|
Amarkov posted:I really don't understand how people even start to justify this. Being permanently listed in records that are publicly obtainable as a Bad Person (or at best, Formerly Bad Person) might be justified for things like murder, but does anyone seriously think that the dude who stole $951 worth of stuff is so terrible that every potential employer of his must be told about his crimes? Depending on the amount of time that's passed, the nature of my business, and the circumstances of the crime, yes. I would have no problem hiring such a person, because theft is not much of a concern for my business. If I were running a high-end retail shop, I'd probably feel differently, especially if the prospective employee's last theft was from his employer. Does the US have no system to apply for and receive complete pardons for one's crime after enough time has passed? I know we do it in Canada, mainly to avoid exactly this issue (and also so people aren't permanently barred from entering the US).
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:50 |
|
|
PT6A posted:Does the US have no system to apply for and receive complete pardons for one's crime after enough time has passed? I know we do it in Canada, mainly to avoid exactly this issue (and also so people aren't permanently barred from entering the US). You are assuming that a significant portion of the U.S. population don't just want to see all convicts die or be killed on principle. You assume they value compassion, at all. You should not assume these things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Depending on the amount of time that's passed, the nature of my business, and the circumstances of the crime, yes. I would have no problem hiring such a person, because theft is not much of a concern for my business. If I were running a high-end retail shop, I'd probably feel differently, especially if the prospective employee's last theft was from his employer. Systems exist both to pardon crimes (which "forgives" them but appears to not remove them from one's record) and to expunge them (which removes them from the public record and ends any remaining restrictions). However, it is complicated by the fact that the laws relating to those are different in every state. The only constant is that the president can pardon anybody in any state at any time. Other than that, in most states, it's impossible to get pardoned without the direct approval of the governor. Unfortunately, as elected officials who need to be "tough on crime", they are reluctant to be overly generous with pardons; in addition, if they pardon somebody who then goes on to commit another crime, their opponent will use that against them in the next election. It sounds ridiculous, but it does happen. Moving on to expungement, which is easier to obtain. It's usually done through the civil court system, but everything from eligibility requirements to procedural details are different in every state. In many states, the expungement system exists only to remove charges you weren't found guilty of - essentially, to remove "not guilty" findings and police catch-and-release arrests from your record. In other states, only misdemeanor convictions can be expunged; only a few states seem to allow the expungement of felony charges. The process almost always requires a waiting period of at least one year after all penalties (including probation) be completed in their entirely. Additionally, most states limit the number of charges that can be expunged from your record, and the expungement is typically revoked if you ever end up charged with anything ever again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Depending on the amount of time that's passed, the nature of my business, and the circumstances of the crime, yes. I would have no problem hiring such a person, because theft is not much of a concern for my business. If I were running a high-end retail shop, I'd probably feel differently, especially if the prospective employee's last theft was from his employer. Well besides the stuff that Painframe mentioned there is also in many states a process by which you can get some or all of your civil rights restored. You will still have the conviction on your record (unless a pardon or expungement is granted), but you can get certain rights & privileges back such as right to vote, business license, driver's license, right to serve on a jury (although you'll be kicked off anyway), right to own a gun, and so forth. This varies depending on the state, for example in AZ you can get most of your civil rights back just by sending a form to a judge, and then gun rights are handled separately. It winds up being up to the judge. If it's a federal or military conviction you can eventually get most of your rights restored depending on what state you're in- except for legal gun ownership, which is permanent and cannot be appealed or challenged (this is because for guns the authority for restoration was removed from the courts and given to the Firearms Bureau, and in the same law a zero-funding rule was implemented for processing the applications; so that if you apply it's not denied, it's just never processed, that way there is no decision which you can appeal). That's why like 90% of the time I (and others like me) never carry a gun, because it's an automatic 10-year minimum sentence plus whatever else they can tack on if you're caught. That'll never change either, because who will ever vote for a politician who promises to let criminals carry guns. So I basically just try not to go places where I think I might 'need' one, or go with others who are carrying if I do (but snark about America aside, there's really very few places- even in the 'rough neighborhoods'- where you'd ever 'need' a gun). Also none of this is counting that Denial of Benefits stuff, that is separate from getting your rights restored (as well as being separate from what Painframe said).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 06:22
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:right to serve on a jury (although you'll be kicked off anyway) I have a general question about this. I'm a fairly smart person and I believe that if I were ever asked to be on a jury I would be kicked off immediately. Is it wrong (could I get in trouble?) for playing stupid to get on a jury? Sorry that it is a bit off topic but it has been eating at me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 16:51
