So besides giving them an opportunity to serve while incarcerated we need to make sure that incarceration does not keep them from rejoining society upon release simply because government rules tell them no.
So besides giving them an opportunity to serve while incarcerated we need to make sure that incarceration does not keep them from rejoining society upon release simply because government rules tell them no.
So they go back to whatever they were doing previously because having any sort of decent career is extremely difficult.
There seems to be a reasonable case for thorough background checks for firefighters. You might be able to persuade me that "any felony conviction" is too broad and only certain kinds of felonies should be excluded.
Pissed on a wall or mooned somebody when drunk in front of a cop? Felony AND sex offender--just for good measure.
Had sex with your 17-year-old girlfriend when you were 18? Felony although some jurisdictions make exceptions and try to reduce this to misdemeanor depending upon age difference.
Picked up for drunk and disorderly and had a knife on you that exceeds specifications? Felony. Side note: there is a reason so many people like MagLite flashlights--they are similar in size to a billy club or truncheon but are legal.
Picked up with a small amount of marijuana while your friend was in possession of a much larger amount in the car. Felony.
Every single male I know has done something sufficiently stupid when he was young that could have been a felony.
In addition, if a cop picks you up, they can probably find a felony somewhere in the law that will stick unless you are a teetotaller.
The real problem is that non-violent felonies need to go away after a while. I seem to remember some research showing that if a felon manages to stay out of trouble for 5 years he is less likely to get in trouble than even the general population.
So, to answer your question, felons who stay out of trouble for more than 5 years are actually a better pool to hire from than the general population.
Hiring a tax evasion convict as a truck driver sounds fine.
Hiring a fraud convict as a CPA sounds pretty risky.
Hiring a murder convict as a beat cop sounds unacceptable.
Positions of trust and power over others will always deserve scrutiny for the sake of the life & liberty of ordinary people...
I could go either way on this. Certainly you don't want someone who has control problems as a cop. But, someone who got convicted of gang stuff very young and then got his shit together could be a really effective beat cop. He knows the people and the neighborhood while serving as an example of doing good.
The problem is that a cop has to give legal testimony. And that would get challenged if he has a prior. Perhaps when cops all have to wear video so we don't have to rely on human testimony that will change.
I think you hit the nail right on the head. The article even notes for this particular program:
> Inmates convicted of crimes categorised as "serious" or "violent" felonies are not eligible, says Bill Sessa, a spokesman for the state's department of corrections and rehabilitation (CDCR). That rules out those convicted of murder, kidnap, rape and other sex crimes, violent assault, and - unsurprisingly - arson.
They didn't really say what these particular inmates were convicted of, or if they were even felons, but there are plenty of crimes in the US that are treated way more severely than they should, and in some cases shouldn't even be considered crimes at all.
The US is a full blown police-state-for-profit.
The changes we need to do are far more fundamental than what you mention -- even though everything you say is 100% valid.
The US is a broken, defective, state. (regardless of how stable/profitable/functional it may be)
None, thus this line in my comment...