Hacker News Reader

Comment by paggle | Hacker News Reader

The Norwegians can hire murderers as babysitters, as a reactionary American I would rather not.

Are you saying they should be in prison?

If they should be in prison then the countries don't differ.

If they shouldn't be in prison then they probably won't make a worse babysitter. It was a very extreme circumstance that they regret.

I think he's suggesting they went to prison and were released, and he'd like to be able to access someone's criminal record before hiring them as a babysitter.

I understand that, yes. But is the implication that they were released incorrectly?

There's nothing that makes murder specifically relevant to babysitting. If the implication is they wouldn't be hired, that implication applies to every job. So they'd be unhireable. Which in practice is more or less the same as "they should still be in prison".

Saying someone shouldn't be a babysitter is a long way from saying they should still be in prison, or even from saying they're unhireable. Different jobs require different kinds and degrees of trust - it isn't that black and white.

> If the implication is they wouldn't be hired, that implication applies to every job.

Unhirable for one, high trust job doesn't mean unhirable for every job. For example, I don't care if a sex offender washes my dishes at a restaurant, but I wouldn't want them teaching my preschoolers.

A babysitting job isn't very demanding, or we wouldn't have so many teenagers doing it. If someone seems to be qualified, then they probably are. If you're okay with hiring a murderer in general, I don't think they're notably less likely to babysit correctly. Let me know if I'm wrong here? (If you're not okay with hiring a murderer in general, then ignore this comment.)

For a sex offender, it depends on what kind. For example, a former prostitute is no less qualified than anyone else. But sure, some kinds are relevant, and should disqualify people from a narrow slice of jobs.

The problem is when people have supposedly served their time but can't get 95% of jobs.

Thanks, sometimes I feel like I stumbled onto Mars.

I personally think that no murderer should ever be released from prison, no matter how rehabilitated. However, given that this is not policy, I would rather have released murderers working in the oil fields or sawmills, or anywhere very far from me, not in my home with my fucking kid.

So then would you agree that when it comes to people that should have been released, you don't need to know what their past crimes were? At least when they're not specifically relevant to the job?

So, say a guy learns that a man has been repeatedly beating his child. Then takes his car, and runs over the man, killing him.

Should this person not be allowed to work with children?

> If they shouldn't be in prison then they probably won't make a worse babysitter.

Prison does not rehabilitate the vast majority of criminals. That's not it's purpose.

Even in Norway?

Also murder has a super low recidivism rate.

Is there some dissonance when you say "reactionary American"? I am not certain whether you are showing some form of self-deprecating self-awareness or whether you are preemptively trying to make fun of a legitimate argument against your position. And for what is worth, plenty of Americans believe in the importance of rehabilitation (instead of punishment) - it is even supposedly what Christianity teaches, which seems to be pretty important in this country.

Christianity is very important to lots of Americans but “turn the other cheek” or “blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” are empirically not among the operating principles of the American government or criminal justice system.

> it is even supposedly what Christianity teaches, which seems to be pretty important in this country

Ah, the old "I'm not a Christian and think it's stupid and backwards, so this argument won't work on me, but maybe this argument will work on you and you'll do what I want" approach.

Good luck with that.

I sincerely do not get what you mean? Obviously I have said something unpleasant or tone deaf, but that was not my goal and I would certainly appreciate you telling me what sounded bad. As for your assumption about me: I am not spiritual, but I do find Christian philosophy and Jesus's teachings to be good and try to follow them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com