Mubarak sentenced to 25 years only! WTF??

[SafetyMoose]

Would you expect such a person to be able to successfully apply for a job ?

Just because someone is a sexual predator or a murderer does not make them incapable of applying for a job. Now, if you want a child molester working in a store where your kids visit, or in your schools or hospitals then sure, lets get rid of background checks.

Having a job is not a right, its a privilege, and if you commit a crime you lose certain abilities within society. Now, we have programs to give criminals jobs after jail, but they are usually minimum wage, $10 an hour jobs cleaning floors. You say that it is against a persons rights to discriminate because of criminal history, but putting them in a workplace where they could re-offend infringes the rights to safety that ALL of society has. So individual vs society comes in to play and you always go with society first.

[Gandalf]

Just because someone is a sexual predator or a murderer does not make them incapable of applying for a job. Now, if you want a child molester working in a store where your kids visit, or in your schools or hospitals then sure, lets get rid of background checks.

Having a job is not a right, its a privilege, and if you commit a crime you lose certain abilities within society. Now, we have programs to give criminals jobs after jail, but they are usually minimum wage, $10 an hour jobs cleaning floors. You say that it is against a persons rights to discriminate because of criminal history, but putting them in a workplace where they could re-offend infringes the rights to safety that ALL of society has. So individual vs society comes in to play and you always go with society first.

Indeed it is better to get rid of background checks as to let someone without a chance to redeem themselves. As for certain jobs being allowed to deny a certain type of offenders that is not a problem.
But if you wish to be a manager in supermarket and are denied because of a criminal record that has nothing to do with your job, that is pure discrimination and should be fully and wholly disallowed.
Employers are abusing the fear of society and that means the society has gone corrupt.
If the same person would be denied because he has a record of being homosexual everyone would speak shame.

[SafetyMoose]

Indeed it is better to get rid of background checks as to let someone without a chance to redeem themselves. As for certain jobs being allowed to deny a certain type of offenders that is not a problem.
But if you wish to be a manager in supermarket and are denied because of a criminal record that has nothing to do with your job, that is pure discrimination and should be fully and wholly disallowed.
Employers are abusing the fear of society and that means the society has gone corrupt.
If the same person would be denied because he has a record of being homosexual everyone would speak shame.

Oh I think I have described how the system works in a bad way. let me explain again how we do background checks

So a person comes in and up to our counter and says they need a background check for an employer, they fill out a form with their information and give it to us, we take a couple days to check the Sex offenders database, Our local database and the national database for anything they have done.

We then check off on the background check if they have a criminal record relating to the job they are applying for. However, Assault, attempted murder, murder and sexual offences are ALWAYS listed, other crimes like hit and run, stealing etc are only listed if it relates to the job they apply for.

What you said is close to what we have, however certain serious crimes or crimes related to the job are still put on the background check. Sure, we need to give people a chance to become better in society, but we also understand that people re-offend frequently so people would rather not take the risk. Even though there is some flexibility with the system, its still hard to get jobs as a criinal because the police and government would rather not take risks with criminals released from jail.

[JDC]

The amount of incidents in the record of a person should be taken into consideration and prioritized over the mere presence of a person's record. If someone has been jailed for child abuse and set free at least 3 times, then that tells you something about letting them work in a place where you leave your kids.

[Gandalf]

Oh I think I have described how the system works in a bad way. let me explain again how we do background checks

So a person comes in and up to our counter and says they need a background check for an employer, they fill out a form with their information and give it to us, we take a couple days to check the Sex offenders database, Our local database and the national database for anything they have done.

We then check off on the background check if they have a criminal record relating to the job they are applying for. However, Assault, attempted murder, murder and sexual offences are ALWAYS listed, other crimes like hit and run, stealing etc are only listed if it relates to the job they apply for.

What you said is close to what we have, however certain serious crimes or crimes related to the job are still put on the background check. Sure, we need to give people a chance to become better in society, but we also understand that people re-offend frequently so people would rather not take the risk. Even though there is some flexibility with the system, its still hard to get jobs as a criinal because the police and government would rather not take risks with criminals released from jail.