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:I have a general question about this. I'm a fairly smart person and I believe that if I were ever asked to be on a jury I would be kicked off immediately. Is it wrong (could I get in trouble?) for playing stupid to get on a jury? It totally depends on what the case is and who the individual lawyers are. If it's some random DUI or DV crime, then as long as you're not an alcoholic you probably qualify. If it's some bizarrely complicated white collar civil suit, then who knows. For example, I know one attorney who just asks people for their astrological signs, and picks one from each of the 12 signs. He's awesome. BigHead fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Apr 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 18:13
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:I have a general question about this. I'm a fairly smart person and I believe that if I were ever asked to be on a jury I would be kicked off immediately. Is it wrong (could I get in trouble?) for playing stupid to get on a jury? The idea that lawyers always want stupid jurors is a myth. I've had cases where i want a smart jury. I've also had cases where I want a dumb jury. Sometimes, I don't care and am looking for other things. DAs do the same. Basically on a criminal jury, cops and cops wives/husbands, victims/preps of very similar crimes, and criminal attorneys are the only ones that will most certainly be kicked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
I guess I just wouldn't let on that I know how hosed up our prison system is? I don't think I could send anyone to jail unless it was for actually physically harming another human being.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:I guess I just wouldn't let on that I know how hosed up our prison system is? I don't think I could send anyone to jail unless it was for actually physically harming another human being.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
Korak posted:Bernie Maddoff would get a slap on the wrist and some therapy in your ideal world? My parents physically and mentally abused me. At the time I probably would have said send them to prison but now that i've learned about the prison system: Not a chance. It wasn't my parents fault that my grandparents abused them. Maddoff should never be able to hand another persons money again but I don't see how prison will reform him. I personally believe that prison should be to separate violent people from the rest of us and if possible reform those people. *edit* What do you think should be done to Maddoff? Should he rot in prison for the rest of his life? silicone thrills fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Apr 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 23:56
|
|
|
Korak posted:Bernie Maddoff would get a slap on the wrist and some therapy in your ideal world?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
HELLO THERE posted:Who is it helping that Bernie Madoff is in jail? And that's the crux. Is prison there to punish the guilty, or aid society as a whole? Most people would say fulfilling the first one also fulfills the second (deterrent/reform/fear effect), but we've seen time and again that that doesn't work. So you have to pick one or the other as your primary objective. To me and a probably everyone else ion this thread, aiding society is by far the most important thing, which is why rehabilitation, prevention of reoffending, limiting jail to violent offenders etc. is important and making people suffer is not the goal There are those out there who think inflicting suffering on criminals is an end unto itself
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 00:54
|
|
|
Why is Madoff being used as an example of somebody who deserves heinous and cruel punishment in the first place? Scamming a bunch of rich people isn't exactly deserving of sending a 72-year-old man to prison for over a century.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 01:34
|
|
|
This thread makes my skin crawl, reading about false imprisonment and unfair sentencing really sets me off. Good job in compiling the info in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 02:14
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Oh right I forgot that as ever it's a few bad apples. So what you mean, then, is "I have absolutely no idea"?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 04:16
|
|
|
DMBFan23 posted:So what you mean, then, is "I have absolutely no idea"? If you think the problem with tasers can be expressed strictly in terms of "how many individual cops have been caught abusing their tasers" you are dumb as hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 18:16
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:If you think the problem with tasers can be expressed strictly in terms of "how many individual cops have been caught abusing their tasers" you are dumb as hell. I never said anything of the sort. You, however, implied through sarcasm that it was more than a few bad apples, and are now trying to move the goalposts pretty far away because it is looking very much like the source for your original statement is "gut feeling". If your point all along was that it doesn't matter how many cops have abused them, why not make that point to the person who originally started this derail without all the attitude?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 04:10
|
|
|
So what if it is a few bad apples? Although most people don't remember it in this age of fast-paced information and catchy soundbites, the full saying is "One bad apple spoils the bunch". How many cases of police abuse of force do you think are acceptable? One in one hundred? One in one thousand? The answer, of course, is "none". Making this about numbers is nothing more than a distraction from the main point, that being that police shouldn't abuse their weaponry or their official powers. While it's nearly impossible to stomp out taser abuse completely, it'd be a good start if departments would start punishing officers who do it, as opposed to closing ranks around the cop in question and declaring the multiple tasering of a bedridden grandmother to be within the bounds of official department procedure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 06:24
