posted
Do you believe a sex offender can be re-habilitated, short of making him (if it's a him) a eunoch?
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
We generally only try and punish actions, and we are bound by our Constitution to avoid cruel and unusual punishments for any crime (even sexual crimes). I think that prohibiting folks who haven't relapsed in years from participating in society only hurts the felons and the society. I also think that released felons should regain the right to vote; I'm crazy like that.
To think that no one can ever be rehabilitated is to assume that people can only make BAD destructive decisions, never good (re)constructive ones, which is not what I would think you actually thought michael. In any event, that's not the worldview I choose to take part in. But I'm generally a rehabilitation kind of a guy, for what its worth.
Would I feel a bit uncomfortable if one of these people came to my door? Sure... But that's MY problem, not theirs.
posted
Tammy, you seem to be open minded on this -- good. Castration has been upheld as consitutional as has sterilization in many US courts including the Supreme Court. With so many sickos out there I would grant a convicted child molester or rapist of adults the right to undergo castration to reduce their sentence. Don't know wht to do about female perpetrators though except long, harsh prison sentences.
But back to the topic,
Bokonon, would you want a convicted felon knocking at your door? The Constitution does not grant convicts full rights even after they have served a sentence.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy, I believe innocent until proven guilty, statistics be damned, in this regard. I think some screening is fair from the employers POV, but if we presume that they are guilty for some future crime (which is what you are essentially saying when you categorically deny them from a type of job), I think that speaks poorly of us.
And yes, that means I open myself up to possibly being assaulted or worse by one of these types some day. All I can say is that I will do my best to try and continue believe as I do now if that circumstance arose (a weak consolation to be sure).
posted
michael, read my post, I said I WOULD be uncomfortable... But that is my problem, it's not like the felon has actually committed a crime against me and my own at that point, right?
posted
Democrats seek to employ ex-felons while Jeb Bush tries to purge them from voter lists. Hmmm... Seems democrats going after untapped market?
I agree with Bok, if people have paid for their crime, their slate should technically be clean. You probably deal at some point in your life with felons without knowing it. This group just happens to be tapping into a group of people who have a hard time getting back on their feet because of such prejudice. Which is funny...don't give ex-felons jobs, don't let them in our neighborhood, don't let them do something constructive but go all ape when they are forced back into the only road left to them. Nice.
And there are sex offenders and there SEX OFFENDERS. The article mentioned people who were convicted of sex offenses...which covers more than raping little children. A 19 year old who sleeps with his 17 year old girlfriend is committing a sex crime. I don't want to down play sex crimes, but know the facts. The site clearly says that they really are looking for good candidates for the job, not just throwing the worst of the worst out there.
posted
What level of sex offenders are we talking about here? Are we talking about "forcibly raped a toddler" kinds of sex offenses, or are we talking about "officer, she swore she was 18" kinds?
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
michael, what has the felon done to you at the point that they walk up and ask you to register to vote? What are you protecting your family against?
posted
Why are pictures of sex offenders distributed to personnel at public schools? The answer is that if you see them near the school you are to call the police -- even after they have served thier time.
When I was a kid I had a couple of dogs that killed some chickens in the neighborhood. We had to put them to sleep because once a dog does such a thing they will seek to do it again.
If the local supermarket wants to hire a convicted felon to work with their money, so be it --it's their money at risk. But why hire such people to go door to door -- I don't want them at my doorstep.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm torn on this one. If you hire a felon, you're responsible for what he does while he's working for you. I'm not sure which types they hire, but hiring a sex offender to go door to door where children are likely present is riskier than I'd want to be. On the other hand, if felons can't get jobs they're going to have to commit crimes again.
And to call someone not a Christian because they're worried about their family is over the top.
posted
Not really. You read the book, you follow the teachings, that makes you a Christian. If you don't follow the teachings, you are no more than a cafeteria Christian. You think you get to pick and choose which teachings to follow?
That said, I find it amusing that "conservatives" are so concerned about this. They'll give out there name, address and credit card number to a felon in jail but are concerned about felons that aren't even on probation?
I don't want anyone at my door. If I don't know you, I won't answer the door. So there.
[edit: the first paragraph was in response to Dag's comments.]
posted
I'm looking for the place in the Bible where it says felons should be given jobs that introduce them to lots of potential victims (esp. the sex offenders).
There's a difference between saying, "Felons shouldn't be given jobs" and saying, "Felons should be given jobs that take their violent past into account, if any."
quote:Why are pictures of sex offenders distributed to personnel at public schools? The answer is that if you see them near the school you are to call the police -- even after they have served thier time.
All sex offenders? Get your information straight. There is a limited list of crimes involving sexuality that require reporting, many do not. My assumption is ACT wouldn't be stupid enough to send out known repeat offenders who can't be near children.