If you are not going to allow someone to live, you might just as well kill them for such offenses.

[SafetyMoose]

If you are not going to allow someone to live, you might just as well kill them for such offenses.

yeah well, thats where our constitution is flawed. It says you have the right to life, but it does not say employment or housing is a right so you can live, just not happily XD

But I am a major supporter of the death penalty which sadly many Canadians are not so we probably wont be getting it any time soon.

[Gandalf]

yeah well, thats where our constitution is flawed. It says you have the right to life, but it does not say employment or housing is a right so you can live, just not happily XD

But I am a major supporter of the death penalty which sadly many Canadians are not so we probably wont be getting it any time soon.

Imprisonment is to be aimed at a return to society. However if society fails to accept people due to imprisonment, their punishment in reality does not end. That is not an error of the constitution, but an error of the society, and can only be fixed by very strict privacy laws that give exception only for very specific needs.
To this can be added that if someone has returning problems, a special institution directed at mental health can be used.

[Roske.]

Very good thinking, I am going to go a bit "red neck" here, but why not just hang him? :devroll:
He destroyed such a country with that much of potential...
But yet, "democracy" in that or other countries is not allowing such a penalty to people like Mubarak, rapists, killers, terrorists etc...

[SafetyMoose]

Imprisonment is to be aimed at a return to society. However if society fails to accept people due to imprisonment, their punishment in reality does not end. That is not an error of the constitution, but an error of the society, and can only be fixed by very strict privacy laws that give exception only for very specific needs.
To this can be added that if someone has returning problems, a special institution directed at mental health can be used.

In my opinion strict privacy just breeds criminal activity. If the law is restricted because of increased "privacy" concerns, people are going to start getting away with lots of stuff. We had to change the law here recently because apparently laptops are not covered by home search warrants, so when they found child porn on this guys hard drive, they could not arrest him because the warrent did not cover it. Adding more restrictions like that just lets criminals get away.

if your innocent, then you having nothing to worry about, if your a criminal  you get justice. If you commit a crime that is bad enough to get a serious criminal record you don't deserve the privilages of society, you lost those abilities the day you decided to break the law.

[Gandalf]

In my opinion strict privacy just breeds criminal activity. If the law is restricted because of increased "privacy" concerns, people are going to start getting away with lots of stuff. We had to change the law here recently because apparently laptops are not covered by home search warrants, so when they found child porn on this guys hard drive, they could not arrest him because the warrent did not cover it. Adding more restrictions like that just lets criminals get away.

if your innocent, then you having nothing to worry about, if your a criminal  you get justice. If you commit a crime that is bad enough to get a serious criminal record you don't deserve the privilages of society, you lost those abilities the day you decided to break the law.

That is a point of view which is completely contrary to the modern purpose of imprisonment.
If you do not allow to people to redeem themselves, chances are extremely high that they will continue in to more and worse criminal activity.
Imprisonment in modern view is not to satisfy the victims, but to punish the criminal in a way that he can repent and return to society, with the possibility to build his life again without having to resort to criminal activity.
For mental disorders like pedophilia there should be institutions where they are treated until they are ready to function in society without repetition. Which may be never.

As for your example, that has zero to do with employers being able to refuse someone because they can see his criminal record without it being related to the job.

[Gandalf]

Very good thinking, I am going to go a bit "red neck" here, but why not just hang him? :devroll:
He destroyed such a country with that much of potential...
But yet, "democracy" in that or other countries is not allowing such a penalty to people like Mubarak, rapists, killers, terrorists etc...

The country was destroyed by the riots, not by Mubarak....

[Exterminator]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18515556

R.I.Pieces

[Squeak]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18515556

R.I.Pieces

He was a puppet like the rest of your political whores. But not Hitler right, we're just going to believe he wasn't just a face for an ingenious plot and the systematic annihilation of 6 million Jews took place.

/angst

[Hevar.]

Alright !! He is dead now, so lock this topic =)

[SafetyMoose]

Alright !! He is dead now, so lock this topic =)

Probably a ruse to sneak him out of the country XD