And you wonder why ordinary Americans have a growing distrust of sheltered liberal elitists when they say that breaking the law should have no real consequences, which is exactly what we see when liberal elitists forgivingly look the other way with white collar felons.
25
Well, that was an unexpected step into the sea of lunacy. Words have meanings and we need them in order to understand each other. Person who committed a crime is not the same as felon. Not all crimes are felonies and not all who commit crimes are felons. Felon means what it means and nothing more or less. We need labels to make good judgements.
16
Boo hoo hoo. It is so unfair to refer to Dylann Roof S a killer just because he artificially shortened the lives of nine churchgoers in Charleston last year. He is actually a quite nice guy that made an unfortunate decision. And, please, do not refer to them as victims. It just reinforces the unfair perception of him as bad.
Anyone other than the NYT would appreciate such a characterization as absurd. But people that live in high rises with 24 hour security can easily delude themselves into believing that everyone is good.
Anyone other than the NYT would appreciate such a characterization as absurd. But people that live in high rises with 24 hour security can easily delude themselves into believing that everyone is good.
45
At 45 yo white female I was married ,had been working as a psychiatric social worker and had 3 young children. I was happy and had no legal history. My husband's suicide changed everything, but not right away. I continued to work, longer hours than ever but always with so much conflict in my heart because my children needed at least one parent. At 50yo I resigned from my job when I realized I was old enough to get widow's benefits and be home with the kids. I was also on disability. A small surgery followed by narcotic pain meds became a daily need. I functioned so much better, I thought. The long and short is that in a plea bargain I plead guilty to a charge that I did not commit because I feared jail and leaving my kids without a parent. I was very naieve about my legal needs and used my real estate attourney. I served the full 5 years probation and was unable to get a release of disability to return to work from the probation officer because I am on suboxone which saved my life. I have not relapsed in 5 years. I am still licensed but the fear of background search has prevented me from trying to return to work. My kids are all in college now and I was an excellent ED crisis therapist. It was a significant part of my identity that is lost.
3
Florida should do likewise. I mean restore the voting rights to citizens who were formerly incarcerated and not sue the governor for doing so.
Do people realize that environmental activists such as Tim DeChristopher doing peaceful acts of civil disobedience can be tried, imprisoned, and labelled felons for life for committing acts of conscience? This is far from the generally held idea of who gets labelled a felon for what kind of act/crime. If labels are needed, as some readers suggest, there needs to be a way to label people as what they are, such as a murderer, if that's what they are, or an environmental activist imprisoned for an act of civil disobedience, if that's what they are. The term felon has many ways of ruining people's lives and one way is to make it appear that murder and an act of conscience are in some way similar crimes, a handy justification for imprisoning and stigmatizing others like Tim DeChristopher with no equivalent benefit to society. Internet activist Aaron Swartz committed suicide when faced with the Justice Department's relentless pursuit of the chance to label his act of conscience in this way. There are documentaries about both DeChristopher and Swartz that are well worth watching for a taste of what is involved in the ways the label of felon can be used to destroy lives, including those of geniuses and idealists.
1
If there are no consequences to such actions, they are not acts of conscience but acts of mild inconvenience.
5
I thought it was pretty unfair when two felons robbed me at gunpoint.
33
If more is done to enable criminals to access gainful jobs, I guess that might help Hillary this fall.
10
What does it mean to say someone has "paid their dues" to society when one is left with the albatross of not being allowed to be fully integrated back into that society? Either one is freed to re-enter society as a full-fledged member of that society or not. They have enough to be burdened with without having also to carry around a scarlet letter on their forehead. We are setting them up for failure, to return to incarceration, should we choose to show no mercy and tolerance in giving someone a second or third chance at a productive life.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
4
That burden is self inflicted.
13
Why does AA teach people to say "I am an alcoholic" not "I was an alcoholic" for the rest of their lives?
An individual who commits a serious crime (the definition of a felony), and murders, rape, robs, someone, has a permanent condition - a permanent and dangerous for society character flaw. All individuals in society, including potential employers, need to be properly warned of that individuals permanent condition.
An individual who commits a serious crime (the definition of a felony), and murders, rape, robs, someone, has a permanent condition - a permanent and dangerous for society character flaw. All individuals in society, including potential employers, need to be properly warned of that individuals permanent condition.
26
If only felons' victims had a similar means of wiping their haunted memories clean...
27
I believe that everyone deserves more than one chance, and agree that certain labels fore-ordain a return to behaviors that incarceration was meant to steer those released away from. The issue is more complex than labels, however, since most felons, not the few examples of those found to be innocent or who made a single mistake, are people that have made poor decisions at multiple levels time and again. They quit school, they decided it was easier to rob someone or burglarize a house than to get a leg up by getting and keeping a low-paying job. Exceptions may abound, but they don't outnumber those who for whatever constellation of reasons have seriously made a mess of their lives. I do think it serves no good purpose, to anyone, to guarantee that such convicted felons can never succeed by making it even harder for them to join society, but it makes just as much sense to make sure they abide by the rules. Are we to just erase records of past crimes, assuming that patterns will be totally broken just because they seem sincere? I'll never forget the case of the fellow that wrote 'In the Belly of the Beast', and who Norman Mailer worked to free. He quickly returned to form and murdered someone for some slight, and blamed everyone but himself.
17
We go through a dance of changing the words used for the less intelligent, the criminal, and other parts of society that are frowned on. It's utterly meaningless. Changing the words used never helps these people, and we promptly change them again a decade later, as the new words used start sounding offensive.
13
I've just started a new company called "babysitting by hard to employ people."
Hopefully some of the people on the NY Times Editorial Board have young children and need babysitting services.
It will be a perfect match... People who don't ask tough questions... And people who don't want those tough questions asked.
Hopefully some of the people on the NY Times Editorial Board have young children and need babysitting services.
It will be a perfect match... People who don't ask tough questions... And people who don't want those tough questions asked.
39
Yeah. Let them hire pedophiles to babysit their kids if they think felons are nice people.
12
Ok. So I hire a convicted rapist, who has served his time. He know rapes one of my employees. Who is going to protect me from a massive civil judgment?
28
Once again the Obama administration and its shills at the New York Times want to use Orwellian newspeak to try to change facts. Someone who commits a serious crime, serious enough to be convicted of a felony, gets out of prison after a long stay and employers would rather protect themselves than gamble on the felon not committing another crime? Let's not recognize their valid concerns; rather, let's just ban the word felon! They're "citizens"! Forget that crime! Nobody can speak the word! It's exactly the same theory where an Obama administration member called terrorism "man caused disasters." Just don't speak the word and it goes away. Nonsense. Even if a felon has served his/her time, that person is not the same as someone who never committed a crime in the first place. I literally laughed when I read the portion of this ridiculous editorial that stated that we need to "stop defin[ing] people by the worst moment of their lives." On the contrary, when people CHOOSE to commit a felony level crime (no, it's not a "mistake". a mistake is using too much salt when cooking. A deliberate criminal act is NOT a mistake) they need to know that yes, that CHOICE will define them for the rest of their lives. All the orwellian newspeak that can be brought to bear does not change that fact. Employers do not have any obligation to gamble their own safety, the safety of their non-felon employees, and the viability business on the future choices the felon will make.
25
From a practical point of view, if someone with some criminal record is denied any job he applies to, because of criminal record checks, how is he to make a living? Forced, against his will, into a life of crime?
4
Those who believe that we should not label felons as felons should take serious pause. What should we call them if not what they are. The same liberal democrat political correct ideologies who want to change the language to accommodate their fantasies would never let a felon babysit their child.
17
It’s no wonder the United States has by far the world’s largest prison population per capita anywhere on earth. More people rot in local, county, state or federal prisons in the United States than in all other developed countries combined.
Even more disturbingly, the criminalization of America is now creeping into high schools, junior high schools … and most recently, even kindergarten classes.
Anyone can inadvertently run afoul of America’s metastasizing network of criminal laws. These are the laws that allow the DOJ to harass people like with trumped-up charges. An overzealous prosecutor could charge almost anyone with one of the many absurd, archaic or overbroad laws on the books. Silly laws, like the infamous "three strike laws," create the illusion of safety at a high cost: the American prison system is bad for society and dehumanizing for those who are incarcerated.
Even more disturbingly, the criminalization of America is now creeping into high schools, junior high schools … and most recently, even kindergarten classes.
Anyone can inadvertently run afoul of America’s metastasizing network of criminal laws. These are the laws that allow the DOJ to harass people like with trumped-up charges. An overzealous prosecutor could charge almost anyone with one of the many absurd, archaic or overbroad laws on the books. Silly laws, like the infamous "three strike laws," create the illusion of safety at a high cost: the American prison system is bad for society and dehumanizing for those who are incarcerated.
5
I am ambivalent on the thrust of this piece, but it seems that more and more relatively minor offenses these days are being termed felonies than is justified.
5
When the New York Times starts hiring felons for positions of trust, we'll take editorials like this a little more seriously.
29
I am in favor changing the attitude of employers, the public and all others, to a 'new open door' policy when concerning those of us convicted of criminal behavior.
Stop the 'knee jerk' dismissal of 'felons' and others convicted of lesser categorized crimes.
No matter how it is changed to soften 'felon'. When changed there will still be those that consider the new words as a code for a 'felon'. And the 'knee jerking' of negativity will continue.
It is time to allow individual discussions between the criminally behaved and employers, education facilities, government and private sector jobs and job training centers.
There will be those that, for whatever reason, will not change their criminal behavior, personal values and character.
