So, I'm working out misdemeanor plea bargains for clients that often have little to no record. Since the DAs don't recommend sentences, the main game is "charge bargaining." E.g. plead guilty to driving on a suspended license, and dismiss the seatbelt, speeding, and no license charges. Or plead guilty to the drug paraphernalia and the resist arrest, dismiss the shoplifting, marijuana, and trespass.
We try to negotiate these deals with the best long-term outcome in mind, especially job prospects. But I am realizing that I don't really know how employers perceive different criminal convictions. These are all misdemeanors, of course, no drug dealing or attempted murder or whatever.
So: how would you rank various crimes for employability? Especially people who have been in hiring positions.
Here are the general categories in N.C. :
----
Sex: Solicit prostitution, solicit crimes against nature (blowjobs), sexual battery, indecent exposure
Drugs: Marijuana <half ounce, drug paraphernalia, small amounts of narcotic pills
Booze: Open container in public, open container in car, < 21 y.o.
Money: Larceny, unlawful concealment (= shoplifting lite), worthless checks, possession of stolen goods, larceny by employee
Cars: DWI, driving while license revoked, driving without a valid license, speeding >15 or >30
Weapons: Carrying a concealed weapon - gun, carrying a concealed weapon - non-gun (knife, taser, etc.)
Gettin rowdy: Communicating threats, disorderly conduct, intoxicated and disorderly, 2nd degree trespass, breaking and entering (a vacant building)
Fightin: Simple assault, assault on a female, assault by pointing a gun,
Police problems: Resist/obstruct/delay a public official, fictitious info to police, assault on a government official
-----
Obviously, larceny by employee has got to look pretty bad, but what about the rest?
All do not want. :)
Seems though some of those vary. Like the police problems group - fictitious info to police/delay doesn't seem as bad as assault/resist.
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 05:29:16 PM
All do not want. :)
Well, imagine, you are hiring for Little Pharma instead of Big Pharma and you are hiring somebody to assemble information packets and bring them to doctor's offices. :P All your applicants have been convicted of at least one of the above, and all are equally qualified. Which crimes are closer to "hire" on the spectrum, and which are closer to "do not hire"?
Sex: Solicit prostitution, solicit crimes against nature (blowjobs), sexual battery, indecent exposure
No.
Drugs: Marijuana <half ounce, drug paraphernalia, small amounts of narcotic pills
No.
Booze: Open container in public, open container in car, < 21 y.o.
<21 yr old and open container in public, okay. In car? No
Money: Larceny, unlawful concealment (= shoplifting lite), worthless checks, possession of stolen goods, larceny by employee
Fuck no
Cars: DWI, driving while license revoked, driving without a valid license, speeding >15 or >30
DWI? I hope they rot in hell. Speeding? Who cares? (within reason)
Gettin rowdy: Communicating threats, disorderly conduct, intoxicated and disorderly, 2nd degree trespass, breaking and entering (a vacant building)
Once, maybe tolerable. 2 or more times, troublemaker. pass.
Fightin: Simple assault, assault on a female, assault by pointing a gun,
Attacking a female? Pass.
Police problems: Resist/obstruct/delay a public official, fictitious info to police, assault on a government official
No job for you!
Is speeding <15 not even a misdemeanor, or is that a typo?
Some of it depends on the job one would think. You wouldn't want to hire a sex offender at a day care, or a thief to handle money.
I am not going to discuss details regarding security screening at nuclear facilities.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2012, 05:45:15 PM
Is speeding <15 not even a misdemeanor, or is that a typo?
74 in a 60 is an infraction. Really, only 30 over the limit gets charged as a misdemeanor regularly. 90 in a 60 can get you a day in jail here.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 23, 2012, 05:26:52 PM
So: how would you rank various crimes for employability? Especially people who have been in hiring positions.
Here are the general categories in N.C. :
----
Sex: Solicit prostitution, solicit crimes against nature (blowjobs), sexual battery, indecent exposure
Drugs: Marijuana <half ounce, drug paraphernalia, small amounts of narcotic pills
Booze: Open container in public, open container in car, < 21 y.o.
Money: Larceny, unlawful concealment (= shoplifting lite), worthless checks, possession of stolen goods, larceny by employee
Cars: DWI, driving while license revoked, driving without a valid license, speeding >15 or >30
Weapons: Carrying a concealed weapon - gun, carrying a concealed weapon - non-gun (knife, taser, etc.)
Gettin rowdy: Communicating threats, disorderly conduct, intoxicated and disorderly, 2nd degree trespass, breaking and entering (a vacant building)
Fightin: Simple assault, assault on a female, assault by pointing a gun,
Police problems: Resist/obstruct/delay a public official, fictitious info to police, assault on a government official
-----
Obviously, larceny by employee has got to look pretty bad, but what about the rest?
Booze and cars are ok, so long as DWI is no more than once in his life, or it happenned a long time ago such as it would have no effect now (i.e. he has a a valid driver's license).
Sex: not sure about the definition of battery... is that akin to rape? In that case, no, if I know that, I'm not employing the person. The other ones are not a problem, so long as he doesn't act strange at work (like being caught masturbating).
Police problems: Tricky one. Cops are quick on the trigger on that one. Ask a question when he/she's in a bad mood, or raise your tone, and you got a jail sentence. So, not really a problem, unless I know the cop has been physically injured (like tying a female officer naked on her car, that would be a big no-no).
Weapons: this is Canada. No reason to carry a concealed gun outside of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. So, no, I would not hire such a person.
Getting rowdy and fighting: no.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 23, 2012, 05:59:07 PM
Some of it depends on the job one would think. You wouldn't want to hire a sex offender at a day care, or a thief to handle money.
Well, sure. Envision generalized lower-end jobs, but where background checks would actually be run. So not restaurants or car washes, but not bank teller or substitute teacher.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 23, 2012, 05:26:52 PM
Sex: Solicit prostitution, solicit crimes against nature (blowjobs), sexual battery, indecent exposure
No.
Quote
Drugs: Marijuana <half ounce, drug paraphernalia, small amounts of narcotic pills
Depends on how long ago the last offense was. Was it in the 1970s? Those were crazy times. :)
Quote
Booze: Open container in public, open container in car, < 21 y.o.
This is probably ok unless there are multiple convictions.
Quote
Money: Larceny, unlawful concealment (= shoplifting lite), worthless checks, possession of stolen goods, larceny by employee
No.
Quote
Cars: DWI, driving while license revoked, driving without a valid license, speeding >15 or >30
Maybe one DWI is ok. Multiple are a big no-no (no drunks need apply).
Quote
Weapons: Carrying a concealed weapon - gun, carrying a concealed weapon - non-gun (knife, taser, etc.)
No, because why wouldn't you just get a CCDW? Wouldn't be hired due to stupidity.
Quote
Gettin rowdy: Communicating threats, disorderly conduct, intoxicated and disorderly, 2nd degree trespass, breaking and entering (a vacant building)
No.
Quote
Fightin: Simple assault, assault on a female, assault by pointing a gun,
No.
Quote
Police problems: Resist/obstruct/delay a public official, fictitious info to police, assault on a government official
No.
Quote
-----
Obviously, larceny by employee has got to look pretty bad, but what about the rest?
Interesting responses, Ed and Cal. Is anything prostitution-related an automatic no? Or just the sexual battery (which essentially means groping) and the indecent exposure.
Not all states allow concealed carry. Also - being denied a job for a crime against nature?
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 06:27:05 PM
Not all states allow concealed carry. Also - being denied a job for a crime against nature?
Soliciting prostitution = vaginal sex only.
Soliciting a crime against nature = an oral (or anal, I guess) prostitution offense.
Ah gotcha.
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2012, 06:05:26 PM
I am not going to discuss details regarding security screening at nuclear facilities.
Me neither.
However, I will discuss them for police applicants.
Sex: Solicit prostitution, solicit crimes against nature (blowjobs), sexual battery, indecent exposure: Out. Integrity and judgement concerns.
Drugs: Marijuana <half ounce, drug paraphernalia, small amounts of narcotic pills: Limited use of marijuana, usually no more than a handful of incidents, time factor taken into consideration as "experimenting". Cocaine products, trying it once won't flush you, if it were many moons ago in the 1980's. Anything else flushes you. Forget about LSD, PCP, MDMA or Rx abuse.
Booze: Open container in public, open container in car, < 21 y.o.: Pfft, it's called growing up. We called that "shift parties".
Money: Larceny, unlawful concealment (= shoplifting lite), worthless checks, possession of stolen goods, larceny by employee: Forget it. Integrity concern.
Cars: DWI, driving while license revoked, driving without a valid license, speeding >15 or >30: Not a killer outright, but the specifics of the incident + time would be taken into consideration, although it's a major lapse of judgement. LEOs are a little hinky on alcohol-related incidents, namely because so many cops become alcoholics over the course of their careers, they don't want to hire any more. As far as traffic violations, if it's not on your 5 or 10 year record, and it never resulted in losing your license or involving an accident resulting in property damage or personal injury to another, you're cool.
Weapons: Carrying a concealed weapon - gun, carrying a concealed weapon - non-gun (knife, taser, etc.): Lack of judgement.
Gettin rowdy: Communicating threats, disorderly conduct, intoxicated and disorderly, 2nd degree trespass, breaking and entering (a vacant building) See above about alcohol. Also, judgement issues.
Fightin: Simple assault, assault on a female, assault by pointing a gun,: Once again, judgement issues.
Police problems: Resist/obstruct/delay a public official, fictitious info to police, assault on a government official : Integrity concerns.
Usually, it's the context of the misdemeanor charge that determines your fate, and the number. The arrest is one thing, the disposition is another. Stet, Nolle Pros, PBJ...those can give you a fighting chance. Guilty? Done.
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 06:27:05 PM
Not all states allow concealed carry. Also - being denied a job for a crime against nature?
AFAIK the only one that still doesn't is Illinois (and DC if you count it as a state).
Wow, seems pretty fucked up. It doesn't seem helpful to deny a person useful employment for getting caught soliciting a prostitute. I'm starting to think that there need to be laws against considering minor offenses in employment decisions. Taken individually, it's just your right as a business owner. However, taken together, it amounts to a blacklisting.
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2012, 06:32:57 PM
Wow, seems pretty fucked up. It doesn't seem helpful to deny a person useful employment for getting caught soliciting a prostitute. I'm starting to think that there need to be laws against considering minor offenses in employment decisions. Taken individually, it's just your right as a business owner. However, taken together, it amounts to a blacklisting.
We just need to keep them in prison until retirement age so they don't need to worry about finding jobs.
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2012, 06:32:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 06:27:05 PM
Not all states allow concealed carry. Also - being denied a job for a crime against nature?
AFAIK the only one that still doesn't is Illinois (and DC if you count it as a state).
There are states that allow them in theory, but in actuality routinely deny them to the point that they don't really allow them at all.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 23, 2012, 06:26:16 PM
Interesting responses, Ed and Cal. Is anything prostitution-related an automatic no? Or just the sexual battery (which essentially means groping) and the indecent exposure.
I think I've interviewed about 1,300 people and to be honest I don't remember ever interviewing anyone with a prostitution-related offense. I've gotten applications from people with indecent exposure and rape convictions and I didn't bother to call them in for interviews.
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2012, 06:34:47 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2012, 06:32:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 06:27:05 PM
Not all states allow concealed carry. Also - being denied a job for a crime against nature?
AFAIK the only one that still doesn't is Illinois (and DC if you count it as a state).
There are states that allow them in theory, but in actuality routinely deny them to the point that they don't really allow them at all.
I'm aware of that (e.g. California) but that wasn't exactly the point he was making. :sleep:
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2012, 06:32:57 PM
Wow, seems pretty fucked up. It doesn't seem helpful to deny a person useful employment for getting caught soliciting a prostitute.
It's an issue of character and judgement, just like any other brain fart, like shoplifting.
Personally, I never understood the logic of making it criminal to sell what we otherwise give away for free, but hey. It's a PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE for all those Libertards out there.
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2012, 06:32:57 PM
Wow, seems pretty fucked up. It doesn't seem helpful to deny a person useful employment for getting caught soliciting a prostitute. I'm starting to think that there need to be laws against considering minor offenses in employment decisions. Taken individually, it's just your right as a business owner. However, taken together, it amounts to a blacklisting.
Until such time that the government forces businesses at large to hire reprobates, they will never choose to do so. Why would I hire a felon when in almost all cases there's someone else available with similar or the same skills who is not a felon?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 23, 2012, 06:26:16 PM
Interesting responses, Ed and Cal. Is anything prostitution-related an automatic no? Or just the sexual battery (which essentially means groping) and the indecent exposure.
The sexual battery and exposure. I'd assume being a john is okay, but I'd I think the dude is a loser and he'd be placed in the no pile.
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2012, 06:38:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2012, 06:32:57 PM
Wow, seems pretty fucked up. It doesn't seem helpful to deny a person useful employment for getting caught soliciting a prostitute. I'm starting to think that there need to be laws against considering minor offenses in employment decisions. Taken individually, it's just your right as a business owner. However, taken together, it amounts to a blacklisting.
Until such time that the government forces businesses at large to hire reprobates, they will never choose to do so. Why would I hire a felon when in almost all cases there's someone else available with similar or the same skills who is not a felon?
The OP specifically said they were all misdemeanors. :smarty:
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2012, 06:38:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2012, 06:32:57 PM
Wow, seems pretty fucked up. It doesn't seem helpful to deny a person useful employment for getting caught soliciting a prostitute. I'm starting to think that there need to be laws against considering minor offenses in employment decisions. Taken individually, it's just your right as a business owner. However, taken together, it amounts to a blacklisting.
Until such time that the government forces businesses at large to hire reprobates, they will never choose to do so. Why would I hire a felon when in almost all cases there's someone else available with similar or the same skills who is not a felon?
Especially in a recession of slow economic growth period. Hire the parolee or hire from the GIANT stack of laid off qualified folks?
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2012, 06:34:47 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2012, 06:32:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 06:27:05 PM
Not all states allow concealed carry. Also - being denied a job for a crime against nature?
AFAIK the only one that still doesn't is Illinois (and DC if you count it as a state).
There are states that allow them in theory, but in actuality routinely deny them to the point that they don't really allow them at all.
Don't mind Cal. Nigger lucks out and finds somebody moronic enough to give him a carry permit, and he's the next John fucking Lott.
Also, if you really want to bang a whore you can go to (most counties in) Nevada and fulfill that life goal without fear of arrest. :)
There is no ranking. Either you have a criminal record or you don't. When we are swamped with several hundred applications for every opening, it isn't even a question.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2012, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2012, 06:32:57 PM
Wow, seems pretty fucked up. It doesn't seem helpful to deny a person useful employment for getting caught soliciting a prostitute.
It's an issue of character and judgement, just like any other brain fart, like shoplifting.
Personally, I never understood the logic of making it criminal to sell what we otherwise give away for free, but hey. It's a PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE for all those Libertards out there.
I can understand that on an individual level. If you got a stack of 100 resumes, you may as well set some minimum criteria to narrow it down. Running around naked in a kindergarten when you were 2? Probably doesn't indicate a big risk factor, as the candidate is now 35 years old, but I've got 99 other candidates, so why take a chance? The problem is that every employer gets 100 resumes, and if they all weed out those with misdemeanors, you've got a social problem for those who made one mistake in their life.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2012, 06:31:32 PM
Usually, it's the context of the misdemeanor charge that determines your fate, and the number. The arrest is one thing, the disposition is another. Stet, Nolle Pros, PBJ...those can give you a fighting chance. Guilty? Done.
That's a whole other topic I'm interested in. Here at least, if the charge is dismissed, or even if you get acquitted in a full-blown trial, employers can still see that you were charged and what offenses you were charged with. Unless and until you manage to get your non-convictions expunged. In N.C., you get to do this once in your entire life, and it costs a couple hundred dollars.
I wonder how much employers take the disposition into account, or if they just look at the charge, and how much the charge itself sways them.
Quote from: sbr on July 23, 2012, 06:40:04 PM
The OP specifically said they were all misdemeanors. :smarty:
I forgot. :blush:
Quote from: Monoriu on July 23, 2012, 06:41:09 PM
There is no ranking. Either you have a criminal record or you don't. When we are swamped with several hundred applications for every opening, it isn't even a question.
The latest statistic I saw is that is that 1 in 4 adults in the U.S. has a criminal record of some sort.
Keep in mind that I would probably be a hell of a lot more lenient if I was hiring for a fast food job or something.
If I were hiring someone to drive a forklift I wouldn't give a rat's ass if he had been busted at a rub and tug.
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2012, 06:41:39 PM
I can understand that on an individual level. If you got a stack of 100 resumes, you may as well set some minimum criteria to narrow it down. Running around naked in a kindergarten when you were 2? Probably doesn't indicate a big risk factor, as the candidate is now 35 years old, but I've got 99 other candidates, so why take a chance? The problem is that every employer gets 100 resumes, and if they all weed out those with misdemeanors, you've got a social problem for those who made one mistake in their life.
As someone who's done background investigations and vetting for both public and private sectors, there are very, very few professional background services that do more than cursory database look-ups for criminal and traffic charges, and they're not privy to anything less public than you are. If you can't find it in the system through public records searches, neither can they. SO IT DIDNT HAPPEN NOW DID IT
The only time you run into issues is if you're applying someplace that will run your fingerprints; in the FBI database, all submissions for fingerprints have a date and an ORI, which is the originating entity. So, if you said you were never arrested, and hello, there's an entry from the Ohio State Patrol dated September 1992, you're going to have trouble explaining that one. I had mine run a couple years ago, and the fucking list went all the way back for every job, license and permit I ever had. You just can't hide your prints.
Everything else? Meh. Unless you have a law enforcement organization run your driving history, nobody's going to see the basic traffic shit that rolled off of it from over 10 years ago.
The background agencies contracted by HR departments--and so many of them are based in fucking India now, THANKS MITTENS--aren't going to find anything that's not in the public arena.
In short: if you want the job bad enough, and it's not for a LEO or anything that requires a TS or TS/SCI or anything like that, fucking lie.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 23, 2012, 06:43:11 PM
I wonder how much employers take the disposition into account, or if they just look at the charge, and how much the charge itself sways them.
Usually it's only the disposition they care about; hence, their question
"have you ever been CONVICTED of a felony or serious misdemeanor (including serious traffic charges)?".
PBJ? Not a conviction. Nolle Pros or stet docket? Not a conviction. "Guilty" is a conviction.
Quoteif you want the job bad enough, and it's not for a LEO or anything that requires a TS or TS/SCI or anything like that, fucking lie.
If they do and I hired that person, they better hope I never, ever find out. I will rip a hold in time/space moving so fast to terminate.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2012, 07:04:56 PM
Quoteif you want the job bad enough, and it's not for a LEO or anything that requires a TS or TS/SCI or anything like that, fucking lie.
If they do and I hired that person, they better hope I never, ever find out. I will rip a hold in time/space moving so fast to terminate.
Well, duh. But as you've probably figured out, I ain't been too much of an employer-friendly fucking mood lately.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 23, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 23, 2012, 06:41:09 PM
There is no ranking. Either you have a criminal record or you don't. When we are swamped with several hundred applications for every opening, it isn't even a question.
The latest statistic I saw is that is that 1 in 4 adults in the U.S. has a criminal record of some sort.
That still leaves me with 75%. That's good enough.
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2012, 06:36:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2012, 06:34:47 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2012, 06:32:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 06:27:05 PM
Not all states allow concealed carry. Also - being denied a job for a crime against nature?
AFAIK the only one that still doesn't is Illinois (and DC if you count it as a state).
There are states that allow them in theory, but in actuality routinely deny them to the point that they don't really allow them at all.
I'm aware of that (e.g. California) but that wasn't exactly the point he was making. :sleep:
Well actually that would be subsumed under my point which was to combat you assertion that stupidity is why you wouldn't have a CCDW.
When I was a manager at DOD you had security concerns, at ICE it's a little less strict. However from my position there is a really elaborate civil service process. I can't even look at applicants until after they have been distilled from many into a relatively smaller number, and I have absolutely no say whatsoever in how a list of 2,000+ applicants gets wittled down into a more reasonable number.
That being said I can tell you the Federal government has specific policies in place that for many positions they take it very seriously that your application gets treated identically to any other applicant even if you have a criminal conviction. Certain job specifications have certain built in requirements that override this, and can disqualify people based on certain things.
I oversee office workers, and you could have several DWIs and it wouldn't hurt your chances of your application ending up on my desk. For driving jobs or equipment operations? I think more than one DWI it actually says on the job posting you can't apply.
In a general sense, when talking about misdemeanors I'd probably rank them (in order of severity to me personally).
1. Any type of larceny. It's true tons of employees commit petty theft, but if you've committed a theft egregious enough to result in a misdemeanor it puts you in the category of "thief" to me, and you never trust a thief. There's no real mitigation to it for me, can't trust them.
2. Sex crimes. I'd rank solicitation pretty low, sexual battery (I'm assuming groping a woman on a train or something), I'd rank pretty high on a list of misdemeanors. Those types of guys often become outright rapists and I want no part of that.
3. Weapons charges. Not really a big crime but a big lapse in judgment, some things can happen in the heat of the moment but you have to deliberately choose to carry an illegal gun. Illegally carrying a gun would be a bigger judgment lapse to me than someone carrying a 3.5" knife in a jurisdiction with a 3" knife law.
4. Police problems. Again, judgment problems. Anyone can get into a beef with a cop, but you have to want to get in trouble to have it escalate to charges.
5. DWI. A single DWI is nothing, 2+ is a serious problem, but even a single DWI is more serious than the rest of these.
6. Drugs. Sliding scale, pot possession I wouldn't even notice, pills or something I dunno. People who are popping pills are usually pretty far into fucked up land.
7. Everything else (rowdiness / public intox etc / fighting) - All of these show someone who did something stupid in the heat of the moment. As long as it's been awhile since it happened and there aren't multiple incidents I'm not too concerned. Anyone can get into a fight, or get too drunk on the streets or break into a vacant building while out drinking. You do it 3-4 times and get charges it shows you've suffered the consequences of these actions and continued to put yourself in the situation where those actions will recur, and that means you're basically as unhireable as a thief or train-groper. Age will factor big time too, I'll look twice at a 35 year old guy doing this versus someone who did it at age 17-24.
CdM is spot on about how you should lie by the way. I've read tons of articles on background check firms, and the WSJ ran one itself on the author of one of the articles (he knew he had a minor misdemeanor in a given state) I believe none of the $50+ background check firms found his conviction, and most contained outright incorrect information (wrong past addresses, wrong past court records etc.)
Even the federal government outside of a band of jobs that involve national defense, law enforcement, scientific research and etc barely conducts any background checks.
The way we do it in HK is that the applicant has to go to the police for a "certificate of no criminal record". The police will do the background check.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 23, 2012, 07:28:32 PM
The way we do it in HK is that the applicant has to go to the police for a "certificate of no criminal record". The police will do the background check.
Wouldn't work in the United States.