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Main Paineframe contact me privately please
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 06:50
|
|
|
quote:There are those out there who think inflicting suffering on criminals is an end unto itself Which is ironic because you then become no better than the criminal in that system of logic. You're sending a criminal to jail to suffer for creating suffering (i.e. a crime, the victim suffers therefore the criminal should suffer as punishment) and you in turn want that person to suffer. So you are creating a situation where someone else suffers but it's ok because it's retribution. It's all the same just different justifications. Think about it, Person A murders Person B for reason X. Person A is given the death penalty and executed for murdering Person B. So Person A was murdered for reason Y (Murdering Person B). It's all the same, it's only in our heads that it's justifiable/different because of one's personal belief system or legal system. PTBrennan fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Apr 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 14:53
|
|
|
DMBFan23 posted:I never said anything of the sort. You, however, implied through sarcasm that it was more than a few bad apples, and are now trying to move the goalposts pretty far away because it is looking very much like the source for your original statement is "gut feeling". The Cops on the Beat thread series has what amounts to case studies on police brutality; it also has statistics answering the derail you continued in the first-post link aptly named http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/. On that note, I need to read D&D less, because content should be far more important than civility instead of shitposters being allowed to shitpost so long as they're nice about it. Tempora Mutantur fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Apr 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 17:48
|
|
|
Very good news out of MA about MJ smoke not being enough to search a car anymore. http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/04/20/sjc-burnt-marijuana-odor-not-enough-to-suspect-criminal-activity/
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 12:47
|
|
|
brizna posted:Very good news out of MA about MJ smoke not being enough to search a car anymore. I love the numerous quotes about children being encouraged to use drugs...is it possible for today's "utes" to use more drugs? I don't think I've met a teenager who hasn't tried something, regardless of prohibition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 14:43
|
|
|
brizna posted:Very good news out of MA about MJ smoke not being enough to search a car anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 19:20
|
|
|
It's been said somewhere else, but the nonsense with police searches for the smell of weed is that the people with weed get arrested, the people without are happy that they were let go for the crime that they didn't commit. People need to start filing complains about being searched when nothing was found.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 22:14
|
|
|
Quarantini posted:It's been said somewhere else, but the nonsense with police searches for the smell of weed is that the people with weed get arrested, the people without are happy that they were let go for the crime that they didn't commit. People need to start filing complains about being searched when nothing was found. Most of the time, those searches are conducted by police who trick or otherwise cajole people into giving up their rights, so there is no legal leg to stand on when you complain. They ask "Can I search your vehicle?" and try to strongly imply that this will all be over faster if you just say yes. But saying yes waives your rights and now when you go to complain they will say "Well, I asked and he said I could search his car" The solution here is to educate more people on their rights when it comes to police and searches, because right now police are allowed to lie and cheat and talk circles around you to get you to give up what small protections you actually have against unreasonable searches.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I don't understand the mindset about not hiring a felon. Speaking as the owner of a small business, assuming the felony is sufficiently long ago, or doesn't concern my field of business in any way, I'd much rather hire a qualified/intelligent felon than a moron with a clean record. You're actually in good company, albeit most business owners (if not necessarily you personally) would say moron as a cipher for black quote:The study offers this fictional scenario:
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
SC, FL, MA, AZ (and 23 other states): new legislation calling for random drug testing for people with prior drug convictions who are receiving public assistance.quote:States seek to link public assistance, drug testing
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 02:20
|
|
|
Thank you for keeping the torch lit Goro. I have been meaning to keep tabs on news about the Machine in Alaska, I will do some searching when I return home from vacation with family. Out of curiosity what do you all think would have happened if they tried to get a warrant to search my vehicle and turned up nothing as it did with their unnecessary search?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 02:34
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:SC, FL, MA, AZ (and 23 other states): new legislation calling for random drug testing for people with prior drug convictions who are receiving public assistance. Here's a thought - why not make the legislators take a drug test? They're being paid from the public coffers, what do they have to hide?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 03:51
