luck, maybe by choice) has managed to avoid legal entanglements.
Third, I just cannot get onboard with the idea that less information and ignorance of history is the way to promote real reintegration and acceptance. One of the secondary stories that came out of that stabbing in Oregon was about a man who stole some items from one of the men who died. That was a horrible thing, and people understandably heaped scorn on the thief. I just came across this story, though, which really changed my impression of the individual responsible: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/06/before_addiction_man_who_stole.html. Part of what determines who we are is what we do/have done. It just doesn't make sense to me that if someone does something bad, that can be erased from their history because they spent some time with constraints to their freedoms. Isn't it better to acknowledge that yes, people have misdeeds in their pasts, but they also have good deeds, they may have had struggles that contributed to their bad choices, and since the misdeed they have tried and succeeded to do better?
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
Sex offenders in general have lower recidivism rates than other types of criminals.
When sex offenders do reoffend, they are more likely to reoffend with non-sexual crimes. This is largely driven by how post-release restrictions (background checks, residency restrictions, Megan's Law) make it virtually impossible for many sex offenders to lead even normal-ish lives.
I think that's a valid point, but at the same time, it's hard to be that rational when it comes to your own loved ones.
Like, do I want the government to punish a sex offender forever and preclude any chance of returning to a normal life? Not at all. If i found out that the guy who was going to drive my kids on a field trip had murdered some kids twenty years ago, would i be cool with this? Oh fuck no, and it doesn't matter how fully they've served their sentence. In the abstract, they should be given the chance to move on from their past. And i don't necessarily think they should have their past broadcast everywhere they go, because that makes it impossible to move on. But if i found out about it, my capacity for open-mindedness would be pretty damned limited.
For less heinous felonies, though, i would support criminal records being completely confidential. Having to tell everyone for the rest of your life that you robbed a store twenty years ago just means that you have no chance at a normal life.
I mean, that's a problem, but i would say the solution here is perhaps to make it, perhaps, illegal to disclose someone's prior convictions publicly if they're, say, assessed to no longer be a threat to society?
It feels shitty to say, but it might be necessary to prevent people from knowing The Truth in order to allow convicts back in society, sometimes.
Like, if someone is murdered some kids, spent 15-25 years in prison, came out, maybe they it does need to be kept under wraps because, well, who would knowingly hire a convicted child murderer for any position?
I do not like this proposal. First, on a practical level, it doesn't seem particularly possible. Unless there are no surviving victims or people close to the victims, there will be a core group of people who know what the perpetrator did, and they may have very compelling reasons to not remain silent about what happened. There's an argument to be had about how much (if at all) the government should actively publicize an individual's criminal past, but in a society that values free speech it's hard to see how the government could legitimately prevent victims or people close to them sharing information about what happened.
Second, as a matter of principle, it only makes sense to argue for the suppression of conviction information if you first concede that the information is important and potentially relevant. Granted, there are times when someone's criminal past would only speak to their appropriateness for a position in very general terms, but even then, I think if there's a position with two equally qualified candidates, and one of them has a criminal past, a private enterprise should have the capacity to break the tie in favour of the person who (maybe by luck, maybe by choice) has managed to avoid legal entanglements.
Third, I just cannot get onboard with the idea that less information and ignorance of history is the way to promote real reintegration and acceptance. One of the secondary stories that came out of that stabbing in Oregon was about a man who stole some items from one of the men who died. That was a horrible thing, and people understandably heaped scorn on the thief. I just came across this story, though, which really changed my impression of the individual responsible: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/06/before_addiction_man_who_stole.html. Part of what determines who we are is what we do/have done. It just doesn't make sense to me that if someone does something bad, that can be erased from their history because they spent some time with constraints to their freedoms. Isn't it better to acknowledge that yes, people have misdeeds in their pasts, but they also have good deeds, they may have had struggles that contributed to their bad choices, and since the misdeed they have tried and succeeded to do better?
American society may value free speech, but there are still laws against defamation, right?
Then, the other thing is, if you have a prior conviction, a lot of employers will just not hire you out of principle anyway if they know about it. Even if you're the best candidate.
I just think it should be okay to allow ex-convicts an actual chance at a normal life if nothing so they don't have to fall back into crime. Knowing that, to most, a past that includes murder is literally "never approach them" territory.
I agree with your stated goals, I just think that your proposals are poorly conceived. If someone breaks the law, that shouldn't mean that they are now a second-class citizen, but the way the system is set up, particularly in the US, that is the result. We can agree that ongoing infringement on the rights and freedoms of people who broke the law (e.g. taking away voting rights) is obviously unjust and unhelpful, but you keep coming back to this idea that the government needs to either keep information from private, ostensibly law-abiding entities, or prevent them from fully asserting their rights and freedoms (of expression/conscience/association) in order to promote reintegration. The present social order relies on our collective ability to trust that for the most part most people will do the right thing or at least not do anything wrong. When someone breaks the law and gets a conviction on their record, that is proof that they couldn't be trusted, and evidence that they may not be trustworthy. How is it a good idea to tell people, "just trust this person, they're fine, and that big gap in their employment history is nothing, don't ask about their past, though..."? If rehabilitation and reintegration are the goal, the entire system needs radical reform; it's not enough to keep the basic structure and make modifications around the edges.