Take your average city with 80,000 residents. In that city someone who commits a crime may be arrested by municipal police, county police, state police, or a federal law enforcement agency. They might end up tried in municipal, county, state, or federal court. If they got nabbed by a Federal agency and tried in the Federal court system the records search isn't too hard.
Everything else? Not exactly easy. Municipal governments don't necessarily share court and criminal records with county / state / federal government, and county doesn't necessarily share with municipal, state, federal (you get the picture.) About the only thing we have is the national fingerprint system that CdM mentioned. In theory the way it works is if you get fingerprinted by police you prints go into the local system which periodically gets "rolled into" the national fingerprint database. This is actually pretty reliable, I've read a few stories of it breaking down, but it's relatively rare. (For example in some States smaller police departments send their records in to the State police in batches, the State police then get the prints processed into the national system...occasionally due to poor recordkeeping the smaller agencies might have records fall through the cracks that never get logged, but it's rare.) However, unless you're applying for a LEO job or a high security job employers here (including my agency for non-LEO positions) don't run any sort of fingerprint check.
I don't know that private employers even have the ability to access the fingerprint system.
Individual police departments or court houses can usually provide criminal records for a fee, but they'll only have records pertaining to their jurisdiction. So let's say I have an applicant who has lived in Fredericksburg, VA, Winston-Salem, NC, and Sacramento, CA. I could go to each of those places and to their municipal court house and ask for information on the applicant and get nothing. Because maybe he committed a crime in all three places he lived, but not with the city courts, maybe it was with the nearby county court or even State court. Maybe he lived in Fredericksburg but got arrested in Roanoke, VA (a city a good three hours drive away) for something.
Plus, what if he lived somewhere other than those three cities and just failed to mention it?
Now, some States have their shit together such that local government does share criminal records with higher levels of State government and you can get a quasi-reliable "State records search" out of those State that is quasi-reliable, but only about as reliable as you'd expect for a hodge podge, slapped together shit government records system.
There's a reason most of the background check firms here that charge $50 will miss just about everything that requires any leg work, anything that would require an actual direct call to some municipal court to even hear about it's questionable if any of the big national $50 background check firms will even come close to bothering with that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2012, 06:53:47 PM
If I were hiring someone to drive a forklift I wouldn't give a rat's ass if he had been busted at a rub and tug.
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2012, 06:51:46 PM
Keep in mind that I would probably be a hell of a lot more lenient if I was hiring for a fast food job or something.
For most of my clients, the future employers (at least in the short term) are ones that will hire somebody with just a G.E.D. So I expect a fair amount of their applicant pool will have had brushes with the law, child support garnishment, bad credit, etc.
I'm trying to figure out which convictions are seen as more or less harmful to general employment prospects. The goal being to work out better deals where the clients can plead to the less damaging charges.
The worst misdemeanors are generally assault and theft. When I worked for a staffing agency, we could NOT hire anyone with these convictions under any circumstances. For the others, it was sometimes possible to do so if the person was a strong candidate generally, though we had to have it cleared by Legal. It was pretty tough to get anyone cleared who had drug possession convictions, but I was able to a few times (one guy just had a paraphernalia conviction, the other a pot conviction and a paraphernalia conviction both). In both cases the candidates were otherwise very placeable... otherwise I wouldn't have bothered.
It's probably worth mentioning too that a lot of the people with criminal records tended to be very marginal candidates anyway, so it usually wasn't worth the trouble to mess with them. That's why I'd have to view this in a different light if I was hiring for crap jobs, since I would imagine the candidate pool is tougher and you'll have more criminals in the mix in that case.
And, some arrests don't even result in "arrests"; they're merely citation offenses. I don't have to book you on an open container; that's a citation. Hell, some departments you'd get yelled at for booking a citable offense, if that's all that's involved. Some towns, like Ocean City where you can lock up a half dozen teeyboppers on open containers, pfft...waste of the commissioner's time.
Same goes with DUI and other traffic-related charges. Not all agencies bother with the time to fingerprint you, or even have you see a commissioner. Write up your citations, wait for you to sober up, and give you a quarter to call for a ride.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 23, 2012, 05:26:52 PM
So: how would you rank various crimes for employability? Especially people who have been in hiring positions.
:huh:
Seems to me you people arrest innocent people for whatever.
Don't take it as an offence, but most of what you describe is a borderline Police State.
Over here:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali
Sex: Solicit prostitution, solicit crimes against nature (blowjobs), sexual battery, indecent exposure
Technically hookers should pay taxes, otherwise they can get fined. Blowjobs (and soliciting them) is NOT a crime. Even less one against nature.
Sexual battery is indeed bad, though people usually let it pass. Indecent exposure often gets giggles from people. Sure, police would detain (temporarily) someone if he/she is walking naked by the street, but they'll be let out soon enough if they're not dangerous to others.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali
Drugs: Marijuana <half ounce, drug paraphernalia, small amounts of narcotic pills
Those are crimes? Apart from heavy drugs (heroine, cocaine...) all others are OK. That said... you can pretty much sniff the others anywhere, really. The police doesn't do anything about it.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali
Booze: Open container in public, open container in car, < 21 y.o.
Ok, that're religious totalitarian numbskullness. Pure and simple.
Over here, in 2004 the law was changed to state that you need to be 16 or higher to buy alcohol in a store. Not that the barkeepers/storeowners care anyway. Before that, it was not uncommon to see 12-year-olds order wine at the liquor stores... and many still do, really. I mean, we ALL did it at their age, why on Earth would we not prevent kids from doing the same thing. It's not like we turned out wrong or anything.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali
Money: Larceny, unlawful concealment (= shoplifting lite), worthless checks, possession of stolen goods, larceny by employee
Larceny is a crime (though you'll get out with a warning). Ditto for shoplifting, you're more in trouble if the store gets you. Worthless checks are acceptable if under $50 (the bank if forced to pay regardless of weather you have the funds or not. It may cancel your card, but that's it. For over $50, you'd just get a warning not to do it and give the stuff back (but you wouldn't really have to. Which is why most stores only accept cheques by known customers. For what it's worth, cheques are now quite rare over here - people do everything with either cash or plastic money)
Quote from: Capetan Mihali
Cars: DWI, driving while license revoked, driving without a valid license, speeding >15 or >30
All those just get you a fine. And not a very expensive one at that. Almost everybody who drives has them. Heck, if those were crimes, 90% of our adult population would be criminals! (the other 10% don't drive)
Quote from: Capetan Mihali
Weapons: Carrying a concealed weapon - gun, carrying a concealed weapon - non-gun (knife, taser, etc.)
In 2009, the regime got VERY worried about getting overthrown, what with having to tax everybody to the bone to pay foreign banks while keeping all priviledges that the highborn have. So they made new laws - now everything is illegal and needs a license (which can only be obtained if you can prove you need those weapons. Although now 'weapons' means ANYTHING that remotely resembles something martial... like a kid's little toy gun. Those are also illegal now. And so are large kitchen knives. Airsofters are fuming, they not only need to be registered in the states' archives, undergo medical evaluation, but also paint their 'guns' in bright, flourescent colours... which kinda ruins an activity where much of the time you're trying to be unseen by the opponents)
Quote from: Capetan Mihali
Gettin rowdy: Communicating threats, disorderly conduct, intoxicated and disorderly, 2nd degree trespass, breaking and entering (a vacant building)
None of these are crimes. People deal with this on their own, unless it develops into a very serious brawl (light fisticuffs are OK). Will you people just grow up and handle the world!
Quote from: Capetan Mihali
Fightin: Simple assault, assault on a female, assault by pointing a gun,
Fighting is an offence if done to REALLY hurt others. We don't differentiate between genders.
[
Quote from: Capetan Mihali
Police problems: Resist/obstruct/delay a public official, fictitious info to police, assault on a government official
Annoying a cop is a sure way to get beaten up. Not a smart move (our officers don't have the same restrictions yours have). Fictitious info will get you into trouble if the cops find out you knew you were lying - then you get a rather rough treatment by them.
Assault on a goverment official (an important one) will pretty much get you killed. Probably by the official itself, as they are exceptions in the law and are allowed to use military-grade weapons concealed on their persons.
(the highborn politicians are REALLY scared of the People (they know that they're not serving the nations' best interests, only their own). Self-defence classes and bodyguards are now compulsory for all cabinet ministers and secretaries of State, for example).
Quote from: Capetan Mihali
Obviously, larceny by employee has got to look pretty bad, but what about the rest?
Over here, most employees take stuff from the company. As long as it isn't TOO much, it's common practice. Just try not to get caught.
Frankly, most of your "offences" wouldn't even appear in anybody's criminal record.
Not that companies ask/check for those, anyway.
:lol:
That's really all I have MSil.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 23, 2012, 07:20:28 PM
I can't even look at applicants until after they have been distilled from many into a relatively smaller number, and I have absolutely no say whatsoever in how a list of 2,000+ applicants gets wittled down into a more reasonable number.
I don't think I'd be able to handle 2,000+ poorly written KSAs anyhow. Be glad that's some other sucker's job.
Martim, I'm not sure how relevant your information is to CM since I don't believe he is working with Portguese hoodlums... just American ones. :)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 23, 2012, 07:41:05 PM
There's a reason most of the background check firms here that charge $50 will miss just about everything that requires any leg work, anything that would require an actual direct call to some municipal court to even hear about it's questionable if any of the big national $50 background check firms will even come close to bothering with that.
Yup. If we're interested in finding out the details, police reports, etc., we'd just bird dog it the hard way ourselves. But it would have to be a compelling case.
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2012, 09:01:22 PM
Martim, I'm not sure how relevant your information is to CM since I don't believe he is working with Portguese hoodlums... just American ones. :)
Sorry, I've just got a litte pissed by the fact that he classifies as "hoodlums" people that we don't even see as criminals.
You know, kind of how people here at Languish might get annoyed when they see someone in the Middle East jailed for adultery, or an adult being whiplashed for having drank beer. He now seems to me very much like one of those religious freaks.
:lol: Classic Silva. Don't ever change.
It might be worth mentioning that, for my part, I don't agree with many of our laws here (e.g. anti-prostitution laws, most anti-drug laws), but I think it's important to not hire people who think they don't have to follow the law, even if I may not agree with said law. I don't trust such people to obey the company's policies and represent the company well, and I don't think I have a right to nullify the law just because I don't happen to like it.
It's kind of like how I feel on illegal immigration: I think our current immigration laws are too strict, but as long as they're in place I don't agree with the federal government choosing to selectively enforce them. If we agree the law doesn't work, then we should work to change it as opposed to just ignoring it when it's convenient to do so.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2012, 09:09:33 PM
:lol: Classic Silva. Don't ever change.
An institution of sorts. :D
Quote from: Martim Silva on July 23, 2012, 09:07:03 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2012, 09:01:22 PM
Martim, I'm not sure how relevant your information is to CM since I don't believe he is working with Portguese hoodlums... just American ones. :)
Sorry, I've just got a litte pissed by the fact that he classifies as "hoodlums" people that we don't even see as criminals.
You know, kind of how people here at Languish might get annoyed when they see someone in the Middle East jailed for adultery, or an adult being whiplashed for having drank beer. He now seems to me very much like one of those religious freaks.
To clarify, my role is to defend the people who have been charged with these criminal offenses -- to try to prevent them from being convicted or, if they are convicted, to get the best result possible for them.
Pfft, more fence straddling from Cal. No wonder you have so many Ed Anger Disapproval Points.
Cal = Lawful Neutral. :)
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 23, 2012, 05:26:52 PM
So: how would you rank various crimes for employability? Especially people who have been in hiring positions.
Here are the general categories in N.C. :
Wait, you're in NC now?
QuoteSex: Solicit prostitution, solicit crimes against nature (blowjobs), sexual battery, indecent exposure
Sexual battery: I don't want to hire you, period. Don't really want to hire the flasher, either. Soliciting, I wouldn't really worry about.
QuoteDrugs: Marijuana <half ounce, drug paraphernalia, small amounts of narcotic pills
Not necessarily my personal opinion, but pretty much every job I've had has been with an employer that's pretty firmly anti-illicit drug use. Left to my own judgement, I'd be more forgiving about
past drug usage.
QuoteBooze: Open container in public, open container in car, < 21 y.o.
Hiring someone with one offense wouldn't be a problem for me, but if you're a repeat offender, frankly I'd probably just write you off as a drunk.
QuoteMoney: Larceny, unlawful concealment (= shoplifting lite), worthless checks, possession of stolen goods, larceny by employee
No way do I hire you.
QuoteCars: DWI, driving while license revoked, driving without a valid license, speeding >15 or >30
For DWI, see booze above. The others wouldn't be a problem at all.
QuoteWeapons: Carrying a concealed weapon - gun, carrying a concealed weapon - non-gun (knife, taser, etc.)
No problem.
QuoteGettin rowdy: Communicating threats, disorderly conduct, intoxicated and disorderly, 2nd degree trespass, breaking and entering (a vacant building)
A major red flag, but not an absolute bar to hiring.
QuoteFightin: Simple assault, assault on a female, assault by pointing a gun,
Similar to "gettin rowdy" except even more of a red flag. Simple assault would probably be less of a red flag than the other forms of assault.
QuotePolice problems: Resist/obstruct/delay a public official, fictitious info to police, assault on a government official
Ficticious info to police--you lie to the cops, you'll probably lie to me, so I don't want you. The rest you'd better have a damn good explanation for, though I don't consider assaulting a government official any worse than assaulting anybody else.
Keep in mind that when I was making hiring decisions, it was for entry-level positions. Which, as you pointed out, is what most of the people you're working with are going to be applying for.
QuoteSex: Solicit prostitution, solicit crimes against nature (blowjobs), sexual battery, indecent exposure
Battery = no. the rest is a non-issue
QuoteDrugs: Marijuana <half ounce, drug paraphernalia, small amounts of narcotic pills
Don't really care, except perhaps for liability issues
QuoteBooze: Open container in public, open container in car, < 21 y.o.
Open container in car: see DUI. The rest: non-issue
QuoteMoney: Larceny, unlawful concealment (= shoplifting lite), worthless checks, possession of stolen goods, larceny by employee
There are few jobs for which I would hire any of these.
QuoteCars: DWI, driving while license revoked, driving without a valid license, speeding >15 or >30
DUI should be a felony if it is not and would be treated as such. The rest depend on the circumstances.
QuoteWeapons: Carrying a concealed weapon - gun, carrying a concealed weapon - non-gun (knife, taser, etc.)
Can't see a good enough reason for this to justify breaking the law, but could be convinced, maybe
QuoteGettin rowdy: Communicating threats, disorderly conduct, intoxicated and disorderly, 2nd degree trespass, breaking and entering (a vacant building)
No thanks, I'll stick with adults.
QuoteFightin: Simple assault, assault on a female, assault by pointing a gun,
I don't have time for this.
QuotePolice problems: Resist/obstruct/delay a public official, fictitious info to police, assault on a government official
Depends on the circumstances and the job
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2012, 07:04:56 PM
Quoteif you want the job bad enough, and it's not for a LEO or anything that requires a TS or TS/SCI or anything like that, fucking lie.
If they do and I hired that person, they better hope I never, ever find out. I will rip a hold in time/space moving so fast to terminate.
At the same time, you basically said you'd bar employment for all but really minor stuff, so what, exactly, is the benefit to not lying? Not being found out a year later and getting canned, and having to explain either the termination or the gap in employment? Sure, but most people like to eat.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 23, 2012, 07:24:55 PM
CdM is spot on about how you should lie by the way. I've read tons of articles on background check firms, and the WSJ ran one itself on the author of one of the articles (he knew he had a minor misdemeanor in a given state) I believe none of the $50+ background check firms found his conviction, and most contained outright incorrect information (wrong past addresses, wrong past court records etc.)
Even the federal government outside of a band of jobs that involve national defense, law enforcement, scientific research and etc barely conducts any background checks.
I had to do a pound-the-pavement criminal records search on myself for when I was planning to apply to the bar (actually, I guess they pulled me back in so I reckon I'll be taking it in Feb after all -_- ), since the SC Supreme Court requires cert'ed copies of every nonsense thing you ever did, so you have to go each individual court, and as you know my late teens and early twenties involved several courts--the biggest hang-up was a moving violation that involved an over $100 fine; I still don't even know what court it was in.
There were items on the checklist that only someone with intimate, certain knowledge of the event could acquire.
Quote from: Martim Silva on July 23, 2012, 08:56:26 PM
Sexual battery is indeed bad, though people usually let it pass. Indecent exposure often gets giggles from people. Sure, police would detain (temporarily) someone if he/she is walking naked by the street, but they'll be let out soon enough if they're not dangerous to others.
there was a case of what seems to be battery in Quebec city last year. Some dude followed women in the streets, faked masturbation and the "climax" sprayed them with purell soap.
So, if this is battery, there's no way I'd be hiring that kind of man.
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2012, 06:38:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2012, 06:32:57 PM
Wow, seems pretty fucked up. It doesn't seem helpful to deny a person useful employment for getting caught soliciting a prostitute. I'm starting to think that there need to be laws against considering minor offenses in employment decisions. Taken individually, it's just your right as a business owner. However, taken together, it amounts to a blacklisting.
Until such time that the government forces businesses at large to hire reprobates, they will never choose to do so. Why would I hire a felon when in almost all cases there's someone else available with similar or the same skills who is not a felon?
Co-incedentally, thats why a bunch of complete losers with multi-page criminal records manage to get jobs in Alberta - they can't find anyone else. Mind you they are shit jobs working out in the bush, but there you have it.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 23, 2012, 05:26:52 PM
So: how would you rank various crimes for employability? Especially people who have been in hiring positions.
Here are the general categories in N.C. :
----
Sex: Solicit prostitution, solicit crimes against nature (blowjobs), sexual battery, indecent exposure
Drugs: Marijuana <half ounce, drug paraphernalia, small amounts of narcotic pills
Booze: Open container in public, open container in car, < 21 y.o.
Money: Larceny, unlawful concealment (= shoplifting lite), worthless checks, possession of stolen goods, larceny by employee
Cars: DWI, driving while license revoked, driving without a valid license, speeding >15 or >30
Weapons: Carrying a concealed weapon - gun, carrying a concealed weapon - non-gun (knife, taser, etc.)
Gettin rowdy: Communicating threats, disorderly conduct, intoxicated and disorderly, 2nd degree trespass, breaking and entering (a vacant building)
Fightin: Simple assault, assault on a female, assault by pointing a gun,
Police problems: Resist/obstruct/delay a public official, fictitious info to police, assault on a government official
-----
Obviously, larceny by employee has got to look pretty bad, but what about the rest?
I don't know if it's much help, since it's coming from a Canadian perspective, but here's what Canadian defence lawyers will fight over (and what they'll gladly plead to):
(1) Sex crimes - absolutely fight if they can. That stuff if hell on a criminal record, even a simple Solicitation charge. The thing is though a first offender can be diverted (i.e. they go to John school) and wind up with no record as a result.
(2) Drugs - simple possession is not too big a deal, but still gets you a record. Again, first time offender can get diversion and have no record. Of course, any trafficking charge gets fought.
(3) Booze - all of these are not criminal offences, and would not appear on a criminal records check. Nobody cares.
(4) Money - a shoplifting charge by a first offender can be diverted, and usually is. Anything else is seriously fought by defence.
(5) Cars - a DUI conviction is like poison, and gets fought tooth and nail. Some driving while disqualified charges are criminal and equally posonous, others no big deal (depends on how and why your suspended). The rest are not criminal charges and nobody cares.
(6) Weapons - those are pretty serious, do form a criminal record. Firearms charges are very serious, non-firearms not so much (but given a recent rash of stabbings we've been cracking down).
The rest are offences of violence - generally reasonably serious, do form a criminal record, but not a complete bar to employment.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 23, 2012, 10:06:25 PM
There were items on the checklist that only someone with intimate, certain knowledge of the event could acquire.
Outstanding warrants for assault aren't all that intimate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2012, 11:21:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 23, 2012, 10:06:25 PM
There were items on the checklist that only someone with intimate, certain knowledge of the event could acquire.
Outstanding warrants for assault aren't all that intimate.
Maybe not those, but plenty of other items on his rap sheet are.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2012, 11:21:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 23, 2012, 10:06:25 PM
There were items on the checklist that only someone with intimate, certain knowledge of the event could acquire.
Outstanding warrants for assault aren't all that intimate.
In Canada all you can find out is about convictions, not outstanding charges (in general - my job was more involved obviously).
However, unlike what OvB said, there is a national databank which (although it has way too many missing convictions) does give police (and you, if you request a check) easy access to all of your convictions.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2012, 11:21:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 23, 2012, 10:06:25 PM
There were items on the checklist that only someone with intimate, certain knowledge of the event could acquire.
Outstanding warrants for assault aren't all that intimate.
I never had an outstanding warrant for assault.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 23, 2012, 11:31:31 PM
I never had an outstanding warrant for assault.
Uh huh.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 23, 2012, 11:31:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2012, 11:21:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 23, 2012, 10:06:25 PM
There were items on the checklist that only someone with intimate, certain knowledge of the event could acquire.
Outstanding warrants for assault aren't all that intimate.
I never had an outstanding warrant for assault.
arrested right away, huh? :P
I suppose there are plenty of jobs out there that don't care about minor offences. Vehicle drivers, fast food workers, delivery boys, janitors etc. But there is no way one can get an office job with a record.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 23, 2012, 11:37:45 PM
I suppose there are plenty of jobs out there that don't care about minor offences. Vehicle drivers, fast food workers, delivery boys, janitors etc. But there is no way one can get an office job with a record.
Bah. Most employers are pretty lazy. I'm surprised how many do almost no checks.
I'm prosecuting the manager of a jewelry store. He's charged with stealing from said jewelry store. Once he was fired he managed to get a job at another jewelry store. Now he's charged not convicted so a crim records check wouldn't have helped, but surely a phone call to the former employer would have been entertaining...
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 05:29:16 PM
All do not want. :)
Seems though some of those vary. Like the police problems group - fictitious info to police/delay doesn't seem as bad as assault/resist.
You wouldn't hire someone who carried an open container of beer in public? You are fucking nuts. :lol:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 23, 2012, 06:26:16 PM
Interesting responses, Ed and Cal. Is anything prostitution-related an automatic no? Or just the sexual battery (which essentially means groping) and the indecent exposure.
Yeah, it's funny how they wouldn't hire someone who is guilty of indecent exposure but would hire a DWI perp. :lol:
A lot of the "crimes" on this list shouldn't even be crimes in the first place, not to mention should not disqualify someone from being hired.
America: fucked up country. This thread just confirms this.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 01:15:43 AM
Yeah, it's funny how they wouldn't hire someone who is guilty of indecent exposure but would hire a DWI perp. :lol:
Kind of hard to commit DWI in the break room.
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2012, 09:13:42 PM
It might be worth mentioning that, for my part, I don't agree with many of our laws here (e.g. anti-prostitution laws, most anti-drug laws), but I think it's important to not hire people who think they don't have to follow the law, even if I may not agree with said law. I don't trust such people to obey the company's policies and represent the company well, and I don't think I have a right to nullify the law just because I don't happen to like it.
