Adarq.org

Quote from: Mutumbo000 on February 27, 2019, 04:50:49 am

Quote from: Coges on February 26, 2019, 10:59:41 pm

Quote from: adarqui on February 26, 2019, 09:35:46 pm

Quote from: Coges on February 26, 2019, 07:11:26 pm

Quote from: adarqui on February 26, 2019, 05:45:33 pm

guy with a violent crime from 20 years ago was asking for leniency to coach his kids baseball team. turned out to be very interesting.

Wow! How did it turn out?

Reminds me of those border security shows where someone it trying to enter the country and they have an assualt charge from 20 years ago and are turned away.

didn't turn out too good for the guy. everyone (mayor, assistant deputy mayor, and these attorneys etc) basically said it's impossible. it's state and city law or something. and there's absolutely no exceptions for violent crimes: disqualifier for life.

it had to be pretty bad too.. because they wouldn't actually say what it was, nor even hint to what it was, other than that it was "violent". and when some attorney asked the guy if he could mention what it was to the room, the guy said "i don't think it would be good with my kids being here" etc.. then the attorney basically said something like "and that's another reason why it's so hard to grant any kind of leniency .. if it's hard to talk about, how will the other parents feel when they find out?"

it was nuts.

one guy on the "panel" was very empathetic to him.. seemed like he wanted to try and do something for him. but you could tell from the other reactions on the panel, that there was no way anything was going to change.

the mayor mentioned "voting" .. but he said, voting is a right. we fight to restore rights to people who have lost them, and then paid their debt to society.. but coaching isn't a right. etc.

the mayor also listed off the crimes in the statute or whatever, that qualify.. he listed: homicide, armed robbery, rape, manslaughter, and "potentially others" ....... so this guy must have done some crazy shit back when he was 19.

mayor also mentioned: it's also relevant that you were 19, and not much younger. (even though the judge somehow tried him as a minor.. for some reason.. to lighten his sentence). but that is still in this law, it mentioned everything he was convicted of etc. so this law basically protects against any violent offender, from being able to officially coach/supervise children etc.

so this dude went there as a last chance to ask for leniency for a violent crime he did 20 years ago, to coach his kids baseball team.

was just intense to witness in person. wasn't expecting to see anything like that.

even if he is the best dude now, allowing him to do it seems like it's more trouble than it's worth, when it comes to public officials, attorneys, parents, etc. these folks aren't trying to lose sleep at night, and they care about no one getting hurt etc, so no one will be getting leniency.

very interesting moment!

pc!



edit:

oh also.. it was funny/interesting watching some of the "cops on guard" (big tough dudes w/ vests and guns etc) wake the fu*k up once this guy mentioned his violent past... prior to that they were kinda nodding off. once this guy started talking, they were locked in. every cop in there looked like they switched to "high alert" once he started mentioning his violent past.

the panel itself (with the mayor etc) was incredibly polite/respectful though. it was impressive. I enjoyed the dialogue. The mayor himself is extremely sharp.

That's crazy to be there for something that intense. I can't even imagine how many people would find themselves in a similar position.

Given America's prison population I think it would be a surprisingly high number.

"the mayor mentioned "voting" .. but he said, voting is a right. we fight to restore rights to people who have lost them, and then paid their debt to society.. but coaching isn't a right. etc."

It would be interesting to see whether having a job was treated as a right or a privilege?

in the US, convictions can be disqualification for employment etc. it can also be a disqualification from voting, but lots of state laws passing to restore those voting rights. it'll probably be federal law at some point. for work however, i personally think it'll always be a potential disqualification. work is just way more complex than voting. ie, who you work with, what you do, who you provide services to, what kind of materials you handle, etc.. it's just so complex. voting is simple.

shoutouts to maine/vermont, can actually vote while in prison. LMFAO.

i mean the idea of being in prison for a marijuana offense, then being able to vote for legalizing marijuana while in prison, is amazing to me. love it.

Quote

Australia's legal system is much more lenient in comparison to the USA. However, one of the biggest factors of recidivism is that ex-criminals can't even get a job at McDonald's as almost every job requires a police clearance in this day and age. Therefore, if people don't have the right connections their destined for a life of welfare and relative poverty, which makes drugs and crime an appeasing alternative.

it's similar here. very hard for felons to find work.

Quote

My recommendation would be to double the punishments in Australia for crime. However, once the time has been served the person comes out with a clean slate (I would have some exceptions e.g. pedophiles) but for the most part everyone is given a second chance. If the person re-offends the sentence is tripled but they still come out with a clean slate and society gives them a chance to reintegrate once they have their shit together. The current system in Australia is a revolving door of pathetic sentences, which does nothing to deter crime but does everything to destroy opportunity of people ever getting decent jobs. Thus, the cycle continues.

it's an interesting idea but i personally can't fathom the concept of "clean slate".

to me, there's no clean slate. someone commits a crime, it stays with them forever. whether it's small or serious, i don't see a problem with it being part of the vetting process by an employer. I respect people who take chances on violent offenders, it's commendable but it'd be personally risky to me. It'd be hard for me to ever hire someone who was convicted of a senseless violent crime (ie some attack on an "innocent victim",) as opposed to some bar room fight for example. And if I worked in finance etc, it'd be hard for me to ever hire/trust someone convicted of a financial crime or petty theft. If the slate were wiped clean & hidden from the hiring process/vetting process, i'd definitely be against that. Even if my kind of reasoning makes it harder for people with criminal records to find work, i still think employers should have more leverage.

pc!