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
I agree with your stated goals, I just think that your proposals are poorly conceived. If someone breaks the law, that shouldn't mean that they are now a second-class citizen, but the way the system is set up, particularly in the US, that is the result. We can agree that ongoing infringement on the rights and freedoms of people who broke the law (e.g. taking away voting rights) is obviously unjust and unhelpful, but you keep coming back to this idea that the government needs to either keep information from private, ostensibly law-abiding entities, or prevent them from fully asserting their rights and freedoms (of expression/conscience/association) in order to promote reintegration. The present social order relies on our collective ability to trust that for the most part most people will do the right thing or at least not do anything wrong. When someone breaks the law and gets a conviction on their record, that is proof that they couldn't be trusted, and evidence that they may not be trustworthy. How is it a good idea to tell people, "just trust this person, they're fine, and that big gap in their employment history is nothing, don't ask about their past, though..."? If rehabilitation and reintegration are the goal, the entire system needs radical reform; it's not enough to keep the basic structure and make modifications around the edges.
I mean, you say it yourself, "When someone breaks the law and gets a conviction on their record, that is proof that they couldn't be trusted, and evidence that they may not be trustworthy."
That is precisely why it's so easy to make ex-convicts second-class citizens. That is precisely why it's so easy to allow legal discrimination of ex-convicts.
They broke the law, therefore, they're no longer trustworthy in the eyes of society. That's a natural position, I'm not arguing against that, but I feel like the point of society's rules is to, you know, not go with the first instincts and do what's right. That's why we have trials, for instance.
Because if rehabilitation and reintegration is to be possible, we can't start from "This person is obviously not trustworthy or employable anymore" when they come out of imprisonment.
I hope you understand the huge jump from what I actually said and you quoted to "This person is obviously not trustworthy or employable anymore".
It is bad reasoning to go from "this person made some bad choices" (which is what a conviction tells the world) to "never trust this person", but people make that leap all the time, it's true. Your proposal that we conceal the former information from people might prevent people from engaging in that bad reasoning, but it comes at a cost that isn't worth paying (curtailing the rights and freedoms of people who did nothing wrong). A better solution would both respect the perfectly reasonable expectation that people can know about who they are dealing with, and encourage careful and limited community engagement as part of a sentence, so that once a person has done their time, they have a support network within the community that can vouch for them and help keep them on a less troublesome path.
RE private citizens being aware of criminal past: I've seen the current side from the perspective of someone who has been affected by it not only in employment (he now has a trade because someone gave him a chance) but also in personal life. Which I think complicates supporting such a thing even further. The group of people I grew up with includes a few who have skirted the line of criminality, sometimes crossing it and sometimes being caught. One such person has a felony conviction but additionally has domestic complaints against him. Knowing him personally I'm aware of the actual course of events but if you do a background check on him with publically available information you'll find that he has a felony conviction and domestic violence, stalking, and burglary complaints but not convictions. What actually happened was a dispute during a breakup and the other person in the relationship wasn't happy with the break up. While he was moving his things out of the apartment they shared she called the police on him and accused him of burglary, stalking, and abuse. Fast forward a year or two and he begins courting the daughter of his boss at the time. She is able to find publically available information about his interaction with law enforcement and immediately ghosts him.
Now in his case what actually happened was different than the facts at face value. However, what if they hadn't been? Would support of blocking these records change had this saved a woman from an actual abusive person?
NSDFRand on
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
RE private citizens being aware of criminal past: I've seen the current side from the perspective of someone who has been affected by it not only in employment (he now has a trade because someone gave him a chance) but also in personal life. Which I think complicates supporting such a thing even further. The group of people I grew up with includes a few who have skirted the line of criminality, sometimes crossing it and sometimes being caught. One such person has a felony conviction but additionally has domestic complaints against him. Knowing him personally I'm aware of the actual course of events but if you do a background check on him with publically available information you'll find that he has a felony conviction and domestic violence, stalking, and burglary complaints but not convictions. What actually happened was a dispute during a breakup and the other person in the relationship wasn't happy with the break up. While he was moving his things out of the apartment they shared she called the police on him and accused him of burglary, stalking, and abuse. Fast forward a year or two and he begins courting the daughter of his boss at the time. She is able to find publically available information about his interaction with law enforcement and immediately ghosts him.
