It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Watchdogs: City Hall hired 139 ex-cons in two years

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   

The Watchdogs: City Hall hired 139 ex-cons in two years


www.suntimes.com

One of them smuggled coc aine from Jamaica about a decade ago. Another was a carjacker. A third was convicted in the shooting of two Chicago cops in the 1970s, hitting one of them in the face.

They are among 139 people who got hired by the City of Chicago over the past two years despite having been convicted of crimes . . .
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
washingtonexaminer.com
www.nytimes.com




posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Now, as bad as this sounds, what makes it worse is that over the past few years, and after the collapse of 2008, city budgets are in poor shape with police, firemen, and other public workers getting the axe. Yet, in the midst of budget deficits and mass layoffs, the City of Chicago hires ex-cons? This smells a heck of a lot like bold and blatant corruption?

Moreover, it is a slap in the face to all the decent people who have never been convicted of crimes who could use some of those city jobs and seem to be overlooked for these criminals. It is amazing what some clout and a bribe can get you in the Windy City.

These are not petty criminals and crimes, but hardcore ones. Ranging from narcotics smuggling, carjacking, and shooting police officers. Keep in mind, this was during the draw down of the Daley Administration with some of the people hired coming from Daley's former patronage chief and convicted felon Robert Sorich's "clout list." Still, this type of conduct is disgusting, and this mischief is taking place all over the country.

Everyone deserves a second chance, and a way back to legitimate society. However, shouldn't the law abiding and tax paying citizens be considered first for city and government jobs before the convicted criminals? Especially during a depression.

www.suntimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   
I am one who will always advocate for the rights of an honest person. I always support a citizens right to defend himself from harm, over the right of a criminal to walk away from a robbery or burglary with all his arms and legs still working.
But , while I cannot condone the over attention payed to the rights of an unconvicted criminal, I must say that if a criminal has payed his or her debt to the nation, then to force them into a poverty of the states making, by employing everyone else except them, is to ensure that the offender will never recover any lawful nature they may have under the tough outer hide of criminality they may have built up over the years, and almost garuntees that the offender will re offend through necessity , rather than through the ignorance which likely started them off on the wrong path.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 



Well if you think it is wrong to give an ex con who has served their time a job and a chance at redemption for a non-violent crime then you had better figure out what to do with them once they get out of jail.

I would rather take the chance to see an X criminal making an honest dollar than find one out stealing again because he can't get a decent job.

A car jacker? Put him to work. I just heard of a man who got 11 years for bashing a woman's head against a dashboard and then admitting he watched her face as he strangled her to death. He isn't even in jail now.

Some people deserve a second chance.
Some people don't.
I don't think it is rocket science to know the difference.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
hey....i'm forgiving the 53% of youse that elected Øbama in the first place.

the whole political apparatus there in Chicago has been in the twilight zone of being
a corrupt & manipulation machine for my whole adult life...

ACORN, Emmanuel, Øbama...the list will keep getting longer....

are you suggesting these ex-cons are getting favoritism for past wrongs or are to be
used as muscle by the political apparatux in charge ... ?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Your all quick to judge, these offences were commited some time ago and as such people change especially if time has been served being ex convicts. Everyone deserves a second chance and the right to make a honest living, havnt you made mistakes before?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
We only learn that one worked for the city Department of Aviation. What were the others hired for

"Security"?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
One thing I have noticed since growing up and learning about the world, is that America particularly seems to run on a system of revenge. Why is it so bad that some people are actually nice enough to give these ex-cons a second chance huh? What the hell is wrong with that hmm?

Is bloody disgusting if you ask me.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   
I agree with the above posters who made the point that after an offender has 'paid for their offence' in jail etc then that should be it, because theoretically if it was a crime of such signifience the punishment should fit the crime and last some considerable time.

So having got that out the way, I do think that with some crimes such as paedophilia these people pose a threat to society, and society should be protected from their reoffending, because its about the devastation their victim group suffers.

However in England our courts have loved to jail even forsomething so trivial as being too straped to pay for a tv license, the police now get involved in even minor playground scraps which go to court (and of course they grab dna, etc), so the iundividual is obviously on a police data base Its always been crimes against the institutions you are severly punished for, whilst a spot of violence onto a vulnerable person and they just walk free.

So the hypocracy making in the past makes me cringe.

Its often come up in various quarters as to the suitability of the eyes behind the spy cameras covering our streets. Also I would mention an article I read a while ago that a large proportion of our police in Hampshire are felons. Apparently it does a lot for street cred these days - so should we be shocked either side of the pond?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   
I mentioned in my OP that offenders deserve a second chance. However, there are scores of people getting laid off from city jobs across the nation, and budgets are in turmoil. Most of the people have probably never committed any crime, and they are supposed suck it up as some hood gets their job or a job over them? That is all I am saying.

I suppose a case by case hiring process should be taken into account when hiring past offenders. Still, this is a bold slap in the face to the people who follow the rules by dotting their I's and crossing their T's. A felony is a felony, whether it a crime of convenience or necessity.

