DeletedUser
I don't want to get into this, because you're very paranoid, and you need to talk to a professional about that, not some people over the internet.
So I'll just say this: the little button next to the QUOTE button lets you quote a lot of posts at once.
Have gone through therapy regarding this aspect, thanks for the recomenation though. I guess Ill pass this over to the ex and suggest he also get therapy regarding his views and ideas, and Ill credit you.
So people should be haunted for the slighest mistake for the rest of their lives?
Commit one crime, and you're branded for life?
Is this right?
Is this fair?
Hell no.
Should the general public and private companies be allowed full insight on all aspects of a persona? Where does the private sphere stop, and where does it end?
Less people will get harmed by common sense, rather than fear and stigma.
As for the company finger printing you... what kind of fascist bullcrap is that anyways?
So disclosing criminal history is a buisniss now?
That's just so sick, and so wrong.
What's next, selling health details?
Yes, justice is public, that doesn't mean records should be public once the time is served. Arrests, courts, and prisons must all be open to the scrutiny of the public, else we'd end up in a society we would quickly find unlivable.
What a convict has done is between him and the state.
Once he or she is out, they should be given a chance.
If we have it your way, and everyone has full access to all records then this will not be the case.
They will always be the thief, murderer, robber, brawler, or drunk driver.
Why not just enforce mandatory stockade punishment every sunday right after church to squeeze some entertainment (and possibly profit)out of it?
Prisons are not about punishing the criminal, but protecting society from the indivudual whom broke the laws.
Whilst inside they should be rehabilitated, rather than punsihed and further alienated and educated in the criminal arts.
Child protective services are backgrounded, those who work with children and adults with disablities are backgrounded and bonded, those who are teachers are backgrounded, those in some jobs in the hospital are backgrounded, social services are backgrounded, daycare workers are...the list goes on and on.
I doubt the lists are sold. A friend has a husband who is a doctor, she checks backgrounds on any nurses or other staff who will have to deal with children or adults with disablities. Would you want to hire felons to work for your company? I dont want to.
If a person completes their court ordered stuff(ie probation, restiution, therapy ect) they can file to have the record sealed. If its ok with the type of conviction it is, they may be able to if they havent re-offended. I know even in sex offenses this is possible to have to register for a certian amount of time. I think if you harm a child though, you can never get it off your record.
If a person has made a mistake in their life(which we all do), it IS possible to get convictions closed. If the mistake was so large then they should ahve taken that into consideration before it happens.
I do know that some who commit a crime of passion(ie shooting your husband/wife upon seeing them in bed with someone else) NEVER would kill another person. Which is why sometimes sentences for those crimes can be less then what a person convicted of a premeditated murder would get.
Well, I'm glad that you at least acknowledge that not everyone on a list of sex offenders is actually any kind of threat to your children.
But no - it varies from place to place, but generally people on a sex offenders list aren't precluded from being near children. Can you imagine how difficult that kind of prohibition would be to stick to? Can you imagine how difficult it would be to police? The usual state of affairs is that ex-sex offenders are not permitted to live within a certain distance of places frequented by children: parks, youth centres, schools etc.
Now, going back to my "hypothetical Phil" who made one mistake years ago, do you think that part of the law is fair on him? You've acknowledged that he's not likely to be a risk to your children and I'd guess you're a lot more protective of your own kids than children in general so you'd probably accept that he's not a danger to kids in general. However, regardless of the fact that he's not a danger, he has a permanent restriction* against where he can live. Doesn't that seem a little harsh to you given that his only crime was to sleep with someone who deceived him as to her age?
And if it's not fair on hypothetical Phil, what about the reality: Wendy Whitaker? Is it fair to brand her for the rest of her life?
* The amount of time that someone spends on the sex offenders register in the USA varies from state to state but in some states it's permanent regardless of the size or nature of the offence.
No its not fair. Im not a fan of the girl who decived our fake Phile either. Its probably not fair on Wendy either. HOWEVER both fake Phil and real Wendy, they could ahve decided to not sleep with the person they did. Wendy probably lacked some class though to blow her b/f in SCHOOL! She should be happy Im not her mother.
I think teaching my boys not to have sex with anyone under age will be discussed and they will understand what COULD happen IF they decide to do that anyway. They will be branded in a very negitive manner for life. I know for a fact my ex will stand behind me and also teach the boys this very same information. Perhaps more parents should discuss this issue with their children, but they ARE their own people and once they hit a certian age, I am no longer allowed to make their choices for them. HOPEFULLY I will ahve done enough for them to understand what could happen if they make bad choices.
Last edited by a moderator: