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.

 

1 in 4 US Adults Now Have Criminal Record - Around 65 Million Citizens

page: 6
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
This has turned out to be a very interesting thread. I worked in the prison system for 20+ years. There are way too many people locked up for small time drug offenses. There, but for the grace of God, go I. I always told my officers, the only difference between us and them (inmates), is they got caught. You take a different view of your job when you realize how similar we all are. I grew up and made different choices than some of my friends and a lot of the inmates I watched, and I became the keeper, not the kept. I had the foresight to stop, and they didn't.

After I retired, I went to work for a small medical supply company. I enjoyed going to people's homes and getting to know them, but my forte was administrative. After 3 months, I was brought into the office to manage the day to day operations. My boss, was a very good person, and when looking for my replacement, he tended to overlook small things like minor drug convictions and other petty convictions.

My first replacement stole him blind, used the company cell phone for "900" calls, and filled his personal vehicle using the company gas card. He was fired, and his only response was that we were all too trusting. His replacement had a conviction for assault causing bodily injury, a bar fight, and nothing else on his record. My boss thought long and hard, and decided to give him a chance.

First 4 months went great. Stellar employee. Until we got a call from the police that the company vehicle was involved in a police chase, and they wanted info on who was driving. We provided what we knew. Turns out our stellar employee was a registered sex offender, and had touched one our customers grandchildren inappropriately. He was arrested, fired, and finally convicted. This prior conviction had mistakenly not shown up during his background check.

But wait, there's more. My boss was sued for allowing this heinous criminal to make deliveries to homes where potential victims might be. Due to this, he lost his business.

I supported my boss in both of his decisions, and I'm sure he would do it all the same if he had a business. He was the most kindhearted person. There are, however, two sides to every coin. Unfortunately, he found out the hard way.




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
Just like telling smokers to quit smoking cigarettes so they can get work; it's simple don't do drugs amd don't wind up in jail. Why is it not ok to discriminate against drug addicts/users/criminals when they sure AS H*** Discriminate against people doing a LEGAL substance?

Are you really surprised? DON'T DO DRUGS! SIMPLE
edit on 24-3-2011 by ldyserenity because: emoticon


Wait...two wrongs do make a right? I did not know that! Thank you, oh wise one. I am going to go out and double my wrongs so I can be as right as rain.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by ldyserenity
Just like telling smokers to quit smoking cigarettes so they can get work; it's simple don't do drugs amd don't wind up in jail. Why is it not ok to discriminate against drug addicts/users/criminals when they sure AS H*** Discriminate against people doing a LEGAL substance?

Are you really surprised? DON'T DO DRUGS! SIMPLE
edit on 24-3-2011 by ldyserenity because: emoticon


Wait...two wrongs do make a right? I did not know that! Thank you, oh wise one. I am going to go out and double my wrongs so I can be as right as rain.


Well when they stand by and let it happen for a GD legal substance that YOU CAN BUY IN ANY state at any gas station, then how are people going to be surprised? Simple do no drugs stay out of jail, I have no criminal record but I can't get a job because of cigarettes, no one fought for my rights? But they want to fight for some drugged up crak whores rights? Really? How can they justify that? Really?
It's not two wrongs making a right it's about how pathetic this country is now. Because people let them have an inch and now they want to take a mile, and now it's all up in arms? You make your choices, either stand against tyranny or expect it to be your turn at some point.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Most prisons are privately operated. That means that the more people in prison = more money for those who are running it. It cost about 30,000 to 40,000 on average to keep a person incarceration, It would be far cheaper to send poor people to college but instead we just wait and let them go to jail because there is a company that is there to make even more money off of them instead.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 
Possibly, many HR depts. find that knowing what crime they have been convicted of can help them make a better hiring decision. As an employer you want to have people working together get along well. Hiring someone with a violent record of crime is not something even the post office would want to overlook, for other employers this might not be a problem at all. it really would depend on the skill set needed.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Of course the numbers look bad, what did we expect, when they arrest people for overdue library books.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by dwmjr1985
 


Hate to burst your bubble, but most prisons are not private. Private prisons account for roughly 10% of federal and state prisoners. That is not "most".

Source

This is from an article dated March 17, 2011 in Business Week, "A Boom Behind Bars".



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 



I have no criminal record but I can't get a job because of cigarettes, no one fought for my rights?


Your drug of choice is the most addictive, deadly and destructive drug on the planet. Perhaps people are too busy fighting for the right not to be kidnapped and put in a cage for using the safest drug on the planet (either medicinally or recreationally).


