The old "minorities don't actually commit more crimes, they just are picked on by white people" routine.

Rather than pulling the wool over our eyes, why don't we focus on finding out why minorities commit a massively disproportionate amount of crimes and find a way to start fixing it?

Mykeru: The Homer Tax: You know what an awesome way to ensure that someone convicted of welfare fraud never a)commits another crime, or b)lives off the public dole again?

Make sure it's impossible for them to get or keep a job. That'll probably work out great for everyone.

THIS. Double this.

What in hell does being convicted of "welfare fraud", whatever that means, nearly a decade ago have to do with someone's ability to make an honest living driving a bus?

Anyone think that "zero tolerance" moralistic douche-baggery like this is, oh, I don't know, ultimately counter-productive to society?

If we are going to adopt a policy where any infraction means someone can never be employed again, why not take douche-baggery to the next level and start doling out summary execution for moving violations, just to be safe? Broadcast live. After which we can all dance around with their head on a stick congratulating ourselves over our impeccable moral standards.

Until it's our turn.

/Rant.

Fraud could lead to her maybe pocketing riders cash or letting people ride for free.

Someones credibility goes a long way in a job.

Persnickety: Neither trial nor conviction rates necessarily imply racism in the criminal justice system for the very reasons you stated. If poor people tend to commit more crimes and more minorities tend to be poor, well, what other outcome would you expect?

"La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain."

("The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.")

--Anatole France

ftfa: "Just ask Adrienne Hudson, a single mother who says she was fired from her new job as a bus driver at First Transit in Oakland, Calif., when the company found out she had been convicted seven years earlier for welfare fraud."


Sounds to me they had the "Have you ever been convicted/charged/etc. of a crime in the past seven years" question on the application and she lied about it. Fark that welfare scamming biatch.

Mykeru: Oh, I love your honking great strawman. Did you make it yourself?

I quoted the article and made a snide comment. Are you new here?

The Homer Tax: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Simple solution......don't be a criminal. Funny how consequences ruin the party.

If I have committed a crime, how do you propose I, after serving my time, assimilate back into being a productive member of society again if I can't get a job anywhere?

Look for employment that does not require a clean record.

Theaetetus: cbackous: Theaetetus: Pair-o-Dice: Since when is crime a race?

It's not that crime is a race, but that the criminal justice system is racially discriminatory - prosecutors bring charges more often against minorities, even for the same crimes. Furthermore, because many minorities are poor, they're stuck with public defenders who have an hour to work on their entire trial - so they tend not to go to trial, but instead accept plea agreements, even when innocent.
Rather than just looking at the conviction rates, look at the trial rates... they're severely lopsided.

I know right, its obvious that all these minorities are not guilty. Its just the white man keeping them down.

/sarcasmoff

I know, right, district attorneys are gods among men who never let politics and their drive for a cushy senate seat or even a governorship bias their discretion.

/sarcasmoff

I know right, because the elected DAs are the ones actually picking the charges and prosecuting ... OH WAIT, they aren't. And there's also this huge mark on the paperwork that says 'This person is a minority so really give it to them up the ass!' OH WAIT, there isn't. 999 times out of a thousand, assistant DAs (aka the mean ol' prosecutors) never even see the accused until a hearing. They read police reports, talk to witnesses and form a method of prosecution based on what is presented to them. They don't see a black (wo)man and decide to go for the death penalty. Pedantic, snot-nosed, spoiled, socialist imbeciles believe any tripe they see or hear about the man keepin' us down, yo! But what do I know? I only deal with all that on a daily basis.

/obviousoff

The Homer Tax: Hawnkee: Fark that welfare scamming biatch.

The one who had her conviction overturned?

And who was being all boot-strappy by getting a job and getting OFF welfare.

In other news, free willed, fairly treated caucasian men that pay their own way have been added to the endangered species list.

Unfairly treated ones that graciously pick up the country's dinner tab every night while every other unshowered uneducated guest feasts for free are still welcome.

give me doughnuts: Mykeru: Anyone think that "zero tolerance" moralistic douche-baggery like this is, oh, I don't know, ultimately counter-productive to society?

It makes just as much sense as the zero-tolerance policies for drugs and weapons in school that get kids suspended for having a plastic butter knife or drawing a picture of a gun.

Actually, I support that sort of thing, if only because it's important to teach children at an early age that most authority, and people in general --especially in groups-- are inflexible, capricious, profoundly stupid and essentially mean-spirited.

