5 ms·

Question for lawyers: is there credibility in arguing that lifetime denial of employment and voting rights amounts to "Cruel and unusual punishment"?

cortesoft 9y ago
The voting rights is one issue, but the 'lifetime denial of employment' would be hard to argue for; it isn't the court that is doing that. How would you avoid it? You would need something like the EU's 'right to be forgotten', which has serious first amendment issues here in the US.
- DanBC 9y ago
  you could have something like the rehabilitation of offenders act from the UK. After sometime old convictions are spent and don't need to be declared to potential employers, even if they ask about them. http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/a-simple-guide-to-the-roa/ http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/a-simple-guide-to-the... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Act_1974 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Ac...
- yasth 9y ago
  As to other ways to avoid lifetime employment denial, a lot of places are forcing at least public sector places and many private sector employers to "Ban The Box" [1] that is to say remove the initial questions about criminal history. They are still allowed to ask at a later date, but the idea is that the people just won't be completely culled without care (which is technically against US employment law anyways). 1: http://www.nelp.org/publication/ban-the-box-fair-chance-hiring-state-and-local-guide/ http://www.nelp.org/publication/ban-the-box-fair-chance-hiri...
  - lovich 9y ago
    Ban the box legislature seems to do very little, it exists in Mass but it's paired with the CORI system where the court system simply gives you the court history over to employers. I have seen a business rescind an offer from an engineer <5 days from when he was supposed to start and after he had ended employment with his previous company, over a misdemeanor on his CORI. The first amendment concerns with the EU's right to be forgotten aren't answered yet in my book, but as long as everyone's life is tracked and passed around effortlessly via the internet it will be difficult to impossible for former criminals to maintain employment at good jobs. Like many things that worked out in the past, such as cops being able to look up any individuals license plate, but are now incredibly cheap and easy to do because of technology, background checks are becoming onerous because they are done for _everyone_ instead of being done only when necessary Edit: I want to add that businesses rescinding offers like this means the employee I quit can not access unemployment because they have quit their oldjob but not been "fired" from their new job. The obvious response is to no longer give two weeks notice to your old employer but then people talk and you get a reputation as a mercenary while companies look for some level of loyalty. The end result is you get fucked either way
arkona 9y ago
Well it is certainly cruel, but hardly unusual...
- posterboy 9y ago
  depends on the sense of the word. In another sense, like irregular, it would simply be a self fulfilling prophecy, ie. it's forbidden to use what can't be used, isn't in the regulation, etc.
eqmvii 9y ago
Not at all. Significantly worse punishments were commonplace when the Constitution was drafted. There's rich jurisprudence on what that clause means, but there's no way the current consequences of a felony conviction even comes close.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Not at all. Significantly worse punishments were commonplace when the Constitution was drafted. Good thing 2017 law-makers and justices don't abide by BS 3 century old documents as if they were some holy text then... Oh, wait...
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    Would you similarly feel that we should ignore the "bs 3 century old" text of the First Amendment, or how about the right to a jury trial? Or how about double jeopardy? Certainly, continental Europeans feel such notions are antiquated as they've basically abolished free speech if it ventures too far outside the Overton Window. And the English have steadily chipped away at the jury trial, and recently allowed double jeopardy. We have a process for changing that text. A process that is intentionally difficult. I prefer we follow that democratic process than the whims of nine unaccountable men. You might like it when you have a majority on the Supreme Court that feels your way, but it wasn't so long ago that the Lochner-era court forced a conservative and intentional misreading of the Constitution instead. That was as much a perversion as the liberal judicial activism of late. The whole point of a constitutional system is that we have a supermajoritarian process to put certain things above daily politics.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >Would you similarly feel that we should ignore the "bs 3 century old" text of the First Amendment, or how about the right to a jury trial? I'm not an American, so I don't feel anything for the invocation of the First Amendment as some semi-holy foundational text -- or any other text for that matter. Now, for the ideas behind the First Amendment or the jury trial, it's historical legacy is irrelevant as to whether people should continue to bear it/enforce it today. 2017 people should push what makes sense for 2017 -- regardless of the dictums of some long gone noble figures and without their weight... >Certainly, continental Europeans feel such notions are antiquated as they've basically abolished free speech if it ventures too far outside the Overton Window. Or we have different ideas on the matter, and we don't base ours in what some 18th century figure said or did not say. Now, our ideas could be better or worse, but the latter part is important. >The whole point of a constitutional system is that we have a supermajoritarian process to put certain things above daily politics. In other words -- to force certain laws some leaders felt strongly about above the easy reach of the democratic process -- which can very well be "daily", why not?
marcoperaza 9y ago
If you appoint to the Supreme Court enough clowns willing to pretend to find their own politics between the lines of the Constitution, anything is possible.
jopsen 9y ago
I'm no lawyer, but also relevant is the human right to provide for yourself.
- lostboys67 9y ago
  or the "pursuit of happiness" mentioned in the constitution
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  The "right to earn a living" is a pillar of the common law tradition that hasn't gotten the respect and deference it deserves since at least the 1930s.

cortesoft 9y ago

The voting rights is one issue, but the 'lifetime denial of employment' would be hard to argue for; it isn't the court that is doing that. How would you avoid it? You would need something like the EU's 'right to be forgotten', which has serious first amendment issues here in the US.