Now in his case what actually happened was different than the facts at face value. However, what if they hadn't been? Would support of blocking these records change had this saved a woman from an actual abusive person?
I mean, the thing is, if someone is convicted of domestic abuse, if we have a rehabilitative system set up, they shouldn't be treated like an abuser still after they come out.
If someone is abusive to their spouse, should they be a pariah for the rest of their life?
Obviously a child murderer should not be left in charge of schoolchildren. Duh. If the state wants people to stop hunting her down, maybe the state should do something about this so people can chill out and not care about witch-hunting particular murderers. If a famous child murderer can get away with this, surely less famous child-abusers can get away with much more.
However, that doesn't mean much about forgiveness of convicts in general. If she'd been a burglar or a drug dealer, the convictions would not have been relevant.
Holding up individual examples doesn't do anything. We need to examine what does more good statistically and I think erring on the side of forgiveness does far more good than harm. I think we should seal people's criminal records similarly to how we seal medical records. A sentencing judge should be allowed to impose work/life restrictions as part of a sentence and some restrictions should be mandatory in cases where recidivist behavior is feared. A judge should also be able to order a crime to be a matter of public record in extreme cases so long as the judge considers the burden they are imposing for the duration of the crime being public. However, when doing a criminal background check, the only thing someone should be able to get in general is "Yes/No this person is/isn't precluded from having this job/living in that area." No explanation as to why and the answer itself would be privileged.
RE private citizens being aware of criminal past: I've seen the current side from the perspective of someone who has been affected by it not only in employment (he now has a trade because someone gave him a chance) but also in personal life. Which I think complicates supporting such a thing even further. The group of people I grew up with includes a few who have skirted the line of criminality, sometimes crossing it and sometimes being caught. One such person has a felony conviction but additionally has domestic complaints against him. Knowing him personally I'm aware of the actual course of events but if you do a background check on him with publically available information you'll find that he has a felony conviction and domestic violence, stalking, and burglary complaints but not convictions. What actually happened was a dispute during a breakup and the other person in the relationship wasn't happy with the break up. While he was moving his things out of the apartment they shared she called the police on him and accused him of burglary, stalking, and abuse. Fast forward a year or two and he begins courting the daughter of his boss at the time. She is able to find publically available information about his interaction with law enforcement and immediately ghosts him.
Now in his case what actually happened was different than the facts at face value. However, what if they hadn't been? Would support of blocking these records change had this saved a woman from an actual abusive person?
I mean, the thing is, if someone is convicted of domestic abuse, if we have a rehabilitative system set up, they shouldn't be treated like an abuser still after they come out.
If someone is abusive to their spouse, should they be a pariah for the rest of their life?
Maybe, if the abuse was bad enough. At any rate, even if a person shouldn't be a pariah in perpetuity because of a particular conviction, the public should not be (and will likely refuse to be) compelled to participate in that person's redemption story. The question is, how should a corrections system be set up so that there is a pathway to rehabilitation, not whether people should be treated as rehabilitated if they participate in that process.
And this isn't even getting into the sleazier parts of this, like mugshot websites that basically engage in legalized extortion, demanding people pay them to have their images removed.
RE private citizens being aware of criminal past: I've seen the current side from the perspective of someone who has been affected by it not only in employment (he now has a trade because someone gave him a chance) but also in personal life. Which I think complicates supporting such a thing even further. The group of people I grew up with includes a few who have skirted the line of criminality, sometimes crossing it and sometimes being caught. One such person has a felony conviction but additionally has domestic complaints against him. Knowing him personally I'm aware of the actual course of events but if you do a background check on him with publically available information you'll find that he has a felony conviction and domestic violence, stalking, and burglary complaints but not convictions. What actually happened was a dispute during a breakup and the other person in the relationship wasn't happy with the break up. While he was moving his things out of the apartment they shared she called the police on him and accused him of burglary, stalking, and abuse. Fast forward a year or two and he begins courting the daughter of his boss at the time. She is able to find publically available information about his interaction with law enforcement and immediately ghosts him.
Now in his case what actually happened was different than the facts at face value. However, what if they hadn't been? Would support of blocking these records change had this saved a woman from an actual abusive person?
I mean, the thing is, if someone is convicted of domestic abuse, if we have a rehabilitative system set up, they shouldn't be treated like an abuser still after they come out.
If someone is abusive to their spouse, should they be a pariah for the rest of their life?
Certainly not. But should someone be blocked from knowing about the possible abusive past of a potential romantic partner?
Holding up individual examples doesn't do anything. We need to examine what does more good statistically and I think erring on the side of forgiveness does far more good than harm. I think we should seal people's criminal records similarly to how we seal medical records. A sentencing judge should be allowed to impose work/life restrictions as part of a sentence and some restrictions should be mandatory in cases where recidivist behavior is feared. A judge should also be able to order a crime to be a matter of public record in extreme cases so long as the judge considers the burden they are imposing for the duration of the crime being public. However, when doing a criminal background check, the only thing someone should be able to get in general is "Yes/No this person is/isn't precluded from having this job/living in that area." No explanation as to why and the answer itself would be privileged.