The only problem is that a lot of these laws are very arbitrary and most people guilty of these crimes are simply unlucky. Most likely, someone who has a conviction for smoking pot is not a less upstanding citizen than someone who doesn't, it's just that the former was unlucky enough to get caught and the latter wasn't. Likewise, a lot of the "crimes" may be used to target and harass ethnic or sexual minorities.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 24, 2012, 01:19:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 01:15:43 AM
Yeah, it's funny how they wouldn't hire someone who is guilty of indecent exposure but would hire a DWI perp. :lol:
Kind of hard to commit DWI in the break room.
Wow, you are an idiot.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 01:24:34 AM
Wow, you are an idiot.
Wow, that's a pretty harsh response for replying to one of Marty's posts.
Oh, shit- I'm doing it again. I guess you're right. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 01:15:43 AM
Yeah, it's funny how they wouldn't hire someone who is guilty of indecent exposure but would hire a DWI perp. :lol:
A lot of the "crimes" on this list shouldn't even be crimes in the first place, not to mention should not disqualify someone from being hired.
America: fucked up country. This thread just confirms this.
Pretty funny coming from a pedophile apologist.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 23, 2012, 09:51:38 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2012, 07:04:56 PM
Quoteif you want the job bad enough, and it's not for a LEO or anything that requires a TS or TS/SCI or anything like that, fucking lie.
If they do and I hired that person, they better hope I never, ever find out. I will rip a hold in time/space moving so fast to terminate.
At the same time, you basically said you'd bar employment for all but really minor stuff, so what, exactly, is the benefit to not lying? Not being found out a year later and getting canned, and having to explain either the termination or the gap in employment? Sure, but most people like to eat.
And I like to hire non-scuzzballs.
Martim: We're not talking about just bouncing a check. We're talking about a fraud--fake checks, something like that.
It's still nuts though that in Portugal the bank is required to cover an overdraft <50.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 01:15:43 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 23, 2012, 06:26:16 PM
Interesting responses, Ed and Cal. Is anything prostitution-related an automatic no? Or just the sexual battery (which essentially means groping) and the indecent exposure.
Yeah, it's funny how they wouldn't hire someone who is guilty of indecent exposure but would hire a DWI perp. :lol:
A lot of the "crimes" on this list shouldn't even be crimes in the first place, not to mention should not disqualify someone from being hired.
America: fucked up country. This thread just confirms this.
Did you miss the part where Capetan Mihali said that these were all misdemeanors? Or where Seedy mentioned that in many jurisdictions, they aren't even bookable (or are bookable, but usually are handled just by a citation)?
Plus, we're talking about looking at this from a hiring perspective. If I knowingly hire a new cashier or sales clerk who has a prior conviction for indecent exposure and he later exposes himself to our customers or other employees, it at best reflects badly on the company and potentially opens us up to liability for his behavior. If I knowingly hire a new cashier or sales clerk who has a prior conviction for DWI and he later gets arrested while driving home from a party drunk, it doesn't really reflect on us and we won't have any liability.
Martims post sort of explains why Portugal is an economic basket case though. I would rather live in the US, with it's rather harsh laws, than Portugal where no one seems to care about the rules.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 01:24:00 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2012, 09:13:42 PM
It might be worth mentioning that, for my part, I don't agree with many of our laws here (e.g. anti-prostitution laws, most anti-drug laws), but I think it's important to not hire people who think they don't have to follow the law, even if I may not agree with said law. I don't trust such people to obey the company's policies and represent the company well, and I don't think I have a right to nullify the law just because I don't happen to like it.
The only problem is that a lot of these laws are very arbitrary and most people guilty of these crimes are simply unlucky. Most likely, someone who has a conviction for smoking pot is not a less upstanding citizen than someone who doesn't, it's just that the former was unlucky enough to get caught and the latter wasn't. Likewise, a lot of the "crimes" may be used to target and harass ethnic or sexual minorities.
More than likely, someone caught with pot had an aggravating circumstance, like being black.
Quote from: dps on July 24, 2012, 06:59:30 AM
Did you miss the part where Capetan Mihali said that these were all misdemeanors? Or where Seedy mentioned that in many jurisdictions, they aren't even bookable (or are bookable, but usually are handled just by a citation)?
Arbitrary discretion in enforcement doesn't really make bad laws better. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2012, 07:29:24 AM
Quote from: dps on July 24, 2012, 06:59:30 AM
Did you miss the part where Capetan Mihali said that these were all misdemeanors? Or where Seedy mentioned that in many jurisdictions, they aren't even bookable (or are bookable, but usually are handled just by a citation)?
Arbitrary discretion in enforcement doesn't really make bad laws better. Quite the contrary, in fact.
I don't disagree, but the main point was that these are misdemeanors we're talking about, not felonies.
Yeah, I don't know if the Eurotards are confused or just stupid (well, I know Martim is just stupid and Marti is 90% troll), but almost none of these crimes result in any incarceration time for a first offense. Many of them won't even result in a physical arrest at the time of offense, but just a citation, some of them you might get taken into the police department but just long enough to get processed and released with instructions on when to come back for a hearing.
DWI is probably the only one these days that is likely, out of that list, to definitely have some incarceration time. The laws (rightfully, really) have gotten more serious on DUI/DWI which used to be viewed as a minor insignificant crime. Most states now require something stupid like 24 hours incarceration for a first time DWI/DUI just to "make it hit home" that the person has done something really bad. However, a lot of times you can serve that 24 hours through community service, and you can get your lawyer to convince the court to count any amount of time you were in police custody against the 24 hours (so if it takes 3-4 hours to book you and sober you up, you only owe 20 hours.)
I should also mention a lot of these crimes you really have to be stupid to get cited. Any of the "fighting with cops" offenses you basically have to go into the situation intent on getting charged. For solicitation, just trust me when I say that anyone with half a brain would never get caught in a prostitution sting. DWI/DUI is a little dicier, because if you drink and you have a driver's license and you ever drive with any alcohol in you, then you're subjecting yourself to the potential for one--but on the other hand everyone I know with a DUI/DWI drove shitfaced drunk 100+ times before getting their first arrest.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 23, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
The latest statistic I saw is that is that 1 in 4 adults in the U.S. has a criminal record of some sort.
Sweet baby Jesus ... :wacko:
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 08:09:58 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 23, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
The latest statistic I saw is that is that 1 in 4 adults in the U.S. has a criminal record of some sort.
Sweet baby Jesus ... :wacko:
Don't worry, these people will never see the inside of the office, except the welfare office. They won't be able to hurt anyone there.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2012, 07:51:35 AM
Yeah, I don't know if the Eurotards are confused or just stupid (well, I know Martim is just stupid and Marti is 90% troll), but almost none of these crimes result in any incarceration time for a first offense. Many of them won't even result in a physical arrest at the time of offense, but just a citation, some of them you might get taken into the police department but just long enough to get processed and released with instructions on when to come back for a hearing.
DWI is probably the only one these days that is likely, out of that list, to definitely have some incarceration time. The laws (rightfully, really) have gotten more serious on DUI/DWI which used to be viewed as a minor insignificant crime. Most states now require something stupid like 24 hours incarceration for a first time DWI/DUI just to "make it hit home" that the person has done something really bad. However, a lot of times you can serve that 24 hours through community service, and you can get your lawyer to convince the court to count any amount of time you were in police custody against the 24 hours (so if it takes 3-4 hours to book you and sober you up, you only owe 20 hours.)
I should also mention a lot of these crimes you really have to be stupid to get cited. Any of the "fighting with cops" offenses you basically have to go into the situation intent on getting charged. For solicitation, just trust me when I say that anyone with half a brain would never get caught in a prostitution sting. DWI/DUI is a little dicier, because if you drink and you have a driver's license and you ever drive with any alcohol in you, then you're subjecting yourself to the potential for one--but on the other hand everyone I know with a DUI/DWI drove shitfaced drunk 100+ times before getting their first arrest.
It is true that these crimes would generally not result in jail time, but what I'm reading in this thread is that, apparently, if employers find out about them many if not most of them result in more or less permanent unemployability (aside from menial occupations).
That seems a rather harsher punishment than doing a little time. Also, socially unproductive, as it artifically narrows the employment pool.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 08:09:58 AM
Sweet baby Jesus ... :wacko:
We have lots of laws. Not being a criminal takes some work.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 08:09:58 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 23, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
The latest statistic I saw is that is that 1 in 4 adults in the U.S. has a criminal record of some sort.
Sweet baby Jesus ... :wacko:
According to MSil - 99% of the Portuguese population (if not hire) would have a criminal record in a civilized country.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 08:21:23 AMIt is true that these crimes would generally not result in jail time, but what I'm reading in this thread is that, apparently, if employers find out about them many if not most of them result in more or less permanent unemployability (aside from menial occupations).
That seems a rather harsher punishment than doing a little time. Also, socially unproductive, as it artifically narrows the employment pool.
Yeah, but I don't know that it's really like that. If you have any sort of financial crime on your record that bars you from a lot of positions. Any sex offense likewise (that's a known thing, though.)
Drugs and DWI, at least in my personal experience (which includes active duty military, then civilian DoD, now civilian ICE...few menial jobs as a kid) don't really bar employment. I have many friends who work for Fortune 500 companies who have booze or drug offenses. I'm not talking drug dealing or such, but minor possession charges, single offense DWI and etc.
I won't pretend to know about all employers but I know enough about hiring forms at government agencies (both state / federal) and fortune 500 companies that I'll tell you this is a good cross section of what usually gets asked:
1. Have you ever been convicted of a crime? (Worst for a convict.)
2. Have you ever been convicted of a felony? (Bad for felons, everyone else is good.)
3. Have you been convicted of a crime in the past x (often 7) years? (Bad for anyone who has fucked up recently)
4. Have you been convicted of a felony in the past x (often 7) years (Bad for anyone who has
really fucked up recently)
5. Have you ever been convicted
or arrested for a crime? (Very bad for anyone who has messed up at all.)
Then the whole "arrested" question might have some qualifiers like (in the past x years, or etc.)
Just to put in perspective, I have a friend who left the chemical industry and went to work for the Department of the Navy working on a classified project. He's a chemical engineer. During his first year's probationary period he was visiting a friend in Arlington and they went out to a bar and got shitfaced drunk then got separated. He went back to his friend's house and his friend wouldn't come to the door so he angrily broke the door down to get inside (he was supposed to be staying with the friend.) He then passes out inside the house.
The police are called because it wasn't his friend who wouldn't unlock the door, and he in fact drunkenly broke into some old ladies house (who fortunately was not there.) He was initially charged with two felonies (one for the breaking and entering and one for felony destruction of a historical landmark...the house was on the national register of historic sites or whatever.)
He got one of the felonies removed and had to plead to a misdemeanor. Note this is a guy undergoing a probationary period at a job that requires a top secret clearance. He speaks to the guy in charge of security at his work site and he is told "well, this is a problem if it becomes a pattern of behavior, but in and of itself as long as this is a one time thing you have nothing to worry about."
He's been working there 8 years now.
Basically some of these misdemeanors hurt you, but I think some Languishites (like Cal or Garbon) are making it look like it's harder to get employed with a misdemeanor than it actually is. Maybe it is where they work, but that's not typical for the entire workforce.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 08:21:51 AM
According to MSil - 99% of the Portuguese population (if not hire) would have a criminal record in a civilized country.
Civilized?
Some of the things on that list are so silly I can't think of a single person I know who would have a clear record. Open container? :lol:
UWyo asks about felonies and sex-offenses, nothing else.
The moral of the story is to not get caught in the little things.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 08:50:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 08:21:51 AM
According to MSil - 99% of the Portuguese population (if not hire) would have a criminal record in a civilized country.
Civilized?
Some of the things on that list are so silly I can't think of a single person I know who would have a clear record. Open container? :lol:
Cherry pick though (MSil took umbrage with almost everything on the list) / all of these aren't general as my mother's boyfriend's son got cited for open container underage and I don't think that was a misdemeanor.
It's not just the booze thing (though it is the most salient example). There's also possession, solicitation, shoplifting or minor speeding.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 09:05:29 AM
It's not just the booze thing (though it is the most salient example). There's also possession, solicitation, shoplifting or minor speeding.
Do you think it's normal that shoplifting just get shrugged away? I think that's bizarre.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 24, 2012, 09:16:25 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 09:05:29 AM
It's not just the booze thing (though it is the most salient example). There's also possession, solicitation, shoplifting or minor speeding.
Do you think it's normal that shoplifting just get shrugged away? I think that's bizarre.
Right that strikes me as odd.
On the minor speeding that strikes me as an anomaly as I've never been charged with a misdemeanor when speeding under <15 mph.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 08:50:08 AM
Some of the things on that list are so silly I can't think of a single person I know who would have a clear record. Open container? :lol:
You have to be a pretty simple fuck getting caught with an open container. Only time that happens is if you're pulled over in a vehicle with it, or you're moron enough for a public intoxication rap.
In either case, go to a bar or go home. Don't be a public drunken twat.
Pretty simple to avoid, really. All of these "crimes" are pretty simple to avoid, and that's the point.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 08:50:08 AM
Some of the things on that list are so silly I can't think of a single person I know who would have a clear record. Open container? :lol:
Me? I haven't done any of the things on that list, so it isn't a matter of not getting caught.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2012, 09:23:09 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 08:50:08 AM
Some of the things on that list are so silly I can't think of a single person I know who would have a clear record. Open container? :lol:
You have to be a pretty simple fuck getting caught with an open container. Only time that happens is if you're pulled over in a vehicle with it, or you're moron enough for a public intoxication rap.
In either case, go to a bar or go home. Don't be a public drunken twat.
Pretty simple to avoid, really. All of these "crimes" are pretty simple to avoid, and that's the point.
I don't see anything wrong with having a little wine at a picnic.
I enjoyed boozing on the street in Europe and would be happy if we had the same in the US.
Two things are obvious:
1. US laws are retarded.
2. Non-white countries fail at being civilized.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 09:29:27 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2012, 09:23:09 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 08:50:08 AM
Some of the things on that list are so silly I can't think of a single person I know who would have a clear record. Open container? :lol:
You have to be a pretty simple fuck getting caught with an open container. Only time that happens is if you're pulled over in a vehicle with it, or you're moron enough for a public intoxication rap.
In either case, go to a bar or go home. Don't be a public drunken twat.
Pretty simple to avoid, really. All of these "crimes" are pretty simple to avoid, and that's the point.
I don't see anything wrong with having a little wine at a picnic.
Neither do I. But the problem is there's no way to distinguish between 'a little wine at a picnic' and 'sitting in a park getting shitfaced on malt liquor'.
In my experience cops will ignore open liquor unless you're causing a problem, or at most force you to pour it out. Open liquor in a vehicle being a big exception
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 24, 2012, 09:16:25 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 09:05:29 AM
It's not just the booze thing (though it is the most salient example). There's also possession, solicitation, shoplifting or minor speeding.
Do you think it's normal that shoplifting just get shrugged away? I think that's bizarre.
My experiences with shoplifting involve quite a few of my school mates, when we were 13 or so. When caught security detained them and called their parents, who then dealt with the kids as they saw fit. As far as I know police never got involved. None of those teens are criminals now. One works at the UN, another is a doctor and so on.
The only recidivist was a kleptomaniac I knew once. He had magician hands though, never got caught. Really nice kid, too. Parents really fucked him up.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 09:38:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 09:29:27 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2012, 09:23:09 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 08:50:08 AM
Some of the things on that list are so silly I can't think of a single person I know who would have a clear record. Open container? :lol:
You have to be a pretty simple fuck getting caught with an open container. Only time that happens is if you're pulled over in a vehicle with it, or you're moron enough for a public intoxication rap.
In either case, go to a bar or go home. Don't be a public drunken twat.
Pretty simple to avoid, really. All of these "crimes" are pretty simple to avoid, and that's the point.
I don't see anything wrong with having a little wine at a picnic.
Neither do I. But the problem is there's no way to distinguish between 'a little wine at a picnic' and 'sitting in a park getting shitfaced on malt liquor'.
In my experience cops will ignore open liquor unless you're causing a problem, or at most force you to pour it out. Open liquor in a vehicle being a big exception
Latter bit makes sense though that sort of belies your statement that there is no way to distinguish those two very distinct actions. :D
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 09:38:50 AM
Neither do I. But the problem is there's no way to distinguish between 'a little wine at a picnic' and 'sitting in a park getting shitfaced on malt liquor'.
In my experience cops will ignore open liquor unless you're causing a problem, or at most force you to pour it out. Open liquor in a vehicle being a big exception
If the problem is drunks causing problems (such as DWI) instead of drinking per se, why not just penalize the first and leave the second alone?
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 09:59:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 09:38:50 AM
Neither do I. But the problem is there's no way to distinguish between 'a little wine at a picnic' and 'sitting in a park getting shitfaced on malt liquor'.
In my experience cops will ignore open liquor unless you're causing a problem, or at most force you to pour it out. Open liquor in a vehicle being a big exception
If the problem is drunks causing problems (such as DWI) instead of drinking per se, why not just penalize the first and leave the second alone?
Because you want to be able to stop people before they cause a problem.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 09:38:50 AM
Neither do I. But the problem is there's no way to distinguish between 'a little wine at a picnic' and 'sitting in a park getting shitfaced on malt liquor'.
Well one is wine, one is malt liquor....
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 09:52:08 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 24, 2012, 09:16:25 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 09:05:29 AM
It's not just the booze thing (though it is the most salient example). There's also possession, solicitation, shoplifting or minor speeding.
Do you think it's normal that shoplifting just get shrugged away? I think that's bizarre.
My experiences with shoplifting involve quite a few of my school mates, when we were 13 or so. When caught security detained them and called their parents, who then dealt with the kids as they saw fit. As far as I know police never got involved. None of those teens are criminals now. One works at the UN, another is a doctor and so on.
Well, yeah, that's how it would normally be handled here, too, if a minor is caught (though many businesses will call the police if it's a teenager, the cops themselves usually will just call the parents to come get the kid and give them a talking to). We're not talking about kids here, though (at least I haven't been)--we're talking about adults. And in my experience, most shoplifters
are adults--I'd say well over 90% of the shoplifters we've caught in places I've worked have been adults.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 10:49:56 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 09:59:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 09:38:50 AM
Neither do I. But the problem is there's no way to distinguish between 'a little wine at a picnic' and 'sitting in a park getting shitfaced on malt liquor'.
In my experience cops will ignore open liquor unless you're causing a problem, or at most force you to pour it out. Open liquor in a vehicle being a big exception
If the problem is drunks causing problems (such as DWI) instead of drinking per se, why not just penalize the first and leave the second alone?
Because you want to be able to stop people before they cause a problem.
Holy Thought Police Batman!!
QuoteI'd say well over 90% of the shoplifters we've caught in places I've worked have been adults.
I remember being in a department store once and this dude came tearing down the exit aisle at full speed, grabbed a whole display of shirts without breaking stride, flew right out the exit, and into a waiting car which immediately sped away. It was just so bizarre, and everybody barely had a second to respond. The salesguy I was talking to just said 'holy shit did that just happen?' Now that was some shoplifting.
Quote from: sbr on July 24, 2012, 11:04:18 AM
Holy Thought Police Batman!!
Yeah Barrister Boy is The Man(tm) no question.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 24, 2012, 09:30:47 AM
I enjoyed boozing on the street in Europe and would be happy if we had the same in the US.
You can in New Orleans. :cool:
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 09:59:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 09:38:50 AM
Neither do I. But the problem is there's no way to distinguish between 'a little wine at a picnic' and 'sitting in a park getting shitfaced on malt liquor'.
In my experience cops will ignore open liquor unless you're causing a problem, or at most force you to pour it out. Open liquor in a vehicle being a big exception
If the problem is drunks causing problems (such as DWI) instead of drinking per se, why not just penalize the first and leave the second alone?
Honestly I found Martim's dismissive reply on DWI to be the most troubling. Though I'm sure he'd counter further that eggplants are too OSSUM at drinking and/or driving to ever be dangerous, we all know that's bullshit, and not a week goes by around here that some idiotic drunk doesn't get in his car and kill himself or someone else.
I neglected to mention earlier that I interviewed a guy once who lied on his initial app about not having any felonies, but when he got into the office he did disclose that he had some when he was filling out the paper app... he wrote "will discuss at interview" on it, which is obviously a very bad sign. So when I questioned him about he proceeded to tell me he had several DWI convictions ('several' already makes the guy questionable), but then he mentioned that his last conviction also resulted in a manslaughter conviction as well. I was like "ummmm I'm going to need a little more information on that one" and he proceeded to tell me that he had gotten drunk and got behind the wheel with his daughter, drove into a telephone pole, and killed her.
The guy had been a network engineer at some nuclear plant down near Savannah, and his alcoholism destroyed his career and his family (his wife divorced him because of all of this, not surprisingly). So when he met me he had been living in a halfway house--don't recall why he ended up in Kentucky. I felt so bad that I told him "I'll see what I can do for you" but I knew I'd never be cleared to work with someone convicted of manslaughter so I didn't even bother to try. I waited about a week and then called him to tell him I couldn't work with him, and he wasn't at all surprised to hear it, I don't think.
Las Vegas too, I think. I remember drinking a bottle of beer while walking down the Strip.
Juvenile records are typically and for almost all purposes sealed in the United States, so unless someone was tried and convicted as an adult for a juvenile crime (only happens in rare cases like teenagers who commit murder or rape), no employer would have access to that information aside from maybe law enforcement (even that I dunno.)
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2012, 11:22:27 AMHonestly I found Martim's dismissive reply on DWI to be the most troubling. Though I'm sure he'd counter further that eggplants are too OSSUM at drinking and/or driving to ever be dangerous, we all know that's bullshit, and not a week goes by around here that some idiotic drunk doesn't get in his car and kill himself or someone else.
I neglected to mention earlier that I interviewed a guy once who lied on his initial app about not having any felonies, but when he got into the office he did disclose that he had some when he was filling out the paper app... he wrote "will discuss at interview" on it, which is obviously a very bad sign. So when I questioned him about he proceeded to tell me he had several DWI convictions ('several' already makes the guy questionable), but then he mentioned that his last conviction also resulted in a manslaughter conviction as well. I was like "ummmm I'm going to need a little more information on that one" and he proceeded to tell me that he had gotten drunk and got behind the wheel with his daughter, drove into a telephone pole, and killed her.
The guy had been a network engineer at some nuclear plant down near Savannah, and his alcoholism destroyed his career and his family (his wife divorced him because of all of this, not surprisingly). So when he met me he had been living in a halfway house--don't recall why he ended up in Kentucky. I felt so bad that I told him "I'll see what I can do for you" but I knew I'd never be cleared to work with someone convicted of manslaughter so I didn't even bother to try. I waited about a week and then called him to tell him I couldn't work with him, and he wasn't at all surprised to hear it, I don't think.
If an alcoholic truly gets sober they can be a good employee, and I'd probably feel the same way about that guy you mention. But to me, while I'd feel sorry for the guy I don't really have a problem with someone like that not being able to get a job. His daughter's never going to get a job either. Someone like that society should just give them a gun, a bottle of scotch, and tell them to "be a gentleman and do what is expected of you." I honestly don't know why he wouldn't just kill himself.