This prevents them from being confused and disappointed in early adulthood when they figure it out for themselves.

"Hudson, 44, is fighting back with a lawsuit alleging the company's hiring practice discriminates against black and Latino job seekers, who have arrest and conviction rates far greater than whites."


Yes, the problem is HR hiring policies. Not the fact that blacks and hispanics commit more crime than whites. fantastic.

Looks like this waste of life has moved on from welfare fraud to nuisance lawsuits.

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: The Homer Tax: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Simple solution......don't be a criminal. Funny how consequences ruin the party.

If I have committed a crime, how do you propose I, after serving my time, assimilate back into being a productive member of society again if I can't get a job anywhere?

Look for employment that does not require a clean record.

How clean does it have to be for you to hire them? Would I be ineligible if I were, for example, 40 years old and had a drug possession conviction when I was 16?

The Homer Tax: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: No, the simple solution is to not be a criminal like I said.

Going back in time and undoing the past isn't an option, though.

Do you have a solution for people who committed crimes in the past and are seeking to re-integrate into society again after paying off their debt thereto in prison? Beyond "Go Fark Yourself," that is?

No. He doesn't. However, it's important to keep in mind that the source of Crux's moral certitude is simply that he's 12 years old, living at home, doesn't buy his own Cheetos and Hot Pockets and depends on his mom for all washing of his jizz-crusted socks.

Or is just a moron.

Adjective Bird Whiskey: While this sounds like some bullshiat up front, the lady who is suing particularly has a point. She was convicted of a non-violent crime seven years ago. Why should that stop her from being a bus driver?

She tried to defraud in the past. She would be more inclined to try to fraud again in the future. Maybe workers comp, or falsifying time cards, etc.

The fact is, someone who has committed a crime in the past is more likely to do so again than some who hasn't. You cant ignore that, and employers should not be asked to do so, either.

tacks: In other news, free willed, fairly treated caucasian men that pay their own way have been added to the endangered species list.

Unfairly treated ones that graciously pick up the country's dinner tab every night while every other unshowered uneducated guest feasts for free are still welcome.

Yeah, who's the minority now?

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Someone who has not committed a crime does not have to be worried about not getting a job because of prior convictions. But, you go ahead with your bad self, and pretend it isn't so.

Yes, it isn't so. It's very easy to get picked up for a "usual suspects" line-up because you're black, male, around 20-30 and living in a poor neighborhood, even if you did nothing. And after three or four times getting picked up because of a vague witness description, the cops start pushing the witnesses - "we've brought this guy in half a dozen times now... are you sure it wasn't him? Reallllly sure?" - and Bam, you're indicted for a crime you didn't do. Plus, since you're poor, you get a public defender who urges you to accept a plea deal for assault instead of the aggravated assault charge you're facing, and Bam - conviction for something you never did.

Whenever anybody cries about "disparate effects" or "disproportionate" numbers of arrests or prison sentences, etc, why are they allowed to get away with wilfully ignoring that no, they are PROPORTIONATE based on the number of crimes committed, etc?

Sure, blacks make up a "disproportionate" amount of prison inmates, folks who might get affected by these screening policies, etc, but they also commit a disproportionate amount of crimes . . .

Seriously, is there one single voice out there saying this?

What's next?

"No, sorry, you can't deny or yank section 8 benefits from these crack dealing gang-bangers because doing so is racist. What's that? Non-black section 8 folks aren't crack dealing gang-bangers? Sorry, it's still racist!"

huh - your past behavior has implications on your future. who knew?

GoodyearPimp: Mykeru: Oh, I love your honking great strawman. Did you make it yourself?

I quoted the article and made a snide comment. Are you new here?

Oh, condescension. Your snide-fu is weak, douche-nozzle.

DIabloRojo: I know right, because the elected DAs are the ones actually picking the charges and prosecuting ... OH WAIT, they aren't.

Uh, what do you think a district attorney does?

999 times out of a thousand, assistant DAs (aka the mean ol' prosecutors) never even see the accused until a hearing.

Ohhhh, I see. Your argument is "it's not the DA, it's the ADA!"
Well, you've certainly made a useful contribution to this debate.

LemSkroob: Adjective Bird Whiskey: While this sounds like some bullshiat up front, the lady who is suing particularly has a point. She was convicted of a non-violent crime seven years ago. Why should that stop her from being a bus driver?

She tried to defraud in the past. She would be more inclined to try to fraud again in the future. Maybe workers comp, or falsifying time cards, etc.