However, there are many that will be able to commit to being law abiding citizens and deserve the opportunity to be taken seriously.
Our society as a whole and as individuals can be helpful and offer support to those that can.
All jobs have probationary periods and open reviews. Over site should be the same as security procedures to assure safe, competent behaviors in work responsibilities and human relationships at any work place or educational facility.
Allow those that have changed for the better to have the opportunity to continue on this path of progress to integrate themselves to themselves and our society.
.
Stop the 'knee jerk' dismissal of 'felons' and others convicted of lesser categorized crimes.
No matter how it is changed to soften 'felon'. When changed there will still be those that consider the new words as a code for a 'felon'. And the 'knee jerking' of negativity will continue.
It is time to allow individual discussions between the criminally behaved and employers, education facilities, government and private sector jobs and job training centers.
There will be those that, for whatever reason, will not change their criminal behavior, personal values and character.
However, there are many that will be able to commit to being law abiding citizens and deserve the opportunity to be taken seriously.
Our society as a whole and as individuals can be helpful and offer support to those that can.
All jobs have probationary periods and open reviews. Over site should be the same as security procedures to assure safe, competent behaviors in work responsibilities and human relationships at any work place or educational facility.
Allow those that have changed for the better to have the opportunity to continue on this path of progress to integrate themselves to themselves and our society.
.
3
This editorial confuses rational argument with emotional blackmail. Show me the statistics that prove that removing the label of "felon" reduces crime and I'll support this policy. But tell me the hard-luck tale of some rapist or murderer and my response will be: "Put a bullet through his head; I don't care". I oppose capital punishment because every study shows it does not reduce crime, is expensive, and has adverse effect on society as a whole. But I have no empathy whatsoever for convicted killers. If you shed innocent blood, you are marked forever and it is just that you bear this mark to the end of your life. Non-violent crimes are a different matter, and here a more flexible policy may be in place. But I'll accept the need for such policy only if I have a rational, data-based argument that shows it works.
19
So, according to the NY Times editorial board, the only people who deserve to be treated like criminals are law-abiding citizens who are trying to obtain opioids for pain management.
The people who sell opioids illegally on the street, the ones who force the government to strictly regulate the drugs to the point where it punishes the sick, should be treated like victims.
Nice.
The people who sell opioids illegally on the street, the ones who force the government to strictly regulate the drugs to the point where it punishes the sick, should be treated like victims.
Nice.
24
If you are serious in what you write, than felons should be able to possess and carry guns once they have paid their debt to society. Or is it just about lower class votes for Hillary and other Democrats?
12
I agree with the general sentiment of humanizing people who have spent time in prison. At the same time I would want to know if my neighbor had committed a violent crime such as murder or rape, especially if my kids might otherwise end up alone in their house. Non-violent crimes are a different story. We used Delancey Street Movers for our last home move - a moving company entirely staffed by people with non-violent criminal histories. My 4 year old son followed one of them around like a puppy dog, and at the end he had tears in his eyes as they hugged, and he talked about the years of his own kids' lives that he'll never get back because of his mistakes.
9
I applaud the instinct to avoid judging people perpetually for their actions at one weak or stupid or self-interested moment. But just where do we draw the line? Eventually, the bad things some of us choose to do with our lives will lose all meaningc-- and that shouldn't happen, either.
5
Technology has effectively uprooted the role of politics and politicians in addressing many of societies needs, making these debates and the journalism that supports them increasingly irrekevant. Here are two examples:
Example 1:
Labeling and tracking criminals, regardless of phase of their case or punishment, is now done online by private companies and citizens. Want to know where former child molesters live in your neighborhood? Google it. What to know if a job applicant is violent or steals? Google it.
Example 2:
Want birth control delivered to your home, secretly, overnight, and your state or local government is an impediment? Google it. Online pharmacies worldwide will relabel and ship anything, anywhere. The debate over access to birth control has been settled once and for all. The legal debates that rage across the country are now merely academic.
Example 1:
Labeling and tracking criminals, regardless of phase of their case or punishment, is now done online by private companies and citizens. Want to know where former child molesters live in your neighborhood? Google it. What to know if a job applicant is violent or steals? Google it.
Example 2:
Want birth control delivered to your home, secretly, overnight, and your state or local government is an impediment? Google it. Online pharmacies worldwide will relabel and ship anything, anywhere. The debate over access to birth control has been settled once and for all. The legal debates that rage across the country are now merely academic.
2
This editorial would be a lot more inspiring if the New York Times, a large for-profit business, would talk about its own experience in hiring people previously convicted of felonies. If such folks are unjustly stigmatized and rejected by other employers, but the Times has hired them in significant numbers and found them to be good workers, that would inspire other business managers to do likewise.
20
This is yet another episode of political correctness gone wild. Let's be clear, I am against all forms of discrimination, whether it's gender, race, felon, etc. What's next, should we change labels like "murderer" to something less stigmatizing such as "life-ending facilitator", or "life-ender", or life-ending assistant"? Take you pick.
28
Again this is political correctness run wild. These people are felons, convicted criminal - changing what we call them will not change the facts. We can't pretend they didn't commit a crime by changing what we call them.
Any employer can look up their criminal record - it is there to be seen.
We shouldn't try and pretend to cover up what these people did by changing what they call them. This is all about political correctness and accuracy in naming them should be more important than political correctness.
Political correctness has helped to destroy this country by using words that pretend a coating of legality to those that have done or are doing illegal activities. Calling illegal immigrants undocumented does not make them legal, not using the word felon does not erase a person's crime.
Any employer can look up their criminal record - it is there to be seen.
We shouldn't try and pretend to cover up what these people did by changing what they call them. This is all about political correctness and accuracy in naming them should be more important than political correctness.
Political correctness has helped to destroy this country by using words that pretend a coating of legality to those that have done or are doing illegal activities. Calling illegal immigrants undocumented does not make them legal, not using the word felon does not erase a person's crime.
20
Well, I really don't care if they try to do away with the term, I will continue to call George Soros the felon that he is.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/soros-loses-challenge-to-insider-...
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/soros-loses-challenge-to-insider-...
6
Life is a product of both choices and circumstances. Criminals commit crimes by choice. The majority of those crimes involve a victim, who'd not had the chance to choose to not be the victim. The NYT is way off base here.
9
The goal is understandable, but this process is positively Orwellian. What's happened can't be reordered no matter what kind of tortured language you use. That someone in our federal government actually set out to "change the lexicon" of incarceration provides a very good example of why such an aversion to the political establishment has grown in this country.
14
A note to all the "can't do the time/don't do the crime" sloganeers: Let's say your son at 19 is with a group of young men who stupidly decide to burglarize a house. Caught and convicted of a felony, he does five years, and at 25 is a much more mature person. He wants to go to college and pursue a career. Should he be labeled a "felon" his whole life—and very likely be denied a career?
Or your 25-year-old daughter, who is an alcoholic, is convicted after a drunk driving accident of felony DUI and spends 6 months in jail. At 30 she is now sober four years, married, but cannot vote or find a job because she is "a felon."
Before you start spouting smug slogans, realize that if those "criminals" and "felons" were your kids, you might think a little more deeply and compassionately.
Or your 25-year-old daughter, who is an alcoholic, is convicted after a drunk driving accident of felony DUI and spends 6 months in jail. At 30 she is now sober four years, married, but cannot vote or find a job because she is "a felon."
Before you start spouting smug slogans, realize that if those "criminals" and "felons" were your kids, you might think a little more deeply and compassionately.
13
My kids wouldn't stupidly or otherwise decide to burglarize a house.
What if the owner confronts the "stupid decision" burglars and gets beat up or worse? Still a smug slogan to call those who committed the crime a criminal?
What if the owner confronts the "stupid decision" burglars and gets beat up or worse? Still a smug slogan to call those who committed the crime a criminal?
10
Okay, but shouldn't other people and employers have a right to know the history of a person, especially if they've committed a crime
If a person was convicted of fraud, shouldn't a bank, insurance company or any other financial institution know they background of all persons they are hiring to protect not only the institution but their customers?
And shouldn't day care centers and parents have the right to know the backgrounds of people they may want to hire to watch over children.
Having empathy is all good and grand, but the harshness of reality is just that, and the public 's rights must take precedent over rights of individuals especially of those who have committed crimes.
The examples you have given probably happen very often, but those people will find work if they try, perhaps not the best paying jobs , but that is one of the many consequences a person faces when they make bad judgments.
People must learn accountability at a young age, yet in today's society the lack of accountability is just as dangerous and is possibly a reason why an issue like drug abuse has become rampant.
So I guess you would wipe the slant clean for those who sold drugs to people who have died....
If a person was convicted of fraud, shouldn't a bank, insurance company or any other financial institution know they background of all persons they are hiring to protect not only the institution but their customers?
And shouldn't day care centers and parents have the right to know the backgrounds of people they may want to hire to watch over children.
Having empathy is all good and grand, but the harshness of reality is just that, and the public 's rights must take precedent over rights of individuals especially of those who have committed crimes.
The examples you have given probably happen very often, but those people will find work if they try, perhaps not the best paying jobs , but that is one of the many consequences a person faces when they make bad judgments.
People must learn accountability at a young age, yet in today's society the lack of accountability is just as dangerous and is possibly a reason why an issue like drug abuse has become rampant.
So I guess you would wipe the slant clean for those who sold drugs to people who have died....
6
To get 5 years for burglary, it takes more than just some teenage foolishness or a momentary mistake.
