3 ms·

Obviously it's the convicted felons who have haunted society, not the other way around. One should be very clear on this point.

FpUser 4y ago
Bullshit, perfectly fine people having their lives screwed as a result of minor crimes committed years ago. Basically they've been denied any meaningful jobs because of the record.
- bruce511 4y ago
  I feel like you are both arguing the same point, but from a different perspective. Ultimately people go to prison for different reasons, and so generalising as "ex felon" can cloud the issue. If you see prisons as being full of child molesters, murderers and rapists, then that naturally leads to some conclusions. If you see prisons as overflowing with the results of the "war on drugs" then there are possibly different conclusions. Are these people criminals" or POWs? Ultimately every case is different and has its own merits. A teenager can be convicted of no more than possesing some weed. Or shooting up a school. Clearly there could be easier moral paths to reintegration for one than the other. Even "sex crimes" happen on a scale. 2 consenting 17 year olds, having sex in an inappropriate place, or sexting each other nudes, leads to the same "status" as afore-mentioned rapists. (obviously sentence is different but they'll forever be on a sex offence registry.) So talking in sweeping terms about inmate populations and reforms, can be counter productive. It may be more helpful to discuss narrower groups, and the nature of the crimes that got them there.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    Sweeping reforms are needed. The main one is to stop considering inmates as a source of income. Make rehabilitation a primary goal. The other one is to prohibit criminal background checks except very narrow cases. Sure there will be people who never reform. But the nature of their crimes will mostly keep them in prisons anyways. And yes there will be some price to pay.
    - dionidium 4y ago
      Some price to pay is an understatement. Almost half of all released prisoners in the U.S. return to prison within the first year. You’re trying to experiment with people’s lives by taking away their totally normal and rational desire not to associate with such people and the effects are utterly predictable. And as I mentioned in a previous post, eliminating background checks backfires anyway, because people simply stereotype more when you take away their ability to look at specifics. If you care about reintegrating criminals, then be the change you want to see in the world, but don’t try to tell me there’s anything wrong with someone who chooses differently.
      - FpUser 4y ago
        I did not say do everything in one year. As for experimenting with people's lives - this is exactly what Government does in general and "justice" system in particular. Nothing new in here.
  - dionidium 4y ago
    I think you’re basically right about this. When I make strident comments about avoiding ex-cons I’m of course talking about seriously violent offenders and the people who push back are (usually) thinking of drug offenders. By the way, this is one reason eliminating background checks backfires. If people can’t look up your specific offense they assume the worst. Further, the evidence is that eliminating background checks results in a drop in employment for black men. If people can’t check whether a candidate is an offender, then they resort to broader statistics and patterns for their decision making, and the statistics being what they are, this mostly just hurts black men who have never committed a crime. See, for example: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/705880#d33458794e1 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/705880#d3...

FpUser 4y ago

Bullshit, perfectly fine people having their lives screwed as a result of minor crimes committed years ago. Basically they've been denied any meaningful jobs because of the record.

bruce511 4y ago
I feel like you are both arguing the same point, but from a different perspective. Ultimately people go to prison for different reasons, and so generalising as "ex felon" can cloud the issue. If you see prisons as being full of child molesters, murderers and rapists, then that naturally leads to some conclusions. If you see prisons as overflowing with the results of the "war on drugs" then there are possibly different conclusions. Are these people criminals" or POWs? Ultimately every case is different and has its own merits. A teenager can be convicted of no more than possesing some weed. Or shooting up a school. Clearly there could be easier moral paths to reintegration for one than the other. Even "sex crimes" happen on a scale. 2 consenting 17 year olds, having sex in an inappropriate place, or sexting each other nudes, leads to the same "status" as afore-mentioned rapists. (obviously sentence is different but they'll forever be on a sex offence registry.) So talking in sweeping terms about inmate populations and reforms, can be counter productive. It may be more helpful to discuss narrower groups, and the nature of the crimes that got them there.
- FpUser 4y ago
  Sweeping reforms are needed. The main one is to stop considering inmates as a source of income. Make rehabilitation a primary goal. The other one is to prohibit criminal background checks except very narrow cases. Sure there will be people who never reform. But the nature of their crimes will mostly keep them in prisons anyways. And yes there will be some price to pay.
  - dionidium 4y ago
    Some price to pay is an understatement. Almost half of all released prisoners in the U.S. return to prison within the first year. You’re trying to experiment with people’s lives by taking away their totally normal and rational desire not to associate with such people and the effects are utterly predictable. And as I mentioned in a previous post, eliminating background checks backfires anyway, because people simply stereotype more when you take away their ability to look at specifics. If you care about reintegrating criminals, then be the change you want to see in the world, but don’t try to tell me there’s anything wrong with someone who chooses differently.
    - FpUser 4y ago
      I did not say do everything in one year. As for experimenting with people's lives - this is exactly what Government does in general and "justice" system in particular. Nothing new in here.
- dionidium 4y ago
  I think you’re basically right about this. When I make strident comments about avoiding ex-cons I’m of course talking about seriously violent offenders and the people who push back are (usually) thinking of drug offenders. By the way, this is one reason eliminating background checks backfires. If people can’t look up your specific offense they assume the worst. Further, the evidence is that eliminating background checks results in a drop in employment for black men. If people can’t check whether a candidate is an offender, then they resort to broader statistics and patterns for their decision making, and the statistics being what they are, this mostly just hurts black men who have never committed a crime. See, for example: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/705880#d33458794e1 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/705880#d3...