A proposal to cut the time before convictions are spent.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16857388
A good idea?
Personally, I think so, as I've always thought that labelling criminals was a great source of recidivism.
However, I'm not sure whether the original length of the sentence, should be the yardstick, or whether it should depend upon the seriousness of the offence (rather than using the sentence as a proxy for the seriousness).
In other words, maybe a rape conviction should never be spent, even if the perpetrator only got 3 years.
|
I like the idea, but I think it should take into account the number of convictions a person has. Serial "minor" offenders are probably a bigger pain in the 'arris to society than those who may have commited a serious offence on a one off basis. They are also more likely to continue offending.
They problem with unspent convictions is having to declare them on job application forms means little chance of employment, insurance companies don't want to know or charge an exhorbidant premium, so many a first time crim may well feel the only way they can survive is illegally.
|
I think generally if you 'do the crime', then be prepared to 'do the time'....and that includes convictions.
Anything done under 18 is wiped from the slate anyway.
If you nicked something at 22 and are applying for a job at 42, with a good solid employment history, then any sensible employer will make their own conclusions.
Why should the 'low life' in society be able to hide their murky pasts? Why should employers be kept in the dark about the dodgy in society?
If you were talking about putting the wrong tax disc on your car when you were a student (as my mate did and copped a criminal conviction), then visas for foreign countries and employment will never be a problem anyway.
As usual the only real people to benefit from this proposal will be the 'low life'.
|
>> As usual the only real people to benefit from this proposal will be the 'low
>> life'.
Depends. If the alternative is that the offender wouldn't get a job and would therefore commit more crimes, then the victims of those theoretical future crimes would benefit from the offender being able to get a job.
I'd favour potentially harsher punishments to deter as well as punish, but once that is done, I see little reason to stop the offender getting a job, unless we want a continued life of crime to appeal to them.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Thu 2 Feb 12 at 18:12
|
>> Depends. If the alternative is that the offender wouldn't get a job and would therefore
>> commit more crimes, then the victims of those theoretical future crimes would benefit from the offender being able to get a job.
>>
Yes, I can see the point...but...the employer and employees of the organisation this miscreant will now be working in, remain totally in the dark. Nice.
I cannot stand liars and thieves. Why should I have to work next to one..or employ one?
|
>> I cannot stand liars and thieves. Why should I have to work next to one..or employ one?
Me too.
But it occurs to me that (for example) the intelligence services may sometimes, perhaps often, need individuals with a talent for either or both. And I have to say Westpig that from what I know of the old bill liars are not unknown in its ranks, although thieves would be fairly rare except in some specialist departments...
The business world too contains some ripe and successful examples of both categories.
|
There's different types of lying AC. Some can be acceptable.
E.g. If my wife says "Does my back side look big in this dress"? I answer "No, of course not".
My answer fits the definition of a lie...but remains acceptable.....;-)
|
>> And I have to say Westpig that from what I know of the old bill liars are not >>unknown in its ranks, although thieves would be fairly rare except in some specialist >>departments...
>>
Heavens AC. Are you hinting at 'noble cause' corruption?
|
What is the damn expression?
'Reasons of State', that's the one.
|
|
We're all capable of changing our ways, particularly those who were off the rails early in adult life and went on to become respectable citizens. While we need a punishment system that genuinely does deter we must also dangle the carrot that makes people think it is worthwhile to go straight. Burdening people with baggage from their past which may effect them in important areas of their life is not the way to do it, although of course there are certain types of crime and criminal where making a convicton spent is not an option.
|
A past criminal convictions, should not be a permanent barrier to someones ability or desire to better themselves legally and gainfully in later life.
Living in an age where taking a breath is becoming potentially criminal, you could end up with the entire population unemployable due to a criminal record.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 2 Feb 12 at 18:49
|
Look. If I was at a party and got introduced to someone who in conversation explained he was a scally wag as a youngster..but that was all behind him for some years...then fair enough.
That in my opinion is someone being genuine, open, honest and accepting of their past.
If they kept quiet and for some reason I found out...i'd be wary.
That's the angle i'm coming from, why does it have to be hidden?
I can put my money where my mouth is, when I became a frequent local pub visitor after a divorce, one of the young lads in there, a paint sprayer, admitted the above, his angle was stealing cars...at a time he'd straightened himsellf out and was working hard to run his own business...I leant him my then new to me Jag to use as his bridesmaids car at his wedding.
I have no problem with the principle of re-habilitation...but I do have a problem with the secrecy.
|
|
The difference Westpig, is you are talking about someone you got to know personally and were able to conclude that he was genuine and his past was behind him. However, were he forced to declare his past on an insurance proposal or his CV to be read by a faceless stranger he would never meet it would have been a different ball game entirely.
|
>> However,
>> were he forced to declare his past on an insurance proposal or his CV to
>> be read by a faceless stranger he would never meet it would have been a
>> different ball game entirely.
>>
That's very true. My problem is i've spent 30 years watching the s*** bags in life getting away with things...and to me, this is an extension of that...because the decent will put it to good use..as well as the truly awful...and I don't want that.
Last edited by: Westpig on Thu 2 Feb 12 at 19:32
|
>> My problem is i've spent 30 years watching the s*** bags in
>> life getting away with things...
P.S. I'm no saint, I used to nick my mum's car when I was 16 and in my teens/early 20's drink driving was (unfortunately) the norm.
I'm talking beyond that.
|
|
I'm with Reliant Rebel - all the way.
|
Spent convictions - Robin O'Reliant