To get 6 months for DUI, it probably isn't a first offense. Five years later, if a DUI is the only felony on a record, and someone is still completely unemployable, that individual didn't have much of a resume to begin with.
To get 6 months for DUI, it probably isn't a first offense. Five years later, if a DUI is the only felony on a record, and someone is still completely unemployable, that individual didn't have much of a resume to begin with.
9
I usually would be very concerned about the government trying to change common language usage but, in this case, I agree.
We have become a society where we punish people beyond their sentences, and indeed often punish those never convicted or never given a trial. Arrest records also limit employment. There are often long pretrial incarcerations that never end in a trial. Administrative findings by Child Protective Services of "unsubstantiated" limit employment by statute in most states. Even perp walks are a way to punish without trial.
When someone is actually convicted of a crime, the punishment should not be perpetual. There will always be some jobs for which a person's full life history should be considered but, even for those jobs, an absolute ban makes no sense.
I recently heard a politician propose a regulation that all Uber drivers be screened for arrest records (not just driving records). If we ban employment in even legal informal jobs such as Uber, what legal jobs are left?
We have become a society where we punish people beyond their sentences, and indeed often punish those never convicted or never given a trial. Arrest records also limit employment. There are often long pretrial incarcerations that never end in a trial. Administrative findings by Child Protective Services of "unsubstantiated" limit employment by statute in most states. Even perp walks are a way to punish without trial.
When someone is actually convicted of a crime, the punishment should not be perpetual. There will always be some jobs for which a person's full life history should be considered but, even for those jobs, an absolute ban makes no sense.
I recently heard a politician propose a regulation that all Uber drivers be screened for arrest records (not just driving records). If we ban employment in even legal informal jobs such as Uber, what legal jobs are left?
10
Evidence of the extent to which a label can push our emotional fear buttons and suppress our alleged rationality is rampant throughout our culture
One of my favorites is the term "illegal alien." Someone so branded is dehumanized not simply by, essentially, calling them a criminal but a criminal from another planet.
But a more potent example is the extent to which the media goes absolutely berserk whenever a criminal, especially a MURDERER, escapes from jail. Before we get all fear-filled and lock our doors and break out our guns and shield our children, we should consider that, over the last 30 years or so, over TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND murders have gone unsolved. Not to mention, of course, those "murderers" who have served their time and been released back into society.
May it be that it's the very fact of our hyperactive fear over their escape and, hence, willingness to hunt the escapee down like a dog which is what increases the risk. I'm certainly not advocating society ignore their escape but please, people, rein in those fears!
And a good place to start would be with those whom have served their time and, for the benefit of ALL, should be re-integrated into society, not shunned hence increasing their possible recidivism.
One of my favorites is the term "illegal alien." Someone so branded is dehumanized not simply by, essentially, calling them a criminal but a criminal from another planet.
But a more potent example is the extent to which the media goes absolutely berserk whenever a criminal, especially a MURDERER, escapes from jail. Before we get all fear-filled and lock our doors and break out our guns and shield our children, we should consider that, over the last 30 years or so, over TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND murders have gone unsolved. Not to mention, of course, those "murderers" who have served their time and been released back into society.
May it be that it's the very fact of our hyperactive fear over their escape and, hence, willingness to hunt the escapee down like a dog which is what increases the risk. I'm certainly not advocating society ignore their escape but please, people, rein in those fears!
And a good place to start would be with those whom have served their time and, for the benefit of ALL, should be re-integrated into society, not shunned hence increasing their possible recidivism.
4
Uh no, alien has been the term used for hundreds of years. It has only been associated with 'outer space' since pop culture sci-fi in the last 60 years.
11
People fear escaped convicts in general, and murderers in particular, because they are desperate, and have historically been willing to commit any level of mayhem to prevent being returned. I agree that there are many serious criminals that are never apprehended, including most of Wall Street, but it doesn't preclude being wary of those you know have a history of criminal, and particularly violent, behavior.
6
While we're at it, let's do away with the sex offender registry also...........
8
As an employer there is no difference between "ex-felon" and "those who committed a criminal act". The main issue is recidivism. If I interview a candidate who is a convicted felon only because he won a bar fight 20 years ago and his resume is clean since then I have no problem hiring him.
However, I am extremely wary of hiring recent convicts. Ex-cons who were drug addicts statistically will end up back on drugs. Thieves may try to steal from the company, or may just not show up to work because they were arrested again. I am not willing to take on a person with a recent record of violent behavior.
So forget the semantics. An employer should be willing to listen to a candidate who has a long standing clean record. However, employers should not be expected to overlook the criminal record of someone who has been released from prison, regardless of what you want to call them.
However, I am extremely wary of hiring recent convicts. Ex-cons who were drug addicts statistically will end up back on drugs. Thieves may try to steal from the company, or may just not show up to work because they were arrested again. I am not willing to take on a person with a recent record of violent behavior.
So forget the semantics. An employer should be willing to listen to a candidate who has a long standing clean record. However, employers should not be expected to overlook the criminal record of someone who has been released from prison, regardless of what you want to call them.
21
Felon is a dirty word, let's call them what they really are:
Congressmen.
Congressmen.
9
One's reputation is a key means for other to know how to interrelate. Everyone should live with his or her reputation as best as he can. To hide elements of one's public reputation is deceptive, especially in the present when facebook and other database compilers are gathering all of ordinary peoples' most private details.
3
How about "person who raped and murdered an 80 year old woman, but that was because they had a bad childhood"?
Would that work for everyone?
Would that work for everyone?
27
I don't quite understand this modern world we're living in. A world where we can't call it as it is. I get it, there are too many laws in America. We have the highest prison population per capita in the world. This isn't about what we call people this is about the volume of laws and the volume of lawbreakers that live among us. At the end of the day we seem to be creating a society of post-modernist, completely unsure of even of most obvious facts around them.
Our world is completely upside down - void of responsibility - and it's celebrated. Criminals aren't criminals - just a different level of victim. Boys think they're girls, girls think they're boys... Society power players bully silence in speech that doesn't support their insane narrative whether that's on the topic of homosexuality, gender dysphoria, climate change, and of course, God. We've become a society that celebrates the insane while shunning the truth that surrounds them.
Our world is completely upside down - void of responsibility - and it's celebrated. Criminals aren't criminals - just a different level of victim. Boys think they're girls, girls think they're boys... Society power players bully silence in speech that doesn't support their insane narrative whether that's on the topic of homosexuality, gender dysphoria, climate change, and of course, God. We've become a society that celebrates the insane while shunning the truth that surrounds them.
14
Instead of attempting to defend the pro and con positions, why not start at the beginning and ask what society benefits from the labelling which ends up becoming a reason to exclude? When people who ar released from prison can't work, they either go on public assistance or they commit new property crimes. Please don't throw out the one instance you read somewhere of a former offender creating a successful business; wonderful for that person but it doesn't provide an answer to all the others who don't possess his good fortune.
Think seriously about the psychology of excluding people from society and the reciprocal effect: they won't care about a society which doesn't care about them. Look at the history of this country and see how disenfranchised groups have fared. Do you really want to perpetuate that? We need to re-examine the status quo and find a way to ensure that law abiding citizens are not subjected to unnecessary risks but which also allow someone to get on with their lives and make a positive contribution to society.
The formerly incarcerated are and will be among us; the only question is how we engage them.
Think seriously about the psychology of excluding people from society and the reciprocal effect: they won't care about a society which doesn't care about them. Look at the history of this country and see how disenfranchised groups have fared. Do you really want to perpetuate that? We need to re-examine the status quo and find a way to ensure that law abiding citizens are not subjected to unnecessary risks but which also allow someone to get on with their lives and make a positive contribution to society.
The formerly incarcerated are and will be among us; the only question is how we engage them.
6
Your objection to references to the rare offender who runs into 'good fortune', illustrates the faulty logic of your greater point. You believe it is up to fortune or fate. It is not. We are all responsible for our own decisions.
Businesses are not an arm of the state. They are individual fruits of labour, blood sweat and tears poured into to create. What right do we have to force risks onto them that we bear no accountability for? I guarantee you, that if the system functioned such that you personally were responsible for a felon's conduct, and you personally got fined or punished if they screwed up, you be singing a different tune.
This is the thing about the liberal mindset. It is always somebody else that should be forced to bear the risk. Somebody else should pay to fix the problem, or be forced to do something to accommodate some group the liberal favours. Always so generous with everyone else's property, time and money.
If you think felons should be given a chance, then hire one yourself and show you really believe that.
Businesses are not an arm of the state. They are individual fruits of labour, blood sweat and tears poured into to create. What right do we have to force risks onto them that we bear no accountability for? I guarantee you, that if the system functioned such that you personally were responsible for a felon's conduct, and you personally got fined or punished if they screwed up, you be singing a different tune.
This is the thing about the liberal mindset. It is always somebody else that should be forced to bear the risk. Somebody else should pay to fix the problem, or be forced to do something to accommodate some group the liberal favours. Always so generous with everyone else's property, time and money.
If you think felons should be given a chance, then hire one yourself and show you really believe that.
12
Instead of 'rapist', 'murderer', 'abuser' we should use more neutral terms, like 'potential co-worker' and 'possible new friend'. Sure, that works in our post-judgement society.
16
I know you're being sarcastic, but I actually agree with your comment as written. Homeboy Industries is a very successful and comprehensive re-integration center for former gang members in LA. Some of the 'homies' are the among the sweetest, coolest and most resourceful people I've ever met. And yeah, thinking of people as 'potential coworker' and 'future friend' have helped create that success.
