3 ms·

What you're describing are really rare edge cases. Nearly all people on the sex offender registry actually did something that justifies being on there. And thos

by eridius 10y ago

What you're describing are really rare edge cases. Nearly all people on the sex offender registry actually did something that justifies being on there. And those people should not be put into a position of power over strangers at night. As for economic hardship, I don't see how that justifies getting a job as a driver when your license is suspended. It's literally illegal for them to drive at all like that. It doesn't matter why it's suspended, people for whom it is illegal to be driving should not be given a job as a driver.

alpha_squared 10y ago
> Nearly all people on the sex offender registry actually did something that justifies being on there. Citation? I don't necessarily doubt it's true, but 'nearly all' can be completely relative. I'd like to see actual numbers for a statement like that.
- pdelbarba 10y ago
  As far as I'm concerned, just 1% is enough for me to question whether this is a reasonable metric and 10% would be "this is utter garbage"
  - alpha_squared 10y ago
    Indeed, of the things I've read, the sex offender registry is quite flawed.[0] [0] https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2013/09/02/the-wrongfully-convicted-sex-offender/ https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2013/09/02/the-wrongfull...
adrianratnapala 10y ago
At a guess, I bet the register has large fractions of serious criminals and also your "rare" edge cases. The probability that someone doing one of these minor things getting on the register might be low. But the number of people doing them in the first place will roughly compensate. Anyway, laws where there is a low probability of a serious (and over the top) punishment are bad. For one thing they don't work well as incentives. Worse, they are most likely to hit the disadvantaged, low status people who have less leverage to officials to look the other way.
MrLeap 10y ago
Those `rare edge cases` you're marginalizing represent real people's lives. http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article41364675.html http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article41364675.html I gotta say, It's a struggle for me to read these threads and see people who share your callous comfort with the status quo.
- tptacek 10y ago
  They are in fact rare cases, and the cases where those people are denied the desired opportunity to drive for Uber are even rarer. More people are raped --- set aside sexually assaulted --- in taxi cabs every year than are denied this opportunity. It is obviously a real problem that people are placed on sex offender registries for peeing in bushed. But the commenter above isn't required to address every real problem in pointing out that there's a good public policy reason to avoid having people convicted of real sexual assault offenses driving cabs.
  - bingomad123 10y ago
    I think it is upto the ridesharing company to set the standards and not an arbitrary bureaucrat. In fact I believe people like you and me might be able to invent better methods of detecting people of dubious characters and can deny them job.

by eridius 10y ago

alpha_squared 10y ago

> Nearly all people on the sex offender registry actually did something that justifies being on there. Citation? I don't necessarily doubt it's true, but 'nearly all' can be completely relative. I'd like to see actual numbers for a statement like that.

pdelbarba 10y ago
As far as I'm concerned, just 1% is enough for me to question whether this is a reasonable metric and 10% would be "this is utter garbage"
- alpha_squared 10y ago
  Indeed, of the things I've read, the sex offender registry is quite flawed.[0] [0] https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2013/09/02/the-wrongfully-convicted-sex-offender/ https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2013/09/02/the-wrongfull...

adrianratnapala 10y ago

At a guess, I bet the register has large fractions of serious criminals and also your "rare" edge cases. The probability that someone doing one of these minor things getting on the register might be low. But the number of people doing them in the first place will roughly compensate. Anyway, laws where there is a low probability of a serious (and over the top) punishment are bad. For one thing they don't work well as incentives. Worse, they are most likely to hit the disadvantaged, low status people who have less leverage to officials to look the other way.

MrLeap 10y ago

Those `rare edge cases` you're marginalizing represent real people's lives. http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article41364675.html http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article41364675.html I gotta say, It's a struggle for me to read these threads and see people who share your callous comfort with the status quo.

tptacek 10y ago
They are in fact rare cases, and the cases where those people are denied the desired opportunity to drive for Uber are even rarer. More people are raped --- set aside sexually assaulted --- in taxi cabs every year than are denied this opportunity. It is obviously a real problem that people are placed on sex offender registries for peeing in bushed. But the commenter above isn't required to address every real problem in pointing out that there's a good public policy reason to avoid having people convicted of real sexual assault offenses driving cabs.
- bingomad123 10y ago
  I think it is upto the ridesharing company to set the standards and not an arbitrary bureaucrat. In fact I believe people like you and me might be able to invent better methods of detecting people of dubious characters and can deny them job.