The weird thing about him is that he had a very jovial demeanor... I wondered if he was medicated actually.
A couple other things I guess I should clarify, though I thought that they'd be common sense:
First, I've been talking about recent offensives, since Mihali is concerned about helping his clients in the here-and-now, not 40 years down the road (well, I suppose on some level, he's looking toward their long-term prospects, but they have to get through the short-term first). So if I'm interviewing some 40-year old guy who had an assault conviction back when he was a 20 year old college student, and has no record since then, I'm not really going to worry about it. The exceptions are theft, and the sex crimes. Theft, for obvious reasons, and the sex crimes because knowingly hiring someone with a history of those is just too big a liability risk, the sexual harrassment laws being what they are.
Second, for the most part these are my personal observations. The one exception I did mention was that the retail stores I've worked at have been very anti-drug, so I didn't have much discretion there.
Third, retail stores are going to be much more concerned about criminal records than fast food places. When I was with BK, one of the other managers actually seemed to prefer to hire people with felony convictions. Granted, he was an idiot, but in general the other managers there were also less concerned about someone having a record than I was used to in retail.
Fourth, in practice, a lot of this is moot. The places I've worked where I had the authority to make hiring decisions asked about felony convictions on the applications, not misdemeanors. Since Mihali specified that these are misdemeanors, I normally wouldn't know about them unless the applicant brought them up during the interview.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 11:07:17 AM
Quote from: sbr on July 24, 2012, 11:04:18 AM
Holy Thought Police Batman!!
Yeah Barrister Boy is The Man(tm) no question.
Yeah his response was not very heartening.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 11:34:28 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 11:07:17 AM
Quote from: sbr on July 24, 2012, 11:04:18 AM
Holy Thought Police Batman!!
Yeah Barrister Boy is The Man(tm) no question.
Yeah his response was not very heartening.
:huh:
Certain behaviour (like consumption of liquor in public) is very strongly associated with other anti-social behaviour (in this case disturbing the public). As a result society has seen that it makes more sense to ban drinking in public altogether, even at the risk that it might harm the odd individual who really was just going to have a glass of wine with his picnic supper.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 11:34:28 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 11:07:17 AM
Quote from: sbr on July 24, 2012, 11:04:18 AM
Holy Thought Police Batman!!
Yeah Barrister Boy is The Man(tm) no question.
Yeah his response was not very heartening.
Beeb's favorite song...Hip to be square. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB5YkmjalDg)
Quote from: katmai on July 24, 2012, 11:42:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 11:34:28 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 11:07:17 AM
Quote from: sbr on July 24, 2012, 11:04:18 AM
Holy Thought Police Batman!!
Yeah Barrister Boy is The Man(tm) no question.
Yeah his response was not very heartening.
Beeb's favorite song...Hip to be square. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB5YkmjalDg)
:yes:
Huey Lewis is the man. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 11:40:27 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 11:34:28 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 11:07:17 AM
Quote from: sbr on July 24, 2012, 11:04:18 AM
Holy Thought Police Batman!!
Yeah Barrister Boy is The Man(tm) no question.
Yeah his response was not very heartening.
:huh:
Certain behaviour (like consumption of liquor in public) is very strongly associated with other anti-social behaviour (in this case disturbing the public). As a result society has seen that it makes more sense to ban drinking in public altogether, even at the risk that it might harm the odd individual who really was just going to have a glass of wine with his picnic supper.
Sorry but I don't like this notion that certain things should be criminalized just because they might lead to criminal behavior.
Also, you've already noted that there is police discretion involved in laying such charges so there obviously is some noticeable distinction between an individual enjoying a glass of wine and someone chugging down malt liquor. Feels rather arbitrary that if an individual takes a glass of wine out of a restaurant while having their cigarette that the act of walking 5-10 feet suddenly made their behavior criminal.
Drinking is legal everywhere in Nevada. Unless the ignition is started.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 11:48:21 AM
Sorry but I don't like this notion that certain things should be criminalized just because they might lead to criminal behavior.
Also, you've already noted that there is police discretion involved in laying such charges so there obviously is some noticeable distinction between an individual enjoying a glass of wine and someone chugging down malt liquor. Feels rather arbitrary that if an individual takes a glass of wine out of a restaurant while having their cigarette that the act of walking 5-10 feet suddenly made their behavior criminal.
Well first of all it isn't "criminal" - its a low level regulatory offence.
Is it arbitrary? Sure - but for the law to function you need to have well-defined limits to what is and is not against the law. You really can't come up with a clear, well-defined and enforceable limit that has certain kinds of public consumption legal, while others are not, so almost every jurisdiction has simply said "no drinking at all while in public".
The reasoning on prohibiting open liquor in a vehicle works exactly the same. Technically, a person could sip on a single beer while driving down the highway and be no more a risk than anyone else. The problem is that one beer very easily turns into 6 for some people, so its easier just to have a blanket ban on consuming liquor in public.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 11:48:21 AM
Sorry but I don't like this notion that certain things should be criminalized just because they might lead to criminal behavior.
Also, you've already noted that there is police discretion involved in laying such charges so there obviously is some noticeable distinction between an individual enjoying a glass of wine and someone chugging down malt liquor. Feels rather arbitrary that if an individual takes a glass of wine out of a restaurant while having their cigarette that the act of walking 5-10 feet suddenly made their behavior criminal.
To be devil's advocate, how is that different from DUIs? We don't criminalize it because driving drunk is bad in itself, we criminalize it because it's highly correlated with crashing into someone.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2012, 11:22:27 AM
I was like "ummmm I'm going to need a little more information on that one" and he proceeded to tell me that he had gotten drunk and got behind the wheel with his daughter, drove into a telephone pole, and killed her.
The guy had been a network engineer at some nuclear plant down near Savannah, and his alcoholism destroyed his career and his family (his wife divorced him because of all of this, not surprisingly). So when he met me he had been living in a halfway house--don't recall why he ended up in Kentucky. I felt so bad that I told him "I'll see what I can do for you" but I knew I'd never be cleared to work with someone convicted of manslaughter so I didn't even bother to try. I waited about a week and then called him to tell him I couldn't work with him, and he wasn't at all surprised to hear it, I don't think.
Daaaamn.
I dunno. There's nothing the court system could ever do to him that he won't have to deal with for the rest of his life.
Depending on his entire situation and how he was doing in his program, I may have tried to roll the dice on him, but I'm a softie like that sometimes. Sometimes even the biggest losers deserve another at bat.
Yeah, but murder and all variations thereof were on the "Legal will not approve this person to be a consultant for us under any circumstances, so don't bother even trying" list.
99.999% of the time there's nothing you can do to help a situation like that. They guy should get a microloan to start a hot dog stand.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2012, 11:22:27 AMHonestly I found Martim's dismissive reply on DWI to be the most troubling. Though I'm sure he'd counter further that eggplants are too OSSUM at drinking and/or driving to ever be dangerous, we all know that's bullshit, and not a week goes by around here that some idiotic drunk doesn't get in his car and kill himself or someone else.
My impression is it's only very recently that DWI has started to be seen as a big deal over here. A video of a drunk ex-president Aznar ranting against alcohol limits at a winery raised the profile of the issue a few years ago.
If it were up to me I'd put the limit at 0.0, embargo the car, revoke the license forever and put every offender on a suspended jail sentence. But that's just me.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2012, 11:28:01 AM
Someone like that society should just give them a gun, a bottle of scotch, and tell them to "be a gentleman and do what is expected of you." I honestly don't know why he wouldn't just kill himself.
I'm surprised he didn't. You kill your daughter through stupidity, don't really see how one
wouldn't do that.
Then again, there's countless people walking this earth that have killed their children by accident, and it doesn't faze them a bit.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 24, 2012, 12:07:22 PM
99.999% of the time there's nothing you can do to help a situation like that. They guy should get a microloan to start a hot dog stand.
Meh, he'd probably crash it into a bus stop anyway.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 24, 2012, 12:07:22 PM
99.999% of the time there's nothing you can do to help a situation like that. They guy should get a microloan to start a hot dog stand.
Yeah. We have a guy who's "locally famous" around here known as The Pitmaster who tows around a giant smoker and sells barbecue at busy intersections. We've talked to him before (his 'cue kicks ass, btw) and asked him why he didn't open a real restaurant. He pulled some odd stumbling thing out of his ass about how he's morally opposed to loans or something. When we were driving away I told Princesca I thought he was probably a convicted felon and obviously wasn't going to admit that to customers.
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2012, 12:02:08 PM
To be devil's advocate, how is that different from DUIs? We don't criminalize it because driving drunk is bad in itself, we criminalize it because it's highly correlated with crashing into someone.
I'd wager because the potential outcome is a lot more dangerous / certain? Most of the bums I see oustide drinking don't look like they will shortly be committing dangerous crimes. Similarly, I've drank outside on several occasions and not then committed a dangerous crime. I think the difference between drinking in a club/restaurant/outdoor cafe that allows drinks and drinking outside is a lot smaller than drinking in a bar vs. drinking in a car.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2012, 12:09:50 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2012, 11:28:01 AM
Someone like that society should just give them a gun, a bottle of scotch, and tell them to "be a gentleman and do what is expected of you." I honestly don't know why he wouldn't just kill himself.
I'm surprised he didn't. You kill your daughter through stupidity, don't really see how one wouldn't do that.
Then again, there's countless people walking this earth that have killed their children by accident, and it doesn't faze them a bit.
I just thought it was weird that he told me all this...maybe he thought I'd be more sympathetic if I knew it was 'only' his daughter? Remember, he started off on a bad foot by lying to me on the initial application where he didn't disclose having a criminal record. I kind of think he would have been better off continuing to lie through the whole process and then hope I didn't run the background check I said I would, or somehow we'd get back the wrong guy's results and clear him or whatever.
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2012, 12:02:08 PM
To be devil's advocate, how is that different from DUIs? We don't criminalize it because driving drunk is bad in itself, we criminalize it because it's highly correlated with crashing into someone.
There's a marked difference between standing in a public square and things like driving a car, supervising a nuclear facility or operating on someone. The latter are inherently dangerous activities and it should be no wonder they are heavily regulated.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 12:21:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2012, 12:02:08 PM
To be devil's advocate, how is that different from DUIs? We don't criminalize it because driving drunk is bad in itself, we criminalize it because it's highly correlated with crashing into someone.
There's a marked difference between standing in a public square and things like driving a car, supervising a nuclear facility or operating on someone. The latter are inherently dangerous activities and it should be no wonder they are heavily regulated.
Standing is a dangerous activity as well when drunk. :beer:
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2012, 12:14:35 PM
]I just thought it was weird that he told me all this...maybe he thought I'd be more sympathetic if I knew it was 'only' his daughter? Remember, he started off on a bad foot by lying to me on the initial application where he didn't disclose having a criminal record. I kind of think he would have been better off continuing to lie through the whole process and then hope I didn't run the background check I said I would, or somehow we'd get back the wrong guy's results and clear him or whatever.
Yeah, he approached it the wrong way. Much like his life.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 12:14:26 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2012, 12:02:08 PM
To be devil's advocate, how is that different from DUIs? We don't criminalize it because driving drunk is bad in itself, we criminalize it because it's highly correlated with crashing into someone.
I'd wager because the potential outcome is a lot more dangerous / certain? Most of the bums I see oustide drinking don't look like they will shortly be committing dangerous crimes. Similarly, I've drank outside on several occasions and not then committed a dangerous crime. I think the difference between drinking in a club/restaurant/outdoor cafe that allows drinks and drinking outside is a lot smaller than drinking in a bar vs. drinking in a car.
... which is why DWI is a lot more serious an offence than consuming liquor in public.
And sadly, drunken homeless bums cause a huge number of nuisance offences. Are they killing people? No, but it is the kind of behaviour that is very public and off-putting to a large number of people.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 12:30:20 PM
No, but it is the kind of behaviour that is very public and off-putting to a large number of people.
As Martim noted earlier, by that standard, 90% of Portugal would be in prison.
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2012, 12:32:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 12:30:20 PM
No, but it is the kind of behaviour that is very public and off-putting to a large number of people.
As Martim noted earlier, by that standard, 90% of Portugal would be in prison.
And you don't think the world would be better off it 90% of portugal was locked up? :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2012, 12:27:51 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2012, 12:14:35 PM
]I just thought it was weird that he told me all this...maybe he thought I'd be more sympathetic if I knew it was 'only' his daughter? Remember, he started off on a bad foot by lying to me on the initial application where he didn't disclose having a criminal record. I kind of think he would have been better off continuing to lie through the whole process and then hope I didn't run the background check I said I would, or somehow we'd get back the wrong guy's results and clear him or whatever.
Yeah, he approached it the wrong way. Much like his life.
I could see how it could make some sense. He obviously can't put Convicted of Manslaughter on his application, it would never see the light of day. But he could either think he was impressive enough a candidate that he could convince someone to hire him face to face, or he had some sort of ethical/religious/12 step program inability to outright lie about it. He'd never get a job without putting out applications, and depending on government benefits he may have had ot put out applications, even if he knew he would never get a job.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 12:34:23 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2012, 12:32:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 12:30:20 PM
No, but it is the kind of behaviour that is very public and off-putting to a large number of people.
As Martim noted earlier, by that standard, 90% of Portugal would be in prison.
And you don't think the world would be better off it 90% of portugal was locked up? :)
:hmm:
Quote from: sbr on July 24, 2012, 12:36:21 PM
I could see how it could make some sense. He obviously can't put Convicted of Manslaughter on his application, it would never see the light of day. But he could either think he was impressive enough a candidate that he could convince someone to hire him face to face, or he had some sort of ethical/religious/12 step program inability to outright lie about it. He'd never get a job without putting out applications, and depending on government benefits he may have had ot put out applications, even if he knew he would never get a job.
I agree, you've got to do what you've got to do these days to get past automated systems and HR tards. I'm just saying he's one poor bastard, and he's gonna be stuck that way.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 12:30:20 PM
... which is why DWI is a lot more serious an offence than consuming liquor in public.
And sadly, drunken homeless bums cause a huge number of nuisance offences. Are they killing people? No, but it is the kind of behaviour that is very public and off-putting to a large number of people.
I stil don't get it. If those homeless drunks are offending, why the need to penalize drinking in the first place?
Quite frankly, it reeks of moralism of the worst kind.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 12:41:23 PM
Quite frankly, it reeks of moralism of the worst kind.
:lol: Open container laws = moralism of the worst kind.
Only in Europe, Land of the Legitimized Kiddie Ass Blasters.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 12:30:20 PM
And sadly, drunken homeless bums cause a huge number of nuisance offences. Are they killing people? No, but it is the kind of behaviour that is very public and off-putting to a large number of people.
Can you give some examples? I've no idea if she was drunk or not but the homeless woman who peed over the grate outside my office building wasn't drinking at the time.
Also, most people aren't the homeless drinking on sidewalks.
Quote from: sbr on July 24, 2012, 12:36:21 PM
I could see how it could make some sense. He obviously can't put Convicted of Manslaughter on his application, it would never see the light of day. But he could either think he was impressive enough a candidate that he could convince someone to hire him face to face, or he had some sort of ethical/religious/12 step program inability to outright lie about it. He'd never get a job without putting out applications, and depending on government benefits he may have had ot put out applications, even if he knew he would never get a job.
Yeah, a lot of people go to interviews because they have to at least try to pretend that they're trying to find a job. Since he admitted to me he was in some sort of halfway house, it occurred to me that they might require their residents to at least try to find something.... it's also usually a state unemployment requirement as well (and definitely is in Kentucky).
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2012, 12:43:54 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 12:41:23 PM
Quite frankly, it reeks of moralism of the worst kind.
:lol: Open container laws = moralism of the worst kind.
Only in Europe, Land of the Legitimized Kiddie Ass Blasters.
Berlin's open container laws seemed a lot more sensible.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 12:53:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 12:30:20 PM
And sadly, drunken homeless bums cause a huge number of nuisance offences. Are they killing people? No, but it is the kind of behaviour that is very public and off-putting to a large number of people.
Can you give some examples? I've no idea if she was drunk or not but the homeless woman who peed over the grate outside my office building wasn't drinking at the time.
Also, most people aren't the homeless drinking on sidewalks.
Petty thefts, damage to property, minor assaults, that kind of thing.
And Iorm - the idea of banning public drinking is to prevent people before they cause problems. Just like the idea of banning drunk driving is to prevent people before they cause accidents.
Of course most people aren't homeless drunks - which is why most people drink inside their homes or in bars. Which is why the huge majority of open liquor tickets are given to homeless people and underage kids.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 12:58:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 12:53:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 12:30:20 PM
And sadly, drunken homeless bums cause a huge number of nuisance offences. Are they killing people? No, but it is the kind of behaviour that is very public and off-putting to a large number of people.
Can you give some examples? I've no idea if she was drunk or not but the homeless woman who peed over the grate outside my office building wasn't drinking at the time.
Also, most people aren't the homeless drinking on sidewalks.
Petty thefts, damage to property, minor assaults, that kind of thing.
Sober homeless people don't do any of those. Good to know.
Ages ago I was with the wife & some of her Argie friends somewhere in Manhattan when one of them said they fancied a beer. I knew of a pretty nice bar a couple blocks away, but when we got there I was informed that they didn't want to pay "so much money" to drink at a bar and that they'd rather just grab a 6-pack across the street and drink it on the sidewalk. Took about 10 minutes of arguing with them to get my point across that it's not done here (except by homeless guys in the alley) and is illegal in most places.
Argies are great people, but FFS they don't seem to get it that you don't do everything the same way here as you do in other places. And I'm always the crazy or uptight (take your pick) one who gets to try to set them straight.
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2012, 01:00:09 PM
Argies are great people, but FFS they don't seem to get it that you don't do everything the same way here as you do in other places.
That's funny, because doesn't most of the world accuse Americans of behaving pretty much the same way?
Quote from: sbr on July 24, 2012, 12:59:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 12:58:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 12:53:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 12:30:20 PM
And sadly, drunken homeless bums cause a huge number of nuisance offences. Are they killing people? No, but it is the kind of behaviour that is very public and off-putting to a large number of people.
Can you give some examples? I've no idea if she was drunk or not but the homeless woman who peed over the grate outside my office building wasn't drinking at the time.
Also, most people aren't the homeless drinking on sidewalks.
Petty thefts, damage to property, minor assaults, that kind of thing.
Sober homeless people don't do any of those. Good to know.
Not to the same degree. Sober homeless people tend to keep to themselves.
Quote from: sbr on July 24, 2012, 12:59:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 12:58:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 12:53:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 12:30:20 PM
And sadly, drunken homeless bums cause a huge number of nuisance offences. Are they killing people? No, but it is the kind of behaviour that is very public and off-putting to a large number of people.
Can you give some examples? I've no idea if she was drunk or not but the homeless woman who peed over the grate outside my office building wasn't drinking at the time.
Also, most people aren't the homeless drinking on sidewalks.
Petty thefts, damage to property, minor assaults, that kind of thing.
Sober homeless people don't do any of those. Good to know.
Yeah that's why I wanted his examples. Sounds like things that homeless people do in general.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 01:03:48 PM
Quote from: sbr on July 24, 2012, 12:59:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 12:58:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 12:53:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 12:30:20 PM
And sadly, drunken homeless bums cause a huge number of nuisance offences. Are they killing people? No, but it is the kind of behaviour that is very public and off-putting to a large number of people.
Can you give some examples? I've no idea if she was drunk or not but the homeless woman who peed over the grate outside my office building wasn't drinking at the time.
Also, most people aren't the homeless drinking on sidewalks.
Petty thefts, damage to property, minor assaults, that kind of thing.
Sober homeless people don't do any of those. Good to know.
Not to the same degree. Sober homeless people tend to keep to themselves.
Perhaps you have a different type of homeless up North. I'm not sure I've seen many homeless people who keep to themselves.
Anyway point is that it seems rather odd that all drinking in all public places is banned because drunk homeless people will act up. Pretty sure homeless people still drink outside as that's where they always are. :mellow:
I assume that "open container" prohibitions are just another tool for the cops to use to deal with people they determine are going to be a problem anyway.
Well-heeled folks standing on the sidewalk outside the patio of a trendy bar with glasses of expensive wine in their hands - how likely are they to get ticketed by the cops? ;)
In some places at least in Canada, drug laws tend to work the same way ... if you are menacing-looking, poor, or aboriginal (or likely all three) chances of legal problems with booze or drugs are much greater. Upper Middle class types smoking a joint (or snorting a line in toilet stalls of a trendy College Street bar in Toronto in the '90s?) Not generally a problem.
In terms of equality and social justice, of course, this sucks. It isn't even a case of "rich and poor alike prohibited from sleeping under bridges". It's the opposite really - discretionary application of laws to target the poor. However, strict application of the law evenhandedly would be worse. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 12:58:29 PM
Petty thefts, damage to property, minor assaults, that kind of thing.
And Iorm - the idea of banning public drinking is to prevent people before they cause problems. Just like the idea of banning drunk driving is to prevent people before they cause accidents.
I've partaken in dozens if not hundreds of drinking gatherings in the open air, like every Spaniard in my generation. I have yet to see how responsible public drinking per se leads to problems.
Quote
Of course most people aren't homeless drunks - which is why most people drink inside their homes or in bars. Which is why the huge majority of open liquor tickets are given to homeless people and underage kids.
Over here we've got few homeless (or had when I was growing up). 99.99% of people drinking were young people (legal age being 16). Especially during summers, when bars and flats turned into furnaces.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 01:22:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 12:58:29 PM
Petty thefts, damage to property, minor assaults, that kind of thing.
And Iorm - the idea of banning public drinking is to prevent people before they cause problems. Just like the idea of banning drunk driving is to prevent people before they cause accidents.
I've partaken in dozens if not hundreds of drinking gatherings in the open air, like every Spaniard in my generation. I have yet to see how responsible public drinking per se leads to problems.
I've partaken in such gatherings as well when I was young. And what went on was generally not "responsible drinking". Heck I was just prepping a file yesterday which involved a bunch of kids drinking in a ravine, and ended up with a young girl getting beaten up.
As mentioned, these kind of laws are to try and shut down the party before someone ends up in the hospital. If things are quiet however police are not going to be called out, or will just warn those involved to "keep it down".
Seems like it would be difficult to legislate "responsible" drinking.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2012, 01:02:55 PM
That's funny, because doesn't most of the world accuse Americans of behaving pretty much the same way?
Yep. What's funny with Argies is that it's usually the women that don't want to accept that things are done differently here. The men are more likely to go with the flow.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 01:26:25 PM
I've partaken in such gatherings as well when I was young. And what went on was generally not "responsible drinking". Heck I was just prepping a file yesterday which involved a bunch of kids drinking in a ravine, and ended up with a young girl getting beaten up.
Well, if Canadians cannot get together and drink without beating up girls I guess you're right.
The bad kids ruin it for everyone. :(
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 01:22:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 12:58:29 PM
Petty thefts, damage to property, minor assaults, that kind of thing.