1
More Thought Police. Now a woman can be a man depending on how they feel that day. A man can be a woman for whatever reason they chose. And so we are told to be more 'inclusive and tolerant' and accept all this 'because it's the right thing to do.' No, it's NOT the right thing to do. Those who promote these policies are driving the rest of us mad, giving rise to the political insanity we are witnessing. America is not a Socialist country, Mr. Sanders. Mrs. Clinton is a serial liar and worse. Trump is a reaction to the insanity of the last 8 years of having policy we disagree with shoved down our throats and a complete lack of respect for constitutional principles. The oath of office for the presidency has been disregarded to an extent that one would have to reasonably conclude that it is fully intentional. And now we are told by The Times that the Administration is quite comfortable with the notion that manipulation of the Press is just fine and dandy. Have a nice day.
12
As someone who co-founded a ministry to support individuals and families with white-collar incarceration issues, who served almost fourteen months in a Federal prison for a white-collar crime, I am so pleased to see that these issues are now a part of the national debate. Most people convicted of white-collar crimes, and their families, still suffer in silence due the shame and guilt they feel and the stigma and schadenfreude of the greater community. We agree with this article and believe that all would be better if we excercised more compassion and empathy.
Jeff Grant, JD, M Div, Director, Progressive Prison Ministries
Greenwich, CT & Nationwide, prisonist.org
Jeff Grant, JD, M Div, Director, Progressive Prison Ministries
Greenwich, CT & Nationwide, prisonist.org
2
You do good work! Thank you:)
It's time to stop using unfair words like felons, ex-convicts, etc. and start using more fair descriptions, like "involved in the justice system," to borrow a phrase from AG Loretta Lynch.
2
Make it a crime to look for these records when making hiring decisions. Make it a crime to make the information available after a certain period of time has passed.
1
So, in other words, you have more sympathy for felons than for people who want to keep themselves and their workplace safe by not hiring those convicted of serious crimes? What will you say when your daughter is stalked and murdered by her co-worker with a history of such behavior?
8
How about instead of demanding what everyone do, get a spine and do it yourself. Don't want a convicted rapist working beside you, don't want convicted murderers walking out to your parking garage? Right, didn't think so. Neither do others.
7
The NY Times editorial board should go all in on mainstreaming convicted felons. They should advocate that felons be able to legally possess firearms. Why should law abiding citizens be able own firearms and not felons who have served their sentences? 200,000 felons may now own firearms in Virginia, having received executive clemency from the Democratic governor Terry McAuliffe. Of course they can also vote and serve on juries.
Federal law still prohibits the felons from possessing firearms but it would only be fair to treat the firearms offenses like marijuana production in States like Colorado and Oregon; the offense should be ignored by Federal law enforcement.
Big businesses should also do their part to welcome convicted felons back to society. How many convicted rapists, murderers and armed robbers has the NY Times hired?
Federal law still prohibits the felons from possessing firearms but it would only be fair to treat the firearms offenses like marijuana production in States like Colorado and Oregon; the offense should be ignored by Federal law enforcement.
Big businesses should also do their part to welcome convicted felons back to society. How many convicted rapists, murderers and armed robbers has the NY Times hired?
20
Exactly. I guarantee you it is precisely zero. Yet they will not cease to publish articles claiming they everyone should do what they do not.
Reminds me of Ivy League students and faculty who believe more spots should be reserved for minority's students. Meanwhile not a single one of them ever offers to give up their spot/appointment to minority.
Liberals solutions are always about what everyone else should do.
Reminds me of Ivy League students and faculty who believe more spots should be reserved for minority's students. Meanwhile not a single one of them ever offers to give up their spot/appointment to minority.
Liberals solutions are always about what everyone else should do.
7
While we're at it, let's establish that illegal immigrants are simply undocumented immigrants. Let's take it a step further - rapists are just undocumented sexual partners!
It is not society's problem that these labels are uncomfortable or make life difficult for the offenders. If you cannot handle being called a criminal, don't commit crimes.
It is not society's problem that these labels are uncomfortable or make life difficult for the offenders. If you cannot handle being called a criminal, don't commit crimes.
22
What is the definition of left wing nonsense? Thinking a new euphemism for the term felon will change their societal perception. If you think that will really work I have an "Over the Water Road" to sell you in Brooklyn.
13
Can we stop referring to their actions as "mistakes" and start referring to them as poor or bad decisions? Convicted felons didn't accidentally commit crimes, they made a decision, or series of decisions that led to the crime. We need to stop making excuses for these people. A drug addict that commits a crime is still a criminal. They still made the choice to use drugs in the first place. We've taken the everyone gets a trophy mentality and tried to apply if to the criminal justice system.
That said, there needs to be a way to reintegrate them into society after their time is served. Reinstate voting rights upon completion of their sentence and if the parole board (or some other entity) finds them suitable for reintegration, a removal of their felon status. There are far too many people who made some bad choices sidelined because of their criminal history.
I'd also like to add that the series of comics about incarceration that the NYT is doing is appalling. The first guy murdered his entire family and we're supposed to feel sorry for him? Are the illustrations intended to soften his crime or humanize him?
That said, there needs to be a way to reintegrate them into society after their time is served. Reinstate voting rights upon completion of their sentence and if the parole board (or some other entity) finds them suitable for reintegration, a removal of their felon status. There are far too many people who made some bad choices sidelined because of their criminal history.
I'd also like to add that the series of comics about incarceration that the NYT is doing is appalling. The first guy murdered his entire family and we're supposed to feel sorry for him? Are the illustrations intended to soften his crime or humanize him?
10
Employers have a right to know if an applicant has committed a felony in the past and was tried in a court of law and found guilty or pled no contest. However, a single blip in a person's judgement shouldn't be severely punished. It's useful to prevent hiring of a repeat offender of serious crimes.
I think the bigger issue is using a background check to find not just felony convictions, but misdemeanor arrests. These misdemeanor arrests in many states stay on record for life, even when found not guilty in the court of law or the case is dropped by the state. No background check should ever reveal this information since it paints the applicant in a negative light when he or she already went through the court process and was found "not guilty". Let us fix this absurd injustice first.
I think the bigger issue is using a background check to find not just felony convictions, but misdemeanor arrests. These misdemeanor arrests in many states stay on record for life, even when found not guilty in the court of law or the case is dropped by the state. No background check should ever reveal this information since it paints the applicant in a negative light when he or she already went through the court process and was found "not guilty". Let us fix this absurd injustice first.
14
The only difference between a felony conviction and a misdemeanor conviction is one day. A judge, in some cases, may sentence an individual to 12 months and a day to make a misdemeanor conviction a felony conviction. Any crime which carries 12 months or less is a misdemeanor. Any sentence over 12 months is a felony. For instance, if an individual bounces 13 checks in a state which the penalty for each bounced check is 30 days per check, that person will be branded a felon. This is far cry from burglary, but both are considered felonies because they both carry a penalty of 12+ plus months sentences.
can't do the time/
don't do the crime
don't do the crime
19
The question is, should a distinction be made between a felon who has served his time and someone with no criminal record? Should both people be treated exactly alike by our legal and economic systems? I would say no. One of the reasons we send felons to prison is that we believe their crimes show they are a danger to the rest of us. If that is not true, it makes little sense to pay the high cost of imprisoning felons for years. If it is true, then it makes little sense to treat them like everyone else when they are released. Unless you believe our prisons are very good at changing people for the better, which I do not, it makes plenty of sense to treat felons as dangerous even when their sentence is over.
17
There are felons and felons. Someone who has been a serial killer, vs someone who has smoked pot a few times.
3
It is not about whether someone who has served time be equal under the law. It is about whether the government should have the right to forced private individuals to make their own decisions about hiring.
4
Since most people convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison have to be released it is in society's best interests to reintegrate them. Politicians play on our resentments at letting prisoners take college classes, giving them some creature comforts while in prison, providing them with medical treatment, etc., because it's one way to cut costs. What is never discussed or revealed is how much is lost when prisoners are not provided with decent surroundings, training to get jobs that will provide them with a living, or when they are further brutalized in prison. Not every ex con is bad, interested in remaining a criminal, or had the advantages of a good childhood. Being in prison, lacking the freedom to come and go as one pleases is punishment. If we want to reintegrate them back into society rather than continuing to punish them, we would do better to spend the money on them while they are a captive audience. If we were truly interested in preventing crime we'd overhaul our methods of financing schools, staff all schools with good teachers, and improve living conditions in poor areas. We'd also stop the unreasonable restrictions on what they can do for living unless it pertains to the crime they were convicted of: you don't want a pedophile teaching children or an accountant who embezzled near the accounts.
1
Just when you think the NYTimes couldn't find another group of "victims" in society, they found some; criminals who experience difficulty after going to prison.
Adults know that criminals who make serious mistakes in life have a tendency to repeat them. I want to know how badly someone has screwed up before I have any dealings with him.
What should we call convicts/felons? "Serious mistake makers." or "Major screw ups"?
I obey the laws, pay my taxes, get visas to visit countries, drive the speed limit. I guess I'm just a dinosaur bigot to the NYTimes.
Adults know that criminals who make serious mistakes in life have a tendency to repeat them. I want to know how badly someone has screwed up before I have any dealings with him.
What should we call convicts/felons? "Serious mistake makers." or "Major screw ups"?
I obey the laws, pay my taxes, get visas to visit countries, drive the speed limit. I guess I'm just a dinosaur bigot to the NYTimes.
