71–80 of 390 posts
There's a lot of research on ban-the-box policies[1]. I assume this applies here as well. [1]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ban+the+box
That it won't have much effect, and might actually be counterproductive?
This is a huge disservice to the public. Lots of offenders are repeat offenders, and the public needs to know who they are. Or maybe someone just wants to look up an old news story they remember. More fundamentally, this type of action is just a manipulation of the public and not journalism, which should be a neutral way of sharing information.
63% of violent offenders reoffend but that actually undercounts the amount of crimes that are caused by repeat offenders because there are some people offending 10+ times.
A three strikes rule would eliminate nearly half of all violent crime because nearly half of violent crime is committed by people who have already been convicted of 3+ other violent crimes.
This is Orwellian gaslighting. These papers should no longer be viewed as authoritive keepers of the public record. Any institution that engages in this kind of memory-holing forfeits all credibility. They can no longer be trusted whatsoever.
Imagine someone who got pardoned by the state for a minor crime (so a clean criminal record) but who still had a newspaper article about them. That would be a raw deal.
Of all the career-limiting moves I've witnessed in my lifetime, that one was pretty near the top.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really high, and crazy, but apparently legit -see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4443707/#:~:text=Br... .
The fact that it's self reported makes me wonder how close to the actual number it is. Also, how did they choose their sample. Edit: Link to original paper https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/32982174/Turner_-_Appe...
I'm ok with this, as long as it's systemic. Otherwise it's just another way for people with means to get a leg up on people without means. If it's, "we delete all crime stories after N years", then fine, especially for low level, non violent stuff. The punishment for crimes should come from the justice system and people should be able to pay their dues and move on.
You're describing punishment by the state. One is entitled to move on from a fine or imprisonment. One is not entitled to a clean social or occupational reputation. There's a good reason those consequences exist.
In plenty of jurisdictions people are entitled precisely to that. Here in Germany the entire basis for punishment is a right to full reintegration after you have been punished. A just community punishes once, not five hundred times over and that goes both for the people and the state (which are the same thing in a democracy, the latter punishes on behalf of the former). If you come out of prison and you've paid back your debt only to be ostracized and arbitrarily pursued by a witch hunting public that's not a just society, it's a mob. It's worth repeating, if someone goes to prison you're putting them there, it's "we the people vs X". "The state" is exercising power on your behalf.
That's the basis of a working social contract. You harm the community, you pay, but afterwards we have an actual duty to resocialize you, otherwise we just acted in arbitrary and disproportionate fashion. Criminals have rights in a civilized society, including to privacy and not be discriminated against, by say employers.
> One in three U.S. adults has been arrested by age 23. Does that seem crazy to anyone else? I'm in Ireland and can't think of one person in my extended family and friends that has any interaction with the police beyond routine insurance/DUI checkpoints or reporting incidents like car accidents.
It’s an obviously incorrect figure. It must include things like traffic tickets. The guardian is a highly activist and biased publication by their own admission, and not truly “journalistic”.
However that is misleading, the below link talks about problems with the definition of a ‘criminal record.’
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/aug/18/andrew-cuo...
This is Orwellian gaslighting. These papers should no longer be viewed as authoritive keepers of the public record. Any institution that engages in this kind of memory-holing forfeits all credibility. They can no longer be trusted whatsoever.
Imagine someone who got pardoned by the state for a minor crime (so a clean criminal record) but who still had a newspaper article about them. That would be a raw deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would happen to people’s perception of crime if only the crime perpetuated by the rich and powerful was reported on?
It's probably just me, but it feels like reporting on crime is very lopsided and slanted against the powerless.
Not everything is about power dynamics, and crime rarely is. Far more often it is about selfishness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Frankly, I think the original sentence was accurate. If that had been a cyclist instead of a car then they’d be dead. The speed limit is a limit, not a requirement. Driving fast in conditions where you can hydroplane is absolutely reckless.
Restricted access highway, no cyclists allowed or present. I don't think “reckless” is the right word. Clueless, really. I didn’t know there was a problem until I lost traction. Whatever you want to call it, do you really think that’s worth a criminal charge? Possibly destroying my livelihood over this? Do you think the possibility of criminal charges is what stops me from doing it again, versus the potential damage…
I don’t believe your driving was safe. I also don’t believe you were taught driving correctly, assuming you’re American, and I might also believe that driving slowly would have been equally dangerous, if the other cars did not.
Furthermore, I don’t believe a reckless driving charge without injury should be a criminal matter or that a criminal conviction should destroy someone’s livelihood.
However, four wrongs don’t make a right. It just makes a mess.