And Iorm - the idea of banning public drinking is to prevent people before they cause problems. Just like the idea of banning drunk driving is to prevent people before they cause accidents.
I've partaken in dozens if not hundreds of drinking gatherings in the open air, like every Spaniard in my generation. I have yet to see how responsible public drinking per se leads to problems.
Quote
Of course most people aren't homeless drunks - which is why most people drink inside their homes or in bars. Which is why the huge majority of open liquor tickets are given to homeless people and underage kids.
Over here we've got few homeless (or had when I was growing up). 99.99% of people drinking were young people (legal age being 16). Especially during summers, when bars and flats turned into furnaces.
Well, to be fair to BB, different generally accepted social customs concerning drinking and drug-taking lead to different regulations of those activities.
Generally, I can see (albeit in an anecdotal, unscientific manner) a correlation between harsh, restrictive and punitive laws concerning these activities and hardcore alcoholism and drug abuse, and moderate legislation with a more moderate attitude towards boozing and drugging. For example, drinking is considered not such a big deal in Europe, and Europe tends to have less problems with hardcore alcoholism.
Assuming this is true, the argument of course would be which was the causation works - are harsh laws a response to hardcore problems, or in some sense do the harsh laws
cause the hardcore attitude? I suspect neither is true and rather a culture which has informal, culture-based ways to moderate drinking or drugging sees less of both hardcore behaviour and harsh laws - for example, one in which having a glass or two of wine among friends outdoors is seen as harmless fun (but in which binge drinking of hard liquor is frowned on).
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 01:16:04 PM
Well-heeled folks standing on the sidewalk outside the patio of a trendy bar with glasses of expensive wine in their hands - how likely are they to get ticketed by the cops? ;)
Depends on the whim of the cop as it seems like what you described in the rest of the post could easily be used to target all sorts of minority groups (including those of ethnicity). Sounds dreadful.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 01:22:20 PM
99.99% of people drinking were young people
Only if using grumbler's definition of the word "young". :P
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 01:35:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 01:16:04 PM
Well-heeled folks standing on the sidewalk outside the patio of a trendy bar with glasses of expensive wine in their hands - how likely are they to get ticketed by the cops? ;)
Depends on the whim of the cop as it seems like what you described in the rest of the post could easily be used to target all sorts of minority groups (including those of ethnicity). Sounds dreadful.
It can be dreadful, particularly if the cops target by ethnicity as opposed to social class (or confuse the two). The most henious possible modern wrongdoing is officials wrongly applying stereotypes to middle class people on the basis of ethnicity, gender, etc.! ;)
For example, when I was growing up cops here in Toronto routinely used every petty law to harrass the gay population, on the assumption that gays were undesireables. Such ignorance has been fought, and now the cops proudly march in the Pride parade, and no longer harrass gays for being gay.
That doesn't mean the cops have given up classifying people into "good citizens" and "the undesireables". It just means that, in that particular case, their calibration was off. Gays as a population tend to have lots of cash ...
Anyway, I'm describing what I think goes on, not what ought to go on. Descriptive, not proscriptive. ;)
The idea that I should be subject to CopWhim when I have a picnic in a city park is very disturbing and American.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 01:47:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 01:35:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 01:16:04 PM
Well-heeled folks standing on the sidewalk outside the patio of a trendy bar with glasses of expensive wine in their hands - how likely are they to get ticketed by the cops? ;)
Depends on the whim of the cop as it seems like what you described in the rest of the post could easily be used to target all sorts of minority groups (including those of ethnicity). Sounds dreadful.
It can be dreadful, particularly if the cops target by ethnicity as opposed to social class (or confuse the two). The most henious possible modern wrongdoing is officials wrongly applying stereotypes to middle class people on the basis of ethnicity, gender, etc.! ;)
For example, when I was growing up cops here in Toronto routinely used every petty law to harrass the gay population, on the assumption that gays were undesireables. Such ignorance has been fought, and now the cops proudly march in the Pride parade, and no longer harrass gays for being gay.
That doesn't mean the cops have given up classifying people into "good citizens" and "the undesireables". It just means that, in that particular case, their calibration was off. Gays as a population tend to have lots of cash ...
Anyway, I'm describing what I think goes on, not what ought to go on. Descriptive, not proscriptive. ;)
Yeah which is why I'm leery of BB's reasoning for why drinking in public is problematic. Too easy to conflate many things.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 01:33:28 PMFor example, drinking is considered not such a big deal in Europe, and Europe tends to have less problems with hardcore alcoholism.
Truth be told, even within Europe there are significant cultural differences. For example, from what I read here and in other places I get the impression that drinking alone is quite common in Northern Europe. I don't think I've ever done that. For me and those around me that's a sign of alcoholism and would be frowned upon.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 02:31:35 PM
Truth be told, even within Europe there are significant cultural differences. For example, from what I read here and in other places I get the impression that drinking alone is quite common in Northern Europe. I don't think I've ever done that. For me and those around me that's a sign of alcoholism and would be frowned upon.
So a wealthy real estate baron, sipping a Calvados alone in the library of his ancient manse, while examining the list of properties for sale, would be frowned upon in Spain?
Quote from: The Brain on July 24, 2012, 01:53:34 PM
The idea that I should be subject to CopWhim when I have a picnic in a city park is very disturbing and American.
To be fair open alcoholic beverages are forbidden in many Swedish urban areas. My hometown for example forbids it in the town centre, a few square km. IIRC it is also forbidden in Slottsskogen in Gothenburg, a large and famous Swedish city park.
Quote from: Threviel on July 24, 2012, 02:40:10 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 24, 2012, 01:53:34 PM
The idea that I should be subject to CopWhim when I have a picnic in a city park is very disturbing and American.
To be fair open alcoholic beverages are forbidden in many Swedish urban areas. My hometown for example forbids it in the town centre, a few square km. IIRC it is also forbidden in Slottsskogen in Gothenburg, a large and famous Swedish city park.
Thanks. My back needed stabbing. :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Brain on July 24, 2012, 02:43:52 PM
Quote from: Threviel on July 24, 2012, 02:40:10 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 24, 2012, 01:53:34 PM
The idea that I should be subject to CopWhim when I have a picnic in a city park is very disturbing and American.
To be fair open alcoholic beverages are forbidden in many Swedish urban areas. My hometown for example forbids it in the town centre, a few square km. IIRC it is also forbidden in Slottsskogen in Gothenburg, a large and famous Swedish city park.
Thanks. My back needed stabbing. :rolleyes:
:D
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 01:16:04 PM
I assume that "open container" prohibitions are just another tool for the cops to use to deal with people they determine are going to be a problem anyway.
In my personal experience, roughly 90% of open container charges were against minors possessing alcohol. The rest composed of DWIs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 24, 2012, 02:38:09 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 02:31:35 PM
Truth be told, even within Europe there are significant cultural differences. For example, from what I read here and in other places I get the impression that drinking alone is quite common in Northern Europe. I don't think I've ever done that. For me and those around me that's a sign of alcoholism and would be frowned upon.
So a wealthy real estate baron, sipping a Calvados alone in the library of his ancient manse, while examining the list of properties for sale, would be frowned upon in Spain?
What difference does it make who he is or how much money he's got? :unsure:
Maybe it's different in other parts/subsets of Spain (Larchie?) but in my environment drinking is a social thing. Some wine with dinner and such is fine. Hard liquor on your own just feels wrong.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2012, 02:56:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 01:16:04 PM
I assume that "open container" prohibitions are just another tool for the cops to use to deal with people they determine are going to be a problem anyway.
In my personal experience, roughly 90% of open container charges were against minors possessing alcohol. The rest composed of DWIs.
I dunno, the view from docket court ws that those tickets were eenly split etween minors, and being handed out within a couple blocks of the homeless shelter (together with the ones associated with DWIs).
I thought you guys used DUI though? DWI (driving while impaired) is the Canadian term.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 03:05:57 PM
I thought you guys used DUI though? DWI (driving while impaired) is the Canadian term.
Internet suggests we use both.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 03:05:57 PM
I thought you guys used DUI though? DWI (driving while impaired) is the Canadian term.
Every state has their own deal. In Iowa it's OUI, usually called "an owie."
It seems a lot of place down here are moving to DUII (Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants) so they can hit people without any set limit, and for things they can't quickly test for. Here in Oregon as long as the cop thinks you are impaired he can arrest you, even if you are below the legal limit.
After viewing the drunk in Cardiff pictures again (hilarious as usual), you Euros can keep the open container and public drunkenness shit over there. Thanks.
Just say no to being a Josq.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2012, 03:16:03 PM
After viewing the drunk in Cardiff pictures again (hilarious as usual), you Euros can keep the open container and public drunkenness shit over there. Thanks.
Just say no to being a Josq.
Well we don't have to be disgusting like them. Besides, where I live I can't see it'd be much different if people drank outside. Currently they just get shitfaced in the bars then stumble around while heading to the various pizza slice joints and/or McDonald's at the end of the night.
I don't trust young people.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2012, 03:35:54 PM
I don't trust young people.
We'll get drunk and disorderly regardless.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 03:05:57 PMI thought you guys used DUI though? DWI (driving while impaired) is the Canadian term.
I usually say DUI/DWI because a lot of states use the term DUI and a lot of states use the term DWI--and some states use
both terms. In States that use both terms, DWI can technically apply to any impairment, even one not the result of intoxicants. Like technically you can get a DWI in those States for driving while too sleepy. The problem of course is
proving such a case is very difficult, unless it was against a trucker or someone who is required to keep a trip log and you had proof he had been driving over his allowed 12 hours or so. But then there is a separate class of offenses for log book violations so it's mostly unused. DUI in those State exclusively refers to driving while under the influence of various substances.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2012, 03:46:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 03:05:57 PMI thought you guys used DUI though? DWI (driving while impaired) is the Canadian term.
I usually say DUI/DWI because a lot of states use the term DUI and a lot of states use the term DWI--and some states use both terms. In States that use both terms, DWI can technically apply to any impairment, even one not the result of intoxicants. Like technically you can get a DWI in those States for driving while too sleepy. The problem of course is proving such a case is very difficult, unless it was against a trucker or someone who is required to keep a trip log and you had proof he had been driving over his allowed 12 hours or so. But then there is a separate class of offenses for log book violations so it's mostly unused. DUI in those State exclusively refers to driving while under the influence of various substances.
I don't know about being impaired by sleep - up here we have to show impairment by alcohol or drug.
I have driven under the influence of sleep deprivation on a few occasions. :sleep:
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2012, 11:22:27 AM
Honestly I found Martim's dismissive reply on DWI to be the most troubling. Though I'm sure he'd counter further that eggplants are too OSSUM at drinking and/or driving to ever be dangerous, we all know that's bullshit, and not a week goes by around here that some idiotic drunk doesn't get in his car and kill himself or someone else
Don't assume what you don't know.
Portuguese aren't 'OUSSUM' at driving; in fact, we're incredibly bad at it. So much so, that the same *number* of people get killed in car accidents in Portugal every year than in Germany - except that our country has 1/8th of the population...
Our roads are so dangerous that even walking on the pedestrian line while the sign is green for pedestrians (and red for the cars) is dangerous. Some drivers just don't stop.
Some go into reverse at high speed in a single-way road for no reason whatsoever (I almost got killed by one of these idiots when I was a kid, if my dad hadn't pulled me; I was looking at the way cars are supposed to come down the road to notice a car coming at full speed in reverse).
At an intersection, when the lights turn red to the cars, it is almost certain at least one of them will only stop about 2-3 meters ahead of the stop line.
Cars overtake others in the highways by moving into the other lanes (that go in the opposite direction) without even looking at what's coming.
Some (completely sober) like to move to the highway lane that goes the other way and accelerate to maximum speed. For no good reason.
Others don't even realise they've entered one way-only streets, etc, etc.
So the death rate is quite high as it is. Being in one of our roads is dangerous indeed. Drunk driving is finable and there were campaigns to stop it (as well as roadside inspections to get fines), but it is a small percentage of our car deaths.
Quote from: Iormlund
Maybe it's different in other parts/subsets of Spain (Larchie?) but in my environment drinking is a social thing. Some wine with dinner and such is fine. Hard liquor on your own just feels wrong.
Same is true over here. Drinking is what you do when you're with friends or in a business dinner that needs good understanding on both sides; it is good for socializing. Drinking alone is a sign of dependence - and sad indeed. :(
(but nobody will bug a person sitting in a bench drinking)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 24, 2012, 03:56:34 PM
I have driven under the influence of sleep deprivation on a few occasions. :sleep:
I've done that as well. It's the scariest feeling in the world, because I was aware for an hour straight that I was in mortal danger, but I had no realistic options to avoid it. No matter how much you know you shouldn't fall asleep, you also know that ultimately it isn't your call to make.
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2012, 04:05:55 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 24, 2012, 03:56:34 PM
I have driven under the influence of sleep deprivation on a few occasions. :sleep:
I've done that as well. It's the scariest feeling in the world, because I was aware for an hour straight that I was in mortal danger, but I had no realistic options to avoid it. No matter how much you know you shouldn't fall asleep, you also know that ultimately it isn't your call to make.
:yes:
Though I just avoid doing so. That is - driving when that exhausted.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2012, 04:14:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 03:41:29 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2012, 03:35:54 PM
I don't trust young people.
We'll get drunk and disorderly regardless.
*shakes fist and waves cane*
Move out of the way, grandpa, or we'll march over you while continuing our pub crawl!
Matlock is on!
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 04:21:47 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2012, 04:21:10 PM
Matlock is on!
Not any longer, I'm afraid. :(
Through the magic of syndication, it is my friend. :console:
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 04:10:49 PM
:yes:
Though I just avoid doing so. That is - driving when that exhausted.
I'm now planning ahead whenever there is a possibility of having to drive while tired. If I can't avoid it, I at least make sure to drink some Red Bull, and do it before I realize I'm tired.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2012, 04:21:10 PM
Matlock is on!
I prefer Murder, She Wrote. How could one small town be so violent?
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2012, 04:38:59 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 04:10:49 PM
:yes:
Though I just avoid doing so. That is - driving when that exhausted.
I'm now planning ahead whenever there is a possibility of having to drive while tired. If I can't avoid it, I at least make sure to drink some Red Bull, and do it before I realize I'm tired.
I'd rather be late than dead.
Friar Tuck, how often do you find yourself in situations where you HAVE TO drive?
Nm, I figured it out. Blueberry sale.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 04:42:24 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2012, 04:21:10 PM
Matlock is on!
I prefer Murder, She Wrote. How could one small town be so violent?
I have long suspected that Angela Lansbury played a crazed killer who imagined her own killings were done by other people and she wrote about it from her point of view.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2012, 04:51:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 04:42:24 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2012, 04:21:10 PM
Matlock is on!
I prefer Murder, She Wrote. How could one small town be so violent?
I have long suspected that Angela Lansbury played a crazed killer who imagined her own killings were done by other people and she wrote about it from her point of view.
There does have to be something there as it seems like that town was chock full of more killers than citizens.
I thought some liked to see America as a place you could 'start over' again with relative ease ?
Sure, a couple hundred years ago you could.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 03:05:57 PM
I thought you guys used DUI though? DWI (driving while impaired) is the Canadian term.
We use both. DUI is less severe than a DWI. It goes by BAC. However, a DWI automatically gets charged with a DUI, so sniveling prosecutor fucktards can't plead out of it entirely.
Quote from: mongers on July 24, 2012, 05:22:14 PM
I thought some liked to see America as a place you could 'start over' again with relative ease ?
We welcomed religious wackos, sure, but generally not criminals (exception: Georgia).
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2012, 11:32:34 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 23, 2012, 11:31:31 PM
I never had an outstanding warrant for assault.
Uh huh.
It was for FTA. And I was honestly never given my tickets, and explicitly told that the charges underlying the FTA (half of the total from the incident) would be dropped, which is why I didn't show up to the city court. You'll recall that when I became aware of the issue I promptly turned myself in. You may not believe me, but that's rather irrelevant; judge didn't either. I think that's pretty stupid, as it flies in the face of common sense that someone would "flee" justice by staying at the same address listed on his license when arrested and showing up to court for the more serious charges, then finally turn himself in at a random time for no reason, but whatever. I behaved with integrity to resolve the problem and that's all that matters to me.
The underlying crimes were open container and minor possession. BFD. It was a decade ago.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2012, 08:59:26 PM
You'll recall that when I became aware of the issue I promptly turned myself in. You may not believe me, but that's rather irrelevant; judge didn't either.
Yes, I recall that. You didn't post that weekend. :lol:
Tell me something, if they hold you for 72 hours, they're supposed to provide you with facilities to bathe and brush your teeth, right?
Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2012, 09:04:21 PM
Tell me something, if they hold you for 72 hours, they're supposed to provide you with facilities to bathe and brush your teeth, right?
Uh, no. :lol: What, you think you were staying at the Four Seasons or something? Please tell me you asked the turnkey for a toothbrush.
So how many hours is it? 96? 120? 148? Serious question.
Once you get transferred to the county detention center after your bail review, if you don't post. That's when you get your fucking toothbrush. And your jumpsuit. And your little slippers.
That's why you never turn yourself in on a Friday. You're stuck at the precinct or district station all weekend. LULZ.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2012, 06:55:49 PM
]We welcomed religious wackos, sure, but generally not criminals (exception: Georgia).
And pretty much anywhere west of the Mississippi. :contract: Though even in the civilized parts you'd be hard pressed to get a hold of criminal records for some FOB Irishman.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2012, 09:13:52 PM
Once you get transferred to the county detention center after your bail review, if you don't post. That's when you get your fucking toothbrush. And your jumpsuit. And your little slippers.
That's why you never turn yourself in on a Friday. You're stuck at the precinct or district station all weekend. LULZ.
Didn't; wasn't. I was sentenced to three days (was five, but I chose, wisely it turns out, to go close to Christmastime).
I ask because the protocol at the facility, as relayed to me by employees of the facility, was 48 hours?-->go to county. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2012, 09:17:29 PM
I ask because the protocol at the facility, as relayed to me by employees of the facility, was 48 hours?-->go to county. :P
Three days, it wouldn't even have been worth moving you. By the time you got there and processed, it'd practically be time to process you out.
Nah, he can go without a toothbrush for three days.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2012, 09:19:54 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2012, 09:17:29 PM
I ask because the protocol at the facility, as relayed to me by employees of the facility, was 48 hours?-->go to county. :P
Three days, it wouldn't even have been worth moving you. By the time you got there and processed, it'd practically be time to process you out.
Nah, he can go without a toothbrush for three days.
It's more serious when they say "Nah, he can go without his meds for three days." Or like here where the dumbfucks at the county jail sell the pills on the street.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2012, 09:19:54 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2012, 09:17:29 PM
I ask because the protocol at the facility, as relayed to me by employees of the facility, was 48 hours?-->go to county. :P
Three days, it wouldn't even have been worth moving you. By the time you got there and processed, it'd practically be time to process you out.
Nah, he can go without a toothbrush for three days.
Agree on the no-movement, but it's pretty gross to have someone not practice basic hygiene for that long.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2012, 09:39:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2012, 09:19:54 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2012, 09:17:29 PM
I ask because the protocol at the facility, as relayed to me by employees of the facility, was 48 hours?-->go to county. :P
Three days, it wouldn't even have been worth moving you. By the time you got there and processed, it'd practically be time to process you out.
Nah, he can go without a toothbrush for three days.
Agree on the no-movement, but it's pretty gross to have someone not practice basic hygiene for that long.
Yeah, but a lot of the cops themselves probably go longer than that with brushing.
Quote from: mongers on July 24, 2012, 05:22:14 PM
I thought some liked to see America as a place you could 'start over' again with relative ease ?
Australia was the penal colony.
The mayor of Vienna's first district has been lobbying for laws against public drinking (unless you're in a bar, restaurant etc.) in her district. Her stated intention: it brings down the flair of the Inner City if people behave like cheap backpack tourists.
I was very surprised by laws against public drinking in Canada. We have no such laws in HK, and it is not a big problem for us. I thought Canada was an alcohol-friendly and free country :ph34r:
I really don't get the sex hate. So what if a guy used a prostitute?
If the guy has to go to prostitutes to get laid then he clearly doesn't have much of a social life and thus can devote himself wholeheartedly to the job. :P
Quote from: Tyr on July 25, 2012, 02:51:00 AM
I really don't get the sex hate. So what if a guy used a prostitute?
If the guy has to go to prostitutes to get laid then he clearly doesn't have much of a social life and thus can devote himself wholeheartedly to the job. :P
You aren't supposed to break the rules even if you don't agree with them; and above all, you aren't supposed to be caught :P
Quote from: Monoriu on July 25, 2012, 03:18:54 AM
You aren't supposed to break the rules even if you don't agree with them; and above all, you aren't supposed to be caught :P
What happened to civil disobedience?
Quote from: Tyr on July 25, 2012, 02:51:00 AM
I really don't get the sex hate. So what if a guy used a prostitute?
If the guy has to go to prostitutes to get laid then he clearly doesn't have much of a social life and thus can devote himself wholeheartedly to the job. :P
Or his attracted to people that he doesn't know how to attain - or has a fetish that he wants indulged - or simply likes the ease of paying for no-strings sex...or...and the list continues.
I was joking.
But I seriously don't see having been caught seeing a prostitute as that big a crime in terms of do you hire somebody or not.
Quote from: Tyr on July 25, 2012, 09:27:31 AM
I was joking.
But I seriously don't see having been caught seeing a prostitute as that big a crime in terms of do you hire somebody or not.
I guess it depends on where one stands on moral turpitude and what they think should be considered.
Also - aren't jokes supposed to be funny? ;)
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 09:33:11 AM
Also - aren't jokes supposed to be funny? ;)
Common misconception.
Quote from: Tyr on July 25, 2012, 09:27:31 AM
I was joking.
But I seriously don't see having been caught seeing a prostitute as that big a crime in terms of do you hire somebody or not.
Again this might be only in Canada but...
If you're being charged with solicitation that means you're picking up streetwalkers. The public sex trade has a host of small but noticeable problems associated with it.
Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2012, 09:37:10 AM
Again this might be only in Canada but...
If you're being charged with solicitation that means you're picking up streetwalkers. The public sex trade has a host of small but noticeable problems associated with it.
But that's because you have a different stance on prostitution. Prostitution is illegal here, not just the public marketing.
How do employers in the US find out about criminal records? Here employers have to be careful about such things because if the obtain the criminal record and do not hire the person they then have the onus of establishing the there is a nexus between the crime commited and the employment.
Most jobs, but not all, have a nexus with crimes involving fraud or theft. But it is pretty hard to demonstrate a nexus between most other crimes and employment functions.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 12:22:24 PM
How do employers in the US find out about criminal records? Here employers have to be careful about such things because if the obtain the criminal record and do not hire the person they then have the onus of establishing the there is a nexus between the crime commited and the employment.
Most jobs, but not all, have a nexus with crimes involving fraud or theft. But it is pretty hard to demonstrate a nexus between most other crimes and employment functions.