The dog story is very telling. Did Jesus tell a similar parable on the mount? The one about putting dogs down? It is ideas like this that makes me happy that a jury is composed of 12 members. MOST people can't think this way, can they?
quote:I'm looking for the place in the Bible where it says felons should be given jobs that introduce them to lots of potential victims (esp. the sex offenders).
It is right under the area where Jesus said people can't have abortions or gays can't marry. That section.
quote: There's a difference between saying, "Felons shouldn't be given jobs" and saying, "Felons should be given jobs that take their violent past into account, if any."
Agreed...so, if their crimes involved going door to door and hurting people, that may not be the best job for them. If they are people who by law can't be around children or places where children gather, they shouldn't be there. If they robbed a 7-11, does that count? I mean, all these crimes are against humanity...are you saying they can have jobs, as long as they don't interact with humanity? Hmmmm...
posted
So, michaele (and Jon Boy if you desire), just to satisfy my curiosity... if a felon reforms and joins the LDS church, should he not be allowed to go on a mission? Or should he serve on a mission without going door to door? Does the LDS church have a policy regarding this?
While this is intended partly to be devil's-advocate-ish, it's not intended to be snarky. I'm honestly curious.
posted
Papa Moose, good question. I think there are several situations where an individual is barred from serving a mission despite repentance. I don't know much about it though.
I don't know enough about this situation to know how I feel about it. If the people going door to door have commited minor crimes, I would be a lot more comfortable than if they had done sick, terrible, monstrous things. I'm not sure what I think about it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's all turn our minds back to 1988 and the Dukakis versus Bush election. In the month of August, Dukakis lead in the polls by 17 points. Then, everything hit the papers about his pardoning a black man (the name was Horton, to the best of my recollection) who went on to commit some heinous crime (I don't remember exactly what). The republicans used this as a message and a mantra to swing public opinion so much that Bush won in a landslide a few months later,
Will younger Bush use this story to accomplish the same thing?
Posts: 279 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am sure Jeb is trying to figure out how to discount ACT registrations as we speak...he took away nearly 2 million votes (not all felons) with one fell swoop...maybe he can remove those registered by felons!
quote:And to call someone not a Christian because they're worried about their family is over the top.
It's not so much the worrying about family as much as christianity and the doctrine of forgiveness and redemption. Then again, I'm one of those non-Christians who believe that ex-felons should be treated with dignity, which includes the right to vote. Not to mention, it's just a whole heck of a lot easier for some people to be charged with a felony than it is for others.
quote:I'm looking for the place in the Bible where it says felons should be given jobs that introduce them to lots of potential victims (esp. the sex offenders).
Mathew 18:12-13 21-35 Luke 6:27-38, 10:30-37 (this has more to do with not considering a group's history in wether or not they'd help others), 11:4 5-13
There are plenty of other places, but it'd take too long to find them all... But you get the idea. A Christian, by definition, is a follower of the teachings of Christ. He tells us to forgive everyone who asks to be forgiven, and even those who don't. There's no saying that's up to translation.
So I say again: If you don't want to give people a second chance when they ask for it, you're not a Christian (In fact, you're supposed to give them 70).
posted
I am a firm believer that you can forgive someone whole heartedly but that you are not required to place in that person all your trust. I think this is not in conflict with Christianity.
If my husband had an affair, I might forgive him, but it may take a great deal more for him to earn my trust once more.
posted
I don't like people telling other people if they are Christian or not. Since we are talking about judgement and justice, isn't it up to Christ to decide who is or is not Christian? I mean, if we are going to be pointing fingers, shouldn't it go both ways? If you have a right to decide who is and isn't a Christian, shouldn't everyone have that right -- or no one at all?
As for me, its not about forgiveness (they should be given a second chance). Its about trust and opening a person to comitting a crime again that they wouldn't if not placed in that situation. Part of repentance is to not put yourself in the kinds of situations (wallow in your dung and make things even worse), if you can help it, that will make you fall again. Proper supervision I am fine with -- but, it doesn't sound like such supervisions are in place for this group. Sure, some of them might be fully recovered. However, it sounds like proper screaning has not been enforced for the protection of society. We should be harmless as doves, but wise as serpents.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I don't know who ACT is. I don't trust them to decide for me who is safe to be standing on my doorstep and who isn't.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
An organization's set up to help ex-cons find work again and thus avoid the famous revolving-door pattern. Kerry needs door-to-door registrars -- and he goes ahead and gives the contract to the organization. Never mind that unemployment is one of the most common reasons why ex-cons commit crimes again.
Gotta love this example of unbiased media, by the way. In the first paragraph:
quote:JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- A Democratic group crucial to John Kerry's presidential campaign has paid felons -- some convicted of sex offenses, assault and burglary -- to conduct door-to-door voter registration drives in at least three election swing states.
I'd hoped the AP was above this.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You honestly don't see the bias in this report?
If you want to run a story on the merits of having ex-cons go door-to-door, fine -- that's a legitimate moral question. And later in the report, it'd be a good way of pressing the issue home to show that a presidential candidate's hired such an organization to run a registration drive.
