Laws To Save Us

[PhilipNolan]

@WildRose

If you have a felony on your record your prospects for the future go to hell immediately.

then maybe they shouldn’t break the law.

[TheRedComet]

Yes that’s true.

But once you’ve served your sentence you’ve paid your debt to society.

Should they not be given a chance to fix to their lives?

Hope. If you take away their hope for the future (which is what the current system does) why on earth wouldn’t they go back to robbing, or dealing hard narcotics? They have to feed theirselves and their families like any other person.

[zantax]

@TheRedComet

Yes that’s true.

But once you’ve served your sentence you’ve paid your debt to society.

Should they not be given a chance to fix to their lives?

Hope. If you take away their hope for the future (which is what the current system does) why on earth wouldn’t they go back to robbing, or dealing hard narcotics? They have to feed theirselves and their families like any other person.

Well that obviously sucks for the criminal but what’s the alternative? Hiding the fact that someone is a rapist so he can work in my wife’s office? And you couldn’t hide it anyway, unless we do away with public trials a competent background check is going to reveal it.

[TheRedComet]

Obviously violent felonies (which include rape) are excluded from any forgiveness plan.

On the private end, there’s nothing that can be done. Employers have a right to know. And 90% of them won’t hire felons. Some will. And I do think some sort of tax incentive may help with that. If a business hires a non violent felon they can get a tax break of some kind.

I do believe that non violent felons should have all of their civil and political rights restored upon completion of the sentence, though, after a probation period. The right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to privacy (that’s something that isn’t mentioned much; once you’re a felon the cops can basically intrude upon your life whenever they feel like it), among others.

This would exclude violent felonies, such as rape, pedophilia, assault, murder or manslaughter, etcetera. They lose their rights forever.

[zantax]

@TheRedComet

Obviously violent felonies (which include rape) are excluded from any forgiveness plan.

On the private end, there’s nothing that can be done. Employers have a right to know. And 90% of them won’t hire felons. Some will. And I do think some sort of tax incentive may help with that. If a business hires a non violent felon they can get a tax break of some kind.

I do believe that non violent felons should have all of their civil and political rights restored upon completion of the sentence, though, after a probation period. The right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to privacy (that’s something that isn’t mentioned much; once you’re a felon the cops can basically intrude upon your life whenever they feel like it), among others.

This would exclude violent felonies, such as rape, pedophilia, assault, murder or manslaughter, etcetera. They lose their rights forever.

So you actually want to incentivize the hiring of a felon over a law abiding citizen? How is that fair to the law abiding?

I do agree with restoring their right to vote and own a gun though. If you are too dangerous to own a gun you shouldn’t be walking around free.

[TheRedComet]

No. I don’t. If two people are applying for the same job, in theory, the one with the best skills needed for the business should get the job.

As it stands now most won’t even consider an applicant with a felony. No interview. It’s thrown in the trash immediately. He or she might be an excellent worker and an asset to the team. But they aren’t even considered. At that point, what do they do? Well it’s either starve or go back to selling weed. Which puts them into what I call the “cycle.” You can’t make it in the legit world so you use your old contacts and go back to doing what you were good at before you got busted. Then you get busted again.

When I was a manager and hiring people, I gave felons a fair shake. I never hired one because they lacked the skills I needed for the role. But I interviewed them. I listened to them. I considered their application rather than just throwing it in the trash.

[zantax]

@TheRedComet

No. I don’t. If two people are applying for the same job, in theory, the one with the best skills needed for the business should get the job.

As it stands now most won’t even consider an applicant with a felony. No interview. It’s thrown in the trash immediately. He or she might be an excellent worker and an asset to the team. But they aren’t even considered. At that point, what do they do? Well it’s either starve or go back to selling weed. Which puts them into what I call the “cycle.” You can’t make it in the legit world so you use your old contacts and go back to doing what you were good at before you got busted. Then you get busted again.

When I was a manager and hiring people, I gave felons a fair shake. I never hired one because they lacked the skills I needed for the role. But I interviewed them. I listened to them. I considered their application rather than just throwing it in the trash.

Which is not the same as giving businesses a tax break, ie paying them, to hire the felon instead of the law abiding.

