3 ms·

The apparent lack of opportunities for anyone is easy to solve with Dorm Room Welfare: Open free dorms next to the campuses of community colleges. Anyone who i

The apparent lack of opportunities for anyone is easy to solve with Dorm Room Welfare: Open free dorms next to the campuses of community colleges. Anyone who is physically able to live on their own, but who can not afford to live on their own can move in and live there as long as they are working towards being economically self sufficient. Working towards being economically self sufficient can mean passing academic classes, passing career and technical education classes, taking remedial classes, completing a high school equivalency degree, passing K-12 classes online, earning certifications, working in internships, working jobs at a training wage, or other things I suggest we replace all other welfare programs with drom room welfare. This does not solve the problem that many of us do not want to hire convicted criminals.

gavinray 3y ago
> This does not solve the problem that many of us do not want to hire convicted criminals. Thank you for at least acknowledging this. I'd wager that if people with convictions on their record, had even a 10-20% chance of being hired at a decent establishment, we'd see recidivism go down by a statistically significant amount. I know the justice system. The grand majority of folks coming in and out of prison genuinely do not want better for themselves, it's a lifestyle choice that they've accepted (or resigned themselves to, depending on how you look at it). But for the fractional percentage of incarcerated individuals that DO decide "Okay, I've had enough, I'm done with this and I want better for myself" and mean it, they aren't afforded such a luxurious opportunity for a bland life in suburbia.
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - freedomben 3y ago
    That's genuinely horrifying, and I don't find many opinions horrifying. Are you being serious or trolling? If serious, I hope people don't kill your comment because this is one I think should be discussed.
    - RecycledEle 3y ago
      > Are you being serious or trolling? I'm serious. I support changing sentnecing guidelines so that we execute anyone who is convicted of a felony after having previously spent at least 10 years in prison. If you think this is a bad idea, hire someone who spent at least 10 years in prison and learn for yourself. Even if you just hire them to mow your law, hire them. See for yourself.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > I'm serious. I support changing sentnecing guidelines so that we execute anyone who is convicted of a felony after having previously spent at least 10 years in prison. That's not something you can do by changing sentencing guidelines, since sentencing guidelines are, as the name suggests, guidelines for setting sentences within the statutory bounds for the underlying offenses. If you mean setting statutory special circumstances for all felonies (essentially, all crimes already otherwise punishable by one year or more in prison) such that the there is a mandatory minimum of death if the offender has previously spent 10 years or more in prison, combined, for any combination of reasons, well, then that's both ludicrously bad policy and clearly, under existing Constitutional jurisprudence, an Eighth Amendment violation—see, particularly, Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), holding that it is unconstitutional to apply the penalty of death to a crime against an individual (leaving open some things like treason, drug kingpin activity, etc., where the principal offense is not against a particular individual victim) where the victim does not die. This would apply to the vast majority of existing non-capital felonies. > If you think this is a bad idea, hire someone who spent at least 10 years in prison and learn for yourself. If we're going to adopt capital punishment for crimes by anyone I wouldn't want to hire, well, that's going to be a lot broader than “people who have been in prison at keast 10 years”. Not sure what the two things have to do with each other, though.
    - tux3 3y ago
      I'm not sure you can discuss someone out of a position like this through a screen. Or if you can, I'd very much like to see that. Some people want to solve problems with violence. And if that didn't work, you simply need more violence. It's as old as humanity. Sadly not a difference of values easily solved by discussion.
  - imtringued 3y ago
    This might sound like an obvious solution for repeat criminals, but this would start an arms race between police and criminals, who have nothing to lose. It's as if people don't understand how deterrence actually works and instead go with a simplistic "the tougher the punishment, the better".
malodyets 3y ago
This sounds like the deal I have had with my (young-adult) kids (who live at home).
- alfnor 3y ago
  Unfortunately, some parents believe in "tough love" (throw them into the ocean to learn them to swim).
indymike 3y ago
> This does not solve the problem that many of us do not want to hire convicted criminals. The issue that keeps people from hiring ex-offenders isn't hard to solve: One part is social. This one requires a little leadership and a little bit of re-defining what is an acceptable attitude. The other part is a financial issue and is EASY to solve politically: most business insurers will raise rates or not insure companies that hire ex-offenders. In my home state we were able to get a law passed that shifted liability for a hired ex-offender who committed a crime on the job to the state so insurers could not make hiring ex-offenders ridiculously expensive. We were able to sell the idea to our legislators and local city councilors with a simple trade: the Democrat-controlled city council wanted to pass laws making it illegal not to hire ex-offenders. The Republican-controlled legislature wanted to give tax credits to businesses that hire ex-offenders. I suggested instead of passing unconstitutional laws or handing out corporate welfare we could solve the problem by making it illegal to charge more to insure a business that hires an ex-offender, and at the same time, absolving the insurer of having to pay claims because of the hire. The city and state decided to try it out, and it's helped a lot of people over the past eight years.
- closewith 3y ago
  You could just make criminal background checks unlawful, which is the case in Ireland. There is police vetting for people who work with the vulnerable and certain key jobs, but the average person will never face vetting for a job.
  - RecycledEle 3y ago
    The problem with this is that it encourages crime. I know a really nice guy who went to prison for "stealing" cable TV. He's an electrician and a convicted felon. He is exceptionally productive, and has a ton of sense, but he's also a thief. His time in prison (in Texas) may have been what changed him, but he will never stop stealing. After knowing him, I would not hire a convicted criminal who spent time in prison / jail.
    - indymike 3y ago