Simple do no drugs stay out of jail


You know what else is simple? Don't to cigarettes, get a job. Simple! See what I did there?


edit on 25-3-2011 by Azp420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
1 in 4 is a "fun with numbers" statistic. A criminal record could include a jaywalking ticket, drunk and disorderly (night in the drunk tank), etc.. 1 in 4 Americans aren't in prison or major ciminals.
That being said, yeah there's a lot of dopes (pun) in prison because they can't lay off the pipe or get caught trying to sell some, my heart bleeds for them.

The oldest saying for losers is "don't do the crime if you can't do the time".



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
The worst part is how they are getting these people. They lure in 18 year old high school pot heads by flashing a bunch of money in their face, asking them to get as much pot as possible. Then once they get it, just to make a few extra dollars, they get a lifelong felony on their record.

Think this doesn't happen?? lmao



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by primus2012
 


You would have made a fine slave catcher my friend.

Second line not necessary.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


S & F. This practice does nothing to encourage those with a criminal past to change. In fact, it pisses them off and probably makes them even angrier than before. This time with good reason. Employers have always been basically stupid as a group and this proves it. A person's life could change dramatically for the better if this were against the law. It's time that happened.
edit on 25-3-2011 by Visiting ESB because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by primus2012
 


You would have made a fine slave catcher my friend.

Second line not necessary.


That doesn't even make sense. Multiple extra lines are required from you until you can make a point.

I'm not bleeding pity for some fools that chose to do the wrong thing because the chance of a quick buck looked better than working hard for lousy pay (talking about thieves and drug dealers here in case you don't understand) That does not equate me to a slave catcher.

Drug addicts in prison is a different story, though starting drugs was ultimately their choice to begin with.

Murderers, rapists, assaulters, lock em up and good bye freedom.

Tax evaders, bust some rocks for a while and come back, get a job, and pay your taxes like the rest of us.

If you're down-and-out and need to feed the family, there's the welfare office. Swallow some pride and ask for a handout instead of trying to hold-up the neighborhood bank or convenient store, or selling some crack to a kid on the street. Government loves to give handouts. If you need one, take it, that's exactly why it's there...so fools don't run amok robbing the place when they're broke.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Statistics aside. As an employer, would you rather hire a convicted felon instead of someone with a CLEAN CRIMINAL RECORD? Realistically, you're going to potentially get a large amount of drama and headaches with the convicted felon where the CLEAN person won't have to bother his/her work with things like parol officer visits, estranged relatives, people who might have been wronged by the felon, etc.

Sure, they paid their debt to society. However... If you had only two people competing for a job with equal qualifications, would you hire the felon or the person with a clean record? Keep in mind that most jobs involve a change-fund and cash and credit card receipts. One person is known to have been UNTRUSTWORTHY; the other hasn't been convicted of any crime whatsoever. As an employer, you are not a champion of second chances. You are a champion of your business. If you hire people who might destroy your credibility (and your business) you won't be in business for long.

My heart goes out to convicted felons who have turned their lives around. The reality is that people who didn't ROYALLY SCREW UP THEIR LIVES BY COMMITTING A FELONY are competing for the same jobs. Employers seek people they can TRUST. A bad track record involving a felony will unfortunately hamper a bright future. This is the school of hard knocks. You may learn, but that doesn't absolve a person from the crimes they have committed in the eyes of people (business owners) who are investing in brighter futures.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 





Statistics aside. As an employer, would you rather hire a convicted felon instead of someone with a CLEAN CRIMINAL RECORD? Realistically, you're going to potentially get a large amount of drama and headaches with the convicted felon where the CLEAN person won't have to bother his/her work with things like parol officer visits, estranged relatives, people who might have been wronged by the felon, etc.


Since you bring up the parole issue, what the hell is that about? This whole system for convicted felons seems to be all about disenfranchisement. Prior to 1930 there was no such thing as a parole board, which means that people convicted of a crime did their time and upon release, that was that. Now, government seems to think that once convicted that person is no longer a person but property of the government. What is the point of doing time if once that time has been done, the convicted person is still doing time in some other fashion?

It is really just another justification for the aggregation of power.

As to your initial question, as an employer, I want to hire the best person for the job, and as a critical thinker much has to be weighed when making a decision. I have worked several jobs in my lifetime, and I have known many people never convicted of a crime that stole from their employers, and created all kinds of grief and hassles, so the fact that a person has a clean criminal record is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a safeguard against any thing than the parole officer issue you brought up.




Sure, they paid their debt to society. However... If you had only two people competing for a job with equal qualifications, would you hire the felon or the person with a clean record? Keep in mind that most jobs involve a change-fund and cash and credit card receipts. One person is known to have been UNTRUSTWORTHY; the other hasn't been convicted of any crime whatsoever. As an employer, you are not a champion of second chances. You are a champion of your business. If you hire people who might destroy your credibility (and your business) you won't be in business for long.