The fact is, someone who has committed a crime in the past is more likely to do so again than some who hasn't. You cant ignore that, and employers should not be asked to do so, either.

Recidivism is a biatch.

Cheesus: Look for employment that does not require a clean record.

How clean does it have to be for you to hire them? Would I be ineligible if I were, for example, 40 years old and had a drug possession conviction when I was 16?

In my line of work, engineering, no. But, you may be successful going to the pork rind processors across the street.

Mykeru: give me doughnuts: Mykeru: Anyone think that "zero tolerance" moralistic douche-baggery like this is, oh, I don't know, ultimately counter-productive to society?

It makes just as much sense as the zero-tolerance policies for drugs and weapons in school that get kids suspended for having a plastic butter knife or drawing a picture of a gun.

Actually, I support that sort of thing, if only because it's important to teach children at an early age that most authority, and people in general --especially in groups-- are inflexible, capricious, profoundly stupid and essentially mean-spirited.

This prevents them from being confused and disappointed in early adulthood when they figure it out for themselves.

"That's right kids: Just become good little obedient serfs, and maybe one day you'll get to be an oppressive asswipe, too!"

theknuckler_33: I'm just curious. In your opinion, what would you guess is the percentage of minorities who accept a plea deal before trial that are actually innocent?

I would just be making a wild guess. I wouldn't be surprised to hear 10-20 percent, however.

This is crap. Not because it's "racist", it seems EVERYTHING is racist these days, it's crap because they totally ignore the problem and focus on the easy/PC fix. The real problem is the "criminals" who have already paid for their crimes and still we are treated with distain. If someone gets messed up in drugs, "does their time", and now after 10 years of sobriety is still getting the shaft because of it (like me) I'd call it cruel and unusual punishment. I've done my time, paid for my "crime" and am probably nicer and more philanthropic than a "good" person yet still, society views me as bad or at least not a good risk. And the courts can't figure out the recitivism problem???

Meesterjojo: Plus companies get $2,500 tax credit for hiring a criminal/ex-convict.

Makes us non-minority, non-criminal types seem less desirable for lower end work.

/unemployed

I went for a support line job at Comcast right when I got canned from a QA position. I would actually get ridiculed at that job for wearing a tie, and when I went to this interview the only other people waiting in the reception area were shabbily dressed young black people (no one older than me, so mid-20s). They had me take a farking IQ test. I was there longer than anyone else. And when I called back to inquire I always got the run-around. They don't want committed workers, they want indentured servants, those who have no hope but to knuckle under and be perpetually subservient.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Mykeru: Oh, condescension. Your snide-fu is weak, douche-nozzle.

STFU, hippie. No one cares what you think.

Theaetetus: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Someone who has not committed a crime does not have to be worried about not getting a job because of prior convictions. But, you go ahead with your bad self, and pretend it isn't so.

Yes, it isn't so. It's very easy to get picked up for a "usual suspects" line-up because you're black, male, around 20-30 and living in a poor neighborhood, even if you did nothing. And after three or four times getting picked up because of a vague witness description, the cops start pushing the witnesses - "we've brought this guy in half a dozen times now... are you sure it wasn't him? Reallllly sure?" - and Bam, you're indicted for a crime you didn't do. Plus, since you're poor, you get a public defender who urges you to accept a plea deal for assault instead of the aggravated assault charge you're facing, and Bam - conviction for something you never did.

So let's make sure all businesses must hire any convicted felon because of your example. Do you really believe that?

Lithium420: we need another flood to reboot this whole thing

lol....quote of the day


/so far

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: So let's make sure all businesses must hire any convicted felon because of your example. Do you really believe that?

Ex prostitutes make the best secretaries.

/just sayin'

The Homer Tax: Once that debt is paid off, it just seems wrong to me from a moral perspective for we as a society to continue to punish those people afterward. It also seems counter intuitive to me to purposefully create a system that prevents these people from ever becoming productive members of society again, and almost encouraging them to return to crime as an alternative instead.



You have to look at it from this angle: A company who hires someone with a clean record instead of you, isn't punishing you. Its looking out for its best interests. someone who has committed a crime in the past is more likely to do so in the future. Even if its only, say 2%, its still better for the company to go with the clean record. Its risk management, and its the responsible thing to do.

Again, its not a punishment for your past, but a company looking out for its future.