Start with something like this...
https://www.intelius.com/criminal-check.html
Ok now go on to answer the next part of the query.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2012, 12:22:24 PM
How do employers in the US find out about criminal records?
They ask you for it (or for executive summary of it, in cases like Ide's).
Another potential ha-ha:
Employers can't ask how a Veteran was discharged. So no asking if they were dishonorably discharged. However, I've noticed Vets will mention their discharge status in a resume (HONORABLY DISCHARGED! SEMPER FI! or medically discharged) so if don't see a hint of that in the resume, I get leery.
Just me though. I'll gladly hire a vet. Just not a nut.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 25, 2012, 12:39:18 PM
Another potential ha-ha:
Employers can't ask how a Veteran was discharged. So no asking if they were dishonorably discharged. However, I've noticed Vets will mention their discharge status in a resume (HONORABLY DISCHARGED! SEMPER FI! or medically discharged) so if don't see a hint of that in the resume, I get leery.
Just me though. I'll gladly hire a vet. Just not a nut.
I really hate these kinds of loopholes. The spirit of the law establishing protected classes is that some information just shouldn't be available, it's not just that employers shouldn't be allowed to ask for it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 25, 2012, 12:39:18 PM
Just me though. I'll gladly hire a vet. Just not a nut.
I guess siegebreaker is out of luck. :(
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 12:42:36 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 25, 2012, 12:39:18 PM
Another potential ha-ha:
Employers can't ask how a Veteran was discharged. So no asking if they were dishonorably discharged. However, I've noticed Vets will mention their discharge status in a resume (HONORABLY DISCHARGED! SEMPER FI! or medically discharged) so if don't see a hint of that in the resume, I get leery.
Just me though. I'll gladly hire a vet. Just not a nut.
I really hate these kinds of loopholes. The spirit of the law establishing protected classes is that some information just shouldn't be available, it's not just that employers shouldn't be allowed to ask for it.
Isn't this loop whole created by the applicants?
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 12:43:40 PM
Isn't this loop whole created by the applicants?
It's created by some of the applicants that want to get an unfair advantage. It's enabled by employers who consciously or subconsciously act on such information. After a while, it can create a situation where you have to make use of that loophole as an applicant in order to avoid the assumption that you belong to the legally protected undesirable class, which then completely negates the law.
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 12:42:36 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 25, 2012, 12:39:18 PM
Another potential ha-ha:
Employers can't ask how a Veteran was discharged. So no asking if they were dishonorably discharged. However, I've noticed Vets will mention their discharge status in a resume (HONORABLY DISCHARGED! SEMPER FI! or medically discharged) so if don't see a hint of that in the resume, I get leery.
Just me though. I'll gladly hire a vet. Just not a nut.
I really hate these kinds of loopholes. The spirit of the law establishing protected classes is that some information just shouldn't be available, it's not just that employers shouldn't be allowed to ask for it.
There is no loophole. I'm not a robot. I'm going to use my years of experience and my gut to guide my hires. That can't be eliminated from the hiring process.
I'll follow the law. But dammit, if I don't want somebody, I'll find a legal excuse.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 25, 2012, 12:47:50 PM
There is no loophole. I'm not a robot. I'm going to use my years of experience and my gut to guide my hires. That can't be eliminated from the hiring process.
I'll follow the law. But dammit, if I don't want somebody, I'll find a legal excuse.
Finding a legal excuse to do something the spirit of which is proscribed is exactly the definition of a loophole.
I disagree. It is smart business practices. :)
I'm not going to hire the tattoo freak, the mutant and the heretic.
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 12:47:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 12:43:40 PM
Isn't this loop whole created by the applicants?
It's created by some of the applicants that want to get an unfair advantage. It's enabled by employers who consciously or subconsciously act on such information. After a while, it can create a situation where you have to make use of that loophole as an applicant in order to avoid the assumption that you belong to the legally protected undesirable class, which then completely negates the law.
So an employer should ignore evidence in front of them?
It's a stupid law. Why shouldn't employers be allowed to know some fuckup was dishonorably discharged?
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 12:58:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 12:47:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 12:43:40 PM
Isn't this loop whole created by the applicants?
It's created by some of the applicants that want to get an unfair advantage. It's enabled by employers who consciously or subconsciously act on such information. After a while, it can create a situation where you have to make use of that loophole as an applicant in order to avoid the assumption that you belong to the legally protected undesirable class, which then completely negates the law.
So an employer should ignore evidence in front of them?
No, you can't blame participants of the flawed system for taking advantage of the system, unless they had a hand in making the system flawed in the first place. Ultimately the fault for the loopholes lies with those who created them, not exploited them. It doesn't mean that you should just live with it either, though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 01:01:22 PM
It's a stupid law. Why shouldn't employers be allowed to know some fuckup was dishonorably discharged?
If I had my old HR handbooks in front of me, I'd give the reason the legal beagles came up with.
What I can remember was that with all the different kinds of discharges, it protects the medical dischargees and ones discharged for other non-nasty causes.
And yes, before somebody does the joke, I did a stint in HR for several months. HA HA. :(
You don't need any reason other than "I liked the other guy better". Who cares.
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 01:01:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 12:58:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 12:47:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 12:43:40 PM
Isn't this loop whole created by the applicants?
It's created by some of the applicants that want to get an unfair advantage. It's enabled by employers who consciously or subconsciously act on such information. After a while, it can create a situation where you have to make use of that loophole as an applicant in order to avoid the assumption that you belong to the legally protected undesirable class, which then completely negates the law.
So an employer should ignore evidence in front of them?
No, you can't blame participants of the flawed system for taking advantage of the system, unless they had a hand in making the system flawed in the first place. Ultimately the fault for the loopholes lies with those who created them, not exploited them. It doesn't mean that you should just live with it either, though.
The only way to close that one would be to make it a crime for an honorably discharged veteran to tell people that he was honorably discharged.
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 01:19:00 PM
The only way to close that one would be to make it a crime for an honorably discharged veteran to tell people that he was honorably discharged.
You could make it mandatory that employers put their hands over their ears and start to shout LALALALALALALALA as soon as the vet starts talking about it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 01:20:18 PM
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 01:19:00 PM
The only way to close that one would be to make it a crime for an honorably discharged veteran to tell people that he was honorably discharged.
You could make it mandatory that employers put their hands over their ears and start to shout LALALALALALALALA as soon as the vet starts talking about it.
And maybe companies could have software that automatically redacts parts of resumes.
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 01:19:00 PM
The only way to close that one would be to make it a crime for an honorably discharged veteran to tell people that he was honorably discharged.
Really, that's the only way? :rolleyes: I can think of at least another way. You can require employers to clearly state on their application that any details related to protected classes (listed out) SHOULD NOT be disclosed, unless clearly relevant to pertinent information (if you're applying to a teaching job, and have past experience in a parochial school, then obviously there is no getting around disclosing that). Disclosing such information anyway should be viewed dimly by the hiring manager screening the applications.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 01:20:18 PM
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 01:19:00 PM
The only way to close that one would be to make it a crime for an honorably discharged veteran to tell people that he was honorably discharged.
You could make it mandatory that employers put their hands over their ears and start to shout LALALALALALALALA as soon as the vet starts talking about it.
The HR person who instructed me on how to conduct interviews did recommend changing the subject quickly when a candidate voluntarily disclosed something we are prohibited from asking about.
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 01:35:28 PM
Disclosing such information anyway should be viewed dimly by the hiring manager screening the applications.
Maybe though seems odd that they'd want to shoot themselves in the foot. After all, for myself the fact that I'm single with no mortgage - meaning that I can easily pack up my life and move elsewhere, isn't something that employers can ask me about but is a positive if you're looking for candidates to relocate.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 01:54:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 01:35:28 PM
Disclosing such information anyway should be viewed dimly by the hiring manager screening the applications.
Maybe though seems odd that they'd want to shoot themselves in the foot. After all, for myself the fact that I'm single with no mortgage - meaning that I can easily pack up my life and move elsewhere, isn't something that employers can ask me about but is a positive if you're looking for candidates to relocate.
When I applied for my current job I was told "you sound great, but you've moved around a fair bit - how do I know you won't just move again in a few years?"
Now, they of course are prohibited from asking me about marital and family status. But when I then volunteered that we wanted to move because of new baby / wanted to be close to family that seemed to be a very acceptable answer to the question, and I got the job.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 01:54:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 01:35:28 PM
Disclosing such information anyway should be viewed dimly by the hiring manager screening the applications.
Maybe though seems odd that they'd want to shoot themselves in the foot. After all, for myself the fact that I'm single with no mortgage - meaning that I can easily pack up my life and move elsewhere, isn't something that employers can ask me about but is a positive if you're looking for candidates to relocate.
Of course they would be shooting themselves in the foot. If there were no advantage from taking protected information into account when making decisions, we wouldn't need laws that establish protected classes to begin with.
Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2012, 01:57:01 PM
When I applied for my current job I was told "you sound great, but you've moved around a fair bit - how do I know you won't just move again in a few years?"
Now, they of course are prohibited from asking me about marital and family status. But when I then volunteered that we wanted to move because of new baby / wanted to be close to family that seemed to be a very acceptable answer to the question, and I got the job.
Well that's just a matter of tailoring your message to your audience/job description. Wasn't saying it was a hard fast rule. :P
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 02:00:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 01:54:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 01:35:28 PM
Disclosing such information anyway should be viewed dimly by the hiring manager screening the applications.
Maybe though seems odd that they'd want to shoot themselves in the foot. After all, for myself the fact that I'm single with no mortgage - meaning that I can easily pack up my life and move elsewhere, isn't something that employers can ask me about but is a positive if you're looking for candidates to relocate.
Of course they would be shooting themselves in the foot. If there were no advantage from taking protected information into account when making decisions, we wouldn't need laws that establish protected classes to begin with.
My point is that you can't really prevent such information from being shared if the applicant wants to - unless you have companies do the illogical thing of throwing out better candidates.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 02:15:18 PM
My point is that you can't really prevent such information from being shared if the applicant wants to - unless you have companies do the illogical thing of throwing out better candidates.
It won't be illogical if there are legal repercussions for doing it.
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 02:20:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 02:15:18 PM
My point is that you can't really prevent such information from being shared if the applicant wants to - unless you have companies do the illogical thing of throwing out better candidates.
It won't be illogical if there are legal repercussions for doing it.
It would be illogical for companies to not seek the candidate who is best fit for the position. It would be illogical for candidates to not share information that could bolster their application.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 02:25:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 02:20:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 02:15:18 PM
My point is that you can't really prevent such information from being shared if the applicant wants to - unless you have companies do the illogical thing of throwing out better candidates.
It won't be illogical if there are legal repercussions for doing it.
It would be illogical for companies to not seek the candidate who is best fit for the position. It would be illogical for candidates to not share information that could bolster their application.
Does this in any way address what I just said?
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 02:36:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 02:25:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 02:20:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 02:15:18 PM
My point is that you can't really prevent such information from being shared if the applicant wants to - unless you have companies do the illogical thing of throwing out better candidates.
It won't be illogical if there are legal repercussions for doing it.
It would be illogical for companies to not seek the candidate who is best fit for the position. It would be illogical for candidates to not share information that could bolster their application.
Does this in any way address what I just said?
Should have included the word "still". Even if there were legal repercussions it would be illogical for both parties. Though I guess if your aim is to make sure that companies have less quality workers, that would be one method.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 02:42:22 PM
Should have included the word "still". Even if there were legal repercussions it would be illogical for both parties. Though I guess if your aim is to make sure that companies have less quality workers, that would be one method.
There are more than two parties involved.
At least we can do IQ tests.
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 02:47:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 02:42:22 PM
Should have included the word "still". Even if there were legal repercussions it would be illogical for both parties. Though I guess if your aim is to make sure that companies have less quality workers, that would be one method.
There are more than two parties involved.
Yeah, I guess the applicants who would be less of a fit.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 02:59:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 02:47:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 02:42:22 PM
Should have included the word "still". Even if there were legal repercussions it would be illogical for both parties. Though I guess if your aim is to make sure that companies have less quality workers, that would be one method.
There are more than two parties involved.
Yeah, I guess the applicants who would be less of a fit.
Yes, like the applicants who are pregnant. Or the applicants who have children, and thus might need to, *gasp*, take extra sick days to take care of their children. Or applicants who have disabilities. Or applicants who are gay.
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 01:41:00 PM
The HR person who instructed me on how to conduct interviews did recommend changing the subject quickly when a candidate voluntarily disclosed something we are prohibited from asking about.
What we were taught was that while there are things that we can't ask about, we can always listen to what the applicant volunteers.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 25, 2012, 01:06:11 PM
You don't need any reason other than "I liked the other guy better". Who cares.
Because once an employer has information they shouldnt have regarding a prohibited ground of discrimination then the onus shifts to the employer proving that the prohibited ground played no factor in the decision not to hire. "I liked the other guy better" no longer cuts it in those circumstances.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 12:58:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 12:47:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 12:43:40 PM
Isn't this loop whole created by the applicants?
It's created by some of the applicants that want to get an unfair advantage. It's enabled by employers who consciously or subconsciously act on such information. After a while, it can create a situation where you have to make use of that loophole as an applicant in order to avoid the assumption that you belong to the legally protected undesirable class, which then completely negates the law.
So an employer should ignore evidence in front of them?
You make it sound like it is harder than it is. You simply set out the information that prospective employees must provide and disqualify applications that volunteer extra information.
Many companies now do it when it comes to pictures of applicants, for example.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 01:01:22 PM
It's a stupid law. Why shouldn't employers be allowed to know some fuckup was dishonorably discharged?
Weren't gay people prior to repeal of DADT dishonorably discharged? Then it could be seen as an indirect way of finding out someone's sexual orientation.
Anyway, in Poland, the law sets out the type of information the employer can ask the employee to provide - and asking for, storing or processing other types of information, especially sensitive information, is illegal (and can result in fines). This includes for example criminal record except for jobs that expressly call for no criminal record (such as police officers, state prosecutors, people handling guns or cash etc.), sexual orientation, religion, political views, medical record etc.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 04:05:24 PM
Anyway, in Poland, the law sets out the type of information the employer can ask the employee to provide - and asking for, storing or processing other types of information is illegal (and can result in fines). This includes for example criminal record except for jobs that expressly call for no criminal record (such as police officers, state prosecutors, people handling guns or cash etc.).
I guess there is something Poland is better at than US. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 04:05:24 PM
Anyway, in Poland, the law sets out the type of information the employer can ask the employee to provide - and asking for, storing or processing other types of information is illegal (and can result in fines). This includes for example criminal record except for jobs that expressly call for no criminal record (such as police officers, state prosecutors, people handling guns or cash etc.).
I guess there is something Poland is better at than US. :hmm:
It's mainly thanks to the EU, though. I guess if our politicians had free reign, it would be rabid American-style capitalism.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 04:09:28 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 04:05:24 PM
Anyway, in Poland, the law sets out the type of information the employer can ask the employee to provide - and asking for, storing or processing other types of information is illegal (and can result in fines). This includes for example criminal record except for jobs that expressly call for no criminal record (such as police officers, state prosecutors, people handling guns or cash etc.).
I guess there is something Poland is better at than US. :hmm:
It's mainly thanks to the EU, though. I guess if our politicians had free reign, it would be rabid American-style capitalism.
Whew, everything makes sense again.
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 03:03:52 PM
Yes, like the applicants who are pregnant. Or the applicants who have children, and thus might need to, *gasp*, take extra sick days to take care of their children. Or applicants who have disabilities. Or applicants who are gay.
The employer wasn't seeking said info and the applicant voluntarily supplied it? That's what we're discussing right? It is nice to say that such voluntary admissions have no influence, but that's unrealistic, no?
Besides you and Marti's suggestion seems to be that people volunteered any of that above info should be disqualified. Should someone be disqualified for saying they have kids/are disabled/are gay?
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 04:05:24 PM
Anyway, in Poland, the law sets out the type of information the employer can ask the employee to provide - and asking for, storing or processing other types of information is illegal (and can result in fines). This includes for example criminal record except for jobs that expressly call for no criminal record (such as police officers, state prosecutors, people handling guns or cash etc.).
I guess there is something Poland is better at than US. :hmm:
:huh:
We also have regulations on what employers can ask. Also when I was reviewing Euro CVs - it seemed like applicants were much more likely to list things we never would - like marital status.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 04:27:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 04:05:24 PM
Anyway, in Poland, the law sets out the type of information the employer can ask the employee to provide - and asking for, storing or processing other types of information is illegal (and can result in fines). This includes for example criminal record except for jobs that expressly call for no criminal record (such as police officers, state prosecutors, people handling guns or cash etc.).
I guess there is something Poland is better at than US. :hmm:
:huh:
We also have regulations on what employers can ask. Also when I was reviewing Euro CVs - it seemed like applicants were much more likely to list things we never would - like marital status.
I was referring to the criminal record part in this particular case. I thought the context was obvious enough to not have to point it out, given how I just discussed at length the American laws about protected classes.
I'm a little surprised that an actuary is arguing in favor of the suppression of information.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 04:05:24 PM
Anyway, in Poland, the law sets out the type of information the employer can ask the employee to provide - and asking for, storing or processing other types of information, especially sensitive information, is illegal (and can result in fines). This includes for example criminal record except for jobs that expressly call for no criminal record (such as police officers, state prosecutors, people handling guns or cash etc.), sexual orientation, religion, political views, medical record etc.
How do you not store or process information that is voluntarily stated by an applicant during an interview? That's sort of like a law making it a crime for me to get wet if someone spills water on me.
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 05:10:28 PM
How do you not store or process information that is voluntarily stated by an applicant during an interview?
:hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 04:02:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 01:01:22 PM
It's a stupid law. Why shouldn't employers be allowed to know some fuckup was dishonorably discharged?
Weren't gay people prior to repeal of DADT dishonorably discharged?
I think it was a general discharge.
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 05:10:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 04:05:24 PM
Anyway, in Poland, the law sets out the type of information the employer can ask the employee to provide - and asking for, storing or processing other types of information, especially sensitive information, is illegal (and can result in fines). This includes for example criminal record except for jobs that expressly call for no criminal record (such as police officers, state prosecutors, people handling guns or cash etc.), sexual orientation, religion, political views, medical record etc.
How do you not store or process information that is voluntarily stated by an applicant during an interview? That's sort of like a law making it a crime for me to get wet if someone spills water on me.
How does a jury disregard information it shouldn't have seen or heard?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 04:58:59 PM
I'm a little surprised that an actuary is arguing in favor of the suppression of information.
Why? As an actuary, I understand that discrimination can actually be rational, which means that market forces wouldn't make it disappear. As a human being, I think some forms of discrimination are too socially damaging to be worth the predictive power discrimination provides.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 04:24:47 PM
The employer wasn't seeking said info and the applicant voluntarily supplied it? That's what we're discussing right? It is nice to say that such voluntary admissions have no influence, but that's unrealistic, no?
Besides you and Marti's suggestion seems to be that people volunteered any of that above info should be disqualified. Should someone be disqualified for saying they have kids/are disabled/are gay?
I wonder if applicants sometimes think that if they blurt out the info you will be afraid not to hire them because you don't want to discriminate against them for it. Or maybe so they can accuse you if you don't.
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 05:20:20 PM
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 05:10:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 04:05:24 PM
Anyway, in Poland, the law sets out the type of information the employer can ask the employee to provide - and asking for, storing or processing other types of information, especially sensitive information, is illegal (and can result in fines). This includes for example criminal record except for jobs that expressly call for no criminal record (such as police officers, state prosecutors, people handling guns or cash etc.), sexual orientation, religion, political views, medical record etc.
How do you not store or process information that is voluntarily stated by an applicant during an interview? That's sort of like a law making it a crime for me to get wet if someone spills water on me.
How does a jury disregard information it shouldn't have seen or heard?
Do the jurors really disregard it?
Whenever dps and sbr get into a discussion I have a helluvatime keeping track of who's who.
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 06:24:26 PM
Do the jurors really disregard it?
I guess if it went something like this:
Defendant: "I stabbed her because that cheating bitch deserved it."
Prosecutor: "Objection! That's speculation!"
Judge: "Sustained. Please disregard that comment."
Then it's probably hard to disregard it. However, if it was a minor comment that doesn't seem to be apparently revealing, then the jury would probably forget about it as they go on deliberating.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 06:28:00 PM
Whenever dps and sbr get into a discussion I have a helluvatime keeping track of who's who.
I thought I was the only one.
I always confuse dps with Derspeiss.
Bah, you can find out easily enough what type of discharge a vet received; it's on their DD-214, which employers require from veterans as proof of their service. It's not a state secret or anything. Says exactly what kid of discharge it was, along with the discharge code.
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 06:33:07 PM
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 06:24:26 PM
Do the jurors really disregard it?
I guess if it went something like this:
Defendant: "I stabbed her because that cheating bitch deserved it."
Prosecutor: "Objection! That's speculation!"
Judge: "Sustained. Please disregard that comment."
Then it's probably hard to disregard it. However, if it was a minor comment that doesn't seem to be apparently revealing, then the jury would probably forget about it as they go on deliberating.
Fair enough.
And that's not really that different from how it works in interviews, either. If an applicant tells me that he's diabetic, that's not something that I care about, so I may well not even remember it later unless he makes it a major point of discussion during the interview. OTOH, if he mentions in passing that while he's never been convicted of a felony, he did get away with raping a few women, I'm definately going to remember that and not hire him.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2012, 06:50:04 PM
Bah, you can find out easily enough what type of discharge a vet received; it's on their DD-214, which employers require from veterans as proof of their service. It's not a state secret or anything. Says exactly what kid of discharge it was, along with the discharge code.
Too easy. Plus that would actually require me to actually work and delve into the HR Sarlacc pit. Which, thank god, I outsourced to a firm in Columbus.
I'd rather just guess and annoy DG with using my gut in hiring. :)
Outside of government, who requires proof of service?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2012, 06:50:04 PM
Bah, you can find out easily enough what type of discharge a vet received; it's on their DD-214, which employers require from veterans as proof of their service. It's not a state secret or anything. Says exactly what kid of discharge it was, along with the discharge code.
IIRC, you're only supposed to ask for the DD-214 after you've hired them, so you can document hiring a veteran in order to claim a tax break.
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 07:00:55 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2012, 06:50:04 PM
Bah, you can find out easily enough what type of discharge a vet received; it's on their DD-214, which employers require from veterans as proof of their service. It's not a state secret or anything. Says exactly what kid of discharge it was, along with the discharge code.
IIRC, you're only supposed to ask for the DD-214 after you've hired them, so you can document hiring a veteran in order to claim a tax break.
You IIRC wrong. It's proof of employment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 07:00:02 PM
Outside of government, who requires proof of service?
Plenty of employers. It's no different than verifying any other type of previous employment.
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 03:30:35 PM
What we were taught was that while there are things that we can't ask about, we can always listen to what the applicant volunteers.
:yes: That is correct.
I know I've mentioned this before on Languish but it's surprisingly easy to trick people into freely disclosing protected info in an interview if you really want to be an asshole about it.
