DRZinn
Member
Sure, if you can find a country willing to admit a murderer who hasn't even served a prison term.
When does a "Criminal" pay his debt to society??
- Thread starter timetofight
- Start date
- Status
HankB
Member
IMHO it really depends on the crime. Some "crimes" are, IMHO, not really crimes at all. Someone mentioned having the wrong knob on a FAL. (And this could even be the wrong floorplate on a FAL magazine!) Take the case of "status offenses" where a juvenile can get a record for smoking a cigarette, which is legal for adults. Smoking is bad for kids - for anyone, really - but give the kid a CRIMINAL record? Uh-uh. Or if Dr. Joe, the local vet, treats Carpenter Bob's sick horse, and in return Bob helps Joe build a deck . . . and neither one sends a check to the IRS. A crime? Uncle Sam says "Yes - it's tax evasion on barter income" even if it's just a couple of buddies helping each other out.
These - and a much longer list - are profoundly different from real crimes like theft, assault, rape, murder, child molestation, armed robbery, arson, etc. In that case, after appropriate punishment I'd say the debt to society is paid back when both the victim and society have full restitution, and are brought back to where they'd be if the crime had never happened.
And some crimes merit execution.
These - and a much longer list - are profoundly different from real crimes like theft, assault, rape, murder, child molestation, armed robbery, arson, etc. In that case, after appropriate punishment I'd say the debt to society is paid back when both the victim and society have full restitution, and are brought back to where they'd be if the crime had never happened.
And some crimes merit execution.
EghtySx
Member
The same reason you bury the guy who breaks into your house.
Where is "away"? Why would he turn over a new leaf and give up his life of crime when he gets there?
Ohen Cepel
Member
Need more info.
Saw a story the other night about a poor woman who was raped and then had BOTH HER ARMS CUT OFF by the sick bastard. Think he got 8 years in jail and then was released. She lived in fear due to this.
That guy (or a Jeffrey Damer type) doesn't ever pay back enough.
Small time non-violent guy or white collar crime, maybe he can pay his debt. Sick SOB, can only pay in one way.
Saw a story the other night about a poor woman who was raped and then had BOTH HER ARMS CUT OFF by the sick bastard. Think he got 8 years in jail and then was released. She lived in fear due to this.
That guy (or a Jeffrey Damer type) doesn't ever pay back enough.
Small time non-violent guy or white collar crime, maybe he can pay his debt. Sick SOB, can only pay in one way.
EghtySx
Member
In my book that guy has paid his debt after a coupla hours ... at the end of a rope.
Combat-wombat
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,683
I'm going to jump on the bandwagon of criticizing this post. In CA, it's a felony to carry a fixed-blade knife (of any length- carrying a two-inch neck knife counts) concealed.
timetofight
Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2005
- Messages
- 12
THR Objection & Opinion - And My Opinion
I read your comments with interest, but, absolutely disagree with everything stated therein.
First, and foremost, when an individual makes a mistake, shop-lifting, for example, there are some people that learn their lesson. They go on and serve their time/probation/or whatever, and then lead crime free lives thereon. Yes, it really happens. With that in mind, after let's say five years of nothing but being a good citizen, how do you think it feels to be barred from a decent job? With that attitude, shouldn't they just be branded on their forheads for the rest of their lives?
And what of their children? A parent, perhaps a very talented individual, who happened to smoke a joint when he was 20 or so, cannot get a good job for the rest of his life. Don't his children suffer the punishment also. Do you believe this is fair, moral, legal, or right? I would like to hear an answer on that one!
There are some criminals that should be listed for life, and there are those that deserve otherwise. That "otherwise" is called "Equal Protection" and deserves to be the forefront of this issue.
Respectfully submitted,
I read your comments with interest, but, absolutely disagree with everything stated therein.
First, and foremost, when an individual makes a mistake, shop-lifting, for example, there are some people that learn their lesson. They go on and serve their time/probation/or whatever, and then lead crime free lives thereon. Yes, it really happens. With that in mind, after let's say five years of nothing but being a good citizen, how do you think it feels to be barred from a decent job? With that attitude, shouldn't they just be branded on their forheads for the rest of their lives?