[mobulis]

@zantax

@TheRedComet

Obviously violent felonies (which include rape) are excluded from any forgiveness plan.

On the private end, there’s nothing that can be done. Employers have a right to know. And 90% of them won’t hire felons. Some will. And I do think some sort of tax incentive may help with that. If a business hires a non violent felon they can get a tax break of some kind.

I do believe that non violent felons should have all of their civil and political rights restored upon completion of the sentence, though, after a probation period. The right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to privacy (that’s something that isn’t mentioned much; once you’re a felon the cops can basically intrude upon your life whenever they feel like it), among others.

This would exclude violent felonies, such as rape, pedophilia, assault, murder or manslaughter, etcetera. They lose their rights forever.

So you actually want to incentivize the hiring of a felon over a law abiding citizen? How is that fair to the law abiding?

I do agree with restoring their right to vote and own a gun though. If you are too dangerous to own a gun you shouldn’t be walking around free.

If the felon has better skills than the citizen is int that’s how it’s supposed to work?

[mobulis]

@zantax

@TheRedComet

No. I don’t. If two people are applying for the same job, in theory, the one with the best skills needed for the business should get the job.

As it stands now most won’t even consider an applicant with a felony. No interview. It’s thrown in the trash immediately. He or she might be an excellent worker and an asset to the team. But they aren’t even considered. At that point, what do they do? Well it’s either starve or go back to selling weed. Which puts them into what I call the “cycle.” You can’t make it in the legit world so you use your old contacts and go back to doing what you were good at before you got busted. Then you get busted again.

When I was a manager and hiring people, I gave felons a fair shake. I never hired one because they lacked the skills I needed for the role. But I interviewed them. I listened to them. I considered their application rather than just throwing it in the trash.

Which is not the same as giving businesses a tax break, ie paying them, to hire the felon instead of the law abiding.

Tax breaks aren’t paying them.

[zantax]

@mobulis

@zantax

@TheRedComet

Obviously violent felonies (which include rape) are excluded from any forgiveness plan.

On the private end, there’s nothing that can be done. Employers have a right to know. And 90% of them won’t hire felons. Some will. And I do think some sort of tax incentive may help with that. If a business hires a non violent felon they can get a tax break of some kind.

I do believe that non violent felons should have all of their civil and political rights restored upon completion of the sentence, though, after a probation period. The right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to privacy (that’s something that isn’t mentioned much; once you’re a felon the cops can basically intrude upon your life whenever they feel like it), among others.

This would exclude violent felonies, such as rape, pedophilia, assault, murder or manslaughter, etcetera. They lose their rights forever.

So you actually want to incentivize the hiring of a felon over a law abiding citizen? How is that fair to the law abiding?

I do agree with restoring their right to vote and own a gun though. If you are too dangerous to own a gun you shouldn’t be walking around free.

If the felon has better skills than the citizen is int that’s how it’s supposed to work?

Nope, I don’t care how good you are at x job if you’re a rapist or child molester.

[zantax]

@mobulis

@zantax

@TheRedComet

No. I don’t. If two people are applying for the same job, in theory, the one with the best skills needed for the business should get the job.

As it stands now most won’t even consider an applicant with a felony. No interview. It’s thrown in the trash immediately. He or she might be an excellent worker and an asset to the team. But they aren’t even considered. At that point, what do they do? Well it’s either starve or go back to selling weed. Which puts them into what I call the “cycle.” You can’t make it in the legit world so you use your old contacts and go back to doing what you were good at before you got busted. Then you get busted again.

When I was a manager and hiring people, I gave felons a fair shake. I never hired one because they lacked the skills I needed for the role. But I interviewed them. I listened to them. I considered their application rather than just throwing it in the trash.

Which is not the same as giving businesses a tax break, ie paying them, to hire the felon instead of the law abiding.

Tax breaks aren’t paying them.

Lol, yes it is.

[mobulis]

@zantax

@mobulis

@zantax

@TheRedComet

Obviously violent felonies (which include rape) are excluded from any forgiveness plan.