Several members in this thread have worked tirelessly to establish that not all people convicted of crimes, are actually criminals, and far too many have been convicted of "victimless crimes". That fact alone is a profound indictment on us all. We are the ones guilty of establishing a prison nation where at least a quarter of the people we are putting in prison are in their over invented crimes where no victim existed. Frankly, this tends to make us a nation of jerks. Petty callous jerks.




My heart goes out to convicted felons who have turned their lives around. The reality is that people who didn't ROYALLY SCREW UP THEIR LIVES BY COMMITTING A FELONY are competing for the same jobs. Employers seek people they can TRUST. A bad track record involving a felony will unfortunately hamper a bright future. This is the school of hard knocks. You may learn, but that doesn't absolve a person from the crimes they have committed in the eyes of people (business owners) who are investing in brighter futures.


If business owners are investing in "brighter futures" then why does this nations economy look so bleak today? Your view of employers is one from rose colored glasses, of which you seem to wear in way similar to Janet Reno, and will keep them firmly planted on the center of your nose so when you choose to you can look through the glasses, and then when you choose to do otherwise you will look over your glasses with this hard stare, as if there is some sort of wise person staring. Janet Reno, by the way, was never convicted of any crimes, and yet this woman was responsible for killing women and children, in order to "save them". But, she has no criminal record, so based upon your logic, I suppose this makes her trustworthy.

The United States imprisons more people, per capita, than any other industrialized nation on the planet. That means more people than China. That means more people than the Soviet Union ever did at the height of their tyranny. Is this fact because Americans are a bunch of criminals? Some, no doubt are, but all? Are you so naive as to think that government can be trusted, and the fact that the U.S. imprisons more people per capita than any other industrialized nation is due to the fact that our government is so trustworthy?

Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by primus2012
 


Ok, I will elaborate a bit so you can see my point, I'm sorry thought it was obvious.

I was referring to this part of your post:

That being said, yeah there's a lot of dopes (pun) in prison because they can't lay off the pipe or get caught trying to sell some, my heart bleeds for them.

The oldest saying for losers is "don't do the crime if you can't do the time".


Most of the "dopes" in prison on drugs charges are in there for cannabis possession or supply. If someone chooses a safer alternative to alcohol for recreational use or a safer and more effective alternative to pharmaceuticals for medicinal use they do not deserve to be kidnapped and locked in a cage. Therefore the laws governing these are unjust, just as the slave catcher laws were unjust. Since you believe even unjust laws should be obeyed, you Sir, would have made a fine slave catcher back in the day.

You also seem to think drug dealers should be locked up, when they have not harmed anyone (unless they sell to children). All they have done is complete a mutually beneficial exchange, making both parties happier, no victim - no crime. Before you tell me dealers who sell dangerous drugs such as heroin should be locked up because the customer can almost be argued to be the victim, you would also have to be in favor of liquor store and gas station attendents being locked up, else you would be dangerously close to being illogical and having double standards, for these people sell the most addictive, deadly and destructive drugs on the planet. And like you said, it was the "victims" choice to dabble in drugs to begin with. We don't need to be threatened with violence to protect us from ourselves.


Tax evaders, bust some rocks for a while and come back, get a job, and pay your taxes like the rest of us.


What about those scum bags who refuse to pay the mafia for protection? Or is there some sort of fundamental difference when the government comes knocking to collect its protection money?



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   
There is also the statutory rape type charges. I'm not talking about an old man chasing down a 10 year old girl with a lollipop. I'm talking about people that are nothing more at times than 2 years difference in age. One of my buddies has carried a statutory rape charge over his head for 15 years. At the time he just turned 18 and his girlfriend was a few days from turning 16 (consent age here). Her parents pressed charges because they had a religious kick about sex before marriage. Thing is that he has been married to the same girl for a long time with kids of his own and this still hangs over his head like a curse. Who wants to hire someone that is on the sex offender registry for sexing up an underage girl? He's afraid also about how he interacts with his children so that something they say could be just reason take them and accuse him again.

