After 28 yrs in prison, man can't handle world of cellphones & computers

[BlackLantern]

I think those questions SHOULD be there.....it's for the safety of the other employees and if you are working with people, the general public

 

[The Question]

I think those questions SHOULD be there.....it's for the safety of the other employees and if you are working with people, the general public

Why? They served their time. Most criminals aren't low functioning sociopathic serial killers, they're not just going to murder someone they work with on a whim, especially if they've been to jail and don't want to go back, and doing that only makes it harder for them to get a job which then makes returning to crime more appealing. If most ex-cons had the same opportunity to get jobs as anybody else, you'd probably see the crime rate go down.

 

[Darthphere]

Why? They served their time. Most criminals aren't low functioning sociopathic serial killers, they're not just going to murder someone they work with on a whim, especially if they've been to jail and don't want to go back, and doing that only makes it harder for them to get a job which then makes returning to crime more appealing. If most ex-cons had the same opportunity to get jobs as anybody else, you'd probably see the crime rate go down.

This might make me sound like an elitist or an ******* but it's hard enough trying to get a job if you've been a perfect saint your whole life, I don't see why someone who ****ed up should have equal footing honestly. Would it lower the crime rate? Probably, it just doesn't feel right to me. And before you say anything imagine you applied for a job and didn't get it but the guy who did was in prison for beating his wife. I'm sure you would feel great about that.

 

[Franklin Richards]

If that guy could unplug a toilet better than me then he should get the job.

 

[Darthphere]

If that guy could unplug a toilet better than me then he should get the job.

But nobody can do that better than you.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Well...


It's true. Nobody knows the turds I've seen.

 

[BlackLantern]

look Question....I get you want to believe in a better world and that we're all just decent people way deep down....but we aren't

we're selfish, predatory, and now pissed off because the economy and just everything in general....we will undercut anyone to make a better life for ourselves and if that means removing a whole class of people (prisoners) from the equation to better our odds than so be it

 

[The Question]

This might make me sound like an elitist or an ******* but it's hard enough trying to get a job if you've been a perfect saint your whole life, I don't see why someone who ****ed up should have equal footing honestly. Would it lower the crime rate? Probably, it just doesn't feel right to me. And before you say anything imagine you applied for a job and didn't get it but the guy who did was in prison for beating his wife. I'm sure you would feel great about that.

Well, odds are you're not going to know anything about the guy who got a job instead of you.

But even if I did, yeah, that would probably annoy the **** out of me. But how I feel doesn't matter. Dictating policy based on how individuals will feel is a nonsensical way to run a country.

Doing away with questions like that will significantly lower national crime rates. That means less **** getting stolen, which is good for the economy, and less people getting injured raped or murdered, which is good for people who don't want to be unjured raped or murdered. Rehabilitation is impossible if we have a system were convicts continue to be punished for their rest of their lives long after they've served their time. That is more important than a few hurt feelings.

Besides, doing away with those questions also means that more people are working, which stimulates the economy, and less people are in prison, meaning prisons won't be hemoraging quite as much money, which in turn will help the economy. In the long run it would help improve the job situation.

look Question....I get you want to believe in a better world and that we're all just decent people way deep down....but we aren't

we're selfish, predatory, and now pissed off because the economy and just everything in general....we will undercut anyone to make a better life for ourselves and if that means removing a whole class of people (prisoners) from the equation to better our odds than so be it

Again, people said the same thing about the civil rights bill in the 50s. It doesn't mean they shouldn't have passed it.

Also, I really don't understand your logic. You're saying that we shouldn't enact laws and reforms that would lower the crime rate because of what, exactly? Because some people out there are looking for a scapegoat and/or have a strong desire to punish the wicked when it is impractical to do so?

Well **** them. Seriously, why should our laws accomidate *******s who want things that are bad for the country.

The main thing that stands in the way of prison reform is a defeatest attitude like yours. There's no reason not to push for it constantly, and try to convince others of it constantly. It might not work but you nevr know until you goddamn try.

Also, most people are findamentally decent. Most people go about their lives and don't bother anybody. The problem isn't that they're selfish and predatory the problem is that they have bad ideas ingrained into them by society. Talking about it and enacting legislation can help to make those ideas less popular. They're never go away, but they can become less socially acceptable.

And even if it can't do that, there's still nothing to lose from pushing for that kind of legislation. Even if people on the outside still treat cons like ****, the fact is that improving prison conditions will still reduce the crime rate. And making questions like that on applications illegal would still reduce the crime rate. Why not do that?

Also, what's with all this "we" stuff?

 

[Darthphere]

Well, odds are you're not going to know anything about the guy who got a job instead of you.

But even if I did, yeah, that would probably annoy the **** out of me. But how I feel doesn't matter. Dictating policy based on how individuals will feel is a nonsensical way to run a country.