It was meant as an actual, real world example of this issue. Does a woman, in this example, benefit from not knowing the criminal past of a potential romantic partner (who doesn't volunteer the information that they have domestic related complaints) that includes complaints of stalking, abuse, and burglary?
We assume the answer is thus: regardless of the potential danger to the individual, it would be for the greater good.
We also assume that we can craft the perfect legislation which addresses this issue without unseen repercussions. We'll call it "Dane's Law" after my friend.
Now what do you do as the legislator or executive (who signed this legislation) when the very first case of a woman (unfortunately spousal/domestic abuse of men is not taken nearly as seriously in the US) being victimized due to (as the media will spin it, but it wouldn't take very much work at all to spin it) Dane's Law?
+1
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
RE private citizens being aware of criminal past: I've seen the current side from the perspective of someone who has been affected by it not only in employment (he now has a trade because someone gave him a chance) but also in personal life. Which I think complicates supporting such a thing even further. The group of people I grew up with includes a few who have skirted the line of criminality, sometimes crossing it and sometimes being caught. One such person has a felony conviction but additionally has domestic complaints against him. Knowing him personally I'm aware of the actual course of events but if you do a background check on him with publically available information you'll find that he has a felony conviction and domestic violence, stalking, and burglary complaints but not convictions. What actually happened was a dispute during a breakup and the other person in the relationship wasn't happy with the break up. While he was moving his things out of the apartment they shared she called the police on him and accused him of burglary, stalking, and abuse. Fast forward a year or two and he begins courting the daughter of his boss at the time. She is able to find publically available information about his interaction with law enforcement and immediately ghosts him.
Now in his case what actually happened was different than the facts at face value. However, what if they hadn't been? Would support of blocking these records change had this saved a woman from an actual abusive person?
I mean, the thing is, if someone is convicted of domestic abuse, if we have a rehabilitative system set up, they shouldn't be treated like an abuser still after they come out.
If someone is abusive to their spouse, should they be a pariah for the rest of their life?
Maybe, if the abuse was bad enough. At any rate, even if a person shouldn't be a pariah in perpetuity because of a particular conviction, the public should not be (and will likely refuse to be) compelled to participate in that person's redemption story. The question is, how should a corrections system be set up so that there is a pathway to rehabilitation, not whether people should be treated as rehabilitated if they participate in that process.
I disagree vehemently.
The public SHOULD DEFINITELY participate in someone's social reinsertion if we as a society want reinsertion to, y'know, succeed.
What good is a rehabilitative system if people come out and the public is still actively encouraged to shun them?
RE private citizens being aware of criminal past: I've seen the current side from the perspective of someone who has been affected by it not only in employment (he now has a trade because someone gave him a chance) but also in personal life. Which I think complicates supporting such a thing even further. The group of people I grew up with includes a few who have skirted the line of criminality, sometimes crossing it and sometimes being caught. One such person has a felony conviction but additionally has domestic complaints against him. Knowing him personally I'm aware of the actual course of events but if you do a background check on him with publically available information you'll find that he has a felony conviction and domestic violence, stalking, and burglary complaints but not convictions. What actually happened was a dispute during a breakup and the other person in the relationship wasn't happy with the break up. While he was moving his things out of the apartment they shared she called the police on him and accused him of burglary, stalking, and abuse. Fast forward a year or two and he begins courting the daughter of his boss at the time. She is able to find publically available information about his interaction with law enforcement and immediately ghosts him.
Now in his case what actually happened was different than the facts at face value. However, what if they hadn't been? Would support of blocking these records change had this saved a woman from an actual abusive person?
I mean, the thing is, if someone is convicted of domestic abuse, if we have a rehabilitative system set up, they shouldn't be treated like an abuser still after they come out.
If someone is abusive to their spouse, should they be a pariah for the rest of their life?
Maybe, if the abuse was bad enough. At any rate, even if a person shouldn't be a pariah in perpetuity because of a particular conviction, the public should not be (and will likely refuse to be) compelled to participate in that person's redemption story. The question is, how should a corrections system be set up so that there is a pathway to rehabilitation, not whether people should be treated as rehabilitated if they participate in that process.
I disagree vehemently.
The public SHOULD DEFINITELY participate in someone's social reinsertion if we as a society want reinsertion to, y'know, succeed.
What good is a rehabilitative system if people come out and the public is still actively encouraged to shun them?
What rehabilitative system are you talking about, though?