Here's a good way to trick a female applicant into disclosing whether or not she has kids: display a pic of your kids (or if you don't have kids, download a random pic of some kid that looks like you off of Google Image Search, put it in a frame) prominently on your desk where the candidate can see it. Many if not most that have kids of their own will, if you give them an opening to chit-chat, try to make small talk about it relating your kid to theirs... "Oh, my little Tyler is in Little League too! How old is your son?" What they think they're doing is giving you a hook by which you can relate to them. What I'd be really hearing in that case is "Great, she'll be out once a week because 'Tyler is sick again'. DO NOT WANT."
I promise I've never done this :goodboy:, but I used to work with a guy who actually did it, and he didn't have kids so he was using the Google pic trick.
You should blacklist her not for having a kid but for naming him "Tyler".
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 25, 2012, 09:17:40 PM
You should blacklist her not for having a kid but for naming him "Tyler".
:sleep: I picked that soccer-mommish name for a reason.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2012, 07:02:56 PM
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 07:00:55 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2012, 06:50:04 PM
Bah, you can find out easily enough what type of discharge a vet received; it's on their DD-214, which employers require from veterans as proof of their service. It's not a state secret or anything. Says exactly what kid of discharge it was, along with the discharge code.
IIRC, you're only supposed to ask for the DD-214 after you've hired them, so you can document hiring a veteran in order to claim a tax break.
You IIRC wrong. It's proof of employment.
I must be confusing it with some other program that gave the company a tax break for hiring certain applicants.
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 07:00:55 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2012, 06:50:04 PM
Bah, you can find out easily enough what type of discharge a vet received; it's on their DD-214, which employers require from veterans as proof of their service. It's not a state secret or anything. Says exactly what kid of discharge it was, along with the discharge code.
IIRC, you're only supposed to ask for the DD-214 after you've hired them, so you can document hiring a veteran in order to claim a tax break.
As I understand it, to get a DD these days, you pretty much need to have gone through a court martial action. Might be hard to hide that completely.
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 10:04:41 PM
I must be confusing it with some other program that gave the company a tax break for hiring certain applicants.
No, there's all sorts of bona fide goodies for companies that hire vets; the part about only getting the DD-214 after they've been hired was what I was disagreeing with.
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 04:41:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 04:27:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 04:05:24 PM
Anyway, in Poland, the law sets out the type of information the employer can ask the employee to provide - and asking for, storing or processing other types of information is illegal (and can result in fines). This includes for example criminal record except for jobs that expressly call for no criminal record (such as police officers, state prosecutors, people handling guns or cash etc.).
I guess there is something Poland is better at than US. :hmm:
:huh:
We also have regulations on what employers can ask. Also when I was reviewing Euro CVs - it seemed like applicants were much more likely to list things we never would - like marital status.
I was referring to the criminal record part in this particular case. I thought the context was obvious enough to not have to point it out, given how I just discussed at length the American laws about protected classes.
From your posts, I have no reason to assume you are intelligent or even rational/consistent.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 25, 2012, 10:06:26 PM
As I understand it, to get a DD these days, you pretty much need to have gone through a court martial action. Might be hard to hide that completely.
Can't hide the OTH, either.
Knew a guy that had an OTH; was in the Pentagon on 9/11, lost his boss, went a little cuckoo in the head for a bit and AWOL for about 3 weeks. It's been cockblocking his career ever since.
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2012, 09:02:09 PM
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 03:30:35 PM
What we were taught was that while there are things that we can't ask about, we can always listen to what the applicant volunteers.
:yes: That is correct.
I know I've mentioned this before on Languish but it's surprisingly easy to trick people into freely disclosing protected info in an interview if you really want to be an asshole about it.
Here's a good way to trick a female applicant into disclosing whether or not she has kids: display a pic of your kids (or if you don't have kids, download a random pic of some kid that looks like you off of Google Image Search, put it in a frame) prominently on your desk where the candidate can see it. Many if not most that have kids of their own will, if you give them an opening to chit-chat, try to make small talk about it relating your kid to theirs... "Oh, my little Tyler is in Little League too! How old is your son?" What they think they're doing is giving you a hook by which you can relate to them. What I'd be really hearing in that case is "Great, she'll be out once a week because 'Tyler is sick again'. DO NOT WANT."
I promise I've never done this :goodboy:, but I used to work with a guy who actually did it, and he didn't have kids so he was using the Google pic trick.
You are an evil man. I'm impressed. Especially when it comes to the goddamn breeders.
Quote from: dps on July 25, 2012, 06:55:30 PM
And that's not really that different from how it works in interviews, either. If an applicant tells me that he's diabetic, that's not something that I care about, so I may well not even remember it later unless he makes it a major point of discussion during the interview. OTOH, if he mentions in passing that while he's never been convicted of a felony, he did get away with raping a few women, I'm definately going to remember that and not hire him.
:unsure: Crap, I need a new prepared answer to the "Tell me when you faced a challenging situation, and how did you resolve it?" behavioral question.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:20:52 PM
From your posts, I have no reason to assume you are intelligent or even rational/consistent.
Weak, and a little forced.
Cal, just to let you know, I have already sold your know how on fettering out "soccer moms" to several people in my office. They all love it and think of using it in hiring. :P
Quote from: Martinus on July 26, 2012, 12:49:03 AM
You are an evil man. I'm impressed. Especially when it comes to the goddamn breeders.
At least he didn't jack off to it.
Quote from: Martinus on July 26, 2012, 03:35:11 AM
Cal, just to let you know, I have already sold your know how on fettering out "soccer moms" to several people in my office. They all love it and think of using it in hiring. :P
Anything I can do to help out a Polish law firm. :cool:
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 03:02:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 24, 2012, 02:38:09 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 24, 2012, 02:31:35 PM
Truth be told, even within Europe there are significant cultural differences. For example, from what I read here and in other places I get the impression that drinking alone is quite common in Northern Europe. I don't think I've ever done that. For me and those around me that's a sign of alcoholism and would be frowned upon.
So a wealthy real estate baron, sipping a Calvados alone in the library of his ancient manse, while examining the list of properties for sale, would be frowned upon in Spain?
What difference does it make who he is or how much money he's got? :unsure:
Maybe it's different in other parts/subsets of Spain (Larchie?) but in my environment drinking is a social thing. Some wine with dinner and such is fine. Hard liquor on your own just feels wrong.
Yup, the same, on your own it's at most a beer or a glass of wine, but at the same time there have been countless generations of construction workers that have had their carajillos religiously throughout their lives as if it was the most normal thing to do in the world.
Today in Pressing Charges: A mentally retarded 62 y.o woman attempts to steal $4.39 of pork rinds from Food Lion, Inc. The rinds are recovered. The police are called, a citation is issued, counsel is appointed, and a court date is set.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 26, 2012, 07:02:39 PM
Today in Pressing Charges: A mentally retarded 62 y.o woman attempts to steal $4.39 of pork rinds from Food Lion, Inc. The rinds are recovered. The police are called, a citation is issued, counsel is appointed, and a court date is set.
What do you think the optimal resolution would have been?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2012, 07:07:37 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 26, 2012, 07:02:39 PM
Today in Pressing Charges: A mentally retarded 62 y.o woman attempts to steal $4.39 of pork rinds from Food Lion, Inc. The rinds are recovered. The police are called, a citation is issued, counsel is appointed, and a court date is set.
What do you think the optimal resolution would have been?
Take back the rinds, eject her from the store. A formal ban would be appropriate for someone with capacity to understand it, otherwise put her on the unofficial "kick out of store" list.
The amount of money the taxpayers of N.C. are going to pay isn't negligible. State-paid cops cite her, a state-paid bailiff gives her the affidavit of indigency form, a state-paid PD is appointed, spends time talking to her caretakers, then negotiates with the state-paid ADA in the state-funded courtroom in front of the state-paid judge, with the ultimate resolution being a dismissal one way or another.
Do they have a "we ALWAYS call the cops on shoplifters" policy?
That is some expensive pork rinds. 4.39? Wow.
I'm assuming it was one bag.
I'm dealing with a case right now where an employee of a client is having her security clearance (she works at an airline) questioned because her father was a crook. It would be a sad thing altogether if she loses her job because of this - her father's criminality ruined her childhood, she managed to work her way into a responsible job, and now the fact that her father is a crook threatens to ruin that, too.
Quote from: Malthus on July 27, 2012, 08:16:15 AM
I'm dealing with a case right now where an employee of a client is having her security clearance (she works at an airline) questioned because her father was a crook. It would be a sad thing altogether if she loses her job because of this - her father's criminality ruined her childhood, she managed to work her way into a responsible job, and now the fact that her father is a crook threatens to ruin that, too.
Wow. That's more outrageous than sad. I wonder when did we start going wrong as the society, as you see more insanity like this lately.
Malthus is working for the evil side :o
Odd question, and feel free not to answer, but in cases like this do you or would you try less hard to win?
Quote from: HVC on July 27, 2012, 08:35:55 AM
Malthus is working for the evil side :o
Odd question, and feel free not to answer, but in cases like this do you or would you try less hard to win?
I'm working on
her side, so not really evil. Pro bono I might add, though hardly by choice. :D The major partner I do work for is helping her out as a freebee to the airline she works for, a major client. He's "volunteered" me.
He's a mover and shaker, it's a joy to see him at work even when I'm the butt (sort of). Two days ago, he invites me out for lunch and flatters me totally - asks me my opinion on how to change the department, on what is wrong with our corporate culture, saying he thinks I have a rare talent and I'm underused. The next day, he gives me this pro bono file to do for him. Message is clear - he'll protect me in the department, and I will do the stuff he hasn't time for. :lol: He pleases his major client for the price of some words and lunch. Not that I think he's insencere - he does use me on some very major files.
He has a very rare gift, of manipulating others to do things his way and putting them in his debt by doing it, without angering them by the manipulation. He does this by being totally open and honest in a way.
It's a gift I've seen him use in negotiations with others time and time again. He's not the most intellectual guy in the firm, but he gets stuff done more than anyone I've ever known. Clients who pay his fees are getting their money's worth. I sincerely hope to learn even a little from him - not about the law, which I can learn on my own, but how to get stuff done. I hope it isn't simply an inborn talent.
Shakers are weird.
Quote from: Martinus on July 27, 2012, 08:20:33 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 27, 2012, 08:16:15 AM
I'm dealing with a case right now where an employee of a client is having her security clearance (she works at an airline) questioned because her father was a crook. It would be a sad thing altogether if she loses her job because of this - her father's criminality ruined her childhood, she managed to work her way into a responsible job, and now the fact that her father is a crook threatens to ruin that, too.
Wow. That's more outrageous than sad. I wonder when did we start going wrong as the society, as you see more insanity like this lately.
I dunno.
Now obviously I don't know any details of this case, but back when I did get my own security clearance for the Feds I had to give information about my family. I can see your parent being a serious criminal raising questions about your own reliability - which you then need to answer.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 26, 2012, 07:15:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2012, 07:07:37 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 26, 2012, 07:02:39 PM
Today in Pressing Charges: A mentally retarded 62 y.o woman attempts to steal $4.39 of pork rinds from Food Lion, Inc. The rinds are recovered. The police are called, a citation is issued, counsel is appointed, and a court date is set.
What do you think the optimal resolution would have been?
Take back the rinds, eject her from the store. A formal ban would be appropriate for someone with capacity to understand it, otherwise put her on the unofficial "kick out of store" list.
The amount of money the taxpayers of N.C. are going to pay isn't negligible. State-paid cops cite her, a state-paid bailiff gives her the affidavit of indigency form, a state-paid PD is appointed, spends time talking to her caretakers, then negotiates with the state-paid ADA in the state-funded courtroom in front of the state-paid judge, with the ultimate resolution being a dismissal one way or another.
Here's the $4.39 question - does she have a record of similar offences?
Quote from: Malthus on July 27, 2012, 08:16:15 AM
I'm dealing with a case right now where an employee of a client is having her security clearance (she works at an airline) questioned because her father was a crook. It would be a sad thing altogether if she loses her job because of this - her father's criminality ruined her childhood, she managed to work her way into a responsible job, and now the fact that her father is a crook threatens to ruin that, too.
HK government asks for information on grandparents and your wife's grandparents, brothers, etc. The argument is that if your grandfather is a triad head, and you apply to join the police, it will be a problem.
Quote from: Barrister on July 27, 2012, 09:20:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 27, 2012, 08:20:33 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 27, 2012, 08:16:15 AM
I'm dealing with a case right now where an employee of a client is having her security clearance (she works at an airline) questioned because her father was a crook. It would be a sad thing altogether if she loses her job because of this - her father's criminality ruined her childhood, she managed to work her way into a responsible job, and now the fact that her father is a crook threatens to ruin that, too.
Wow. That's more outrageous than sad. I wonder when did we start going wrong as the society, as you see more insanity like this lately.
I dunno.
Now obviously I don't know any details of this case, but back when I did get my own security clearance for the Feds I had to give information about my family. I can see your parent being a serious criminal raising questions about your own reliability - which you then need to answer.
It's difficult to answer, though.
The best I could do was to tell her story - one of childhood hardship overcome, because her dad being a hardcore crook meant an abandoned family - and point out that she's been employed at numerous responsible jobs without a hint of criminality.
It's obvious reading her letters and interviewing her that she's had demonstrated to her in no uncertain terms that crime leads to misery and poverty and that she's chosen to lead a crime-free life, even moreso because of that harsh experience. But how can you prove it to the satisfaction of some hard-hearted bureaucrat in Ottawa?
I think it's one of those things DGuller mentioned earlier - while statistically there may be some justification for this kind of approach, it is simply so offensive to the basic concept of equality under law and personal (as opposed to group) responsibility, use of such information for the purpose of job application should be outlawed.
You could just as well conclude that since black people are statistically more likely to commit a crime, you would not hire blacks for some jobs as a matter of policy. Or you would refuse health insurance to a gay man because he is more likely to get HIV.
There is a reason why the sovereign decides to outlaw such practices - because, while "rational", they violate the fundamentals of the modern, civilized society.
Quote from: Martinus on July 27, 2012, 10:38:01 AM
I think it's one of those things DGuller mentioned earlier - while statistically there may be some justification for this kind of approach, it is simply so offensive to the basic concept of equality under law and personal (as opposed to group) responsibility, use of such information for the purpose of job application should be outlawed.
You could just as well conclude that since black people are statistically more likely to commit a crime, you would not hire blacks for some jobs as a matter of policy. Or you would refuse health insurance to a gay man because he is more likely to get HIV.
There is a reason why the sovereign decides to outlaw such practices - because, while "rational", they violate the fundamentals of the modern, civilized society.
In this case though, the applicant is seeking to get a security clearance from the federal government, which means she is going to be in a job where she is given access to materials sensitive to public safety.
I agree that a "bad parent" should not be an absolute bar to being granted a security clearance, but I have no problem with it being a point of inquiry.
Well, I guess it's a matter of proportionality, as there are security clearances and there are security clearances. I can see how if she wanted to be a spy or have access to top security secrets of the state, she would be thoroughly vetted, but as an airline employee I suppose this is more of a standard check that thousands of people have, no? In such cases, they should essentially check if you have no criminal record or history of erratic behavior and that's it. You shouldn't be responsible for generations of your ancestors.
Quote from: Barrister on July 27, 2012, 09:20:43 AM
Now obviously I don't know any details of this case, but back when I did get my own security clearance for the Feds I had to give information about my family. I can see your parent being a serious criminal raising questions about your own reliability - which you then need to answer.
Years ago, your family's criminal history used to be a serious bar for a lot of police departments; you had a brother or a father or uncle with a real record, you were nixed by association.
Quote from: Martinus on July 27, 2012, 10:51:07 AM
Well, I guess it's a matter of proportionality, as there are security clearances and there are security clearances. I can see how if she wanted to be a spy or have access to top security secrets of the state, she would be thoroughly vetted, but as an airline employee I suppose this is more of a standard check that thousands of people have, no? In such cases, they should essentially check if you have no criminal record or history of erratic behavior and that's it. You shouldn't be responsible for generations of your ancestors.
Well still it would also depend on how susceptible one might be to the machinations/influence of one's criminal relative. I don't think we're talking about concerns regarding dead relatives?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 10:56:11 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 27, 2012, 09:20:43 AM
Now obviously I don't know any details of this case, but back when I did get my own security clearance for the Feds I had to give information about my family. I can see your parent being a serious criminal raising questions about your own reliability - which you then need to answer.
Years ago, your family's criminal history used to be a serious bar for a lot of police departments; you had a brother or a father or uncle with a real record, you were nixed by association.
Years ago, a nigger couldn't marry a white woman and if he had sex with her, he would have been lynched. Not sure how what happened "years ago" is awfully relevant to modern day's human rights, though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 10:56:11 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 27, 2012, 09:20:43 AM
Now obviously I don't know any details of this case, but back when I did get my own security clearance for the Feds I had to give information about my family. I can see your parent being a serious criminal raising questions about your own reliability - which you then need to answer.
Years ago, your family's criminal history used to be a serious bar for a lot of police departments; you had a brother or a father or uncle with a real record, you were nixed by association.
Which is kind of stupid. One of the most decorated cops in NYPD had multiple close relatives in the mafia. Well, technically he was eventually convicted of being a mafia hit man, but the point is that you could be a highly successful police officer with unsavory family members.
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 11:02:51 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 10:56:11 AM
Years ago, your family's criminal history used to be a serious bar for a lot of police departments; you had a brother or a father or uncle with a real record, you were nixed by association.
Which is kind of stupid. One of the most decorated cops in NYPD had multiple close relatives in the mafia. Well, technically he was eventually convicted of being a mafia hit man, but the point is that you could be a highly successful police officer with unsavory family members.
Which is also why we had so many cops fired and even charged in the BPD, and every once in a while to this day, due to their proximity to the drug trade via family members. Tipping off raids, doing deals for them, even kidnapping under the color of authority. It's been fucking lovely.
Maybe the Dazzling Urbanites in BPD aren't as smart as the Irish or Italian cops in NYPD in keeping their distance from unsavory family members.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 26, 2012, 07:15:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2012, 07:07:37 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 26, 2012, 07:02:39 PM
Today in Pressing Charges: A mentally retarded 62 y.o woman attempts to steal $4.39 of pork rinds from Food Lion, Inc. The rinds are recovered. The police are called, a citation is issued, counsel is appointed, and a court date is set.
What do you think the optimal resolution would have been?
Take back the rinds, eject her from the store. A formal ban would be appropriate for someone with capacity to understand it, otherwise put her on the unofficial "kick out of store" list.
The amount of money the taxpayers of N.C. are going to pay isn't negligible. State-paid cops cite her, a state-paid bailiff gives her the affidavit of indigency form, a state-paid PD is appointed, spends time talking to her caretakers, then negotiates with the state-paid ADA in the state-funded courtroom in front of the state-paid judge, with the ultimate resolution being a dismissal one way or another.
But just remember, the use of the state by corporations and rich people is exactly proportional to that of poor people.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 27, 2012, 02:40:53 PM
But just remember, the use of the state by corporations and rich people is exactly proportional to that of poor people.
Proportional to what? Income or lives?
Quote from: Malthus on July 27, 2012, 09:08:17 AM
I'm working on her side, so not really evil. Pro bono I might add, though hardly by choice. :D The major partner I do work for is helping her out as a freebee to the airline she works for, a major client. He's "volunteered" me.
He's a mover and shaker, it's a joy to see him at work even when I'm the butt (sort of). Two days ago, he invites me out for lunch and flatters me totally - asks me my opinion on how to change the department, on what is wrong with our corporate culture, saying he thinks I have a rare talent and I'm underused. The next day, he gives me this pro bono file to do for him. Message is clear - he'll protect me in the department, and I will do the stuff he hasn't time for. :lol: He pleases his major client for the price of some words and lunch. Not that I think he's insencere - he does use me on some very major files.
He has a very rare gift, of manipulating others to do things his way and putting them in his debt by doing it, without angering them by the manipulation. He does this by being totally open and honest in a way.
It's a gift I've seen him use in negotiations with others time and time again. He's not the most intellectual guy in the firm, but he gets stuff done more than anyone I've ever known. Clients who pay his fees are getting their money's worth. I sincerely hope to learn even a little from him - not about the law, which I can learn on my own, but how to get stuff done. I hope it isn't simply an inborn talent.
Malthus and boss?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fia.media-imdb.com%2Fimages%2FM%2FMV5BMTQ0ODY1Nzg0MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODA4NDA4Nw%40%40._V1._SY317_CR15%2C0%2C214%2C317_.jpg&hash=abbf7bb68d4b7b2d49466472725af45410afd5ce)
Quote from: Barrister on July 27, 2012, 09:21:30 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 26, 2012, 07:15:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2012, 07:07:37 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 26, 2012, 07:02:39 PM
Today in Pressing Charges: A mentally retarded 62 y.o woman attempts to steal $4.39 of pork rinds from Food Lion, Inc. The rinds are recovered. The police are called, a citation is issued, counsel is appointed, and a court date is set.
What do you think the optimal resolution would have been?
Take back the rinds, eject her from the store. A formal ban would be appropriate for someone with capacity to understand it, otherwise put her on the unofficial "kick out of store" list.
The amount of money the taxpayers of N.C. are going to pay isn't negligible. State-paid cops cite her, a state-paid bailiff gives her the affidavit of indigency form, a state-paid PD is appointed, spends time talking to her caretakers, then negotiates with the state-paid ADA in the state-funded courtroom in front of the state-paid judge, with the ultimate resolution being a dismissal one way or another.
Here's the $4.39 question - does she have a record of similar offences?
To me, the question is did the management of the store know that she was mentally retarded to such a degree that should couldn't be tried? If they knew, then simply taking back the pork rinds and kicding her out would have been the best play (assuming that she didn't get violent or anything of that nature, which it would appear she didn't). If they didn't know, they did the right thing in calling the police IMO.
Seem a good time for policy to exercise a little discretion....
Quote from: dps on July 27, 2012, 06:19:41 PM
To me, the question is did the management of the store know that she was mentally retarded to such a degree that should couldn't be tried? If they knew, then simply taking back the pork rinds and kicding her out would have been the best play (assuming that she didn't get violent or anything of that nature, which it would appear she didn't). If they didn't know, they did the right thing in calling the police IMO.
I don't know about law in your jurisdiction.
Here, 'mental retardation' will rarely qualify you as NCRMD (not criminally responsible by reason of mental defect). Hell my 2 year old has okay notions of ownership. I've worked with some pretty profoundly afflicted people, and they know you can't take items from a store without paying for them.
Putting this on the store is bullshit. Of course they should call the cops. You're dealing with a LPO earning close to minimum wage. They are not going to be making a whole lot of nuanced decisions based on public policy.
Once the cops are called... Well this gets back to my original question. Mental issues, first time offender... why the hell does the system care? Should be withdrawn, no problem.
But someone with mental issues who repeatedly shoplifts? Then there's a place for the ciminal justice system. That doesn't mean jail, necessarily. But something needs to be done.
