9 ms·
I might be missing the forest for the trees here, but I strongly dislike your example. In a country with a working justice system, the expectation is that after
by krastanov 7y ago
I might be missing the forest for the trees here, but I strongly dislike your example. In a country with a working justice system, the expectation is that after you are done with your prison sentence you are rehabilitated. Making it more difficult for ex-cons to reenter society only leads to further recidivism. I am aware that the US does not have such a justice system, but for many countries in Northwest Europe this is a reality and this law makes sense there.
Basically, I have no problem with only law-enforcement having a record of the past mistakes of reformed people, assuming that 1) law enforcement is actually "serving and protecting" and 2) the justice systems ensures a high fraction of cons are actually reformed.
- hartator 7y agoBut I don’t think you should be put in jail for telling the truth. It’s basically what this law is about.
- Dylan16807 7y agoTruth isn't an absolute defense. If you privately record someone without permission, you don't get to share that just because it's true.
- shadowgovt 7y agoAnd in the US, when dealing with private individuals (not the government's ability to collect and use information), the situations where truth isn't an absolute defense are extremely rare. Even the unidirectional right of private recording varies from state to state. This is a fundamental philosophical difference between the US and much of Europe. I'm not sure precisely from where it arises (though I suspect it stems from a combination of the US government tracing its historical roots to Enlightenment-era thinking on personal liberty and the English government having a law against sedition; the American colonies organizing a rebellion in spite of that law).
- hartator 7y agoActually in the US in most states, you can.
- Dylan16807 7y agoNot if the recording doesn't have you in it.
- paggle 7y agoThe Norwegians can hire murderers as babysitters, as a reactionary American I would rather not.
- Dylan16807 7y agoAre you saying they should be in prison? If they should be in prison then the countries don't differ. If they shouldn't be in prison then they probably won't make a worse babysitter. It was a very extreme circumstance that they regret.
- seisvelas 7y agoI think he's suggesting they went to prison and were released, and he'd like to be able to access someone's criminal record before hiring them as a babysitter.
- Dylan16807 7y agoI understand that, yes. But is the implication that they were released incorrectly? There's nothing that makes murder specifically relevant to babysitting. If the implication is they wouldn't be hired, that implication applies to every job. So they'd be unhireable. Which in practice is more or less the same as "they should still be in prison".
- paggle 7y agoI personally think that no murderer should ever be released from prison, no matter how rehabilitated. However, given that this is not policy, I would rather have released murderers working in the oil fields or sawmills, or anywhere very far from me, not in my home with my fucking kid.
- Dylan16807 7y agoSo then would you agree that when it comes to people that should have been released, you don't need to know what their past crimes were? At least when they're not specifically relevant to the job?