Also, it seems like you are reading most of what I write but missing some important words. I said "the public should not be ... compelled to participate" which is a far cry from saying that the public should not participate. I agree that the public should participate in rehabilitation. There are plenty of things that should happen but we don't look at the government to compel those things from people. I should get a certain amount of physical activity in on a regular basis. I should not be forced to get a certain amount of physical activity in on a regular basis. See the difference?
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
RE private citizens being aware of criminal past: I've seen the current side from the perspective of someone who has been affected by it not only in employment (he now has a trade because someone gave him a chance) but also in personal life. Which I think complicates supporting such a thing even further. The group of people I grew up with includes a few who have skirted the line of criminality, sometimes crossing it and sometimes being caught. One such person has a felony conviction but additionally has domestic complaints against him. Knowing him personally I'm aware of the actual course of events but if you do a background check on him with publically available information you'll find that he has a felony conviction and domestic violence, stalking, and burglary complaints but not convictions. What actually happened was a dispute during a breakup and the other person in the relationship wasn't happy with the break up. While he was moving his things out of the apartment they shared she called the police on him and accused him of burglary, stalking, and abuse. Fast forward a year or two and he begins courting the daughter of his boss at the time. She is able to find publically available information about his interaction with law enforcement and immediately ghosts him.
Now in his case what actually happened was different than the facts at face value. However, what if they hadn't been? Would support of blocking these records change had this saved a woman from an actual abusive person?
I mean, the thing is, if someone is convicted of domestic abuse, if we have a rehabilitative system set up, they shouldn't be treated like an abuser still after they come out.
If someone is abusive to their spouse, should they be a pariah for the rest of their life?
Maybe, if the abuse was bad enough. At any rate, even if a person shouldn't be a pariah in perpetuity because of a particular conviction, the public should not be (and will likely refuse to be) compelled to participate in that person's redemption story. The question is, how should a corrections system be set up so that there is a pathway to rehabilitation, not whether people should be treated as rehabilitated if they participate in that process.
I disagree vehemently.
The public SHOULD DEFINITELY participate in someone's social reinsertion if we as a society want reinsertion to, y'know, succeed.
What good is a rehabilitative system if people come out and the public is still actively encouraged to shun them?
What rehabilitative system are you talking about, though?
Also, it seems like you are reading most of what I write but missing some important words. I said "the public should not be ... compelled to participate" which is a far cry from saying that the public should not participate. I agree that the public should participate in rehabilitation. There are plenty of things that should happen but we don't look at the government to compel those things from people. I should get a certain amount of physical activity in on a regular basis. I should not be forced to get a certain amount of physical activity in on a regular basis. See the difference?
I mean, I don't know how it is in the US, but where I'm from, kids are actually compelled to have a minimum amount of physical activity every week in school and that's seen as a good thing. In fact, it's pretty much agreed that it's not stringent enough.
Similarly, when it comes to the legal system, people are compelled to go against their instincts quite a lot. Like with gag orders not revealing the names of victims or underage perpetrators/suspects.
The thing is, if nothing is done to prevent people from discriminating against ex convicts, people will do just that instinctively.
Posts
This is a deeply unsatisfactory response. Turner may have avoided the consequences that "society" has decided for sexual assault, but he didn't avoid the consequences that government established. It's not like his sentence departed from any statutory or common-law requirements/expectations; it was imposed by a judge in accordance with the accepted principles, and he served the term in accordance with the rules about incarceration and release. You talk about "someone being sentenced appropriately" as though that is a thing that actually happens or is even possible in the first place. For any given crime and conviction, there will be a wide range of opinions about an appropriate sentence. Former MMA fighter Jon Koppenhaver/War Machine was recently sentenced to life in prison with an opportunity for parole in 36 years after torturing his ex. Some people think that's a reasonable sentence, some people think it's too harsh and he should be able to get out when he's closer to 50 than 70.
And I still don't understand why just spending a prescribed amount of time in a cell means that individuals should accept that someone has changed in a way that means they are less likely to do the thing that got them in trouble in the first place. It's certainly possible that someone would come out of jail reformed and completely trustworthy, but the system isn't set up to generate that outcome, why pretend that it is?
The reason that people say that he wasn't sentenced appropriately was because he got a sweetheart deal from a judge that turns out to have a checkered history when it comes to the prosecution of sexual assault and rape. Yes, Turner did technically serve his sentence as per the government, but there's a strong feeling that the government handled him with kid gloves.
That's possibly a good point in the US system, because it is not designed for rehabilitation, it's designed mostly for punishment.
If your system of justice is designed for rehabilitation, then what you said is basically the whole point. They go through the process which is designed to end when they are in a condition where recidivism is very unlikely.
It's part of why I personally want to basically reform the prison/justice system in the US completely to start doing something that helps people, instead of hurting people for the sake of "revenge" and "punishment". But overall there's not a lot of political will to even start talking about that from what I can see.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
One might say the same thing about "childhood."