On the private end, there’s nothing that can be done. Employers have a right to know. And 90% of them won’t hire felons. Some will. And I do think some sort of tax incentive may help with that. If a business hires a non violent felon they can get a tax break of some kind.

I do believe that non violent felons should have all of their civil and political rights restored upon completion of the sentence, though, after a probation period. The right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to privacy (that’s something that isn’t mentioned much; once you’re a felon the cops can basically intrude upon your life whenever they feel like it), among others.

This would exclude violent felonies, such as rape, pedophilia, assault, murder or manslaughter, etcetera. They lose their rights forever.

So you actually want to incentivize the hiring of a felon over a law abiding citizen? How is that fair to the law abiding?

I do agree with restoring their right to vote and own a gun though. If you are too dangerous to own a gun you shouldn’t be walking around free.

If the felon has better skills than the citizen is int that’s how it’s supposed to work?

Nope, I don’t care how good you are at x job if you’re a rapist or child molester.

Good thing were not talking about those kinds of crimes.

[mobulis]

@zantax

@mobulis

@zantax

@TheRedComet

No. I don’t. If two people are applying for the same job, in theory, the one with the best skills needed for the business should get the job.

As it stands now most won’t even consider an applicant with a felony. No interview. It’s thrown in the trash immediately. He or she might be an excellent worker and an asset to the team. But they aren’t even considered. At that point, what do they do? Well it’s either starve or go back to selling weed. Which puts them into what I call the “cycle.” You can’t make it in the legit world so you use your old contacts and go back to doing what you were good at before you got busted. Then you get busted again.

When I was a manager and hiring people, I gave felons a fair shake. I never hired one because they lacked the skills I needed for the role. But I interviewed them. I listened to them. I considered their application rather than just throwing it in the trash.

Which is not the same as giving businesses a tax break, ie paying them, to hire the felon instead of the law abiding.

Tax breaks aren’t paying them.

Lol, yes it is.

Ah nope the govt is giving them any money.

[zantax]

@mobulis

@zantax

@mobulis

@zantax

@TheRedComet

No. I don’t. If two people are applying for the same job, in theory, the one with the best skills needed for the business should get the job.

As it stands now most won’t even consider an applicant with a felony. No interview. It’s thrown in the trash immediately. He or she might be an excellent worker and an asset to the team. But they aren’t even considered. At that point, what do they do? Well it’s either starve or go back to selling weed. Which puts them into what I call the “cycle.” You can’t make it in the legit world so you use your old contacts and go back to doing what you were good at before you got busted. Then you get busted again.

When I was a manager and hiring people, I gave felons a fair shake. I never hired one because they lacked the skills I needed for the role. But I interviewed them. I listened to them. I considered their application rather than just throwing it in the trash.

Which is not the same as giving businesses a tax break, ie paying them, to hire the felon instead of the law abiding.

Tax breaks aren’t paying them.

Lol, yes it is.

Ah nope the govt is giving them any money.

Of course they would be, there is no material difference between a tax break and getting paid.

[mobulis]

@zantax

@mobulis

@zantax

@mobulis

@zantax

@TheRedComet

No. I don’t. If two people are applying for the same job, in theory, the one with the best skills needed for the business should get the job.

As it stands now most won’t even consider an applicant with a felony. No interview. It’s thrown in the trash immediately. He or she might be an excellent worker and an asset to the team. But they aren’t even considered. At that point, what do they do? Well it’s either starve or go back to selling weed. Which puts them into what I call the “cycle.” You can’t make it in the legit world so you use your old contacts and go back to doing what you were good at before you got busted. Then you get busted again.

When I was a manager and hiring people, I gave felons a fair shake. I never hired one because they lacked the skills I needed for the role. But I interviewed them. I listened to them. I considered their application rather than just throwing it in the trash.

Which is not the same as giving businesses a tax break, ie paying them, to hire the felon instead of the law abiding.

Tax breaks aren’t paying them.

Lol, yes it is.

Ah nope the govt is giving them any money.

Of course they would be, there is no material difference between a tax break and getting paid.

Still not paying them, sorry.

[zantax]

@mobulis

@zantax

@mobulis

@zantax

@TheRedComet

Obviously violent felonies (which include rape) are excluded from any forgiveness plan.

