I would think that a punishment for a crime that includes forced destitution for life independently of the nature of the crime would be considered cruel and unusual. But the Bill of Rights doesn't seem to be taken seriously anymore either.
It's technology's fault. Before the advent of widespread computers capable of indexing large amounts of data, in order for someone to know a person had a felony, they would have had to know where you were convicted, travel to the courthouse in that county, and go through stacks of dusty paper files.
This struck a good balance between making court records public (anyone can look at them), and the privacy of individual defendants (few people bothered because it's time-consuming and inconvenient, therefore expensive).
Of course software's eaten this market, there are companies that have digitized and indexed all those public records, and now you can run background checks on people with a few mouse clicks and a few bucks on your credit card.
On a serious note, you're running perilously close to google and the right to forget. I strongly agree with you, but it's the google party line that there's no difference at all between (1) the ability to conduct a background check on someone as long as you're willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars, and (2) the ability for anyone to conduct and publicize a background check for free. You'll note also that asshole Eric Schmidt simultaneously suggested people should change their names if they want youthful indiscretions not to follow them for the rest of their life while using his billions and lawyers to erase his mistresses' stories from the internet.
Its our fault, not technology's. Technology is just a tool; we've failed to properly address how it should be used.
See: Drones, NSA spying, etc as well.
But it's hard for me to separate that all from the general Calvinist/religious culture of the area where I live.
I think for some groups in this country, we're not just getting to this place, this is where we've been for a long time. It's just that the masses are better able to access information about it now.
Blacks being killed by police with indiscretion did not start in 2013. I'd guess in fact that that the past 5 years were way better for black live than the 5 years before them. People just happen to be paying attention now.
What is the name of the police camera company that you are talking about?
IMO, it's trigger, news story, more news stories, response to all the news, news stories about the movement, self sustaining movement. with more news being the fake bit.
Without people actively trying to sell things there are far more important issues, but a little media judo can shift perception and policy.
But we don't do the same with kidnappers or murderers.
How insane is that?
This means I can prevent a school from being built near my house by peeing in a public place... :-)
This doesn't change your point at all, just wanted to point out that putting "kidnappers" on the list might not be very effective.
Not unlike how putting all "sex offenders" on the list is not effective.
The 17 year old having (nominally) consensual sex with a 15 year old. The drunken liaison where one party was not able to consent (doesn't remember consenting, didn't, or otherwise). The breaking and entering to rape at knife point.
I do not consider these equal crimes, and whilst I've no objection to legal intervention in each I think the key on is to appropriately manage the risk of re offending. Making someone's life nigh on impossible after serving time only makes them resent the system and interferes with proper re-integration into society. That's the only meaningful goal. Or it should be in my opinion.
There is a total of about 5,00 people in the US on the register for exposure - and obviously not all of those are there for public urination.
It may not be perfect, and there are very real issues with making it harder for people to resume a normal life after getting out, but this is actually one of those areas where actions are more in line with actual risks than a lot of policies relating to how past offenders are treated.
Murderers are highly unlikely to carry out another murder - most murders are "one of a kind" heat of passion, not sociopaths killing for the entertainment value or similar. The nature of the victims of murders and the low risk of re-offending makes it relatively low risk to live near someone who has carried out a murder in the past.
Sex-offenders are much more likely to be an ongoing risk to society after being released, and sex-offenders who have previously targeted children are extremely likely to target based on level of access (e.g. parents and close relatives top the list, but other people with close access to a child rank high, such as e.g. a neighbour that manages to become friends with the parents of a child), which is a particular impetus for people to worry about where they live.
Intuitively (I'm not an actuary), it seems that insurance companies get away with charging you more if you've had a prior accident. It seems a person who has broken the law may be more likely to break it than the average person.
I think it stinks that this local govt can tell a business to fire a felon though, that just compounds the problem of re-entry. I smell a Supreme Court case in the future.
The courts will shut it down when challenged, I'd hope.
There's a lot more to american society than standing in a voting booth. I agree it's a steep price, but there's no need to exaggerate.
Kids have no voting rights either. Or legal aliens. Or visiting diplomats. Etc.
If you were genuinely curious, "what's your opinion on voting rights for convicted criminals?" would be a better way to ask.
Asking nicely makes it more likely that you will get one.
People are much more likely to answer a question when it seems like you're interested in a genuine answer, than when it seems like you've already passed judgment and the question is a mere formality.
They were not asking in a pleasant manner, but they were also not being outright rude. Not every interaction has to be sunshine and lollipops.
Passive-agressive outrage at the apparent lack of concern for the disenfranchisement of a fairly large population group seems... ok in the grand scheme. No name calling, no yelling, and no 'please sir, will you answer me this' is required.
This advice parallels one of the Hacker News guidelines: "avoid gratuitous negativity". Asking questions in a gratuitously negative way doesn't usually make for good conversation.
http://www.stoppa-pedofilerna.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/...
Porn is icky, disgusting, and distasteful
A movie with torture, graphic violence, and gore is a fun friday evening.
Go to some place like Germany and notice they are very anti-violence and more sexually open. You see nudity on German broadcast television but not graphic violence. I'd say their priorities are much better in that regard.
Do you mean "not actually guilty even though they were found guilty" or do we put people on sex offender registries without due process?
But there is this about the UK: "and unconvicted people thought to be at risk of offending" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender_registry#United_K...