This report doesn't say that. It declares, in the first paragraph, that John Kerry's hiring sex offenders and burglars to go door-to-door, recruiting for him.
Do you understand the subtleties between the two reporting methods?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it made it clear that Kerry has nothing to do with this. I don't think it reflects badly on him. I do agree that it sounds "bad" though.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the only thing you can question of this is if the group is really crucial to John Kerry? Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. However, it doesn't say anything about if John Kerry was the one doing the hiring.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A Christian, by definition, is a follower of the teachings of Christ. He tells us to forgive everyone who asks to be forgiven, and even those who don't. There's no saying that's up to translation.
1.) Look up the definition of forgive and tell me where it says to trust a forgiven person who has shownno signs of repentence with others' lives.
2.) Can you point me to that place that says it's YOUR job to say who's a Christian and who's not? I missed it.
Dagonee Edit: If you're insisting that we can't take criminal history into account when hiring ex-felons, ask if we should let convicted child molestors work in day care centers when they get out. If you don't think we should let them them work there, then you agree with the principle we can restrict jobs based on past actions, and merely disagree with where the line should be drawn. If you do think we should let them work there, then I'm glad you won't be hiring my children's day care provider.
posted
I'll go with the majority on the first part. The sex offenders make me nervous, but without knowing what kind of offense, I'll reserve judgement.
It's the burglars that worry me. While ACT may be altruistic, nothing says the ex-con didn't take the job to case your house. Do you have an alarm pad next to the door? How big is your dog? How many cars are in the drive when you're home? They can learn all sorts of things about you.
But then I'm one of those weird Christians who believes Satan is actually out there trying to influence us to sin. I don't have a problem with the crime committed. I have a problem with the person having turned so far from God that they believe this is appropriate behavior.
Sure, people can change. But how do we know these people in particular have? If they were office workers or even registers in a public place, I'd have no problems with it. The door to door bit I disagree with.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think people who get caught speeding once should have their car taken away and ability to drive renounced...they are a clearly a threat to society and have no place on the road.
quote: Although ACT asks job applicants to cite their criminal history and hires some felons and not others, Elleithee would not reveal how many felons ACT has hired to canvass neighborhoods and register voters.
Either the reporter just didn't cover it or ACT didn't reveal the methodology, but I want to know how they determine which ex-cons get hired and which don't.
Would they hire someone with a long history of burglary? If the crime is burglary, I think it makes a big difference whether it was a one or two time deal or the person has been in and out of jail for it.
If they hire a previous sex offender, do they take into account what the crimes were?
Would they hire a convicted rapist? How many people here would be comfortable with a convicted rapist going door-to-door where he might find many women home alone?
I believe in second chances, but that doesn't mean putting the public at risk. I don't want to condemn what ACT is doing however, until I know more about their hiring practices.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the ACT website, in response to this very topic.
quote:A Word From America Coming Together
We believe strongly that those few of our employees who have in the past run afoul of the law, those who have paid their debt to society, deserve every fair opportunity to rejoin mainstream America, to become productive members of their communities.
In fact, it seems clear that any individual who seeks work in a civically-oriented grassroots organization like America Coming Together is demonstrating his or her desire to make a positive contribution to society.
ACT, of course, has never knowingly employed any person whom we could possibly consider to be a threat to the community. Further, none of our canvassers has ever been accused of any untoward behavior in the course of his or her work. To the contrary, our employees have conducted themselves professionally and honorably and have altogether been a credit to this organization and the communities they serve.
This organization is currently conducting background checks on all of its employees, and will conduct such checks in the future on all potential employees. It is our policy not to employ individuals with records of certain serious criminal offenses, including all violent crimes.
We have every expectation, of course, that the Bush campaign and other Republicans will do their best to distort and play politics with this situation, to attempt to disrupt ACT and our grassroots activities. We at ACT, however, agree with these sentiments offered by President Bush just this past Monday:
““I know that many a good soul makes a mistake in their life and ends up in prison. And it seems to make sense to me to spend taxpayers’ money to help these prisoners realize a better tomorrow when they get out of prison, give them a second chance.
“You can go from prison to the White House, just so long as you have someone there to hold your hand and help you help you.” Posted by America Coming Together on Thursday, June 24, 2004 at 02:35 PM
I believe in giving people a second chance (I have known some who in the past had convictions, but turned their lives around).
However, I'm also the mother of a pretty blonde 14-year-old girl -- and it makes me feel uneasy that someone who might have, in the past, been convicted of sex crimes could come door to door and discover where we live, who all in the household, names, etc. (Bok - I can't remember - do you have kids? They kind of change your perspective on life).
That said, I guess there is never any guarantee that the plumber, electrician or home remodeler I might hire at some point might have the same tendencies. You just never really know, you know?
Good thing I'm not a democrat, I guess. I don't have to worry about them canvassing my area.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