Theaetetus: theknuckler_33: I'm just curious. In your opinion, what would you guess is the percentage of minorities who accept a plea deal before trial that are actually innocent?

I would just be making a wild guess. I wouldn't be surprised to hear 10-20 percent, however.

When you consider the raw number of people that represents, it is amazing to me that you think that many innocent people would be willing to accept an uncontested conviction while being royally farked by 'the system' just because they have a public defender. I'm just making a wild guess here, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you are completely out of your mind.

/more like 1-2%

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Theaetetus: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Someone who has not committed a crime does not have to be worried about not getting a job because of prior convictions. But, you go ahead with your bad self, and pretend it isn't so.

Yes, it isn't so. It's very easy to get picked up for a "usual suspects" line-up because you're black, male, around 20-30 and living in a poor neighborhood, even if you did nothing. And after three or four times getting picked up because of a vague witness description, the cops start pushing the witnesses - "we've brought this guy in half a dozen times now... are you sure it wasn't him? Reallllly sure?" - and Bam, you're indicted for a crime you didn't do. Plus, since you're poor, you get a public defender who urges you to accept a plea deal for assault instead of the aggravated assault charge you're facing, and Bam - conviction for something you never did.

So let's make sure all businesses must hire any convicted felon because of your example. Do you really believe that?

Nope, but then, I didn't say that. Nice attempt at moving the goalposts from your earlier "if you don't commit a crime, you won't get convicted" wharrgarbl, though.

So what I gather from this article is that if you are a black criminal, that's okay because you are black. What a load of crap.

sprawl15: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: So let's make sure all businesses must hire any convicted felon because of your example. Do you really believe that?

Ex prostitutes make the best secretaries.

/just sayin'

Intriguing!

The Homer Tax: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Simple solution......don't be a criminal. Funny how consequences ruin the party.

If I have committed a crime, how do you propose I, after serving my time, assimilate back into being a productive member of society again if I can't get a job anywhere?


Looks like you are going to have to get a job where, lying, fraud, theft, deceit, being a scumbag, and general laziness is commended and looked for....politics. I'm sure Rangle will be needing a protege soon.

/not saying you are those things currently.

Noobian Noob: Lithium420: we need another flood to reboot this whole thing

lol....quote of the day


/so far

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

/lives in Nashville
//2B was enough for this year

therealpope: So what I gather from this article is that if you are a black criminal, that's okay because you are black. What a load of crap.

Sic semper thus, no?

LemSkroob: The Homer Tax: Once that debt is paid off, it just seems wrong to me from a moral perspective for we as a society to continue to punish those people afterward. It also seems counter intuitive to me to purposefully create a system that prevents these people from ever becoming productive members of society again, and almost encouraging them to return to crime as an alternative instead.



You have to look at it from this angle: A company who hires someone with a clean record instead of you, isn't punishing you. Its looking out for its best interests. someone who has committed a crime in the past is more likely to do so in the future. Even if its only, say 2%, its still better for the company to go with the clean record. Its risk management, and its the responsible thing to do.

Again, its not a punishment for your past, but a company looking out for its future.

No, they've learned their lesson.

theknuckler_33: When you consider the raw number of people that represents, it is amazing to me that you think that many innocent people would be willing to accept an uncontested conviction while being royally farked by 'the system' just because they have a public defender. I'm just making a wild guess here, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you are completely out of your mind.

/more like 1-2%

Well, there are currently about 2.4 million inmates in prison, and according to the Cunningham article, 2.3 million of those accepted a plea without trial. At your conservative 1-2% estimate, that's 23-46 thousand innocent people behind bars. What the fark are we, China?

give me doughnuts: "That's right kids: Just become good little obedient serfs, and maybe one day you'll get to be an oppressive asswipe, too!"

Now might be the time to raise the distinction between Deontological ethics and Consequentialism.

Deontological: "That's the rule on the action. I don't know why it's the rule, who came up with the rule (like God) or the effect the rules have, but rules are rules. In fact, even if the rule is unfair, leads to pain and suffering, injustice and feral dogs defecating in stairwells, there's still some intangible good that comes from slavish devotion to rules.

Consequentialism: "What good comes from the actions covered by the rules, who does the action hurt, does the rule make anything better?"

Obviously, Consequentialism takes a lot of thinking things through which is not only a pain, but usually won't fit on a bumper sticker and so is outside the scope of contemporary American discourse. Deontological thinking, on the other hand is dead simple in that not only does it take no thought at all, but thinking just gets in the way and tends to fit nicely on bumper stickers.