gavinray 3y ago

> This does not solve the problem that many of us do not want to hire convicted criminals. Thank you for at least acknowledging this. I'd wager that if people with convictions on their record, had even a 10-20% chance of being hired at a decent establishment, we'd see recidivism go down by a statistically significant amount. I know the justice system. The grand majority of folks coming in and out of prison genuinely do not want better for themselves, it's a lifestyle choice that they've accepted (or resigned themselves to, depending on how you look at it). But for the fractional percentage of incarcerated individuals that DO decide "Okay, I've had enough, I'm done with this and I want better for myself" and mean it, they aren't afforded such a luxurious opportunity for a bland life in suburbia.

RecycledEle 3y ago
[flagged]
- freedomben 3y ago
  That's genuinely horrifying, and I don't find many opinions horrifying. Are you being serious or trolling? If serious, I hope people don't kill your comment because this is one I think should be discussed.
  - RecycledEle 3y ago
    > Are you being serious or trolling? I'm serious. I support changing sentnecing guidelines so that we execute anyone who is convicted of a felony after having previously spent at least 10 years in prison. If you think this is a bad idea, hire someone who spent at least 10 years in prison and learn for yourself. Even if you just hire them to mow your law, hire them. See for yourself.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > I'm serious. I support changing sentnecing guidelines so that we execute anyone who is convicted of a felony after having previously spent at least 10 years in prison. That's not something you can do by changing sentencing guidelines, since sentencing guidelines are, as the name suggests, guidelines for setting sentences within the statutory bounds for the underlying offenses. If you mean setting statutory special circumstances for all felonies (essentially, all crimes already otherwise punishable by one year or more in prison) such that the there is a mandatory minimum of death if the offender has previously spent 10 years or more in prison, combined, for any combination of reasons, well, then that's both ludicrously bad policy and clearly, under existing Constitutional jurisprudence, an Eighth Amendment violation—see, particularly, Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), holding that it is unconstitutional to apply the penalty of death to a crime against an individual (leaving open some things like treason, drug kingpin activity, etc., where the principal offense is not against a particular individual victim) where the victim does not die. This would apply to the vast majority of existing non-capital felonies. > If you think this is a bad idea, hire someone who spent at least 10 years in prison and learn for yourself. If we're going to adopt capital punishment for crimes by anyone I wouldn't want to hire, well, that's going to be a lot broader than “people who have been in prison at keast 10 years”. Not sure what the two things have to do with each other, though.
  - tux3 3y ago
    I'm not sure you can discuss someone out of a position like this through a screen. Or if you can, I'd very much like to see that. Some people want to solve problems with violence. And if that didn't work, you simply need more violence. It's as old as humanity. Sadly not a difference of values easily solved by discussion.
- imtringued 3y ago
  This might sound like an obvious solution for repeat criminals, but this would start an arms race between police and criminals, who have nothing to lose. It's as if people don't understand how deterrence actually works and instead go with a simplistic "the tougher the punishment, the better".

malodyets 3y ago

This sounds like the deal I have had with my (young-adult) kids (who live at home).

alfnor 3y ago
Unfortunately, some parents believe in "tough love" (throw them into the ocean to learn them to swim).

indymike 3y ago

> This does not solve the problem that many of us do not want to hire convicted criminals. The issue that keeps people from hiring ex-offenders isn't hard to solve: One part is social. This one requires a little leadership and a little bit of re-defining what is an acceptable attitude. The other part is a financial issue and is EASY to solve politically: most business insurers will raise rates or not insure companies that hire ex-offenders. In my home state we were able to get a law passed that shifted liability for a hired ex-offender who committed a crime on the job to the state so insurers could not make hiring ex-offenders ridiculously expensive. We were able to sell the idea to our legislators and local city councilors with a simple trade: the Democrat-controlled city council wanted to pass laws making it illegal not to hire ex-offenders. The Republican-controlled legislature wanted to give tax credits to businesses that hire ex-offenders. I suggested instead of passing unconstitutional laws or handing out corporate welfare we could solve the problem by making it illegal to charge more to insure a business that hires an ex-offender, and at the same time, absolving the insurer of having to pay claims because of the hire. The city and state decided to try it out, and it's helped a lot of people over the past eight years.

closewith 3y ago
You could just make criminal background checks unlawful, which is the case in Ireland. There is police vetting for people who work with the vulnerable and certain key jobs, but the average person will never face vetting for a job.
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  The problem with this is that it encourages crime. I know a really nice guy who went to prison for "stealing" cable TV. He's an electrician and a convicted felon. He is exceptionally productive, and has a ton of sense, but he's also a thief. His time in prison (in Texas) may have been what changed him, but he will never stop stealing. After knowing him, I would not hire a convicted criminal who spent time in prison / jail.
  - indymike 3y ago