14
So... now that we can't afford to maintain our burgeoning prison system, it's suddenly becoming fashionable to reduce the population and hope they stay off the public dole. How very generous.
Until we stop criminalizing things we find merely socially distasteful, until we return to reasonable sentencing -- a year is a long time in a box -- and until we put in the effort to educate and rehabilitate people, we will always have a problem living with people we failed.
Until we stop criminalizing things we find merely socially distasteful, until we return to reasonable sentencing -- a year is a long time in a box -- and until we put in the effort to educate and rehabilitate people, we will always have a problem living with people we failed.
"We failed" ?
3
I find a serious logical flaw in the argument--as many commenters are making--that the recidivism rate among ex-offenders is somehow proof of "flawed character" or "ongoing risk" (quotes from other commenters). Of course recidivism is higher among ex-offenders! We strip them of several fundamental rights, make it nearly impossible to find stable employment, and watch them with an intensity far greater than the regular citizen.
If you want to study this objectively instead of using emotions and "common sense," compare two groups of ex-offenders with similar crimes and backgrounds. One group will forever carry the felon label, placed under the scrutiny of probation, and have their rights stripped (like we do right now). The other group has their full rights and freedoms restored, their records viewable to the public expunged. This testable hypothesis will tell you whether our post-incarceration treatment of former offenders protects the public or alters the recidivism rate.
I have my suspicions, but I won't voice them here, since I have no greater knowledge of the outcome than any of the lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key crowd.
If you want to study this objectively instead of using emotions and "common sense," compare two groups of ex-offenders with similar crimes and backgrounds. One group will forever carry the felon label, placed under the scrutiny of probation, and have their rights stripped (like we do right now). The other group has their full rights and freedoms restored, their records viewable to the public expunged. This testable hypothesis will tell you whether our post-incarceration treatment of former offenders protects the public or alters the recidivism rate.
I have my suspicions, but I won't voice them here, since I have no greater knowledge of the outcome than any of the lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key crowd.
2
You think they're so great, you hire them. Rent your apartment to them. Don't obligate others to take risks just so you can feel good about yourself.
5
do you cry for the victim ? Would you feel so jolly if you were raped or your wife/child ? Who restores them ?
5
"...Mr. Ellis made clear that those extra words acknowledged the humanity of people who, having paid their debts, should not have to feel shut out forever."
And what of those sho keep on committing crimes? How have they paid their debts? Are those "debts" really erased because someone kills someone and "pays it off" after a six or seven years in prison? Are certain offenders not a continued threat by their refusal to comply with the rules of society? Do the law abiding majority have to just keep rolling over?
There are mistakes and then there are bad or evil choices. Inherent in much of this claptrap is the notion that those who commit serious or repeated crimes - and that is what a felony generally is - are just victims, whether of racism, poverty, bad circumstances (always left out of course is that many, many people equally share in those circumstances yet never run afoul of the law - what's wrong with them, huh?) or whatever, and must at every turn be given yet more chances. At what point does it stop? At what point do the advocates of such approaches every acknowledge that some people are just bad, make deliberate bad choices and/or pose a threat to innocents? I guess never.
And what of those sho keep on committing crimes? How have they paid their debts? Are those "debts" really erased because someone kills someone and "pays it off" after a six or seven years in prison? Are certain offenders not a continued threat by their refusal to comply with the rules of society? Do the law abiding majority have to just keep rolling over?
There are mistakes and then there are bad or evil choices. Inherent in much of this claptrap is the notion that those who commit serious or repeated crimes - and that is what a felony generally is - are just victims, whether of racism, poverty, bad circumstances (always left out of course is that many, many people equally share in those circumstances yet never run afoul of the law - what's wrong with them, huh?) or whatever, and must at every turn be given yet more chances. At what point does it stop? At what point do the advocates of such approaches every acknowledge that some people are just bad, make deliberate bad choices and/or pose a threat to innocents? I guess never.
8
What should we now call the victims of horrendous crimes? Maybe the editorial board can come up with the proper terminology that will erase the loss or the trauma that criminals inflicted on the innocent. That would make a very good follow-up article.
9
perhaps the NY Times should run an editorial with the title "labels like 'victim' are unfair". Its remarkable how all the emphasis is on how much better criminals should be assisted than victims. Disgusting.
13
I didn't know there was a Federal Interagency Rentry Council. That's a story worth telling. What has it accomplished?
5
And how much does it cost and most importantly which for profit company has the contracts? Isn't that how we do things?
Let's call them "those that have erred" because I certainly don't want to offend convicted murderers and rapists--wait--let's call them "convicted murderers and rapists"--that should make them feel better!
13
Do you believe a 19 year-old drug user is equal to a murderer or rapist?
1
When is using the English language going to be seen as an inappropriate 'label'?
20
Please tell me you're kidding. The label "felon" is not unfair. It's a word to describe people who have committed serious crimes.
Lots of people manage to make it through their lives without committing such crimes. Those people should be rewarded with better job prospects. Meanwhile, *felons* (there, I said it) deserve to be treated with distrust. Why should we be forced to ignore such an astonishing insight into a person's character?
I never thought I'd read a sentences like "[felon defines] people by the worst moment of their lives" in the NY Times. Are you kidding? In fact, it defines the worst moment of their *victims* lives! That's right, for every felon, there's a victim, and they are the ones who suffer, not the criminal, who always had a choice.
Lots of people manage to make it through their lives without committing such crimes. Those people should be rewarded with better job prospects. Meanwhile, *felons* (there, I said it) deserve to be treated with distrust. Why should we be forced to ignore such an astonishing insight into a person's character?
I never thought I'd read a sentences like "[felon defines] people by the worst moment of their lives" in the NY Times. Are you kidding? In fact, it defines the worst moment of their *victims* lives! That's right, for every felon, there's a victim, and they are the ones who suffer, not the criminal, who always had a choice.
38
There are plenty of "felons" whose crime had no victim.
1
I still have nightmares about being mugged two decades ago. If bis actions still have consequences in my life, why shouldn't his actions have consequences in his life?
53
Much like the crazy original sin of Christians.
If you are not a Christian why do you concern yourself with original sin?
1
The business purpose of staffing is the get the best labor value. An employer who uses hiring information for other than that purpose, puts themselves and a financial and competitive disadvantage. Companies that make poor business decisions tend to go out of business while those which make superior decisions tend to thrive an grow.
If an employer inappropriately undervalues or overvalues felons relative to other in the labor market, they do so at their own competitive peril. This is a problem the market can take care of.
If an employer inappropriately undervalues or overvalues felons relative to other in the labor market, they do so at their own competitive peril. This is a problem the market can take care of.
3
I'd say "felon" is not derogatory, but simply descriptive of someone who committed, and was duly convicted, of a felony--a serious crime in other words.
But our criminal justice system is itself criminal, convicting people on coerced confessions and victimless crimes (the Drug War prisoners) and charging people with crimes that are only crimes in the imaginations of overzealous prosecutors.
Maybe we should start calling convicted felons "ham sandwiches". Everyone knows a good prosecutor could indict one, and that's what a good number of felons really are, so far as the criminal justice system is concerned--indicted and convicted to satisfy a blood lust for "justice".
But our criminal justice system is itself criminal, convicting people on coerced confessions and victimless crimes (the Drug War prisoners) and charging people with crimes that are only crimes in the imaginations of overzealous prosecutors.
Maybe we should start calling convicted felons "ham sandwiches". Everyone knows a good prosecutor could indict one, and that's what a good number of felons really are, so far as the criminal justice system is concerned--indicted and convicted to satisfy a blood lust for "justice".
4
This is ridiculous nonsense.
12
First, why does it take 20 different agencies to tackle one problem: eliminating barriers to employment? We already have problems in the law enforcement agencies not being able to coordinating their information but at least their tasks may be different. But they have less agencies working varying goals. This is twenty working on one. Second,Isn't this carrying political correctness too far? If I were trying to hire someone, I would want to know a persons criminal record. Would the FBI want to know if someone was a rapist, murderer, thief, or serial criminal? If it is good enough for them, It should be good enough for everyone else. If we are bringing someone into our workforce we should be able decide what kind of threat they might be to the other employees or to customers. They are ex convicts and felons Calling them citizens or roses doesn't change who they are. In any case we have twenty government agencies to help them reintegrate. If they are not doing their job, get rid of them and replace them with one agency that coordinates its approach and learns from their efforts failure and successes
3
Actions have consequences. If you want to avoid the consequences, don't commit the felony. By making the consequences go away, you are only encouraging more felonies. The NY Times, if it truly wants to reduce the number of felons, should spend more of its editorial space warning of the consequences of committing crimes. But I suspect that the Times is more interested in undermining our society's moral foundations than anything else.
17
Where did the Times call for a removal of consequences?
Look, I'm not advocating that we hand out "man of the year" awards to people that have committed heinous crimes. But at the end of the day, we need to find a way to reintegrate people back into society once they have served their terms. If we can do that successfully, so that they are able to avoid recidivism, it's better for everyone. So let's not think of it as a favor to the people who have committed crimes, but rather a way for us all to move forward.
I was an NGO worker for several years in post-war Liberia--and there was a time, a few years after the war, that the NGO community agreed to drop the term "ex-combatant," in the interest of true reintegration. Words are meaningful and the term was a barrier. At the end of the day, they all needed to find a way to live together--and so do we, with those that have served prison terms.
I was an NGO worker for several years in post-war Liberia--and there was a time, a few years after the war, that the NGO community agreed to drop the term "ex-combatant," in the interest of true reintegration. Words are meaningful and the term was a barrier. At the end of the day, they all needed to find a way to live together--and so do we, with those that have served prison terms.
