71–80 of 149 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind of. Why wouldn't they?
Because a still developing pre-frontal cortex means young people (under 25) fucking suck at making decisions.
I wonder what will happen in Canada once October 17th, the legalization date comes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because a still developing pre-frontal cortex means young people (under 25) fucking suck at making decisions.
I would disagree with that. Being young does not inherently mean you make bad decisions. Some people make dumb decisions in their youth but no need to discriminate against a population based on age. Many people enlist in the military, start companies and/or start families before 25.
For comparison, what happened just after alcohol prohibition ended in the USA? (I'm not American, so not too familiar with this.)
Things bounced back petty quickly. It only took about 80 years for us to start having access to good beer again. More seriously - I don't think organized crime went away. It was a big problem before prohibition, and it continued to be a big problem after. However, it may have been weakened by the loss of an extremely profitable revenue source. Alcoholism dropped precipitously during prohibition, and started coming ba…
> "For too many who call Seattle home, a misdemeanour marijuana conviction or charge has created barriers to opportunity - good jobs, housing, loans and education," she said. The problem isn't the marijuana convictions, the problem is a society that believes people with criminal records can and should have their entire lives ruined for it. It's a society that doesn't believe in rehabilitation, just "good people" and…
The problem is the low bar to litigation in the US. Employers are afraid hiring a person with a criminal record because if even the slightest problem occurs, they’ll be sued because they “should have known they hired a convict” and a jury will rule against them. I don’t know how this can be solved EDIT: It would not cause a lawsuit directly, but it would harm your defense in any lawsuit, which could increase the chan…
"542 people could have their convictions dismissed by mid-November" That's not the number I was expecting when I saw the headline. That's 36 people a year, in a city the size of Seattle. I was expecting it to be thousands if not more. Maybe shows that not very many people are ever convicted for simple possession alone. It's usually an additional charge along with dealing, violence, or both.
> "For too many who call Seattle home, a misdemeanour marijuana conviction or charge has created barriers to opportunity - good jobs, housing, loans and education," she said. The problem isn't the marijuana convictions, the problem is a society that believes people with criminal records can and should have their entire lives ruined for it. It's a society that doesn't believe in rehabilitation, just "good people" and…
The problem is the low bar to litigation in the US. Employers are afraid hiring a person with a criminal record because if even the slightest problem occurs, they’ll be sued because they “should have known they hired a convict” and a jury will rule against them. I don’t know how this can be solved EDIT: It would not cause a lawsuit directly, but it would harm your defense in any lawsuit, which could increase the chan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious: don't these people still have to report the arrests in some forms /for some jobs even if they're vacated? "Have you ever been arrested or jailed..." I know US immigration specifically asks to mention even if pardoned or expunged.
Isn't asking just if one has been arrested in an interview for nonlaw enforcement positions technically an illegal question without qualifiers to specifically exclude the ones that didn't result in conviction or admission of guilt? Arrest doesn't imply conviction or even the low bar for indictment. For instance SWAT protocol is to cuff literally everybody else possible on the scene for one and then assess and release…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is the low bar to litigation in the US. Employers are afraid hiring a person with a criminal record because if even the slightest problem occurs, they’ll be sued because they “should have known they hired a convict” and a jury will rule against them. I don’t know how this can be solved EDIT: It would not cause a lawsuit directly, but it would harm your defense in any lawsuit, which could increase the chan…
Do you have any evidence to support this? I’ve never heard of anybody being sued for that reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is the low bar to litigation in the US. Employers are afraid hiring a person with a criminal record because if even the slightest problem occurs, they’ll be sued because they “should have known they hired a convict” and a jury will rule against them. I don’t know how this can be solved EDIT: It would not cause a lawsuit directly, but it would harm your defense in any lawsuit, which could increase the chan…
Do you have any evidence to support this? I’ve never heard of anybody being sued for that reason.
It's more that if they get sued for some other reason (legitimate or not), the fact that they hired a convict may count against them in the jury's eyes.
So, as the business sees it, hiring a convict brings extra potential liability.