Abu Ghraib torturer freed before serving full sentence

[Teebs]

There are a few professions which are excluded for reasons that should be obvious such as lawyers and teachers. In these cases they have the right to know about all previous convictions and can discriminate based on them.

Actually, this has been expanded to any profession where you might have contact with children now, thanks to the Soham, murders, which could presumably include McDonalds if they were inclined to spend about £70 per employee for a background check. The "enhanced" check also brings up just about every contact you've ever had with the police, up to and including a telling-off for having your music too loud now that they're expected to keep records of absolutely everything.
The fact these rules exist in the first place should tell you exactly how much of a sense of proportion many employers have about a criminal record, however ancient or trivial.

Could you please provide a source on that, my understanding is that it does not go that far, although I do agree that it has become excessive.

[Zaune]

Could you please provide a source on that, my understanding is that it does not go that far, although I do agree that it has become excessive.

A blog post, but from as reputable source as I can think of. I also distinctly recall a Guardian article from some years ago claiming that "words of advice" were included in it, but I don't recall the date or the byline and finding it will take me a while.

[Teebs]

Could you please provide a source on that, my understanding is that it does not go that far, although I do agree that it has become excessive.

A blog post, but from as reputable source as I can think of. I also distinctly recall a Guardian article from some years ago claiming that "words of advice" were included in it, but I don't recall the date or the byline and finding it will take me a while.

Fair enough, although I'm not convinced it's common practice. I do agree that it has gone too far. Randomly I very recently started reading that blog.

[Darth Fanboy]

Okay. So why exactly do we let people out of prison, if we deem that they cannot be trusted with anything beyond menial labor afterwards? Why not make all felony convictions require imprisonment for life? Because that is what you appear to be advocating, Fanboy.

So the parts where I say I support rehabilitation and agree with Metahive on that front mean nothing to you? Quit being an illiterate fuck misrepresenting what I am saying. I never once advocated that felons/the dishonorably discharged should be denied access to having a normal life and normal employment, however there are many good reasons not to employ a criminal in a number of professions and employers do have the right to choose those they hire based on certain criteria.

If the point of prison is rehabilitation, then we need to rethink how we treat people who have been convicted of felonies. If the point of prison is punishment, then we need to rethink how we sentence people. You used the example of whether somebody with a DUI should be allowed to drive a school bus. I say that if they are truly rehabilitated, then they are exactly as safe as anybody else. But what you're saying is that they cannot be rehabilitated, since you're proposing a permanent exclusion. So what do you have to defend the notion that regret and rehabilitation are impossible for these scofflaws and crooks?

I never said that people can't be rehabilitated, but why should an employer be forced to take the risk he or she doesn't want to? It's even more magnified in a position where lives are at stake, and even further magnified in a job where taxpayers are directly footing the bill.

And in the DUI scenario? I'm not saying the guy should never get his license back ever, but I would not someone with a history of dangerous alcohol abuse (which is EXACTLY what a DUI is) in charge of driving a bus full of kids. It would be an incredibly foolish risk to take.

But what underlies this? It is the old saw of the "criminal mind", the idea that criminals are Other. They are not us, they are not human, really, and they are not comprehensible. One cannot let a criminal (unless their crime is socially acceptable) within one's social circles, because who knows what a criminal might do! That is what gives us this passive acceptance of a created underclass in our midst.

Come down from your high fucking horse for a minute. You're taking this way too damn far. I've stated in this thread that ex criminals deserve equal treatment under the law and that given ample chance at rehabilitation can live normal lives. My whole point has been that the closing of job avenues is a result of the negative consequences of actions said criminal has taken and thus should live with. The same shit goes for people who get tattoos on their foreheads.

It is what underlies our passive acceptance of prison rape and prison brutality too.

Yes because not trusting ex criminals to do certain jobs means I condone prison rape. Love your logic on that one jackass.

It's what has given us the highest incarceration rate in the world.

You do realize that the convicted felons we are talking about would be imprisoned in any country with a reasonable set of laws yes? Our incarceration rates are too high because of our overprosecution of nonviolent crimes (some of which that shouldnt even be crimes). But it also has jack shit to do with living with consequences.

Meanwhile, The Kernel's blather about corporations is a more capitalist insanity. That is endemic to the US too, but is a little beyond the scope of this post.

Your post is already beyond the scope of the thread so why not go further? And please explain why what Kernel is saying is "blather." This I would love to hear.

So if we accept the underlying premise- the foundation- that criminals are somehow inherently different, that by committing crimes they exile themselves from humanity altogether and in perpetuity (as long as that crime fits within a specific social framework), then let us jump closer to the top.

You know what the difference is between a criminal and a normal person? Criminals committ crimes, ex-criminals as part of their rehabilitation need to work extra hard to earn some measure of trust, it sucks for them but it's needed so they can be productive again.

Let us consider murder. Indeed, people would well shy away from the thought of letting murderers work alongside real people. But if we accept that murdering someone makes you alien and monstrous, what of a line infantryman coming back from Afghanistan with two insurgents dead at his hands, or even one? Hasn't he then alienated himself from humanity, too? Shouldn't we exclude him from society, ban him from all but the most menial of jobs, and grind him down, too? After all, he's more dangerous than the typical murderer, seeing as .....(rest of blah blah blah bleeding heart bullshit snipped)

If you can't make a distinction between a murder and a soldier killing an enemy in combat then there is really little point in continuing this discussion with you.