11
I agree 100%. It's inhuman to brand someone for life. Adults reject kids calling each other names on the playground. It's time adults acknowledge that calling other adults names is no way to manage a civilized society.
8
Why not extend your logic and seal public records so people can't find out who, in their communities, is a violent offender. Ludicrous. Liberals care more about animals than people.
8
My fellow Americans...doesn't it seem like many of us have to feel good about ourselves at the expense of someone else's liberties? Hmm? Native Americans,African Americans, Mexican Americans...did we run out of different ethnic groups to hate?
So the reasoning is...EVERYBODY hates criminals right? So we can safely discriminate against them for years, until social media and public outcry changes it..
Look. Criminals are you and I. They are people that make mistakes. They can be and are everybody you see daily. Here in my state (Arizona), they advertise.."No Felons" nobody wants to rent to a felon. So. Where do they go? Where do they work and live? After being shot down for a month or so after parole...people sometimes turn back to crime. Gee? Who knew? Whatever could have made them do that?
Perhaps the total rejection by society is why. Maybe its the, you are never going to get a job thing, that does it. Or living on the streets perhaps. At any rate, roughly 52 percent of ALL criminals will return to live next door to all of us...
http://www.crimeinamerica.net/2010/09/29/percent-of-released-prisoners-r...
So my friends and neighbors, can't we at least acknowledge that they(felons) are people too? 70 million adults have some kind of criminal record...What, we should hate on them all? No. No we should not. We should be ashamed.
"I saw the monster, and it was me."
So the reasoning is...EVERYBODY hates criminals right? So we can safely discriminate against them for years, until social media and public outcry changes it..
Look. Criminals are you and I. They are people that make mistakes. They can be and are everybody you see daily. Here in my state (Arizona), they advertise.."No Felons" nobody wants to rent to a felon. So. Where do they go? Where do they work and live? After being shot down for a month or so after parole...people sometimes turn back to crime. Gee? Who knew? Whatever could have made them do that?
Perhaps the total rejection by society is why. Maybe its the, you are never going to get a job thing, that does it. Or living on the streets perhaps. At any rate, roughly 52 percent of ALL criminals will return to live next door to all of us...
http://www.crimeinamerica.net/2010/09/29/percent-of-released-prisoners-r...
So my friends and neighbors, can't we at least acknowledge that they(felons) are people too? 70 million adults have some kind of criminal record...What, we should hate on them all? No. No we should not. We should be ashamed.
"I saw the monster, and it was me."
1
No, only 2% of Americans have been convicted of a felony and 3/4's of them will commit another felony within 5 years of release from prison. They are not us. The vast majority of Americans will never commit a serious crime. I reject this "there but for the grace of god go I", especially for violent offenders. They create victims who carry burdens for life. The offenders deserve to carry the same burdens.
10
A felony is not a mistake. And a felon is nothing like me.
Have some decency and show some respect for victims of the criminals you're so quick to defend.
Have some decency and show some respect for victims of the criminals you're so quick to defend.
6
I interpret the change of wording as completely significant and important.
The way of description does 'label' a person. Felon is taken as not good.
What is significant by a 'softening description' of 'felon' is this:
This is a movement to open employers, the public, friends and families to have an open mind when a persons' criminal record becomes known and in cases needs to be known by others.
It means don't 'knee jerk' a judgement or a decision on the one word of 'felon'.
Allow a discussion to follow. A conversion of values, judgement and character is possible for all of us, including persons that have completed a criminal sentence.
These are intimate discussions that allow those that transform from some form of criminal behavior to that of being another person, transformed and dedicated to be law abiding.
Without the open mind and an open minded society this transformation has an increasing chance of not becoming.
I believe I am still becoming. Working to move my life in more constructive ways, away from my faults that hurt myself and others in my life.
We are all works in progress.
Let the progress happen.
The way of description does 'label' a person. Felon is taken as not good.
What is significant by a 'softening description' of 'felon' is this:
This is a movement to open employers, the public, friends and families to have an open mind when a persons' criminal record becomes known and in cases needs to be known by others.
It means don't 'knee jerk' a judgement or a decision on the one word of 'felon'.
Allow a discussion to follow. A conversion of values, judgement and character is possible for all of us, including persons that have completed a criminal sentence.
These are intimate discussions that allow those that transform from some form of criminal behavior to that of being another person, transformed and dedicated to be law abiding.
Without the open mind and an open minded society this transformation has an increasing chance of not becoming.
I believe I am still becoming. Working to move my life in more constructive ways, away from my faults that hurt myself and others in my life.
We are all works in progress.
Let the progress happen.
1
Federal statistics show that more than two thirds of felons reoffend. Point being this is all a ploy to increase dem voter roles and ignores that most who are released are not worthy of restored rights, which they lost because of crimes committed against society. Felons should remain disenfranchised.
4
Stats show us that people who stereotype and generalize are more apt to discriminate than someone who doesn't.
IF you can't do the time, don't do the crime
NO ONE is forced to be a felon
NO ONE is forced to be a felon
9
Actually every case is different and many people have been forced to do things. This is why the wacko prejudice shown by many here in the comments just doesn't make any sense.
1
All I can say is, "give me a break!!!!" By "me", I mean "me" because I'm sick and tired of Obama's legacy....the language of Political Correctness. A rapist, murderer, drug dealer, wife beater,human smugger etc., etc. can no longer be called a "felon" or "ex-incarcerated" because they he swear on Obama's PC bible that he/she will never commit the "atrocities" in which he/she were rightly incarcerated. Unbelievable. Obama said in his Howard Uni versity speech..."big changes are a'comin." How much more damage can he do to this country and its citizens?
7
I am a mental health case manager and work with inmates in a county jail in a small town. I spend a considerable amount of time on the topic of "reputation" and how it affects their ability to get a job or find housing after release. The felon label is formidable. But, so too is news coverage of one's arrest and sentencing. It adds to the other challenges people face in getting back into society like substance use, mental health issues, estrangement from family, lack of a support system, etc. I understand that we all must accept the consequences of our behavior but I also support efforts to allow for a more barrier free opportunity for reentry. Ban the Box is a good resource in this subject.
1
Violent criminals condemn their victims to unfair life sentences, that is, when they haven't in fact killed their victims. And, where they have killed their victims, then the deceased victims' loved-ones have been condemned to unfair life sentences.
9
I am in no way blaming the victims but yes, they feel it for their whole life,but they also work and have a house. What is your plan for 6 million felons with no job and no house? Can a couple of them come live with you?
Everyone knows that prosecutors in certain districts with a history of Jim Crow deliberately and methodically sought to get felony convictions for black men on drug charges so that they could get them off the voting rolls. It isn't really debatable that this happened in this past, and it doesn't really matter if it is still happening since we know it did, and those men are still barred from voting.
It is blatantly unconstitutional to allow these states to continue to disenfranchise people based on the color of their skin. If you want to disenfranchise felons then first make sure your state can't use it for racist purposes. I am not sure how you would do that, but it is your burden to figure it out.
It is blatantly unconstitutional to allow these states to continue to disenfranchise people based on the color of their skin. If you want to disenfranchise felons then first make sure your state can't use it for racist purposes. I am not sure how you would do that, but it is your burden to figure it out.
Labels like felon are unfair. But they are not the only things preventing the formerly incarcerated from reintegrating into society. There is a big difference between violent and non-violent offences, sexual and non-sexual offenses, and being someone who made a mistake in youth and someone who is a career criminal and in and out of jail.
There are also a lot of people without criminal records who cannot find a decent job. The real reason ex-convicts have such a hard time is that many people are having such a hard time, and any strikes against you in this economy are not easy to overcome.
Also, for every person who wants to become a contributing member of society, there are several who don't and are going to commit more crimes once released. Let's be honest, after spending several years in prison, one would be hard pressed to easily reintegrate into the job market even without background checks. Someone who never had a legit job, or years of employment gaps on a resume usually end up in the discard pile. Our country has many educated and experienced individuals who are struggling to find work or better pay. Without an incentive (like tax breaks or govt subsidies), why would an employer take a chance on someone with a spotty or lacking work history even if I don't know that they are a felon?
There are also a lot of people without criminal records who cannot find a decent job. The real reason ex-convicts have such a hard time is that many people are having such a hard time, and any strikes against you in this economy are not easy to overcome.
Also, for every person who wants to become a contributing member of society, there are several who don't and are going to commit more crimes once released. Let's be honest, after spending several years in prison, one would be hard pressed to easily reintegrate into the job market even without background checks. Someone who never had a legit job, or years of employment gaps on a resume usually end up in the discard pile. Our country has many educated and experienced individuals who are struggling to find work or better pay. Without an incentive (like tax breaks or govt subsidies), why would an employer take a chance on someone with a spotty or lacking work history even if I don't know that they are a felon?
13
The term "Murderer" bother you? It creates categories as well. Societies across the planet have shunned violators of community norms. Prison is not a "safe zone". I, for one, think those who have demonstrably anti-social value systems should not have a say in who we elect. Of course a liberal thinks that is not reasonable.
4
Are you basically saying then that just because times are tough right now for most of the 99%, that we shouldn't be worrying about ex-cons....that they really don't have it much harder and simply 'because' of their ex-con status??