People are indeed hurt by the acts of these criminals in some way shape or form. This article is not talking about a handful of felons getting jobs in a two year span, but over a hundred of city jobs. This is during a depression as well. The private sector can hire whomever they want, but the local, state, and federal positions should be off limits or extensively difficult to attain for felons, because any urge to commit another crime can affect swaths of people. It would be like giving a bank robber a key to the treasury. Some would say the bank robbers already have the key to the treasury, and that discussion is for another time.

This topic is a slippery slope, and I know that. However, any position where someone is serving in a public capacity or is getting a taxpayer funded paycheck ought to be squeaky clean. Hiring these people to public positions is an insult and a slap in the face to all those affected by these predators, and contributes to the further deterioration of trust in government. Feel free to disagree, but I feel the standards ought to be extensively high for felons seeking employment in government.
edit on 7-3-2011 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


So, in your opinion, jail doesn't satisfy your sense of revenge - that they should pay for their crime? Locking someone up in a 6x4 cell for years at a time isn't good enough to consider them for a second chance when they get out?

Why bother having jails then, just line them up in a row and shoot them.


Disgusting.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


Now, you are clutching for straws and blowing what I said out of proportions. I believe in a second chance for criminals as I said in my last post, but the standards have got to be high when they are applying to public jobs. These people could have access to your tax dollars, inspecting your home, fixing the pot holes, picking up your trash, driving the school bus with your kids on it, and other areas of public service. I would hope you and everyone else would want someone who has a clean slate and is above board serving your city, state, or nation. The bar has got to be a set extremely high for hiring felons to local, state, or federal employment. The private sector can hire whomever they want. Please, stop being overly dramatic and jumping to conclusions.
edit on 7-3-2011 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
It seems ironically appropriate that the Government should hire ex-cons.
I mean, you can have all the criminals together in one place.
Seems convenient to me.


Tough call, ex-cons need jobs too or what else would they be doing to survive? More crime.
That one woman with multiple convictions who lost her job was pleading about "providing for her kids".
Apparently, providing means stealing a woman's purse - a deputy US Marshal's purse!



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
so?

key word in there is "ex" convicts. if your not satisfied with the punishment of a particular crime, take it out on your penal system, not these folks trying to work.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I was confused by the title,I thought this was the city counsel positions. First of all, if this was a case where they were only chosing criminals, such as the SS did, to make psychopathy the norm for all in good positions, it would matter. But quite frankly, all people who are able bodied need employment, or they can't survive. And whether or not you had a drug charge or did anything in the past should not destroy the rest of your life.

I hope that people have moved beyond dysfunction and are able to maintain healed and productive lives. I know through my ex some who have continuted dysfunctional lives, and quite frankly they can't hold jobs down for long, and end up messing up with paying the rent, they are constantly starting from the trenches again. So, if someone has done well for years, picking up the garbage, or doing other jobs, what is the big deal? Do you think that some teenager in a gang, that stole a car years go or was in the black market should be written off for the rest of their lives if they wake up? That would be a lot of people you'd be writing off!
edit on 7-3-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by RelentlessLurker
 


This is a very good point, and one that does not get nearly enough attention as far as the needs of Justice are concerned. If you are of the opinion that Justice is not served by the penal system, talk to your representative to get the situation resolved. But if your problem is that you dont want public bodies employing convicts, then Im afraid you are out of luck.
A person is considered to have payed thier debt to society, once convicted and having served the terms of thier punishment, as dictated by the state in which they live. Once that debt so demanded by the state, has been payed, the convicted party must, except in very rare cases, be allowed to build for themselves what life they can, and aquire gainful and legal employment , wherever there is work to be done. In times such as these , there will of course be competition for jobs, and I can see how the employment of ex cons might be inflamatory, but you have to understand that unless ex cons can aquire legal and gainful employment, and keep themselves fed and watered on that basis of working for thier money, one cannot expect them to rehabilitate.
Furthermore, one cannot expect an ex con, or anyone else for that matter, to turn down a job at a public office, simply because public opinion of thier employment there would be negative.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Playing Devils Advocate here, but is it possible that these " cons" who did their time for their crimes where " rehabilitated"? Now I know that statistics prove that a very small % of cons ever give up their life of crime, but doesn't it seem a bit judgmental to label these ex-cons for past transgressions?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
With the private sector being reluctant, likely even refusing, to hire ex-cons; it makes sense that it would be it would be city, state and federal governments offices that would hire these people. Otherwise, they have no job and are almost guaranteed to revert back to a life of crime.

I have no problem with this, as these folks have payed their debt to society and have been reintegrated into the the general population.

I wonder if these "watchdogs" would be willing to hire the ex-cons so that the ex-cons are not working in government jobs? Doubtful!

my 2-cents



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


Fact is, the mainstream economy creates the criminal and other alternate economies - by being a finite, closed circle, and shutting out a large part of the population. People have to live, right?

...The best way to destroy any alternate economy is to integrate it, and assimilate its members by making them part of the mainstream.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Its only a thought but is it possible that someone on parole etc would be vulnerable to being paid a lower wage? One also forgets that there are a number of people that were actually innocent of what they were accused of.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join