4 ms·

I'm ok with this, as long as it's systemic. Otherwise it's just another way for people with means to get a leg up on people without means. If it's, "we delete a

I'm ok with this, as long as it's systemic. Otherwise it's just another way for people with means to get a leg up on people without means. If it's, "we delete all crime stories after N years", then fine, especially for low level, non violent stuff. The punishment for crimes should come from the justice system and people should be able to pay their dues and move on.

coliveira 2y ago
> especially for low level, non violent stuff This is codeword for financial, white collar crimes. So, it is definitely a policy serving the rich.
- cynicalkane 2y ago
  It's generally the disadvantaged and poor who get hit for low-level, non-violent stuff.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    Are they the ones also committing more of them statistically - is that why (or are you saying they are targeted)? And if so why is that the case - there are plenty of people who are disadvantaged and poor and don’t commit crimes. Look at various immigrant minority groups for example.
    - ternnoburn 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - worik 2y ago
    > It's generally the disadvantaged and poor who get hit for low-level, non-violent stuff. In my country (New Zealand) judges let off young people who look like them, regularly. "This young man [not but almost always a man] has a great future and he should not be burdened...." That is if they are an aspiring accountant, laywer, sports star, etcetera If they are a young bricklayer, welder, etcetera it is tough luck It is absolutely disgusting. No wonder so many people want to burn the whole thing down
- another-dave 2y ago
  Minor drug offences could also fit that though — possession or even someone dealing weed mightn't be directly involved in any violence at all
  - lofenfew 2y ago
    Or petty theft, shoplifting etc.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  I think GP probably meant "stupid stuff young people do" minor drugs, drinking underage or even DUI, fighting, theft, vandalism. If you were under ~25, and it was "stupid kid stuff" why ruin someone's life. If you're 40 with a good job and get caught embezzeling, totally different in my view. Old enough to know better.
  - ternnoburn 2y ago
    More or less, yeah, you got it.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  Shoplifting is low level, non violent, and very very common. The only shoplifting I've heard of by the rich is a famous actress who had a shoplifting fetish.
add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
You're describing punishment by the state. One is entitled to move on from a fine or imprisonment. One is not entitled to a clean social or occupational reputation. There's a good reason those consequences exist.
- Filligree 2y ago
  It’s useful for society if there’s a way for criminals to reintegrate into society. If potential employers can always check for a criminal record, and refuse to hire criminals, then guess what those criminals will do? The answer isn’t “starve to death”. Previously there were practical limits to how long a sentence could follow you. If you moved across the country, you might lose whatever family you still have, but at least you could get a fresh start. Nowadays that’s effectively impossible.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    There are employers who don't care about criminal records, at least up to a point. Most trade unions don't, and many other blue-collar employers don't. A criminal record isn't going to prevent you from working, but it might limit your choices.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      It depends on the crime and the job. I wouldn't hire an embezzler to do the books, for example.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    Why is that useful? To me it sounds like society’s law followers would be taking risk to the benefit of the criminal. I think certain crimes that are petty - like traffic violations or whatever - sure reintegration makes sense. But burglaries, robberies, assault, murder, etc - I think keeping them jailed is probably best for everyone.
    - ternnoburn 2y ago

coliveira 2y ago

> especially for low level, non violent stuff This is codeword for financial, white collar crimes. So, it is definitely a policy serving the rich.

cynicalkane 2y ago
It's generally the disadvantaged and poor who get hit for low-level, non-violent stuff.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Are they the ones also committing more of them statistically - is that why (or are you saying they are targeted)? And if so why is that the case - there are plenty of people who are disadvantaged and poor and don’t commit crimes. Look at various immigrant minority groups for example.
  - ternnoburn 2y ago
    [flagged]
- worik 2y ago
  > It's generally the disadvantaged and poor who get hit for low-level, non-violent stuff. In my country (New Zealand) judges let off young people who look like them, regularly. "This young man [not but almost always a man] has a great future and he should not be burdened...." That is if they are an aspiring accountant, laywer, sports star, etcetera If they are a young bricklayer, welder, etcetera it is tough luck It is absolutely disgusting. No wonder so many people want to burn the whole thing down
another-dave 2y ago
Minor drug offences could also fit that though — possession or even someone dealing weed mightn't be directly involved in any violence at all
- lofenfew 2y ago
  Or petty theft, shoplifting etc.
SoftTalker 2y ago
I think GP probably meant "stupid stuff young people do" minor drugs, drinking underage or even DUI, fighting, theft, vandalism. If you were under ~25, and it was "stupid kid stuff" why ruin someone's life. If you're 40 with a good job and get caught embezzeling, totally different in my view. Old enough to know better.
- ternnoburn 2y ago
  More or less, yeah, you got it.
WalterBright 2y ago
Shoplifting is low level, non violent, and very very common. The only shoplifting I've heard of by the rich is a famous actress who had a shoplifting fetish.

add-sub-mul-div 2y ago

You're describing punishment by the state. One is entitled to move on from a fine or imprisonment. One is not entitled to a clean social or occupational reputation. There's a good reason those consequences exist.

Filligree 2y ago
It’s useful for society if there’s a way for criminals to reintegrate into society. If potential employers can always check for a criminal record, and refuse to hire criminals, then guess what those criminals will do? The answer isn’t “starve to death”. Previously there were practical limits to how long a sentence could follow you. If you moved across the country, you might lose whatever family you still have, but at least you could get a fresh start. Nowadays that’s effectively impossible.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  There are employers who don't care about criminal records, at least up to a point. Most trade unions don't, and many other blue-collar employers don't. A criminal record isn't going to prevent you from working, but it might limit your choices.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    It depends on the crime and the job. I wouldn't hire an embezzler to do the books, for example.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Why is that useful? To me it sounds like society’s law followers would be taking risk to the benefit of the criminal. I think certain crimes that are petty - like traffic violations or whatever - sure reintegration makes sense. But burglaries, robberies, assault, murder, etc - I think keeping them jailed is probably best for everyone.
  - ternnoburn 2y ago