Luke Heimlich sex crime surfaces as Oregon State baseball nears College World Series
http://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2017/06/luke_heimlich_sex_crime_surfac.html#incart_river_home_pop
Follow up from today: Luke Heimlich will not pitch Friday for Oregon State in NCAA baseball super regionals
http://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2017/06/luke-heimlich-oregon-state.html
Two columns from the Oregonian's top sports columnist on the story, who finds this all very troubling.
http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/john_canzano/index.ssf/2017/06/canzano_troubling_case_of_oreg.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/john_canzano/index.ssf/2017/06/a_sports_audience_speaks_passi.html
But I also think it's absolutely, positively, 100% necessary to do in a society that lets felons come out of imprisonment and back into society.
Luke Heimlich did something horrible 5 years ago. Luke Heimlich has subsequently accepted guilt, stuck to the terms of his probation and avoided jail time specifically by seeking rehabilitation. As a result, he's been assessed by the state as being at low risk of offending again.
It's not easy for someone to forgive a man who probably ruined someone else's life. But I don't think that punishing him further is going to help the victim either.
This is a story of rehabilitation gone right and some people are trying to spin it into a miscarriage of justice.
I think we all need more forgiveness in society.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
That's just it, though. Far too many people are of the mindset that any consequences that derive from being a convicted felon is the fault of the person for committing the felony, not the system.
I have been told, multiple times, to my face, "Well they should have thought of that before doing X" when I bring up things like lifetime voter disenfranchisement, or the inability to get a job.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I mean, perpetrators and victims aren't in a vacuum. The case SiG posted is a great example of a lot of people feeling like Luke Heimlich should still be considered a criminal and, as such, should not be allowed a normal life.
The forgiveness society has to give is not the same kind as the forgiveness victims would give.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
I'd be fine if they updated the legal terminology and perhaps re-drafted the types of felonies and such to include high-risk recidivism crime to have additional monitoring requirements. In practice that should be what parole is for, but it really isn't. People on parole may as well be indentured servants with the abuses and lack of agency they have in their day to day lives. It's not rehabilitation to chain a dog to a tree and beat them every day and then one day let them loose and wonder why they bit someone. There has to be something better than a non-zero chance for someone to succeed after serving a sentence or meeting the legal criteria of justice done.
And "sex offender" as a label has grown into one of the worst examples of the flaws with the system too. The category has grown beyond reason, and you end up with things like indefinite incarceration beyond the sentence and shit.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Which I think is acerbated by these not being normal crimes, I'm generally pro-rehabilitation but I think that certain sexual crimes might be a special case. Not just because they are especially heinous, but some I think do stem from people being "broken" - I don't think that some of these people can be rehabilitated any more than someone who's gay. If this is the case, and I don't know if it is, then I think we need to expand how they fit into society on release - definitely need more definition between crimes that'd get you on the register. Can't be a useful tool if it's too broad, and the harm it can cause is horrendous.
So, here's the big question. What should society do with them, then? This is something no one wants to touch with a ten foot pole.
I mean, if they cannot be rehabilitated (which, honestly, we could know if studies about it weren't taboo), what should we do about those who offended? Should they be kept behind bars for life? And what about those who have not offended yet but are aware of their condition and seek help. As it stands, they have no recourse and basically are just told "come back after you've committed a crime", which is pretty monstrous for everyone involved.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
That said their is also a fair bit of bigotry involved and many people just being assholes, looking for an excuse to justify it. Factoring in how arrests and convictions disproportionately hit minorities, some of the mindset behind never forgiving is bigotry and trying to find ways to keep those groups down. It's why I greatly dislike the concept of removing one's right to vote and why I feel that should be limited to some very specific crimes (voter fraud, treason, tampering with votes and threats of violence to achieve a political goal be that suppressing the vote or scaring away people that run against their preferred candidate). Right now it's too easy for people to be shits towards other groups, make a bullshit law or use bullshit approaches to silence a group.
On that note, we then get to some just looking for an excuse to be an asshole to others without negative consequences for their actions. Going to the OP, I suspect a fair bit of the bellyaching Karla Holomka has little to do with people being afraid that she was convicted for murder and just assholes looking for an excuse to treat others like shit. This is a big reason why I don't like tough on crime approaches. These approaches don't make society better, they don't fix problems and are just a mean spirited farce that pretends to be justice (especially, galling when it's someone that belongs to a faith that stresses forgiveness and they go on and on about what a great follower of their faith they are).
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
There are cases of sex offenders asking to be essentially chemically castrated as a part of their plea for parole. Many become aware they're not normal and don't actually want to keep harming others. I don't know how common it is, but it is a thing. The hormones they take to end their sex drive aren't risk free and you can't make someone undergo medical procedures against their wishes.
