Say a man committed a crime of passion 15 years ago, and since then, has had his life on track. Should that man have this crime follow him throughout his entire life, or should he just go on living like the rest of us once he is out of jail? Just the other day, there were protestors at my state capitol. The protestors were people who believed that their futures should not be hampered because of their past.
I do not agree with these protestors. Sure, it may be much more difficult to get a good job as an ex-con, but who is the one who put the con in that position? People choose whether or not they are going to commit a crime, and if someone does not want to have a poor criminal record, I would suggest not participating in criminal acts.
Potential employers have the right to know whom they are employing. If criminal histories were ignored in the hiring process, employers could be putting other workers and customers in grave danger.
So, while some may argue that criminal histories punish people too harshly by hampering their futures, I would disagree. The future of one criminal is not more important than the safety of other workers and the public at large. How scary would it be to find out that your teacher used to be a big drug dealer or has killed someone? Yikes! What do you guys think of criminal records following people throughout their entire lives?
Personally, I think it's somewhat ridiculous that someone who committed a crime 20 years ago and has been a productive member of society since is still viewed as a criminal. I mean, at some point, it should become more about what the person has done with life in the 15 years since he got out of prison than about what he did 20 years ago to land in prison. Now, I do think there are exceptions to that, some violent and sex crimes, but at some point, the guy who bought drugs 20 years ago, spent time and prison and re-emerged clean and on a different path needs to stop being penalized.
-----
~Fallon~
“What is insanity, anyway? Is it when you scream and everyone else whispers, or is it when you fight for what's right, even when everyone else thinks your wrong?” Ethergoth
-----
I agree that employers have a right to know, on the otehr side, if the crime was committed 20 years ago then the employer should also consider that the person's life is on track.
Alicia
I agree that people should be able to live happy and productive lives after they have done their time if they are willing to make changes. But it's hard to draw the line. What crimes do you think should be erasable? How much time should pass before the crime can be erased from the person's history?
My view on this is less erasing the person's history than it is in people using common sense when it comes to making a decision about that individual. More of a mentality change in society where instead of us saying "OMG! You were in prison for drugs 20 years ago, I'm so not hiring you" and finding it acceptable we actually learn to give people chances instead of viewing them as subhuman because they screwed up 20 years ago.
If we were going to go the expunging route (or something similar), I would say that murder, rape (and the other sex crimes), robbery, and assault would be the ones that should not be cleared. In reality, it would probably be easier to expunge than to try to change the predominant mentality of society because people are people and criminals, past and present, are at the very bottom of the chain where most are concerned.
On an unrelated but equally important note. when replying to a comment, please use the reply button at the bottom of that comment. It makes it easier for others to follow the conversation.
-----
~Fallon~
“What is insanity, anyway? Is it when you scream and everyone else whispers, or is it when you fight for what's right, even when everyone else thinks your wrong?” Ethergoth
-----
I believe it is all about circumstances. Dateline last week ran a piece about two men involved in a mysterious homicide. Questions still remain as to hard facts. After investigation the entire process was corrupt. Bringing these two men to time in federal prison. Over 20 years these men served to be released as innocent with suspicion still surrounding them. How can one repair from such an experience, are these pardoned felons expected to assimilate without any retribution. We, myself included find it so easy to pass judgement without fully understanding facts. To generalize as a criminal is to lump a drug user-one doing harm to themselves or a rapist-forcing his will upon another.
I believe if a convict has shown that he/she can return to normal society after supervision then there records should be sealed. Allowing the record to be viewed in the case of recidivism or suspicion of involvement in illegal activity.
I think the implications of the crime should be left to the potential employer, etc. in the case of non-violent, non-sexual crimes. Many sexual offenders are repeat offenders, and even though many can and will change, I think the benefit of prohibiting these people from working around children/elderly is worth the denial of those who may not commit the crime again. Another thing to consider is that just because the person hasn't been caught doesn't mean that he or she isn't commiting the crime again. Many criminals get better at their trade over time, and learn to evade law enforcement. I do think that the criminal record should be left intact- just because it's been 20 years doesn't mean that the person is suddenly exempt from a crime serious enough to result in jail/prison time. As for small crimes such as shoplifting/theft, perhaps these could be dropped after a certain amount of time, but I do think that an employer has the right to know that these have occured within the past 10 years or so. Personally, I would accept a person's explanation for their crime and would consider the circumstances, but would like to at least know that it happened so I could "keep an eye open" until the person has fully proven their new standards to me.
I guess I have mixed views about this- there are certain things people can change, and others, especially those linked to mental states, that are more difficult and less likely to change. In these cases, others should be aware of the threat.
It really depends on the crime and the length of time they have been a functioning member of society. If they spent the last 20 years in prison, there really isn't much to compare their current bahavior to. If they only did a year of time and 20 years later they were able to lead a crime-free life, then I would say that they have worked hard and have redeemed themselves. Employers, in the end, get to choose who they hire and who they don't. If they are willing to give someone a second chance, then who am I to tell them not to. If the employer wants to hold their record over their head and choose not to hire them because they do not trust them, then that is their choice as well.
My personal opinion is to try and stay away from ex-cons. I have tried giving someone a second chance before and I ended up paying the price by having my house broken into. I am done trusting those with shady pasts just because I don't want to be screwed over again. I learn from my past experiences, but others should make their own decisions.
I think it depends on what the crime is.
Yes, if it is just buying drugs...then it is a little ridiculous.
But more? I don't know.
I think it depends on the crime.
However, I do have to say that in the back of my mind if I were an employer I would like to know. If people had that strong of emotions...what is to say it couldn't happen again?
I would like to say that I would like to know however in my case, I believe in second chances and depending on the crime I would probably hire them regardless.