On the private end, there’s nothing that can be done. Employers have a right to know. And 90% of them won’t hire felons. Some will. And I do think some sort of tax incentive may help with that. If a business hires a non violent felon they can get a tax break of some kind.

I do believe that non violent felons should have all of their civil and political rights restored upon completion of the sentence, though, after a probation period. The right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to privacy (that’s something that isn’t mentioned much; once you’re a felon the cops can basically intrude upon your life whenever they feel like it), among others.

This would exclude violent felonies, such as rape, pedophilia, assault, murder or manslaughter, etcetera. They lose their rights forever.

So you actually want to incentivize the hiring of a felon over a law abiding citizen? How is that fair to the law abiding?

I do agree with restoring their right to vote and own a gun though. If you are too dangerous to own a gun you shouldn’t be walking around free.

If the felon has better skills than the citizen is int that’s how it’s supposed to work?

Nope, I don’t care how good you are at x job if you’re a rapist or child molester.

Good thing were not talking about those kinds of crimes.

What kind of crimes then? Should we hide embezzlers from bank hiring? And keep in mind, to actually hide it today in the real world, trials and their outcomes would have to be secret.

[mobulis]

@zantax

@mobulis

@zantax

@mobulis

@zantax

@TheRedComet

Obviously violent felonies (which include rape) are excluded from any forgiveness plan.

On the private end, there’s nothing that can be done. Employers have a right to know. And 90% of them won’t hire felons. Some will. And I do think some sort of tax incentive may help with that. If a business hires a non violent felon they can get a tax break of some kind.

I do believe that non violent felons should have all of their civil and political rights restored upon completion of the sentence, though, after a probation period. The right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to privacy (that’s something that isn’t mentioned much; once you’re a felon the cops can basically intrude upon your life whenever they feel like it), among others.

This would exclude violent felonies, such as rape, pedophilia, assault, murder or manslaughter, etcetera. They lose their rights forever.

So you actually want to incentivize the hiring of a felon over a law abiding citizen? How is that fair to the law abiding?

I do agree with restoring their right to vote and own a gun though. If you are too dangerous to own a gun you shouldn’t be walking around free.

If the felon has better skills than the citizen is int that’s how it’s supposed to work?

Nope, I don’t care how good you are at x job if you’re a rapist or child molester.

Good thing were not talking about those kinds of crimes.

What kind of crimes then? Should we hide embezzlers from bank hiring? And keep in mind, to actually hide it today in the real world, trials and their outcomes would have to be secret.

Then the only solution is life or the death penalty.

[zantax]

Hardly. Felons still get hired, just don’t usually command a premium. And it’s inescapable unless as I pointed out we move to secret trials which is unconstitutional. People build entire businesses based on hiring cheap ex con labor. Crime looks horrible on your resume, that’s not the people hiring fault, it’s criminals fault.

Amazing really, the same people who don’t think you shouldn’t be able to make a living if you make a racially insensitive remark simultaneously believe people should be forced or incentivized to hire murderers, armed robbers and rapists.

[mobulis]

@zantax

Hardly. Felons still get hired, just don’t usually command a premium. And it’s inescapable unless as I pointed out we move to secret trials which is unconstitutional. People build entire businesses based on hiring cheap ex con labor. Crime looks horrible on your resume, that’s not the people hiring fault, it’s criminals fault.

Amazing really, the same people who don’t think you shouldn’t be able to make a living if you make a racially insensitive remark simultaneously believe people should be forced or incentivized to hire murderers, armed robbers and rapists.

Ah nope its the employers fault.

[zantax]

@mobulis

@zantax

Hardly. Felons still get hired, just don’t usually command a premium. And it’s inescapable unless as I pointed out we move to secret trials which is unconstitutional. People build entire businesses based on hiring cheap ex con labor. Crime looks horrible on your resume, that’s not the people hiring fault, it’s criminals fault.

Amazing really, the same people who don’t think you shouldn’t be able to make a living if you make a racially insensitive remark simultaneously believe people should be forced or incentivized to hire murderers, armed robbers and rapists.

Ah nope its the employers fault.

Nope, the employers didn’t trash their resume, they did.