I think perhaps depending on the offender, it's a mental health issue. Which is another completely fucked part of our care funnel back into profit prisons. It really is depressing and sometimes I think execution would at least have the excuse of being humane.
When sex offenders do reoffend, they are more likely to reoffend with non-sexual crimes. This is largely driven by how post-release restrictions (background checks, residency restrictions, Megan's Law) make it virtually impossible for many sex offenders to lead even normal-ish lives.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The notion of what constitutes a sexual offense has become really askew too. There are some really awful human rights violations surrounding the racist implementation of some statutory rape laws in the south and elsewhere.
It's really unfortunate and twisted that any mention of addressing crime as an economic or social issue gets a politician the soft on crime label. It's basically a death sentence for a career.
Anyone recall what happened after the Anders sentence for the 2011 shootings in Norway? Americans lost their shit because he wasn't put to death immediately. We're a violent society which places more value on making others suffer and revenge than rehabilitation and justice and that won't change anytime soon.
I've no idea, I think understanding the problem has to be the first step as I don't even know what kind of options exist at the moment. I've seen some write ups of support groups for young paedophiles who've become aware of where feelings lie and have looked for some kind of support system to help them from offending and seen the Louie Theroux documentary on the prisons where convicted child abusers voluntarily (I think) commit themselves to having completed their sentence but in both cases they make it clear that this isn't a proper solution.
I think that's a valid point, but at the same time, it's hard to be that rational when it comes to your own loved ones.
Like, do I want the government to punish a sex offender forever and preclude any chance of returning to a normal life? Not at all. If i found out that the guy who was going to drive my kids on a field trip had murdered some kids twenty years ago, would i be cool with this? Oh fuck no, and it doesn't matter how fully they've served their sentence. In the abstract, they should be given the chance to move on from their past. And i don't necessarily think they should have their past broadcast everywhere they go, because that makes it impossible to move on. But if i found out about it, my capacity for open-mindedness would be pretty damned limited.
For less heinous felonies, though, i would support criminal records being completely confidential. Having to tell everyone for the rest of your life that you robbed a store twenty years ago just means that you have no chance at a normal life.
There isn't really middle ground, though.
Abducting and molesting a child or trading nudes with your 16 year old white girlfriend when you're 18 and a minority in Alabama. Depending on where you end up in court both get you on the same list. You don't know if the guy driving the kids on the field trip is one or the other and any effort by them to explain will not help things at all. This isn't supposed to be a gotcha thing aimed at you specifically Jeffe, your argument is totally reasonable and I agree with the example you gave. It's just that in places where there's a hard religious abstinence only crowd, any attempt at Romeo and Juliette laws is seen as encouraging sex and the court system in those places really is totally insane. Once you stuff a little small-town (big R) Racism into the mix, oh boy. Puritanism really dug in like a tick in some places and it shows.
Edit: google searching "teen becomes sex offender for sexting" is so depressing. Especially in states where the offender registry is available online and teenage kids basically can't ever hide or be normal.
I mean, that's a problem, but i would say the solution here is perhaps to make it, perhaps, illegal to disclose someone's prior convictions publicly if they're, say, assessed to no longer be a threat to society?
It feels shitty to say, but it might be necessary to prevent people from knowing The Truth in order to allow convicts back in society, sometimes.
Like, if someone is murdered some kids, spent 15-25 years in prison, came out, maybe they it does need to be kept under wraps because, well, who would knowingly hire a convicted child murderer for any position?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
I'm not sure if you could make it a law, but I wonder if most people would support a ban on ex-cons in professional sports leagues.
No. That's just a slippery slope to preventing them from having a well-paying job at all, and it probably just slides on down any time unemployment spikes because they're easy targets.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I do not like this proposal. First, on a practical level, it doesn't seem particularly possible. Unless there are no surviving victims or people close to the victims, there will be a core group of people who know what the perpetrator did, and they may have very compelling reasons to not remain silent about what happened. There's an argument to be had about how much (if at all) the government should actively publicize an individual's criminal past, but in a society that values free speech it's hard to see how the government could legitimately prevent victims or people close to them sharing information about what happened.
Second, as a matter of principle, it only makes sense to argue for the suppression of conviction information if you first concede that the information is important and potentially relevant. Granted, there are times when someone's criminal past would only speak to their appropriateness for a position in very general terms, but even then, I think if there's a position with two equally qualified candidates, and one of them has a criminal past, a private enterprise should have the capacity to break the tie in favour of the person who (maybe by luck, maybe by choice) has managed to avoid legal entanglements.