Quote from: dps on July 27, 2012, 06:19:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 27, 2012, 09:21:30 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 26, 2012, 07:15:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2012, 07:07:37 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 26, 2012, 07:02:39 PM
Today in Pressing Charges: A mentally retarded 62 y.o woman attempts to steal $4.39 of pork rinds from Food Lion, Inc. The rinds are recovered. The police are called, a citation is issued, counsel is appointed, and a court date is set.
What do you think the optimal resolution would have been?
Take back the rinds, eject her from the store. A formal ban would be appropriate for someone with capacity to understand it, otherwise put her on the unofficial "kick out of store" list.
The amount of money the taxpayers of N.C. are going to pay isn't negligible. State-paid cops cite her, a state-paid bailiff gives her the affidavit of indigency form, a state-paid PD is appointed, spends time talking to her caretakers, then negotiates with the state-paid ADA in the state-funded courtroom in front of the state-paid judge, with the ultimate resolution being a dismissal one way or another.
Here's the $4.39 question - does she have a record of similar offences?
To me, the question is did the management of the store know that she was mentally retarded to such a degree that should couldn't be tried? If they knew, then simply taking back the pork rinds and kicding her out would have been the best play (assuming that she didn't get violent or anything of that nature, which it would appear she didn't). If they didn't know, they did the right thing in calling the police IMO.
Ever since Reagan dismantled the US public mental health care system, you need to lock up the mentally ill in prisons. If it was good for 18th century England, it is good for the US.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 02:52:31 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 27, 2012, 02:40:53 PM
But just remember, the use of the state by corporations and rich people is exactly proportional to that of poor people.
Proportional to what? Income or lives?
I'm having some difficulty parsing what you mean by "proportional... to lives."
Marti, not sure how you blame mental health on Reagan. That shit started in the 70s as part of a liberal movement in America aimed to restore the "rights" of the mentally ill. Psychiatric hospitals were dramatically de-emphasized because they were seen as "institutionalizing" sick people, and now are mostly only used to house the most extreme cases and the criminally insane. Because the States have basically stopped building new psych hospitals most of them are 50% or more filled with criminal court patients who they have to house, making beds for those who haven't already committed crimes nearly impossible to get.
The liberals who hated psychiatric institutions insisted group homes were the way to go, and yeah for many mental patients a group home is a much better place than a psychiatric hospital. Unfortunately the group home system isn't set up to keep people there who do not want to be there, and group homes have rules. Many people with serious mental illness have serious problems with those rules (no alcohol, no drug use etc), so they refuse to stay in the group home and refuse treatment. Basically achieving what the liberals of the 1970s wanted--mentally ill people having the "freedom" to decide to devolve into untreated and unmedicated insanity.
That's fine for the mostly harmless schizophrenics or manic-depressives who can eke out a minimal existence in society unmedicated, but for the rare person who is deeply mentally disturbed this liberalization of mental health made it a lot harder to get those people committed. Before the 70s, a psychiatrist could basically have anyone committed at least for awhile. This was seen as being too much power, so now they have to explicitly believe someone is an imminent danger to themselves or others to get them committed. Even that decision has to immediately be reviewed by a mental health commissioner and a judicial authority in many jurisdictions. In the 70s a guy like James Holmes would've been taken to the hospital after his first therapy session, but Reagan isn't to blame for why he wasn't.
Needs moar dino.
I don't see an issue with that. Psychiatrists really can't be trusted to have much if any power.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 28, 2012, 11:31:15 AM
Marti, not sure how you blame mental health on Reagan. That shit started in the 70s as part of a liberal movement in America aimed to restore the "rights" of the mentally ill.
It actually goes farther back than that, to Kennedy and the various deinstitutionalization bills his administration passed.
And while I thoroughly enjoy the Hansyesque hyperbole, the heightened awareness of the 70s wasn't so much for the "rights" of the mentally ill as continuing to address the "wrongs" of dysfunctional long-term institutionalization that was really ramped up by Kennedy and Johnson; so you should be satisfied enough with bashing them over that.
It really goes back to the development of Thorazine and the other first-generation anti-psychotics in the mid-50s, which allowed schizophrenia to be controlled with a medication regime.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 28, 2012, 10:44:11 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 02:52:31 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 27, 2012, 02:40:53 PM
But just remember, the use of the state by corporations and rich people is exactly proportional to that of poor people.
Proportional to what? Income or lives?
I'm having some difficulty parsing what you mean by "proportional... to lives."
Your statement can be interpreted in one of two ways. Adding in the obvious irony, it could be interpreted to mean that rich people consume more government services on a per capita basis than a poor person. Or it could be interpreted to mean that a rich person consumes government services disproportionately for every dollar of his income and/or wealth.
I think most people would agree more or less with the first interpretation (although counterarguments could be made about per capita consumption of law enforcement and justice). But taking that as given doesn't advance the progressivity argument, which is what you're aiming at. If you're going to argue progressivity on a consumption of public services argument, you need to demonstrate that each dollar the rich man earns consumes more public services than a dollar a poor man earns.
Actually we've had this discussion before; you tried to do something with shipping or ports IIRC. I have no burning desire to go through it all again but I can't let you just throw out your statement as if it's axiomatic.
Part of the nice thing about the old mental health regime is if a psychiatrist just thought you were "too weird" you would get locked up. That would probably have taken care of dudes like Jared Loughner and James Holmes.
It'd have the downside of also resulting in people like Lettow and Raz being locked up as well...oh wait...what was the downside again?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 28, 2012, 02:26:20 PM
Part of the nice thing about the old mental health regime is if a psychiatrist just thought you were "too weird" you would get locked up. That would probably have taken care of dudes like Jared Loughner and James Holmes.
It'd have the downside of also resulting in people like Lettow and Raz being locked up as well...oh wait...what was the downside again?
It was also a good way of getting rid of drunks.
Indigent drunks you mean. Wealthy drunks don't pass out on the street wearing rags. On the rarer occasion a member of polite society got too drunk in public the authorities were primarily concerned with getting them home safely so they could sleep it off. Chronic drunks on the street were a good target for institutionalization sure.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 28, 2012, 03:07:47 PM
Indigent drunks you mean. Wealthy drunks don't pass out on the street wearing rags. On the rarer occasion a member of polite society got too drunk in public the authorities were primarily concerned with getting them home safely so they could sleep it off. Chronic drunks on the street were a good target for institutionalization sure.
No, any drunks. Indigent drunks were good, but any drunk that was annoying to the family or the town risked getting tossed in. Sanatoriums were full of inconvenient wealthy people.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 28, 2012, 11:31:15 AM
Marti, not sure how you blame mental health on Reagan. That shit started in the 70s as part of a liberal movement in America aimed to restore the "rights" of the mentally ill. Psychiatric hospitals were dramatically de-emphasized because they were seen as "institutionalizing" sick people, and now are mostly only used to house the most extreme cases and the criminally insane. Because the States have basically stopped building new psych hospitals most of them are 50% or more filled with criminal court patients who they have to house, making beds for those who haven't already committed crimes nearly impossible to get.
The liberals who hated psychiatric institutions insisted group homes were the way to go, and yeah for many mental patients a group home is a much better place than a psychiatric hospital. Unfortunately the group home system isn't set up to keep people there who do not want to be there, and group homes have rules. Many people with serious mental illness have serious problems with those rules (no alcohol, no drug use etc), so they refuse to stay in the group home and refuse treatment. Basically achieving what the liberals of the 1970s wanted--mentally ill people having the "freedom" to decide to devolve into untreated and unmedicated insanity.
That's fine for the mostly harmless schizophrenics or manic-depressives who can eke out a minimal existence in society unmedicated, but for the rare person who is deeply mentally disturbed this liberalization of mental health made it a lot harder to get those people committed. Before the 70s, a psychiatrist could basically have anyone committed at least for awhile. This was seen as being too much power, so now they have to explicitly believe someone is an imminent danger to themselves or others to get them committed. Even that decision has to immediately be reviewed by a mental health commissioner and a judicial authority in many jurisdictions. In the 70s a guy like James Holmes would've been taken to the hospital after his first therapy session, but Reagan isn't to blame for why he wasn't.
It's neat how neither what you or marty are talking about reflects the actual history of mental health in the US.
Unlike you I haven't been medicated anytime in the past 40 years so my knowledge of history (both from reading and actually living through some of these changes) supersedes the knowledge of a moron who has multiple "issues" any day.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2012, 03:31:47 PMNo, any drunks. Indigent drunks were good, but any drunk that was annoying to the family or the town risked getting tossed in. Sanatoriums were full of inconvenient wealthy people.
Sure, inconvenient people like Rosemary Kennedy whose daddy could have her lobotomized and locked away. But people like Joe Kennedy Sr.? Not a chance, he could pass out drunk in the street five nights a week and the worst he'd have ever gotten was a police escort home to his mansion.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 28, 2012, 06:15:20 PM
Unlike you I haven't been medicated anytime in the past 40 years so my knowledge of history (both from reading and actually living through some of these changes) supersedes the knowledge of a moron who has multiple "issues" any day.
Not even an aspirin?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2012, 02:13:37 PM... although counterarguments could be made about per capita consumption of law enforcement and justice).
Really? You think your average Joe uses more resources than say Apple and their countless lawsuits?
Quote from: Iormlund on July 29, 2012, 06:28:34 AM
Really? You think your average Joe uses more resources than say Apple and their countless lawsuits?
Apple shareholders are mostly average Joes.
I thought there was a difference between a company and it's shareholders.
There are a plethora of differences between shareholders and companies.
I'm glad we agree.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2012, 01:04:55 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 29, 2012, 06:28:34 AM
Really? You think your average Joe uses more resources than say Apple and their countless lawsuits?
Apple shareholders are mostly average Joes.
Right. Do I really need to post a wealth distribution chart?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2012, 01:16:25 PM
I thought there was a difference between a company and it's shareholders.
There's even more differences between a company and
its shareholders.
Quote from: Barrister on July 28, 2012, 12:38:01 AM
Quote from: dps on July 27, 2012, 06:19:41 PM
To me, the question is did the management of the store know that she was mentally retarded to such a degree that should couldn't be tried? If they knew, then simply taking back the pork rinds and kicding her out would have been the best play (assuming that she didn't get violent or anything of that nature, which it would appear she didn't). If they didn't know, they did the right thing in calling the police IMO.
I don't know about law in your jurisdiction.
Here, 'mental retardation' will rarely qualify you as NCRMD (not criminally responsible by reason of mental defect). Hell my 2 year old has okay notions of ownership. I've worked with some pretty profoundly afflicted people, and they know you can't take items from a store without paying for them.
Putting this on the store is bullshit. Of course they should call the cops. You're dealing with a LPO earning close to minimum wage. They are not going to be making a whole lot of nuanced decisions based on public policy.
Once the cops are called... Well this gets back to my original question. Mental issues, first time offender... why the hell does the system care? Should be withdrawn, no problem.
But someone with mental issues who repeatedly shoplifts? Then there's a place for the ciminal justice system. That doesn't mean jail, necessarily. But something needs to be done.
Mihali, you never responded to this.
Quote from: Barrister on July 28, 2012, 12:38:01 AM
Hell my 2 year old has okay notions of ownership.
"MINE, MINE, MINE!!"?
:P
Quote from: derspiess on July 30, 2012, 10:09:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 28, 2012, 12:38:01 AM
Hell my 2 year old has okay notions of ownership.
"MINE, MINE, MINE!!"?
:P
Sometimes. :D
But he can be satisfied at times if we say "no Tim, that is Baby Andrew's blanket" or "we can't play with that toy it belongs to someone else".
Quote from: Iormlund on July 30, 2012, 08:23:19 AM
Right. Do I really need to post a wealth distribution chart?
Point taken. The counterarguments I was thinking of originally were more on the criminal side than the civil side.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2012, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 30, 2012, 08:23:19 AM
Right. Do I really need to post a wealth distribution chart?
Point taken. The counterarguments I was thinking of originally were more on the criminal side than the civil side.
Yeah, you were saying something about law enforcement resources and then lawsuits involving Microsoft were brought up, and I was thinking that except for maybe process servers, not much law enforcement resources are used in civil cases.
Quote from: dps on July 30, 2012, 11:21:03 AM
Yeah, you were saying something about law enforcement resources and then lawsuits involving Microsoft were brought up, and I was thinking that except for maybe process servers, not much law enforcement resources are used in civil cases.
I think I mentioned judicial resources as well.
Open question: who pays for court costs in a civil case? Is that on the state?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2012, 11:24:14 AM
Quote from: dps on July 30, 2012, 11:21:03 AM
Yeah, you were saying something about law enforcement resources and then lawsuits involving Microsoft were brought up, and I was thinking that except for maybe process servers, not much law enforcement resources are used in civil cases.
I think I mentioned judicial resources as well.
Open question: who pays for court costs in a civil case? Is that on the state?
Generally, I think that the losing side is assessed court costs. It's not universal, though. And I think it's more likely if the plaintiff loses.
Quote from: dps on July 30, 2012, 11:27:03 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2012, 11:24:14 AM
Quote from: dps on July 30, 2012, 11:21:03 AM
Yeah, you were saying something about law enforcement resources and then lawsuits involving Microsoft were brought up, and I was thinking that except for maybe process servers, not much law enforcement resources are used in civil cases.
I think I mentioned judicial resources as well.
Open question: who pays for court costs in a civil case? Is that on the state?
Generally, I think that the losing side is assessed court costs. It's not universal, though. And I think it's more likely if the plaintiff loses.
Costs refers to paying the winners costs. We (at least here) don't have a system where anyone pays the costs of the courthouse itself.
In Polish legal system the plaintiff has to pay a deposit (which, in principle, is based on the value of the claim asserted in the lawsuit, but in some cases which are less financial, the deposit is a fixed fee dependent on the type of the case); likewise, when an appeal is lodged, there is an obligation to pay a deposit; you can motion to have the obligation to pay the deposit waived if you are destitute (plus in some cases the waiver is automatic, e.g. in alimony, consumer or employment cases).
When the plaintiff (or the apellant, respectively) then loses the case, the deposit is forfeit (or, if the deposit had been waived, it must be paid); if he wins the case, the deposit is returned and the losing side must pay it instead.
This is in addition to the winning side being awarded the legal costs (which are capped however) from the losing side.
Yes, you've told us that before.
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2012, 10:13:55 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 30, 2012, 10:09:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 28, 2012, 12:38:01 AM
Hell my 2 year old has okay notions of ownership.
"MINE, MINE, MINE!!"?
:P
Sometimes. :D
But he can be satisfied at times if we say "no Tim, that is Baby Andrew's blanket" or "we can't play with that toy it belongs to someone else".
I guess he knows his dad wouldn't offer him a good plea bargain if he takes other people's stuff.
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2012, 11:34:35 AM
Quote from: dps on July 30, 2012, 11:27:03 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2012, 11:24:14 AM
Quote from: dps on July 30, 2012, 11:21:03 AM
Yeah, you were saying something about law enforcement resources and then lawsuits involving Microsoft were brought up, and I was thinking that except for maybe process servers, not much law enforcement resources are used in civil cases.
I think I mentioned judicial resources as well.
Open question: who pays for court costs in a civil case? Is that on the state?
Generally, I think that the losing side is assessed court costs. It's not universal, though. And I think it's more likely if the plaintiff loses.
Costs refers to paying the winners costs. We (at least here) don't have a system where anyone pays the costs of the courthouse itself.
You never did a Plaintiff's case before becoming a prosecutor did you....
What happens is that the Plaintiff must pay a fee related the court costs for the trial. If the Plaintiff wins then those costs are reimbursed by the Defendant. If the Plaintiff loses then of course they are sol.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2012, 01:21:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2012, 11:34:35 AM
Quote from: dps on July 30, 2012, 11:27:03 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2012, 11:24:14 AM
Quote from: dps on July 30, 2012, 11:21:03 AM
Yeah, you were saying something about law enforcement resources and then lawsuits involving Microsoft were brought up, and I was thinking that except for maybe process servers, not much law enforcement resources are used in civil cases.
I think I mentioned judicial resources as well.
Open question: who pays for court costs in a civil case? Is that on the state?
Generally, I think that the losing side is assessed court costs. It's not universal, though. And I think it's more likely if the plaintiff loses.
Costs refers to paying the winners costs. We (at least here) don't have a system where anyone pays the costs of the courthouse itself.
You never did a Plaintiff's case before becoming a prosecutor did you....
What happens is that the Plaintiff must pay a fee related the court costs for the trial. If the Plaintiff wins then those costs are reimbursed by the Defendant. If the Plaintiff loses then of course they are sol.
Isn't that only if a Security for Costs order has been made?
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2012, 01:41:21 PM
Isn't that only if a Security for Costs order has been made?
No security for costs are to secure the costs of the opposing party. They have nothing to do with paying the Court fees. Court fees are generally paid for by the Plaintiff in advance. The fees are set out in a Tarriff of fees. They do not amount to the full cost of running the Court but does provide some money for that purpose.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2012, 02:42:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2012, 01:41:21 PM
Isn't that only if a Security for Costs order has been made?
No security for costs are to secure the costs of the opposing party. They have nothing to do with paying the Court fees. Court fees are generally paid for by the Plaintiff in advance. The fees are set out in a Tarriff of fees. They do not amount to the full cost of running the Court but does provide some money for that purpose.
:hmm: I wonder if that's the same in Alberta? I never ran a plaintiff's case in QB (nor defence, though I did at least have conduct of such files) and I don't remember any such fee. :hmm:
Going through the Alberta Rules of Court Tariff of Fees I don't see anything beyond the $200 to file a claim.
You may find this of interest:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mulgrew+hefty+civil+court+fees+struck+down+unconstitutional/6661611/story.html
Court fees are mainly a BC thing. Or were, given that this ruling allegedly struck them down as unconsitutional.
Quote
But B.C. hadn't collected hearing-day fees since before the First World War and the present levies were imposed only in 1998.
The only other Canadian jurisdictions imposing hearing fees (though at much lower levels) are Saskatchewan, Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
Jesus, is there any thread that lawyers won't take over? :rolleyes:
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2012, 02:58:12 PM
Jesus, is there any thread that lawyers won't take over? :rolleyes:
Go recruit an actuary posse. :P
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2012, 02:58:12 PM
Jesus, is there any thread that lawyers won't take over? :rolleyes:
Gosh I hope not. :o
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2012, 01:21:42 PM
You never did a Plaintiff's case before becoming a prosecutor did you....
What happens is that the Plaintiff must pay a fee related the court costs for the trial. If the Plaintiff wins then those costs are reimbursed by the Defendant. If the Plaintiff loses then of course they are sol.
So in light of Malthus' post, care to retract your scepticism of my legal skills? :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2012, 03:06:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2012, 01:21:42 PM
You never did a Plaintiff's case before becoming a prosecutor did you....
What happens is that the Plaintiff must pay a fee related the court costs for the trial. If the Plaintiff wins then those costs are reimbursed by the Defendant. If the Plaintiff loses then of course they are sol.
So in light of Malthus' post, care to retract your scepticism of my legal skills? :cool:
No. You practised in a jursidiction that charged court fees for years.
Quote from: Malthus on July 30, 2012, 02:59:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2012, 02:58:12 PM
Jesus, is there any thread that lawyers won't take over? :rolleyes:
Go recruit an actuary posse. :P
Believe it or not, that has been done before. :ph34r: Five years ago I was one of many actuaries involved in the troll invasion of another forum, to avenge the unfair banning of one of our own. It actually worked, as the banned actuary was reinstated. They knew better than to mess with us. :menace:
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2012, 03:06:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2012, 03:06:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2012, 01:21:42 PM
You never did a Plaintiff's case before becoming a prosecutor did you....
What happens is that the Plaintiff must pay a fee related the court costs for the trial. If the Plaintiff wins then those costs are reimbursed by the Defendant. If the Plaintiff loses then of course they are sol.
So in light of Malthus' post, care to retract your scepticism of my legal skills? :cool:
No. You practised in a jursidiction that charged court fees for years.
:yeahright:
Which years would those be?
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2012, 03:14:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 30, 2012, 02:59:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2012, 02:58:12 PM
Jesus, is there any thread that lawyers won't take over? :rolleyes:
Go recruit an actuary posse. :P
Believe it or not, that has been done before. :ph34r: Five years ago I was one of many actuaries involved in the troll invasion of another forum, to avenge the unfair banning of one of our own. It actually worked, as the banned actuary was reinstated. They knew better than to mess with us. :menace:
"Do as we say or we'll change our assessment of your financial security systems"? :hmm:
Question for CC: what's the current status of court fees following the ruling?
@BB the years you were a lawyer in the Yukon.
@Malthus. I am not entirely sure if this is being appealed or not. I assume the government will appeal. In the meantime the registry is not collecting the fees but what might happen with all those cases for which fees were not collected if the Court of Appeal reverses the decision is an interesting question.
An alternative is that the government may just increase other filing fees to make up the shortfall.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2012, 03:56:04 PM
@BB the years you were a lawyer in the Yukon.
@Malthus. I am not entirely sure if this is being appealed or not. I assume the government will appeal. In the meantime the registry is not collecting the fees but what might happen with all those cases for which fees were not collected if the Court of Appeal reverses the decision is an interesting question.
An alternative is that the government may just increase other filing fees to make up the shortfall.
Ah, but my membership in LSY is specifically limited to only working for the government. I can advise I have not done any civil litigation work, ever, in the Yukon.
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2012, 04:49:07 PM
I can advise I have not done any civil litigation work, ever, in the Yukon.
BB: "My advice to you is get the hell out of the Yukon before you freeze your nuts off, and one of them rolls down your pants leg and across the street."
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2012, 09:01:01 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 28, 2012, 12:38:01 AM
Once the cops are called... Well this gets back to my original question. Mental issues, first time offender... why the hell does the system care? Should be withdrawn, no problem.
But someone with mental issues who repeatedly shoplifts? Then there's a place for the ciminal justice system. That doesn't mean jail, necessarily. But something needs to be done.
Mihali, you never responded to this.
Well, I agreed with your conclusion that something needs to be done, so didn't feel I needed to. :P
Jail might actually make more sense than endless probation and trespassing charges. But short of permanently institutionalizing chronic shoplifters, stores are going to have to keep throwing them out of the establishment. Sending someone through the criminal justice cycle doesn't seem to contribute all that much.
Shoplifting is actually kind of an interesting crime, since I think the people committing it do so for a really wide variety of reasons.
At one end, there are a small number of true kleptomaniacs, who steal the same way other people pull their hair out. I met one woman like this a few months ago. Then there are the more broadly mentally-impaired people who steal crap for other psychological reasons, even just "acting out," like the woman in the example.
At the other end, there are the professional boosters. Only steal good black-market resale items, work in teams, do a lot of damage, know how to fence the goods. Then the other resale-oriented thieves, with varying levels of aptitude.
In the middle are all the other flavors. Just wanted something they couldn't afford; stealing for the thrill; stealing to get Christmas presents; etc. It's well-known anecdotally that middle-class and wealthy people frequently get caught stealing things they could easily afford to buy (e.g. Winona Ryder). And of course teenagers are always stealing shit for a variety of reasons.