4 ms·

A twisted logic you have here my friend. Those capable engineers could also be murderers later in life, as you know, being in IT rise stress levels to it max...

by monkin 7y ago

A twisted logic you have here my friend. Those capable engineers could also be murderers later in life, as you know, being in IT rise stress levels to it max... :) So don't judge as everyone should have a chance for redemption, and it's way better to have them coding than committing another crime.

ekianjo 7y ago
Redemption has to be earned. Spending x years with murderers, rapists, sadists behind bars is hardly a good way to turn you into a better character.
- monkin 7y ago
  They don't have this chance in prison. So do you have other idea for better in-prison programs? Or maybe you would like them to not return back into society? If so how can they "earn" redemption?
timwaagh 7y ago
Save it for the flock. I do not believe in Redemption, or Christ, or Allah, or anything. Even if making murderers rich 'works' it should only be taken into consideration if the benefits (to soceity) are exceptional, because the practice is morally bankrupt. It should never be advertised, of course.
- monkin 7y ago
  Religion aside (it wasn't my point), yet, everyone deservers fair chance to repay their bad deeds. I admire The Last Mile program, as it can pull out of from the claw of criminal past, and show them what they never had a chance to see, a chance for a better life. Internet is such a tool that can empower all kind of people all over the world to make something meaningful. We should encourage this and not ban it on moral grounds, showing that they can earn a good life without a crime. Something that wasn't so obvious 25 years ago.
  - timwaagh 7y ago
    I too admired this program when it first was announced. giving thieves or dealers a chance at a tech job, i'm all for it. Or most other criminals. Nor would I want to discourage even a murderer from creating something meaningful with code. Or even to start a business with it. But this is about a murderer pushing good people out of a good job and i don't think i can forgive a murderer to that extent.
    - monkin 7y ago
      > Or even to start a business with it. But this is about a murderer pushing good people out of a good job and i don't think i can forgive a murderer to that extent. What if "good people" aren't good enough? You know that he got this job because of the specific skillset required in that position, and he learned most of that from paper books without internet access? I if he wasn't good enough for this job he wouldn't land it.
      - timwaagh 7y ago
        In the case of a specialist with unique skills I would find this acceptable, but also something to be kept under close wraps. I am not against business doing what they have to do. Everything suggests this is not something that was found out by accident and not doubting his talent but his background suggests he is a junior level engineer. Meaning plenty of others can be found. Perhaps he was the most capable for the money in a high-wage area, but I find even that improbable. Taking a second-best candidate should be a relative no-brainer in that case. Usually companies have screenings to prevent taking someone morally compromised. What I see is a company that is doing this and having him give interviews to score points. It would be better if they don't get any, before others jump on the trend.

by monkin 7y ago

ekianjo 7y ago

Redemption has to be earned. Spending x years with murderers, rapists, sadists behind bars is hardly a good way to turn you into a better character.

monkin 7y ago
They don't have this chance in prison. So do you have other idea for better in-prison programs? Or maybe you would like them to not return back into society? If so how can they "earn" redemption?

timwaagh 7y ago

Save it for the flock. I do not believe in Redemption, or Christ, or Allah, or anything. Even if making murderers rich 'works' it should only be taken into consideration if the benefits (to soceity) are exceptional, because the practice is morally bankrupt. It should never be advertised, of course.

monkin 7y ago
Religion aside (it wasn't my point), yet, everyone deservers fair chance to repay their bad deeds. I admire The Last Mile program, as it can pull out of from the claw of criminal past, and show them what they never had a chance to see, a chance for a better life. Internet is such a tool that can empower all kind of people all over the world to make something meaningful. We should encourage this and not ban it on moral grounds, showing that they can earn a good life without a crime. Something that wasn't so obvious 25 years ago.
- timwaagh 7y ago
  I too admired this program when it first was announced. giving thieves or dealers a chance at a tech job, i'm all for it. Or most other criminals. Nor would I want to discourage even a murderer from creating something meaningful with code. Or even to start a business with it. But this is about a murderer pushing good people out of a good job and i don't think i can forgive a murderer to that extent.
  - monkin 7y ago
    > Or even to start a business with it. But this is about a murderer pushing good people out of a good job and i don't think i can forgive a murderer to that extent. What if "good people" aren't good enough? You know that he got this job because of the specific skillset required in that position, and he learned most of that from paper books without internet access? I if he wasn't good enough for this job he wouldn't land it.
    - timwaagh 7y ago
      In the case of a specialist with unique skills I would find this acceptable, but also something to be kept under close wraps. I am not against business doing what they have to do. Everything suggests this is not something that was found out by accident and not doubting his talent but his background suggests he is a junior level engineer. Meaning plenty of others can be found. Perhaps he was the most capable for the money in a high-wage area, but I find even that improbable. Taking a second-best candidate should be a relative no-brainer in that case. Usually companies have screenings to prevent taking someone morally compromised. What I see is a company that is doing this and having him give interviews to score points. It would be better if they don't get any, before others jump on the trend.