It behooves every one of us, our neighborhoods, and society as a whole, when we do as much as possible to help ex-cons get a job, a home, and fully reintegrate into society. It's not enough to simply say 'well, right now times are tough for everyone.' We've seen what happens when ex-cons are immediately labelled a certain way by others and not given any type of chance, no job, no decent home, no stipend, no social worker or mental health support, no health care, etc. Many revert back to a life of crime, because we as a society give them little to no other choices.
It behooves every one of us, our neighborhoods, and society as a whole, when we do as much as possible to help ex-cons get a job, a home, and fully reintegrate into society. It's not enough to simply say 'well, right now times are tough for everyone.' We've seen what happens when ex-cons are immediately labelled a certain way by others and not given any type of chance, no job, no decent home, no stipend, no social worker or mental health support, no health care, etc. Many revert back to a life of crime, because we as a society give them little to no other choices.
1
The words we use to categorize criminals, or, as the Editorial Board would say, those who have committed a criminal act, must change, to be sure. I wonder how many reading the editorial know that someone can become a felon by a series of missteps like repeatedly committing petty and/or nonviolent crimes or missing court dates, yet be aggregated with those who have committed what I suspect most of us would consider much more serious wrongdoing. Minor felonies must be recategorized to distinguish them from serious crimes.
Whatever system is used, however, it is unlikely that just changing the terminology will remove the stigma, as the acts of the perpetrators and the perceptions of society are the reason for such.
Whatever system is used, however, it is unlikely that just changing the terminology will remove the stigma, as the acts of the perpetrators and the perceptions of society are the reason for such.
3
"... a series of missteps like repeatedly committing petty and/or nonviolent crimes or missing court dates..." Whatever happened to personal responsibility or consequences for actions? Missteps? Repeated criminal conduct? Missing court appearances? Really? At what point do we stop contorting ourselves to overlook bad behavior? Or do you really, truly believe that all of the acts you describe are utterly out of the hands of the perpetrator?
5
You can also avoid becoming a felon by not "committing petty and/or nonviolent crimes or missing court dates."
Works for most of us.
Works for most of us.
5
Why does an individual who chooses to, say, rape and sodomize little children, deserve to be called a humanized term simply because he has served his time? Evil exists and all the incarceration in the world won't erase it. It's long past time for NYT editors to exit their heavily guarded (with guns!) building, go to courtrooms, and hear firsthand that not everyone in prison merely stole a loaf of bread because he was hungry. Far from it.
60
Such a person as you describe would almost certainly never get out of jail, either because they get a life sentence, or another inmate kills them.
I couldn't agree more. Maybe we need to define “people who have committed crimes” by categorizing them as people who committed really bad crimes, people who committed bad crimes and people who committed not so bad crimes. That makes just as much sense.
3
Evil exists but people change. One horrible act does mean that a person cannot change.
1
You people on the editorial board are amazingly obtuse. If a person does not want to be referred to as a felon then he/she should not commit felonies. The reason for labeling them is that they cannot be trusted to act as normal human beings. They are either violent or they steal anything they can reach. Wake up!
69
Because someone did something wrong long ago does not mean they can never be trusted again.
2
Like anything else, I would want to know the details of the crime. Recently, much to my sad surprise, I learned that one of my favorite teachers from my high school now has a long criminal record for theft and for sexual exploitation of a minor. I have not seen this man in nearly 30 years and do not know the exact details of the case, but the records are online; in my home state, this term "sexual exploitation" is used for those who were caught with child pornography as well as those who actually assaulted a child. He was fired from my high school, and we all thought his dismissal happened because it was rumored that he had been seen in a gay cruising spot. The point is, I would want to know this before hiring such a person. I also had an employer who had been arrested years earlier for throwing a punch at someone in a bar in college. Both men might be considered "felons" but clearly the facts of the case are very different, and any potential employer, neighbor, business partner or whatever needs this information. These days, any good job has far more applicants than it can hire, and it's reasonable that a potential employer will use criminal background as a filter.
21
don't forget the issue of liability from an employers perspective. Naturally there are no NY TImes editorials on how liability laws would need to be changed to hire more ex-convicts.
4
Clearly, most of the commenters today have never made a mistake, or had a loved one commit a mistake. I guess I need to move to their homes and see what perfect people are like so I can emulate their behavior. And before I'm taken to task by the sanctimonious souls who want to argue that a crime is not a mistake, I beg to differ.
Addiction is the gift that just keeps on giving, people. You can fight it with all your heart, but continue to make the same mistake. I've lived with and around addiction all my life. The pretentious and disingenuous here can take the hard line if they like. But they are making it impossible for those normal human types who do make mistakes to get back into some semblance of a life. What you don't understand is that ONCE you've committed even the most low level crime, the sentence never, ever ends. Voting is the least of it. My son, who went to prison twice for drug possession and has been sober for 6 years, can't get a job; an apartment; a car; into a college of any sort; a bank account, or anything else that could help him move back into society. How is that right? Every path closed? How can anyone who claims to be a Christian, or even has love in their hearts, agree that this is the right thing to do?
Perhaps you group of perfect, stainless folks should buy yourselves a little walled island and go there to live and breed with one another. I choose to live in the real world and try to help make things better for the rest of us lower class types.
Addiction is the gift that just keeps on giving, people. You can fight it with all your heart, but continue to make the same mistake. I've lived with and around addiction all my life. The pretentious and disingenuous here can take the hard line if they like. But they are making it impossible for those normal human types who do make mistakes to get back into some semblance of a life. What you don't understand is that ONCE you've committed even the most low level crime, the sentence never, ever ends. Voting is the least of it. My son, who went to prison twice for drug possession and has been sober for 6 years, can't get a job; an apartment; a car; into a college of any sort; a bank account, or anything else that could help him move back into society. How is that right? Every path closed? How can anyone who claims to be a Christian, or even has love in their hearts, agree that this is the right thing to do?
Perhaps you group of perfect, stainless folks should buy yourselves a little walled island and go there to live and breed with one another. I choose to live in the real world and try to help make things better for the rest of us lower class types.
43
...or you could have a court system embezzling business taxes, citation payments, child support payments, etc., then turning around and issuing arrest warrants on those victims who had lives and families destroyed. Thanks dhimmicrats! Oh, and you can find ample evidence of all this online. PM me if that's too hard for you, as I've humiliated TWO states' Dept. Of Revenues already, in court.
1
Approximately 2% of Americans are convicted felons. So the people you refer as perfect stainless folks are 98% percent of the population. Sound like for the vast majority of people not committing felons really isn't so difficult. That IS the real world.
10
Amen!!
In an era of mass-incarceration and following a period of over-incarceration, increasingly obvious in hindsight, this makes sense. When the private prison "industry" became big business, we lost our way as a country. We have terms to further stratify former criminals including "violent criminals," "white-collar criminals," sex-offenders," and so forth. Some get exonerated, but remain labelled. Many are addicts who could have benefited from treatment instead of incarceration, and at lower cost and greater benefit to society in general (but not to the shareholders of CCA). And their rights are never fully restored. Background checks, online police logs, voting rights, they are indeed labelled for life despite serving their time.
15
That period of mass-incarceration made people safe. A lot of people have forgotten what it was like in the 80's and 90's. They'll soon see first hand the reasons.
It's all fun and games to talk about "over-incarceration" until your loved one is raped or murdered.
It's all fun and games to talk about "over-incarceration" until your loved one is raped or murdered.
6
I agree with this. Your criminal record, in certain situations, should be expunged like a bankruptcy on a credit report after so many years.
I also think accomplishments or titles should be expunged after a certain number of years. If you were a two-term congressman or a judge or won a Grammy, you should not be dining out not that years later, especially if you haven't done anything lately.
I also think accomplishments or titles should be expunged after a certain number of years. If you were a two-term congressman or a judge or won a Grammy, you should not be dining out not that years later, especially if you haven't done anything lately.
7
What makes a person not a felon is the hard work and relevant programs available in prison for rehabilitation.
When released they then need programs to help them transition from the circumscribed life of an inmate to the personal choices that life on the outside requires. Jobs, connections to the community, healthcare, all the things that make a person feel human.
After that, they will no longer be felons. It would be much easier and more cost effective instead to intervene at the early stages of a person's life when they first realize what their opportunities are, good and bad.
When released they then need programs to help them transition from the circumscribed life of an inmate to the personal choices that life on the outside requires. Jobs, connections to the community, healthcare, all the things that make a person feel human.
After that, they will no longer be felons. It would be much easier and more cost effective instead to intervene at the early stages of a person's life when they first realize what their opportunities are, good and bad.
2
The states are a JOKE on felonys-for instance a person unless convicted of a FEDERAL felony NEVER loses their right to vote for FEDERAL representives-Congress Senate President.
The "state" only has power over its elections NOT FEDERAL.
Also denial of professional licenses and living restrictions-it all varies from state to state.
Most are hysterical behind sex offenses but remember the law behind that post WW2 in most cases per state after California created the laws in response to the "zoot suite riots" where white ww2 service men raped and sexually assaulted hispanic women in Los Angeles when the Hispanic gangs fought back the state responded with RACIST laws designed for ALL WHITE JURYS to convict and label men of color.
Only NOW its WHITES on drugs who are the MAJORITY sex offenders caught in their own racist trap.
25yrs to LIFE for rape? Wow draconian
Murder 2nd gets 9 yrs average
Felony for a $10 rock of crack? Insane
Gram of powder cocaine a misdemeanor.
No privacy concerning legal matters no LAW addressing personal privacy.
If convicted of a felony of ANY KIND simply look at Google name pic mug shots etc all on line
Perfect for extortion
A very immature system dog eat dog racist based legal system set up by whites who NOW are its greatest victim....oh the irony.