And what of their children? A parent, perhaps a very talented individual, who happened to smoke a joint when he was 20 or so, cannot get a good job for the rest of his life. Don't his children suffer the punishment also. Do you believe this is fair, moral, legal, or right? I would like to hear an answer on that one!
There are some criminals that should be listed for life, and there are those that deserve otherwise. That "otherwise" is called "Equal Protection" and deserves to be the forefront of this issue.
Respectfully submitted,
You're joking, right? No one serves time for shoplifting. No one gets barred from a decent job for shoplifting or smoking one joint when they were 20. If that were the case half of America would be unemployed.
Plenty of people have also had felony convictions and later went on to very good careers of one sort or another. Look at James Minder, the former director of Smith and Wesson.
timetofight
Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2005
- Messages
- 12
Excellent Point Rabbi!
Yes, exactly, you hit it right on the mark. Shoplifting, a misdemeanor depending on the amount of the loss, usually does not result in a person doing time. Usually, probation, community service, etc., is the punishment for a first time offender.
However, that "conviction" stays on their record, and yes, they do get jobs, but usually nothing more than mundane positions, those that don't require background checks. From a career standpoint, this person is basically history... If, after a few years, the person has not re-offended, is it fair to punish them, and their family, for the rest of their lives?
And how about when the police arrest someone - Innocent until proven guilty, right? WRONG! That "arrest", even though it did not result in a conviction, will stay on their record. Now we have an individual being discriminated against - without even a conviction! This happens every day. It also happens to people whom were arrested in error and it was later proved to be wrong - but it's on their record! In this case, we have punishment without a conviction. Is that fair? Is it legal? Or, do we have a system that simply doesn't make sense??
I AGREE that law enforcement needs to keep these records, and we need to understand why. They have to have statistics, and in some cases, they break new cases with a person's past MO. These "records" are a vital tool for law enforcement - but these records have no business in the public domain when a conviction was never rendered. It's called Due Process and Equal Protection of the Law. As Americans, we have held those principles to be the basis for our legal system; something is obviously wrong, and the system is in need of maintenance.
As a taxpayer, consider that the person(s) we speak of, if they were allowed to re-enter society after proving they have not re-offended, will make more money, pay more taxes, and actually make a greater contribution to society . How much tax revenue are we missing because of the inadvertent creation of a second-class society?
Think it through...
"The whisper becomes louder, then a voice is heard, and then crowds of voices, and eventually the whisper becomes the roar of change!" wjc
Yes, exactly, you hit it right on the mark. Shoplifting, a misdemeanor depending on the amount of the loss, usually does not result in a person doing time. Usually, probation, community service, etc., is the punishment for a first time offender.
However, that "conviction" stays on their record, and yes, they do get jobs, but usually nothing more than mundane positions, those that don't require background checks. From a career standpoint, this person is basically history... If, after a few years, the person has not re-offended, is it fair to punish them, and their family, for the rest of their lives?
And how about when the police arrest someone - Innocent until proven guilty, right? WRONG! That "arrest", even though it did not result in a conviction, will stay on their record. Now we have an individual being discriminated against - without even a conviction! This happens every day. It also happens to people whom were arrested in error and it was later proved to be wrong - but it's on their record! In this case, we have punishment without a conviction. Is that fair? Is it legal? Or, do we have a system that simply doesn't make sense??
I AGREE that law enforcement needs to keep these records, and we need to understand why. They have to have statistics, and in some cases, they break new cases with a person's past MO. These "records" are a vital tool for law enforcement - but these records have no business in the public domain when a conviction was never rendered. It's called Due Process and Equal Protection of the Law. As Americans, we have held those principles to be the basis for our legal system; something is obviously wrong, and the system is in need of maintenance.