DanBC 9y ago
you could have something like the rehabilitation of offenders act from the UK. After sometime old convictions are spent and don't need to be declared to potential employers, even if they ask about them. http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/a-simple-guide-to-the-roa/ http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/a-simple-guide-to-the... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Act_1974 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Ac...
yasth 9y ago
As to other ways to avoid lifetime employment denial, a lot of places are forcing at least public sector places and many private sector employers to "Ban The Box" [1] that is to say remove the initial questions about criminal history. They are still allowed to ask at a later date, but the idea is that the people just won't be completely culled without care (which is technically against US employment law anyways). 1: http://www.nelp.org/publication/ban-the-box-fair-chance-hiring-state-and-local-guide/ http://www.nelp.org/publication/ban-the-box-fair-chance-hiri...
- lovich 9y ago
  Ban the box legislature seems to do very little, it exists in Mass but it's paired with the CORI system where the court system simply gives you the court history over to employers. I have seen a business rescind an offer from an engineer <5 days from when he was supposed to start and after he had ended employment with his previous company, over a misdemeanor on his CORI. The first amendment concerns with the EU's right to be forgotten aren't answered yet in my book, but as long as everyone's life is tracked and passed around effortlessly via the internet it will be difficult to impossible for former criminals to maintain employment at good jobs. Like many things that worked out in the past, such as cops being able to look up any individuals license plate, but are now incredibly cheap and easy to do because of technology, background checks are becoming onerous because they are done for _everyone_ instead of being done only when necessary Edit: I want to add that businesses rescinding offers like this means the employee I quit can not access unemployment because they have quit their oldjob but not been "fired" from their new job. The obvious response is to no longer give two weeks notice to your old employer but then people talk and you get a reputation as a mercenary while companies look for some level of loyalty. The end result is you get fucked either way

arkona 9y ago

Well it is certainly cruel, but hardly unusual...

posterboy 9y ago
depends on the sense of the word. In another sense, like irregular, it would simply be a self fulfilling prophecy, ie. it's forbidden to use what can't be used, isn't in the regulation, etc.

eqmvii 9y ago

Not at all. Significantly worse punishments were commonplace when the Constitution was drafted. There's rich jurisprudence on what that clause means, but there's no way the current consequences of a felony conviction even comes close.

coldtea 9y ago
>Not at all. Significantly worse punishments were commonplace when the Constitution was drafted. Good thing 2017 law-makers and justices don't abide by BS 3 century old documents as if they were some holy text then... Oh, wait...
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  Would you similarly feel that we should ignore the "bs 3 century old" text of the First Amendment, or how about the right to a jury trial? Or how about double jeopardy? Certainly, continental Europeans feel such notions are antiquated as they've basically abolished free speech if it ventures too far outside the Overton Window. And the English have steadily chipped away at the jury trial, and recently allowed double jeopardy. We have a process for changing that text. A process that is intentionally difficult. I prefer we follow that democratic process than the whims of nine unaccountable men. You might like it when you have a majority on the Supreme Court that feels your way, but it wasn't so long ago that the Lochner-era court forced a conservative and intentional misreading of the Constitution instead. That was as much a perversion as the liberal judicial activism of late. The whole point of a constitutional system is that we have a supermajoritarian process to put certain things above daily politics.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Would you similarly feel that we should ignore the "bs 3 century old" text of the First Amendment, or how about the right to a jury trial? I'm not an American, so I don't feel anything for the invocation of the First Amendment as some semi-holy foundational text -- or any other text for that matter. Now, for the ideas behind the First Amendment or the jury trial, it's historical legacy is irrelevant as to whether people should continue to bear it/enforce it today. 2017 people should push what makes sense for 2017 -- regardless of the dictums of some long gone noble figures and without their weight... >Certainly, continental Europeans feel such notions are antiquated as they've basically abolished free speech if it ventures too far outside the Overton Window. Or we have different ideas on the matter, and we don't base ours in what some 18th century figure said or did not say. Now, our ideas could be better or worse, but the latter part is important. >The whole point of a constitutional system is that we have a supermajoritarian process to put certain things above daily politics. In other words -- to force certain laws some leaders felt strongly about above the easy reach of the democratic process -- which can very well be "daily", why not?

marcoperaza 9y ago

If you appoint to the Supreme Court enough clowns willing to pretend to find their own politics between the lines of the Constitution, anything is possible.

jopsen 9y ago

I'm no lawyer, but also relevant is the human right to provide for yourself.

lostboys67 9y ago
or the "pursuit of happiness" mentioned in the constitution
alexanderstears 9y ago
The "right to earn a living" is a pillar of the common law tradition that hasn't gotten the respect and deference it deserves since at least the 1930s.