5 ms·

It's not your right to dispense such justice--that in fact belongs to the state in a civilized society. I think this example proves the exact opposite of what y

by piker 8y ago

It's not your right to dispense such justice--that in fact belongs to the state in a civilized society. I think this example proves the exact opposite of what you desire. Someone who has spent time in jail and had their record expunged 10 years later has been deemed by the state to have satisfied the burden of their offense, and, yes, their right to have their actions forgiven and forgotten should be at its zenith. [Edit: Downvotes? How about a response then? What's the purpose of jail if (1) we know it's not rehabilitation and (2) the convicted's debt to society is not satisfied upon serving the sentence?]

ddmd1 8y ago
US courts have not always agreed with that interpretation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._Hearst_Corporation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._Hearst_Corporation
- piker 8y ago
  Noted and agreed. See the comment below. The original response should have been phrased as aspirational. Clearly there's no right to be forgotten in the law today. However, query whether it's possible for the law to truly "forgive" a crime after a sentence is served without some efforts being taken to "forget".
  - rwcarlsen 8y ago
    I don't think the process of repentence+forgiveness can or should include things returning to a state as if nothing had happened. Scars will always remain and they are an important part of the human experience and help society remember and improve.
coding123 8y ago
That downvote with no comment thing is because they are trying to practice THEIR right to be forgotten.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
oh_sigh 8y ago
Where are you getting that serving your time in jail gives you the right to have your actions forgotten? Society 'forgives' you when you serve your full sentence, but there is nothing stated anywhere that your victims need to forget what you did once your sentence is up.
- piker 8y ago
  That's a fair point. The comment should have been more carefully phrased as aspirational. Recognizing that's not the current state of affairs, it does seem that not "forgetting" is akin to not "forgiving" in modern society. Consider trying to vote, let alone get a job after being released from prison if your name is plastered all over the internet in connection with a crime. That seems to be a second, extra-judicial sentence in fact if the law has in function "forgiven" you.
- gowld 8y ago
  The OP article explains the concept of "expungement"
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    Yes - it is one thing to remove it from official records - it is a whole other thing to ask victims to not remember, or at least not bring up, what a person did.
    - Thiez 8y ago
      If "bring up" means putting it online where everyone with a name and 20 seconds on google will find it, then there isn't really any point to removing something from official records. That said people wanting to be forgotten tend to just ask for search engines to ensure that their name will no longer be connected to certain pages rather than having the information removed entirely.
- paulgrant999 8y ago
  ... and when the crimes are "victimless" i.e. fail to uphold basic criminal code principles requiring an actual particularizeable harm? What then? How about all the false arrests? False convictions? People bludgeoned into pleaing guilty to avoid ridiculous overcharging and sham courts? What about them? What happens when we fully implement chinese-style "social credit"? Thought-crimes? Your media is already heavily manipulated. If you think it isn't, you're an idiot.
Hupriene 8y ago
This isn't about dispensing justice. This is about my personal right to own my experience of my life and those I interact with. Saying that my anger over having been abused by someone is no longer justified just because the courts have seen fit to expunge their records of the crime is deeply intrusive. The criminal court's job is to rectify the individual's relationship with the government. It does nothing to rectify the relationship between criminal and victim.
- piker 8y ago
  Part of the social contract does seem to dictate that the relationship between criminal and victim is governed by law. For example, if you were to respond to the attack by defending yourself in the moment, resulting in the assailant's death, you would potentially be free of any charges due to your right to defend yourself. However, if you were to wait a day (or, say, until after the assailant's release on what you perceived to be too short of a sentence) THEN assault that person, the law likely would be against you. You certainly have the right to continue to FEEL victimized, but query whether or not your right to act on those feelings after justice has been dispensed by the state isn't subject to the social contract with the state.
  - cortesoft 8y ago
    That is quite the stretch - no one is arguing that I have the right to beat up my attacker years later. That portion of our interaction is governed by laws. However, talking about facts that have occurred is ALWAYS my legal right. This has nothing to do with the crime the person committed, or the time served, or any other punishment. I am allowed to talk about events, and the legal process is entirely separate. In fact, a simple example will make this clear. Imagine that 10 years ago, Joe did two things on a random monday - he beat up a guy, and he also stood someone up on a date. By your reasoning, if Joe served time and was released, we would no longer be able to talk about his crime. We couldn't tell people, "Hey, that is Joe - ten years ago, he beat up Steve really bad. Served 3 years for it. Be careful around him." What about the person he stood up on a date? Is she allowed to say, "Hey, that is Joe - ten years ago, he stood me up on a date. You should not go on a date with him" Is this also not allowed? Are we not allowed to talk about negative things people did more than X number of years ago? Or does it only apply to times you broke the law and were convicted, and served your time? That seems REALLY strange. We are allowed to talk about things for as long as we want. As long as we aren't committing libel or slander, we have free speech to tell people how we feel about other people, and we are allowed to use examples going back as far as we want. That is what freedom of speech is all about.
salmonellaeater 8y ago
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I can offer a third purpose for jail that I think is the most important: it keeps people who are likely to harm others from doing so. This idea is in concordance with the idea of rehabilitation (both separation and rehabilitation can happen at once), and it accommodates cases where the convicted is mentally ill.