As a taxpayer, consider that the person(s) we speak of, if they were allowed to re-enter society after proving they have not re-offended, will make more money, pay more taxes, and actually make a greater contribution to society . How much tax revenue are we missing because of the inadvertent creation of a second-class society?
Think it through...
"The whisper becomes louder, then a voice is heard, and then crowds of voices, and eventually the whisper becomes the roar of change!" wjc
Time,
I emailed your post to a friend of mine who works for a company that does background checks for employers etc. I wanted to know whether what you said was factually correct or not. Here is his response:
<<Part correct, part incorrect.
Correct: convictions whether misdemeanor or felony are fair game to an employer. They are permissible for adverse action (whether credit or employment) forever. A wise employer will not hold a one time shoplifter/simple possession/disorderly conduct conviction "when I was 19 and stupid" against a potential employee who otherwise has been a decent person for 10 years since that time. When I did crim records we saw this stuff all the time. Same would be true for one time DUI. Many employers do not even want to see traffic stuff. The reason for the background check is to promote a safe environment, free of theft and violence for customers and employees. Those sorts of offenses do not reflect a potential problem.
Incorrect: arrest records without conviction may not be used for adverse action from 7 years after the last date of activity and are considered not reportable. If you were arrested for 1st degree murder today and dismissed tomorrow due to improper identification of suspect (or whatever reason), pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, such information would not be reportable to a potential employee after mar 31, 2012 and a third party doing so would be in violation and subject to a fine. some states have laws regulating the use of non-conviction records. {see below section 605 of fcra 15 U.S.C. §1681c } That would include alternative sentences such as adjudication withheld, first offender, non-adjudication of guilt, (in TN 40-35-313 ie diversion) probation without conviction, and many other types of sentences where the judge does not record "convicted" but nevertheless sentences the defendant to some sort of correction program. Arrest records in general within the 7yrs of reportability are not permissible for adverse action without a disposition. That is, if all that could be found on a court record was the arrest and no disposition info was available, we would not report this to the client. If we were to, the report would include a comment to discuss this record with the subject of the report. >>
I emailed your post to a friend of mine who works for a company that does background checks for employers etc. I wanted to know whether what you said was factually correct or not. Here is his response:
<<Part correct, part incorrect.
Correct: convictions whether misdemeanor or felony are fair game to an employer. They are permissible for adverse action (whether credit or employment) forever. A wise employer will not hold a one time shoplifter/simple possession/disorderly conduct conviction "when I was 19 and stupid" against a potential employee who otherwise has been a decent person for 10 years since that time. When I did crim records we saw this stuff all the time. Same would be true for one time DUI. Many employers do not even want to see traffic stuff. The reason for the background check is to promote a safe environment, free of theft and violence for customers and employees. Those sorts of offenses do not reflect a potential problem.
Incorrect: arrest records without conviction may not be used for adverse action from 7 years after the last date of activity and are considered not reportable. If you were arrested for 1st degree murder today and dismissed tomorrow due to improper identification of suspect (or whatever reason), pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, such information would not be reportable to a potential employee after mar 31, 2012 and a third party doing so would be in violation and subject to a fine. some states have laws regulating the use of non-conviction records. {see below section 605 of fcra 15 U.S.C. §1681c } That would include alternative sentences such as adjudication withheld, first offender, non-adjudication of guilt, (in TN 40-35-313 ie diversion) probation without conviction, and many other types of sentences where the judge does not record "convicted" but nevertheless sentences the defendant to some sort of correction program. Arrest records in general within the 7yrs of reportability are not permissible for adverse action without a disposition. That is, if all that could be found on a court record was the arrest and no disposition info was available, we would not report this to the client. If we were to, the report would include a comment to discuss this record with the subject of the report. >>
timetofight
Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2005
- Messages
- 12
It Depends On Where you live.
Rabbi;
I am including a post from another individual I harvested off of ABC's 20/20 Forum, where this issue is getting a lot of attention. Please read this one, and maybe you may begin to see the scope of the problem.
