261–270 of 450 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, essentially "we're not blocking any content, just blocking any means for you to find it".
To be fair, those are two different things.
In general it is always impossible to have this conversation because the idea of "free speech" is very different in America compared to Europe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not how a lot of EU countries function - which is why there's friction there. The American "You are a criminal for life and will eternally be punished!" attitude is clashing with an EU mindset of being able to start a new life. Permanent records are hugely damaging for persons livelihood in these cases.
>Permanent records are hugely damaging for persons livelihood in these cases. I agree and I'm not debating the harm that can be done. (My comment got many downvotes so I assume they think I believe felons should never be given a 2nd chance.) No, my comment is specifically about the framework for arguing . I'm saying that phrases such as "forgive" and "pay debt to society" are unconvincing since society has never univ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a very US-based list. Many countries around the world do not remove citizen rights to the same degree the US does. Not all countries have a sex offender registry. There is a culture in the States of looking on incarceration as a penalty for crimes. Some countries look on it as a rehabilitation tool and manage lower recidivism rates.
My right to be safe from a rapist is greater than their right to not be on a registry. If they want to avoid being on a registry, then avoid raping people!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you handle someone like this guy after he gets out of prison: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/our-tim... If we erase his past from the internet - that kind of enables him to do his scam again immediately. It's a difficult question.
> It's a difficult question. Not at all. It's up to the legal system and law enforcement to handle this. Not up to citizens, and for good reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I want to hire somebody to supervise women or children, I'd like not to hire somebody who (at any point in their life) victimized women or children, because it's not too much to ask! Sure. But let's make that list formal, with recognised judicial ways of getting on it, and recognised judicial ways of getting off it, rather than just "this newspaper said it", which leaves people without recourse unless they can a…
> and recognised judicial ways of getting off it That would make sense if you were never guilty of it, but I disagree completely with the idea that somebody who has been ruled guilty (without a successful appeal) has a right to be forgotten only for having served their time.
> For adults, the rehabilitation period is one year for community orders, two years for custodial sentences of six months or less, four years for custodial sentences of over six months and up to and including 30 months, and seven years for custodial sentences of over 30 months and up to and including 48 months. Custodial sentences of over four years will never become spent and must continue to be disclosed when necessary.
This has been part of UK law since at least 1974. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Ac...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's good for the society is not necessarily good for the individual. Him getting a job is good for society, but I don't want to be the one shouldering the risk. For the individual it's a high risk / low reward situation, so the rational decision is to pass. Tragedy of the commons.
What risk? It's just easy to pass and assume that those who don't have News articles about are lower risk. Not all crimes are reported on the News as it's for-profit entertainment business that needs to pick the most shocking/entertaining incidents and portray those in a way that more people share it.
The probability of a convicted person to do something criminal again is not the same as the risk of an random unconvicted person, just like the risk of a flood reoccurring in a previously flooded area:
> According to an April 2011 report by the Pew Center on the States, the average national recidivism rate for released prisoners is 43%.[2]
> According to the National Institute of Justice, about 68 percent of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of their release from prison, and 77 percent were arrested within five years.
> According to a national study published in 2003 by The Urban Institute, within three years almost 7 out of 10 released males will be rearrested and half will be back in prison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If felons were truly forgiven, they would have their right to vote restored. I have always thought that was outrageous. I think people should be aloud to vote even while they're in jail. The current system could allow a group to wipe out their political opponents by simply passing a law outlawing a common activity, then selectively enforcing it. I mean that's basically what the war on drugs was about.
In Canada the right to vote is inalienable, and so those citizens who are incarcerated can vote. It's odd that the USA, which champions democracy, doesn't hold the right to vote as a universal and inalienable right of all citizens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, essentially "we're not blocking any content, just blocking any means for you to find it".
That and answering questions isn't considered speech when the thing answering is a search engine.
As I see it, the heart of the matter is that the average person is really bad at placing any random fact they learn about someone (or something) in its proper context. So that means people should have some legal leverage when it comes to all the information (accurate or not) that is available about them online.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>As a society, we approve of jail being the mechanism to "forgive" a person's crime. That's not really true. Serving prison time is neither a way to "forgive" nor a way to "pay debt back to society" . Those are just common phrases some people use. If felons were truly forgiven , they would have their right to vote restored. They wouldn't be denied a passport to travel abroad or denied a firearms license. Convicted fe…
> Society has never perceived jail time as truly resetting the scarlet letter back to zero. Therefore, the debate is whether "Google results" is in the same bucket as "sex offender list". For many in society, they think it's wrong to remove those results from Google. I mean, on the most basic level, a prior offense is an excellent predictor of a future offense. If I want to hire somebody to supervise women or childre…
And you should get that - by making an official request for those records, and presenting documents that show that the person is applying to your job which involves supervising women and children.
None of which requires it to be at the distance of a click.
I, for one, don't think a murderer should be forgiven. A murderer gets to live, and the victim is no longer alive, there is fundamentally nothing you can do to be forgiven for murder. To me, that is as it should be.
I, on the other hand, would rather not get robbed because your draconian policies left the murderer alive but unable to get a job.