by piker 8y ago

ddmd1 8y ago

US courts have not always agreed with that interpretation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._Hearst_Corporation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._Hearst_Corporation

piker 8y ago
Noted and agreed. See the comment below. The original response should have been phrased as aspirational. Clearly there's no right to be forgotten in the law today. However, query whether it's possible for the law to truly "forgive" a crime after a sentence is served without some efforts being taken to "forget".
- rwcarlsen 8y ago
  I don't think the process of repentence+forgiveness can or should include things returning to a state as if nothing had happened. Scars will always remain and they are an important part of the human experience and help society remember and improve.

coding123 8y ago

That downvote with no comment thing is because they are trying to practice THEIR right to be forgotten.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

oh_sigh 8y ago

Where are you getting that serving your time in jail gives you the right to have your actions forgotten? Society 'forgives' you when you serve your full sentence, but there is nothing stated anywhere that your victims need to forget what you did once your sentence is up.

piker 8y ago
That's a fair point. The comment should have been more carefully phrased as aspirational. Recognizing that's not the current state of affairs, it does seem that not "forgetting" is akin to not "forgiving" in modern society. Consider trying to vote, let alone get a job after being released from prison if your name is plastered all over the internet in connection with a crime. That seems to be a second, extra-judicial sentence in fact if the law has in function "forgiven" you.
gowld 8y ago
The OP article explains the concept of "expungement"
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  Yes - it is one thing to remove it from official records - it is a whole other thing to ask victims to not remember, or at least not bring up, what a person did.
  - Thiez 8y ago
    If "bring up" means putting it online where everyone with a name and 20 seconds on google will find it, then there isn't really any point to removing something from official records. That said people wanting to be forgotten tend to just ask for search engines to ensure that their name will no longer be connected to certain pages rather than having the information removed entirely.
paulgrant999 8y ago
... and when the crimes are "victimless" i.e. fail to uphold basic criminal code principles requiring an actual particularizeable harm? What then? How about all the false arrests? False convictions? People bludgeoned into pleaing guilty to avoid ridiculous overcharging and sham courts? What about them? What happens when we fully implement chinese-style "social credit"? Thought-crimes? Your media is already heavily manipulated. If you think it isn't, you're an idiot.

Hupriene 8y ago

This isn't about dispensing justice. This is about my personal right to own my experience of my life and those I interact with. Saying that my anger over having been abused by someone is no longer justified just because the courts have seen fit to expunge their records of the crime is deeply intrusive. The criminal court's job is to rectify the individual's relationship with the government. It does nothing to rectify the relationship between criminal and victim.

piker 8y ago
Part of the social contract does seem to dictate that the relationship between criminal and victim is governed by law. For example, if you were to respond to the attack by defending yourself in the moment, resulting in the assailant's death, you would potentially be free of any charges due to your right to defend yourself. However, if you were to wait a day (or, say, until after the assailant's release on what you perceived to be too short of a sentence) THEN assault that person, the law likely would be against you. You certainly have the right to continue to FEEL victimized, but query whether or not your right to act on those feelings after justice has been dispensed by the state isn't subject to the social contract with the state.
- cortesoft 8y ago
  That is quite the stretch - no one is arguing that I have the right to beat up my attacker years later. That portion of our interaction is governed by laws. However, talking about facts that have occurred is ALWAYS my legal right. This has nothing to do with the crime the person committed, or the time served, or any other punishment. I am allowed to talk about events, and the legal process is entirely separate. In fact, a simple example will make this clear. Imagine that 10 years ago, Joe did two things on a random monday - he beat up a guy, and he also stood someone up on a date. By your reasoning, if Joe served time and was released, we would no longer be able to talk about his crime. We couldn't tell people, "Hey, that is Joe - ten years ago, he beat up Steve really bad. Served 3 years for it. Be careful around him." What about the person he stood up on a date? Is she allowed to say, "Hey, that is Joe - ten years ago, he stood me up on a date. You should not go on a date with him" Is this also not allowed? Are we not allowed to talk about negative things people did more than X number of years ago? Or does it only apply to times you broke the law and were convicted, and served your time? That seems REALLY strange. We are allowed to talk about things for as long as we want. As long as we aren't committing libel or slander, we have free speech to tell people how we feel about other people, and we are allowed to use examples going back as far as we want. That is what freedom of speech is all about.

salmonellaeater 8y ago

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I can offer a third purpose for jail that I think is the most important: it keeps people who are likely to harm others from doing so. This idea is in concordance with the idea of rehabilitation (both separation and rehabilitation can happen at once), and it accommodates cases where the convicted is mentally ill.