Even for smaller crimes the local cops here send underage girls and guys into clubs and local stores trying to buy alcohol or cigarettes with fake out of state id's or tempt one to use or sell drugs. They've been also known to have pretend prostitutes walk areas to catch people or pretend gays at public toilets initiating contact. It is creation of a problem to prevent said problem (if that makes any sense?) My local town has 15,623 statutes. I'm sure I'm breaking one right now and don't know it.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   
There are many factors to consider here in this thread. This is not a single faceted problem.
I believe one of the issues at play here is a criminalization of many activities that would not have been an issue in times past.
I also think that people seem to be of the opinion that making something a law prevents people from doing it. When in fact this is not the case.
People who do not violate laws, or follow the rules, will do so no matter what the punishment for violating those laws are. On the other side of this coin. People who do not follow the law or rules, will violate them no matter what the punishment is. There are still places in the middle east that will cut off the hand of a thief. Why do you suppose that is? I mean you would think that if you know that your hand will be cut off if you steal, you would not steal, and yet to this day theft is still an issue. Some crimes are committed by some because they think:
a. They will not be caught, so taking into consideration the punishment for this crime, is a non-issue.
b. They must steal because they have no means of survival without this option, therefore the punishment for the crime is a non-issue because survival is preferable to death.

Here in the states we do have social programs, so that option "b" should not be an option. Lets take a look at that.
Most states have qualifications for these programs, if they have them at all, which some do not.
AFDC (Assistance for Families with Dependent Children) This program has other names in some states, but the basic idea behind it is it give money each month to families who cannot support themselves. It does take into account how many children these families have (giving more money to those with more children). The rules vary from state to state but I will list the basics.
1. There is a limit to the amount of income the family makes, if the applicants income goes above that amount, the assistance is cut by that amount.
2. There is a maximum income that family can have (usually "the poverty level" for that area, which is usually minimum wage full time) in this case the assistance is cut off.
3. The families income includes all children's income that are old enough to work as well.
4. No qualifying family can have any sort of savings accounts or property of any real value (stocks, bonds, a home, land) and are required to report such assets.
5. No adult family member can be enrolled in any school or technical college.
6. If child support is received, it is captured by the state to offset the cost of the program.
As you can see, the only income they can have is the income the state pays them. They have no way out. Schooling to better themselves is not allowed either. The children in these homes cannot work either, so they grow up with this institutional attitude as well. Some worked out that illegal income or having more children were ways to get more money. So most states put a time limit on this assistance. Still no way out, and now have the additional pressure of knowing they only have so much time before they need a new plan to house their family. So the illegal activities look better and better.
I do not believe punishment for crimes are designed as much as a deterrent, as they are revenge for the law abiding public. An idea people do not want to hear, so punishment being called a 'deterrent" is more politically correct.
Drugs and dealers being a victimless crime.
I do agree that regulation of drugs is a better way of dealing with the drug issue than criminalizing them, but victimless I do not agree with. What happens when a drug deal goes wrong? We all know the answer to that. What if the dealer aims for his penniless client and shoots a bystander? Taking the crime out of the equation, with regulation is the only answer, but it is not a cheap answer.
Thats some of the reason why alcohol laws have been changing. As police departments cite more and more people for "drunken driving" the public at large feels like this is a good thing. The public imagines this drunk staggering out of some seedy bar barely able to stand let alone walk. Getting into his/her car, on his way to the next bar, mowing down someone's grandmother, and someone else's children along the way. (Not even wondering why at midnight grandma is out walking/driving around). The fact is this is not the typical drunk driver. The typical drunk driver is someone who stopped off at some sports bar to have 1 beer with some friends on his/her way home from work. The typical drunk driver only needs 1 beer or 1 drink to be considered drunk. In some states, half a beer/drink is enough. This person convicted of this heinous crime can receive up to $10,000.00 USD fine for this first time offense, and if his/her place of employment has a zero alcohol tolerance policy, can lose his/her job as well. Think about the amount of that fine times 10,000 citations for a state in one given year. This has become a business for some states, police are promoted for more of these citations. I wonder why? I do not think this is what the intention of this law was to begin with, it is however what it has become.
Creating laws is not an answer to crime. Correcting the reasons why people commit crimes is. Filling our jails with those who have committed such minor crimes, costs tax payers millions, and it has yet to reduce the number of people who commit these crimes.
Laws are for the law abiding, not the lawless.
Punishment for crimes, are for the law abiding, not the lawless.
Sacrificing liberty for security results in neither.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Several years ago I applied for a city job. On the app it of course asked about arrests or probation in the last however many years it was. I was honest and answered yes class b misdemeanor for driving with a suspende license, which is a whole nother story. Their reply was "sorry we don't hire people with criminal records". A year later I applied again. Same job. Kept my mouth shut and worked there for 2 years before moving to a better paying job.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by AGENTJa
 


Funny how a crooked system forces people to be crooked and people assume that crooked system is keeping them safe.

So many things wrong with the bureaucracy in this country.

Why bother teaching kids to be honest when sooner or later they're going to have to lie to get around the bull# that's in their way?



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join