This explains why most fundamentalist religions, hierarchical organizations and oppressive authoritarian systems and subby's mom, are inherently deontological. And slutty.

Theaetetus: Nope, but then, I didn't say that. Nice attempt at moving the goalposts from your earlier "if you don't commit a crime, you won't get convicted" wharrgarbl, though.

Well back at you, I didn't say that. What I said was, "don't be a criminal". Which means if you don't choose (yes, it's a personal choice) to be a criminal, you won't have to worry about getting turned down in the future for having a criminal record. Not moving any goalposts here.

I also said that it's the right of the business to deny or give employment based on a criminal record. But, I know, it's all just "wharrgarbl" to you.

GoodyearPimp: Mykeru: Oh, condescension. Your snide-fu is weak, douche-nozzle.

STFU, hippie. No one cares what you think.

Got an odd way of showing indifference.

I bet you will respond to this post too, Snarky McPigfarker.

Adjective Bird Whiskey: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Simple solution......don't be a criminal. Funny how consequences ruin the party.

So the simple solution would be deny work to a criminal or ex-criminal, making it so they have no money, therefore letting them continue being either a welfare case or a criminal?

It isn't the employers problem. the employer is offering an oportunity. they are allowed to choose the best qualified applicant. The rehabilitation or financial success of ex-convicts isn't the responsibility or concern of an employer. If an ex-convict can't convince an employer that their skills and abilities outweigh the risk of hiring a former criminal, tough luck. There are consequences beyond jail of being a criminal.

theknuckler_33: Theaetetus: theknuckler_33: I'm just curious. In your opinion, what would you guess is the percentage of minorities who accept a plea deal before trial that are actually innocent?

I would just be making a wild guess. I wouldn't be surprised to hear 10-20 percent, however.

When you consider the raw number of people that represents, it is amazing to me that you think that many innocent people would be willing to accept an uncontested conviction while being royally farked by 'the system' just because they have a public defender. I'm just making a wild guess here, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you are completely out of your mind.

/more like 1-2%

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Just like the people who were arrested here during G20. I guess walking out of a restaurant is illegal for college students.

Theaetetus: So let's make sure all businesses must hire any convicted felon because of your example. Do you really believe that?

Nope, but then, I didn't say that. Nice attempt at moving the goalposts from your earlier "if you don't commit a crime, you won't get convicted" wharrgarbl, though.

He's paraphrasing, but it's pretty much what you're getting at.
Discriminating against felons is racist because an unfair amount of minorities are convicted who are perfectly innocent, racism bad, so weeding out people based on criminal records is bad.

Is there a point in there you'd like to disagree with?

Also, I like how pointing out that if you avoid committing crimes or hanging around criminals you won't have this issue is wharrgarbl

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Theaetetus: Nope, but then, I didn't say that. Nice attempt at moving the goalposts from your earlier "if you don't commit a crime, you won't get convicted" wharrgarbl, though.

Well back at you, I didn't say that. What I said was, "don't be a criminal". Which means if you don't choose (yes, it's a personal choice) to be a criminal, you won't have to worry about getting turned down in the future for having a criminal record. Not moving any goalposts here.

And as I said, there are many instances in which you can choose to not be a criminal, and still end up with a criminal record, so your "don't be a criminal" is a bit naive.

The Homer Tax: incrdbil: I disagree about the credit history and criminal background. If the employer asks for it, you provide it, or you don't get tthe job. Thats exactly how it should be.

So basically, if you ever commit a crime, you should just kill yourself once you get out of prison.

You should expect that some employers will be skittish of you. Your employment opportunities wil be reduced due to a criminal convicction. Consequences--look the word up, apparently it is new to you.

No one has a right to a job: an employer is granting you an opportunity, a favor, to work for them, and the employer is risking all fo the time and money to hire and train you, plus future pay, that you will be of use to them. they have every reason to be cautious and take all measures to eliminate anyone who may be more of a loss than an assett.

The Homer Tax: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Well back at you, I didn't say that. What I said was, "don't be a criminal".

Right, but, as has been previously stated, I lack the ability to go back in time and change my previous actions? I get convicted, go to jail (or in this particular case, have my conviction overturned so in the eyes of the law I was never convicted at all), and pay my debt to society.

What do I do then? How would you recommend that I transition from "Criminal" to "Productive Member of Society?" Since we've already established that time travel is out of the question, what would you recommend that I do?

The trades.