Re: When is a debt paid to society???? reply
Posted: Mar 29, 2005 09:54 PM
1 Posts
Registered: Mar 29, 2005 Texas has a REAL problem with deferred adjudication in that all of these cases are treated as a conviction, when in reality there was never a conviction.
This has hindered my daughter.
My daughter, Melissa, wants to become a teacher, will soon graduate college, but will face many obstacles because of her one time arrest.
Several years ago, she was arrested for possession of a controlled substance (misdemeanor A) in Comal County. Melissa and her sister suffer from migraine headaches (both diagnosed by physicians). Melissa carried one tablet of her sister’s prescription medicine for headaches and was arrested for that. She pled no contest and received deferred adjudication with probation because our understanding was that she would not have a criminal record once she completed probation (she did hire an attorney that told us this). When probation was successfully completed her case was dismissed and she was never convicted as expected. When she applied for part time jobs at college and submitted an application for an apartment, she found out that both her arrest and deferred adjudication record were available for anyone wishing a criminal background history. This became a stumbling block because many employers do not understand that deferred adjudication is not the same as conviction. If we knew this was going to be the case, she would have thought about the plea agreement a bit more, or asked for hearing with presiding judge. Melissa will soon graduate from college with a degree in elementary teaching. She has not had any arrests or trouble since this unfortunate incident. All state education agencies and school districts will have access to her criminal record. She will have to explain the circumstances each and every time she interviews for a job within a school district.
I don’t feel this is right because she was NEVER convicted! Some school districts could use her criminal background history to deny her a job. I don’t think she should have to continually explain about her criminal record.
This situation needs to be remedied!
Rabbi;
I am including a post from another individual I harvested off of ABC's 20/20 Forum, where this issue is getting a lot of attention. Please read this one, and maybe you may begin to see the scope of the problem.
Re: When is a debt paid to society???? reply
Posted: Mar 29, 2005 09:54 PM
1 Posts
Registered: Mar 29, 2005 Texas has a REAL problem with deferred adjudication in that all of these cases are treated as a conviction, when in reality there was never a conviction.
This has hindered my daughter.
My daughter, Melissa, wants to become a teacher, will soon graduate college, but will face many obstacles because of her one time arrest.
Several years ago, she was arrested for possession of a controlled substance (misdemeanor A) in Comal County. Melissa and her sister suffer from migraine headaches (both diagnosed by physicians). Melissa carried one tablet of her sister’s prescription medicine for headaches and was arrested for that. She pled no contest and received deferred adjudication with probation because our understanding was that she would not have a criminal record once she completed probation (she did hire an attorney that told us this). When probation was successfully completed her case was dismissed and she was never convicted as expected. When she applied for part time jobs at college and submitted an application for an apartment, she found out that both her arrest and deferred adjudication record were available for anyone wishing a criminal background history. This became a stumbling block because many employers do not understand that deferred adjudication is not the same as conviction. If we knew this was going to be the case, she would have thought about the plea agreement a bit more, or asked for hearing with presiding judge. Melissa will soon graduate from college with a degree in elementary teaching. She has not had any arrests or trouble since this unfortunate incident. All state education agencies and school districts will have access to her criminal record. She will have to explain the circumstances each and every time she interviews for a job within a school district.
I don’t feel this is right because she was NEVER convicted! Some school districts could use her criminal background history to deny her a job. I don’t think she should have to continually explain about her criminal record.
This situation needs to be remedied!
A) I wouldn't take anything off of the 20/20 forum as gospel.(so to speak 
)
B) I suspect there is a little more going on in that case than what is being portrayed.
C) Even if everything posted was true that still doesn't prove that the daughter is cursed forever. Only that the parent thinks she is.
)B) I suspect there is a little more going on in that case than what is being portrayed.
C) Even if everything posted was true that still doesn't prove that the daughter is cursed forever. Only that the parent thinks she is.
timetofight
Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2005
- Messages
- 12
For Rabbi - The Daughter
Rabbi;
Correction on my part; the daughter is not suffering forever, however, during her childhood, because of the Mother's limited ability to get a well paying job, the daughter lives in the lower class if not poverty level, and what are her chances of college; yeah, I know, there are grants & scholarships, but not the "parent" putting their child through college as so many do.
