3 ms·

The stats are not in the favor of your argument: "Property offenders were the most likely to be rearrested, with 82.1 percent of released property offenders ar

The stats are not in the favor of your argument: "Property offenders were the most likely to be rearrested, with 82.1 percent of released property offenders arrested for a new crime compared with 76.9 percent of drug offenders, 73.6 percent of public order offenders and 71.3 percent of violent offenders." http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welco...

falcolas 11y ago
The stats don't matter, IMHO. It could be 99% of them who re-offend; to segregate and discriminate against them after they have paid for their crime is a strike against the basic human rights of those people.
- imaginenore 11y ago
  No it isn't. If 81% of them are re-arrested (which means much more than 81% commit the crime again), a little inconvenience and suspicion is fully justified.
- PeterisP 11y ago
  Previous conviction record is not one of so-called protected characteristics (gender/race/religion/etc), it is completely legal to discriminate based on that. Basic human rights include a lot of things, but the list of those does not include a right to be trusted despite your prior actions, and it does not include a right to be served in particular location - those are privileges or interpersonal relationships that may be granted or withheld as the others believe is best for them.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > it is completely legal to discriminate based on that. Unless you're breaking the rehabilitation of offenders law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Act_1974 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Ac...
    - PeterisP 11y ago
      Yes, most jurisdictions have some kind of expiry for criminal record. However, for good reasons, this doesn't happen automagically at the end of a prison sentence, it requires much more time than that and many thieves (the profession having a high rate of re-offending) spend most of their out-of-prison lives without this expiry/rehabilitation occurring.

falcolas 11y ago

The stats don't matter, IMHO. It could be 99% of them who re-offend; to segregate and discriminate against them after they have paid for their crime is a strike against the basic human rights of those people.

imaginenore 11y ago
No it isn't. If 81% of them are re-arrested (which means much more than 81% commit the crime again), a little inconvenience and suspicion is fully justified.
PeterisP 11y ago
Previous conviction record is not one of so-called protected characteristics (gender/race/religion/etc), it is completely legal to discriminate based on that. Basic human rights include a lot of things, but the list of those does not include a right to be trusted despite your prior actions, and it does not include a right to be served in particular location - those are privileges or interpersonal relationships that may be granted or withheld as the others believe is best for them.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > it is completely legal to discriminate based on that. Unless you're breaking the rehabilitation of offenders law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Act_1974 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Ac...
  - PeterisP 11y ago
    Yes, most jurisdictions have some kind of expiry for criminal record. However, for good reasons, this doesn't happen automagically at the end of a prison sentence, it requires much more time than that and many thieves (the profession having a high rate of re-offending) spend most of their out-of-prison lives without this expiry/rehabilitation occurring.