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Here's a thought - why not make the legislators take a drug test? They're being paid from the public coffers, what do they have to hide? Drugs. On a serious note though, how exactly is this constitutional?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 12:37
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Here's a thought - why not make the legislators take a drug test? They're being paid from the public coffers, what do they have to hide? Because the Supreme Court said that was unconstitutional. Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) (mandatory drug testing of candidates for state office unconstitutional) the court said there was no showing that there was a drug problem among candidates and that there had been no showing of 'special needs' for testing among this group - that they weren't working in a dangerous or potentially dangerous environment that would justify testing. Orange Devil posted:On a serious note though, how exactly is this constitutional? I expect, "because it's for the children" and "everybody knows that the welfare queens spend their money on drugs." The Supremes said it was OK to random drug test schoolchildren involved in sports because "it's for the children" and "everybody knows the jocks are the biggest druggies." Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) It's unconstitutional to work with police and prosecutors to drug test pregnant women without their knowledge and then arrest or threaten to arrest the women who test positive in an effort to scare/force them into not using. Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001) Lack of consent and involvement of law enforcement is what made Charleston's procedures unconstitutional. If, however, welfare applicants were told that they had to consent in order to receive benefits and that the testing was for eligibility only and they would not be referred to law enforcement, I expect the current Supreme Court would find it constitutional.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 14:43
|
|
|
A.S.H. posted:Thank you for keeping the torch lit Goro. I have been meaning to keep tabs on news about the Machine in Alaska, I will do some searching when I return home from vacation with family. Out of curiosity what do you all think would have happened if they tried to get a warrant to search my vehicle and turned up nothing as it did with their unnecessary search? Well if they don't find anything they'll just send you on your way- unless you pissed them off or whatever, that's when you start getting into contempt of cop territory. The penalty for contempt of cop can range anywhere from a lecture to summary execution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 16:13
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:Well if they don't find anything they'll just send you on your way- unless you pissed them off or whatever, that's when you start getting into contempt of cop territory. The penalty for contempt of cop can range anywhere from a lecture to summary execution. Not death or felonies, but disgusting. We need the cop thread back dammit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
This might not be the appropriate thread but I just had a loving nightmare. I was trying to navigate around two cop cars with their bubbles flashing in the process of an arrest. The snow was heavy and it was very difficult to get around. Long story short two officers out right say it's the end of the month, and they are bringing me in for throwing tantrums. I woke up before it got any further, but I don't know if I have felt so simultaneously angry and scared at the same time over a dream. My roommate called me stupid the other day because I have a knee jerk fear reaction to the police, citing that people who need help must be glad to have the police show up. I imagine the learned reaction of anyone who has actually been jailed or imprisoned is much stronger. Vivid Edit: I cannot forget the loving smiles the officers had, as I asked what I was being arrested for, and one answered "I don't know", making it clear they would think up something later. Son of Emhak fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Apr 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
A.S.H. posted:This might not be the appropriate thread but I just had a loving nightmare. She gets charged with drug possession and child endangerment because in the fight the medicine cabinet (which had some other peoples pills) was knocked over and spilled pills on the ground. She was booked into jail and not released. First time she's ever been in jail, she pleas because he can't make bail and is scared. (Factually innocent of the endangerment charges) He is, as far as I know, never charged or arrested for beating the poo poo out of her and the apartment because he ran from the cops and they were far more concerned with the expired vicodine in the cabinet with her ex-roomies name on it. I'm sure she's glad the cops came to "save" her. I think she lost her job over that too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
A.S.H. posted:This might not be the appropriate thread but I just had a loving nightmare. Back in December I was sexually assaulted in public and called the police after I got home (I was out for a walk and didn't bring my cell phone). The first two officers who showed up let themselves into my apartment without permission, were aggressive, didn't want to listen to anything I had to say, and were poking around my apartment without permission. I had told 911 that the assault took place a few blocks away so they had no reason to be acting as if there was anything to find in my apartment. It didn't take me long to realize that they were likely looking for a reason to arrest me so I shut up and sat down in the hopes that it would be over quickly. Luckily it didn't take too long for the victim handlers to arrive and dismiss them. My experience after that was pretty good but drat if I'm going to think twice before calling the police over something so minor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
Sexual assault: minor compared to police harrasment. Just reflect on that for a while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:50 |
|
|
Public Service Reminder: don't talk to the police.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 23:25
|
|