Third, I just cannot get onboard with the idea that less information and ignorance of history is the way to promote real reintegration and acceptance. One of the secondary stories that came out of that stabbing in Oregon was about a man who stole some items from one of the men who died. That was a horrible thing, and people understandably heaped scorn on the thief. I just came across this story, though, which really changed my impression of the individual responsible: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/06/before_addiction_man_who_stole.html. Part of what determines who we are is what we do/have done. It just doesn't make sense to me that if someone does something bad, that can be erased from their history because they spent some time with constraints to their freedoms. Isn't it better to acknowledge that yes, people have misdeeds in their pasts, but they also have good deeds, they may have had struggles that contributed to their bad choices, and since the misdeed they have tried and succeeded to do better?
American society may value free speech, but there are still laws against defamation, right?
Then, the other thing is, if you have a prior conviction, a lot of employers will just not hire you out of principle anyway if they know about it. Even if you're the best candidate.
I just think it should be okay to allow ex-convicts an actual chance at a normal life if nothing so they don't have to fall back into crime. Knowing that, to most, a past that includes murder is literally "never approach them" territory.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
I mean, you say it yourself, "When someone breaks the law and gets a conviction on their record, that is proof that they couldn't be trusted, and evidence that they may not be trustworthy."
That is precisely why it's so easy to make ex-convicts second-class citizens. That is precisely why it's so easy to allow legal discrimination of ex-convicts.
They broke the law, therefore, they're no longer trustworthy in the eyes of society. That's a natural position, I'm not arguing against that, but I feel like the point of society's rules is to, you know, not go with the first instincts and do what's right. That's why we have trials, for instance.
Because if rehabilitation and reintegration is to be possible, we can't start from "This person is obviously not trustworthy or employable anymore" when they come out of imprisonment.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
It is bad reasoning to go from "this person made some bad choices" (which is what a conviction tells the world) to "never trust this person", but people make that leap all the time, it's true. Your proposal that we conceal the former information from people might prevent people from engaging in that bad reasoning, but it comes at a cost that isn't worth paying (curtailing the rights and freedoms of people who did nothing wrong). A better solution would both respect the perfectly reasonable expectation that people can know about who they are dealing with, and encourage careful and limited community engagement as part of a sentence, so that once a person has done their time, they have a support network within the community that can vouch for them and help keep them on a less troublesome path.
Now in his case what actually happened was different than the facts at face value. However, what if they hadn't been? Would support of blocking these records change had this saved a woman from an actual abusive person?
I mean, the thing is, if someone is convicted of domestic abuse, if we have a rehabilitative system set up, they shouldn't be treated like an abuser still after they come out.
If someone is abusive to their spouse, should they be a pariah for the rest of their life?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
However, that doesn't mean much about forgiveness of convicts in general. If she'd been a burglar or a drug dealer, the convictions would not have been relevant.
Maybe, if the abuse was bad enough. At any rate, even if a person shouldn't be a pariah in perpetuity because of a particular conviction, the public should not be (and will likely refuse to be) compelled to participate in that person's redemption story. The question is, how should a corrections system be set up so that there is a pathway to rehabilitation, not whether people should be treated as rehabilitated if they participate in that process.
Certainly not. But should someone be blocked from knowing about the possible abusive past of a potential romantic partner?
It was meant as an actual, real world example of this issue. Does a woman, in this example, benefit from not knowing the criminal past of a potential romantic partner (who doesn't volunteer the information that they have domestic related complaints) that includes complaints of stalking, abuse, and burglary?
We assume the answer is thus: regardless of the potential danger to the individual, it would be for the greater good.
We also assume that we can craft the perfect legislation which addresses this issue without unseen repercussions. We'll call it "Dane's Law" after my friend.
Now what do you do as the legislator or executive (who signed this legislation) when the very first case of a woman (unfortunately spousal/domestic abuse of men is not taken nearly as seriously in the US) being victimized due to (as the media will spin it, but it wouldn't take very much work at all to spin it) Dane's Law?
I disagree vehemently.
The public SHOULD DEFINITELY participate in someone's social reinsertion if we as a society want reinsertion to, y'know, succeed.
What good is a rehabilitative system if people come out and the public is still actively encouraged to shun them?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
What rehabilitative system are you talking about, though?
Also, it seems like you are reading most of what I write but missing some important words. I said "the public should not be ... compelled to participate" which is a far cry from saying that the public should not participate. I agree that the public should participate in rehabilitation. There are plenty of things that should happen but we don't look at the government to compel those things from people. I should get a certain amount of physical activity in on a regular basis. I should not be forced to get a certain amount of physical activity in on a regular basis. See the difference?
I mean, I don't know how it is in the US, but where I'm from, kids are actually compelled to have a minimum amount of physical activity every week in school and that's seen as a good thing. In fact, it's pretty much agreed that it's not stringent enough.
Similarly, when it comes to the legal system, people are compelled to go against their instincts quite a lot. Like with gag orders not revealing the names of victims or underage perpetrators/suspects.
The thing is, if nothing is done to prevent people from discriminating against ex convicts, people will do just that instinctively.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter