Hacker News Reader

Comment by ternnoburn | Hacker News Reader

I'm ok with this, as long as it's systemic. Otherwise it's just another way for people with means to get a leg up on people without means. If it's, "we delete all crime stories after N years", then fine, especially for low level, non violent stuff.

The punishment for crimes should come from the justice system and people should be able to pay their dues and move on.

View on HN

You're describing punishment by the state. One is entitled to move on from a fine or imprisonment. One is not entitled to a clean social or occupational reputation. There's a good reason those consequences exist.

It’s useful for society if there’s a way for criminals to reintegrate into society.

If potential employers can always check for a criminal record, and refuse to hire criminals, then guess what those criminals will do? The answer isn’t “starve to death”.

Previously there were practical limits to how long a sentence could follow you. If you moved across the country, you might lose whatever family you still have, but at least you could get a fresh start. Nowadays that’s effectively impossible.

There are employers who don't care about criminal records, at least up to a point. Most trade unions don't, and many other blue-collar employers don't. A criminal record isn't going to prevent you from working, but it might limit your choices.

It depends on the crime and the job. I wouldn't hire an embezzler to do the books, for example.

Why is that useful? To me it sounds like society’s law followers would be taking risk to the benefit of the criminal. I think certain crimes that are petty - like traffic violations or whatever - sure reintegration makes sense. But burglaries, robberies, assault, murder, etc - I think keeping them jailed is probably best for everyone.

People learn, change, and grow. People experience things and change their perspectives. The person I am at 45 is not the person I was at 25.

Also, some folks believe crime has root causes in systems outside the self -- poverty, violence, compulsion -- helping people out of those systems and then seeing if they can contribute in society without those pressures against them.

>One is not entitled to a clean social or occupational reputation

In plenty of jurisdictions people are entitled precisely to that. Here in Germany the entire basis for punishment is a right to full reintegration after you have been punished. A just community punishes once, not five hundred times over and that goes both for the people and the state (which are the same thing in a democracy, the latter punishes on behalf of the former). If you come out of prison and you've paid back your debt only to be ostracized and arbitrarily pursued by a witch hunting public that's not a just society, it's a mob. It's worth repeating, if someone goes to prison you're putting them there, it's "we the people vs X". "The state" is exercising power on your behalf.

That's the basis of a working social contract. You harm the community, you pay, but afterwards we have an actual duty to resocialize you, otherwise we just acted in arbitrary and disproportionate fashion. Criminals have rights in a civilized society, including to privacy and not be discriminated against, by say employers.

I believe it's Scandinavia, or maybe Denmark, where there is no punishment for escaping or attempting to escape prison.

The courts, community has decided the need to be free is a fundamental human drive, and cannot be punished.

Sure, when you're caught, you'll be taken back to complete your sentence, but you won't get additional punishment for the effort.

I've heard it's the same in Germany.

> we have an actual duty to resocialize you

You may feel that you have this duty. I do not feel that I have this duty. You are placing upon me an obligation that I will not accept.

Personally, I like living in a liberal democracy where we reintegrate criminals.

You might be misunderstanding the word "resocialize".

It has nothing to do with you.

> especially for low level, non violent stuff

This is codeword for financial, white collar crimes. So, it is definitely a policy serving the rich.

Minor drug offences could also fit that though — possession or even someone dealing weed mightn't be directly involved in any violence at all

Or petty theft, shoplifting etc.

It's generally the disadvantaged and poor who get hit for low-level, non-violent stuff.

Are they the ones also committing more of them statistically - is that why (or are you saying they are targeted)? And if so why is that the case - there are plenty of people who are disadvantaged and poor and don’t commit crimes. Look at various immigrant minority groups for example.

[flagged]

> It's generally the disadvantaged and poor who get hit for low-level, non-violent stuff.

In my country (New Zealand) judges let off young people who look like them, regularly.

"This young man [not but almost always a man] has a great future and he should not be burdened...."

That is if they are an aspiring accountant, laywer, sports star, etcetera

If they are a young bricklayer, welder, etcetera it is tough luck

It is absolutely disgusting. No wonder so many people want to burn the whole thing down

I think GP probably meant "stupid stuff young people do" minor drugs, drinking underage or even DUI, fighting, theft, vandalism.

If you were under ~25, and it was "stupid kid stuff" why ruin someone's life.

If you're 40 with a good job and get caught embezzeling, totally different in my view. Old enough to know better.

More or less, yeah, you got it.

Shoplifting is low level, non violent, and very very common. The only shoplifting I've heard of by the rich is a famous actress who had a shoplifting fetish.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com