Doing away with questions like that will significantly lower national crime rates. That means less **** getting stolen, which is good for the economy, and less people getting injured raped or murdered, which is good for people who don't want to be unjured raped or murdered. Rehabilitation is impossible if we have a system were convicts continue to be punished for their rest of their lives long after they've served their time. That is more important than a few hurt feelings.

Besides, doing away with those questions also means that more people are working, which stimulates the economy, and less people are in prison, meaning prisons won't be hemoraging quite as much money, which in turn will help the economy. In the long run it would help improve the job situation.

I really don't see how holding down a job is going to stop a murderer or rapist. "Man I was going to kill that guy but my shift starts in 15 minutes."

Also, this assuming there are even jobs available. There isn't. Sure in a perfect world, everyone would have a job and ex cons would be doing good work instead of stealing and killing. We don't live in a perfect world though.

 

[The Question]

I really don't see how holding down a job is going to stop a murderer or rapist. "Man I was going to kill that guy but my shift starts in 15 minutes."

Because most murders aren't serial killers. Most murderers killed people for some kind of material gain or out of anger/for revenge. Having a job isn't going to keep them from hurting people by keeping them busy, it's going to keep them employed and give them a stable routine so they're less likely to turn to what they now (violence) to make get by financially.

Also, this assuming there are even jobs available. There isn't. Sure in a perfect world, everyone would have a job and ex cons would be doing good work instead of stealing and killing. We don't live in a perfect world though.

That is a problem. But making it hard for cons to get jobs that are available doesn't solve that problem, it just makes another problem worse. Another problem that in turn makes the original problem worse.

 

[SuperFerret]

What does that mean?

And in any event, if we can find a way to make our current population size work for us through technology, then what's the problem?

It means that there are far too many people and that's why society has the problems it does. The only way to remove those problems is by removing people.

 

[SnuffTheRooster]

It means that there are far too many people and that's why society has the problems it does. The only way to remove those problems is by removing people.

 

[SuperFerret]

You're lucky that I'm in a good mood, or I'd report that for insulting me. Try learning to read before commenting.

 

[SnuffTheRooster]

ok but you may want to choose your words a little better next time lol

 

[spideyboy_1111]

yeah, ferret.. it sorta sounds like you'd rather have them gone, as in dead.

 

[SuperFerret]

Uhh... that was the point, but I'm not calling for mass genocides. I wouldn't ever want petty biases be the driving factor there. Nature will balance it out eventually.

 

[Charlie Boy]

I do. But only the darkies.

 

[The Question]

It means that there are far too many people and that's why society has the problems it does. The only way to remove those problems is by removing people.

I disagree. The root of many of the problems our society has is more specifically that there aren't enough resources to go around for all of those people. If we find ways to feed more people, clothe more people, house more people, essentially make sure there's enough resources to go around, then that also solves the problem. In essence it's redefining what "too many people" means.

 

[Anubis]

Actually that would just create more people.

 

[zanos]

I would think it would be kind of exciting. Imagine being transported nearly 30 years into the future without a time machine. Not too many people get to experience that in their lives.

 

[Darthphere]

I disagree. The root of many of the problems our society has is more specifically that there aren't enough resources to go around for all of those people. If we find ways to feed more people, clothe more people, house more people, essentially make sure there's enough resources to go around, then that also solves the problem. In essence it's redefining what "too many people" means.

Wouldn't that create a different set of problems though? Like law enforcement. In this perfect world, there wouldn't be a need for such a high number of police officers. So we're supposed to be like "Hey we gave all the people you threw in jail jobs so they can feel better about their lives and we're laying you off because our crime rates are like super low. You may want to look into a trade school or something."

 

[GhostPoet]

Here's what it boils down to me. You want to put in job programs and let them get college degrees and all that other rehabilitation nonsense, go for it. I'm not against rehabilitation, not at all but at the same time lets not get things twisted. You're in prison because you made a bad choice and you're being punished for it. It's supposed to be hard. It's supposed to suck. It's kind of the point. Like when you were a kid and you got grounded with no tv or dessert for a week, same concept only expanded. Complaining that prison made it hard for your life comes down to the choice you made that sent you to prison in the first place. Just because you did your time doesn't mean everything goes back to normal right away.

there are vastly more studies to prove that prisons don't work, than they do. Making it "hard" for them doesn't help. Apparently many will leave prison only to end up right back into it. It's a disease, it's a cycle. You have to break the cycle or else it'll just keep going on and on and wasting more money. You can't keep sweeping it under the rug and except change.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Wouldn't that create a different set of problems though? Like law enforcement. In this perfect world, there wouldn't be a need for such a high number of police officers. So we're supposed to be like "Hey we gave all the people you threw in jail jobs so they can feel better about their lives and we're laying you off because our crime rates are like super low. You may want to look into a trade school or something."

So you're saying less crime is bad?

 

[Anubis]

Crime creates jobs.

It's the main reason why there's still a war on drugs.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]