If the Mother is earning less than she would have with a REAL job, may the family wouldn't have been on Medicaid, even welfare, thus double-charging the taxpayers to add insult to injury.
I've been running these polls in several different places, and in each forum, the topic gets unreal attention and feedback. I could list hundreds of documented stories on this board, but that would not be appropriate. I am more interested in what people in general have to say about this issue. On most of the boards I remain pretty well silent - but I posted to this board because it has a reputation of being pretty darn "conservative" and I needed to see what the feedback was here.
I have been extremely impressed! The people that post here appear to be honest, some pretty darned opinionated, but sincere in their beliefs. I have so much data to compile, and then an Editorial/Essay to write summing up what the results of these many polls have shown and detailing the issues with the associated socioeconomic impact on the US. I also noted that one post, which seems to have disappeared, mentioned that this entire thread was "inappropriate" and objectionable. I think it was entered by a senior member or THR Staff. Honestly don't remember... But, whoever wrote the comment; I would invite that person to write an opposing Editorial on the same subject, and will give him/them a week to respond to mine. I am only one, small, insignificant individual, but have faith that the issues and facts will swing any readers to the side of justice and democracy. This is an issue for the Federal Courts and Legislature to solve, not fear, misinformation, or rank prejudice.
Discrimination, no matter the moral stand, is not allowed in our country. Thanks for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The whisper becomes louder, then a voice is heard, and then crowds of voices, and eventually the whisper becomes the roar of change!" wjc
Rabbi;
Correction on my part; the daughter is not suffering forever, however, during her childhood, because of the Mother's limited ability to get a well paying job, the daughter lives in the lower class if not poverty level, and what are her chances of college; yeah, I know, there are grants & scholarships, but not the "parent" putting their child through college as so many do.
If the Mother is earning less than she would have with a REAL job, may the family wouldn't have been on Medicaid, even welfare, thus double-charging the taxpayers to add insult to injury.
I've been running these polls in several different places, and in each forum, the topic gets unreal attention and feedback. I could list hundreds of documented stories on this board, but that would not be appropriate. I am more interested in what people in general have to say about this issue. On most of the boards I remain pretty well silent - but I posted to this board because it has a reputation of being pretty darn "conservative" and I needed to see what the feedback was here.
I have been extremely impressed! The people that post here appear to be honest, some pretty darned opinionated, but sincere in their beliefs. I have so much data to compile, and then an Editorial/Essay to write summing up what the results of these many polls have shown and detailing the issues with the associated socioeconomic impact on the US. I also noted that one post, which seems to have disappeared, mentioned that this entire thread was "inappropriate" and objectionable. I think it was entered by a senior member or THR Staff. Honestly don't remember... But, whoever wrote the comment; I would invite that person to write an opposing Editorial on the same subject, and will give him/them a week to respond to mine. I am only one, small, insignificant individual, but have faith that the issues and facts will swing any readers to the side of justice and democracy. This is an issue for the Federal Courts and Legislature to solve, not fear, misinformation, or rank prejudice.
Discrimination, no matter the moral stand, is not allowed in our country. Thanks for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The whisper becomes louder, then a voice is heard, and then crowds of voices, and eventually the whisper becomes the roar of change!" wjc
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,502
"Overcrowding" means early release. "Probation" or "Parole" with an overworked case officer means there's many cracks to slip through. Credit for Time Served means they spend only 2/3rd of the time incarcerated.
I'd love to ship them to Mexico to do time.
I'd love to ship them to Mexico to do time.
When he undoes, or reverse the effect of whatever he did, plus get some punishment for doing it. If he steals from someone, he repays them in full, plus serves jail time or community service time. If he rapes someone, he supports her until she has recovered, plus serves jail time or community service time. If he murders someone, he cannot bring them back to life, so his life must be forfeited.
- Status