The "state" only has power over its elections NOT FEDERAL.
Also denial of professional licenses and living restrictions-it all varies from state to state.
Most are hysterical behind sex offenses but remember the law behind that post WW2 in most cases per state after California created the laws in response to the "zoot suite riots" where white ww2 service men raped and sexually assaulted hispanic women in Los Angeles when the Hispanic gangs fought back the state responded with RACIST laws designed for ALL WHITE JURYS to convict and label men of color.
Only NOW its WHITES on drugs who are the MAJORITY sex offenders caught in their own racist trap.
25yrs to LIFE for rape? Wow draconian
Murder 2nd gets 9 yrs average
Felony for a $10 rock of crack? Insane
Gram of powder cocaine a misdemeanor.
No privacy concerning legal matters no LAW addressing personal privacy.
If convicted of a felony of ANY KIND simply look at Google name pic mug shots etc all on line
Perfect for extortion
A very immature system dog eat dog racist based legal system set up by whites who NOW are its greatest victim....oh the irony.
5
It's why something wicked this way comes.....
2
The commission of a serious crime is an indication of the character of the offender. A person’s character develops in childhood and is very difficult to change. People of unsound character may learn to control their behavior, but their characters remain flawed. The crime rate for former offenders is much higher than for the general population. Employers, landlords, medical licensing agencies, and so on, have the right to know if the person they are considering is of sound character. The most reliable indication of unsound character is a history of serious conviction.
70
And thus were Jesus, Galileo, John Brown, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr. seriously convicted for their "unsound character" ?
More Texas tripe from the state that infected the nation with the likes of W, Perry, Cornyn, Abbott and Cruz.
More Texas tripe from the state that infected the nation with the likes of W, Perry, Cornyn, Abbott and Cruz.
3
I have worked over the years, as a therapist, with a handful of individuals who were incarcerated previously. Like any of my patients, they were persons first. I worked at home. I was never fearful of these individuals. To think that they carry an extra burden when looking for work, to think they continue to be punished on every Election Day, cannot register to vote, likely would be excluded from juries... This is wrong!
I commend the Times Editorial Board, who tirelessly generate excellent editorials, who devote time to good writing, to discussing the issues, to excellent analysis - often under time pressure. Your work is appreciated!
I commend the Times Editorial Board, who tirelessly generate excellent editorials, who devote time to good writing, to discussing the issues, to excellent analysis - often under time pressure. Your work is appreciated!
7
As a therapist you should know that many psychopaths know how to use charm to convince others that they are "normal" while meanwhile, they are, for example, actually child predators, or domestic violence offenders.
5
You write: "The reference to former inmates as “citizens” was strikingly humanizing." This statement assumes all former inmates are citizens. They aren't.
From US Sentencing Commission data:
"According to FY 2014 USSC data, of 74,911 sentencing cases, citizens accounted for 43,479 (or 58.0 percent), illegal immigrants accounted for 27,505 (or 36.7 percent), legal immigrants made up 3,017 (or 4.0 percent), and the remainder (about 1 percent) were cases in which the offender was either extradited or had an unknown status."
In attempting to change language to use 'extra words to acknowledge the humanity' of former convicts- excuse me, former 'individuals who were incarcerated'- we should still recognize that illegal immigrants- can I still use that term?- represent a significant percentage of 'persons who committed a crime' and are now' individuals who are currently incarcerated'.
From US Sentencing Commission data:
"According to FY 2014 USSC data, of 74,911 sentencing cases, citizens accounted for 43,479 (or 58.0 percent), illegal immigrants accounted for 27,505 (or 36.7 percent), legal immigrants made up 3,017 (or 4.0 percent), and the remainder (about 1 percent) were cases in which the offender was either extradited or had an unknown status."
In attempting to change language to use 'extra words to acknowledge the humanity' of former convicts- excuse me, former 'individuals who were incarcerated'- we should still recognize that illegal immigrants- can I still use that term?- represent a significant percentage of 'persons who committed a crime' and are now' individuals who are currently incarcerated'.
11
The statistics cited are not from the U.S. Sentencing Commission but from a July 2015 article on Breitbart News that did its own analysis. These numbers do not seem to agree with published USSC data, but the one thing that makes them barely plausible is that 29% of 2014 "primary offenses" were immigration violations. Most crimes are not punished in the Federal courts
The vast majority of the evidence is that those here illegally have much lower crime rates than U.S. citizens. They came here to work.
The vast majority of the evidence is that those here illegally have much lower crime rates than U.S. citizens. They came here to work.
2
Free all prison inmates. Its good for the justice industry. - B. Obama
@ Mark R.
from the same report; Hispanics constitute the largest percentage of the federal prison population (35.2%). Of that population more than half are non-citizens, and non-citizens from Mexico account for over 16% of the federal prison population.
http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/qu...
from the same report; Hispanics constitute the largest percentage of the federal prison population (35.2%). Of that population more than half are non-citizens, and non-citizens from Mexico account for over 16% of the federal prison population.
http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/qu...
3
I'm in the legal world and have dealt with many people charged with and convicted of felonies. If the Times wants to do something positive it should be a leader for those who are falsely accused of crimes and then acquitted or otherwise exonerated. Where and how do they reclaim their reputations?
I'll be glad to talk about better, more humane and sophisticated treatment of the mentally ill in the prison system.
But convicted felons need to do more than serve their time before receiving full redemption.
I generally suport the Obama administration. They're off base on this one.
I'll be glad to talk about better, more humane and sophisticated treatment of the mentally ill in the prison system.
But convicted felons need to do more than serve their time before receiving full redemption.
I generally suport the Obama administration. They're off base on this one.
24
The NYT can lead the way by offering repeat felons/citizens jobs. My guess is that not one person on staff is a violent felon who has served time. In addition, editors should be walking their talk by renting out their second properties to felons/citizens. Perhaps the next editorial can follow up with the Times' own efforts.
28
If you have spare bedroom give them a place to rest their weary heads.
1
What of the victims of those formerly called felons? Maybe the Times Editorial Board can come up with a euphemism for them that will magically erase their pain and suffering. After all, why should someone continue to suffer because of the worst moment of their lives? There is precious little consequence these days for those who break the social compact most of us are trying to live by; at the very least we ought to know who they are.
64
No euphemism needed. They are called white people. White -on-white crime is the most ignored injustice. Due to segregation most crimes against whites are committed by other whites. Only 5% of homicides are interracial. And they are about evenly distributed between the races. However if a white person is killed by a black one then the black person is likely to end up on death row.
2
I feel for the victims...however, the families put their faith in the justice system which worked properly,handed out the sentence etc... They were tried and convicted then did the time and what you want, is for people to suffer their whole life with no chance at doing anything but crime. Do you own a prison?
The continuing restrictions put on people who have completed their sentences amount to a life sentence for ANY crime - no matter the crime or when it was committed. The comments here supporting that just point to the problem - that in the U.S., if you break ANY law, you are considered to be a danger to society for the rest of your natural life. We don't believe in rehabilitation, we assume that someone was caught committing one crime, they will commit that crime again (never mind about the people who were never caught to begin with - they're allowed to go on with their lives).
A person who stole from an employer at age 20 is considered a risk to employers at age 50. A person who sexted a photo of themselves to their 15 year old girlfriend when they were 19 is labeled a child predator for the rest of their lives. A person who shot someone - of course a very serious offense - is assumed to always be one step away from committing someone else - forever.
And of course this hits people at the bottom of the income scale hardest. In most of these cases, if the accused is affluent, they'll get their charges reduced or thrown out, or won't be convicted in the first place. What we have now is a system where for poor people, a 2 year sentence when you're 22 turns into a life sentence, because you can never again find a job, home, or vote.
A person who stole from an employer at age 20 is considered a risk to employers at age 50. A person who sexted a photo of themselves to their 15 year old girlfriend when they were 19 is labeled a child predator for the rest of their lives. A person who shot someone - of course a very serious offense - is assumed to always be one step away from committing someone else - forever.
And of course this hits people at the bottom of the income scale hardest. In most of these cases, if the accused is affluent, they'll get their charges reduced or thrown out, or won't be convicted in the first place. What we have now is a system where for poor people, a 2 year sentence when you're 22 turns into a life sentence, because you can never again find a job, home, or vote.
21
There are more mentally ill people in prison than there are in mental institutions.
And rich people can and do get away with felonies including murder and rape even when they are black like O.J. and Cosby.
And rich people can and do get away with felonies including murder and rape even when they are black like O.J. and Cosby.
2
Anyone who has time to ponder something is innocuous as the subject has too much time on their hands.
If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime. I have no sympathy for these people, they have to live with the consequences of their actions as we all have to.....
If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime. I have no sympathy for these people, they have to live with the consequences of their actions as we all have to.....
14
If only "rehabilitation" was actually the norm...
If only "recidivism" was actually a rarity...
If only "incarceration" wasn't actually a euphemism for continuing education...
If only frogs had wings...
If only "recidivism" was actually a rarity...
If only "incarceration" wasn't actually a euphemism for continuing education...
If only frogs had wings...
9
It is not difficult to see how an Administration that cannot bring itself to call religious zealots who commit unspeakable acts of terrorism "Islamic Terrorists" would avoid calling people convicted of committing felonies "felons."
Obama and the progressives who empower him are a vast coalition of square pegs whose sole unifying characteristic is the belief that they have been victimized by America or its former free market economic system. So each day we are treated to some new mandatory re-education effort based upon what the all-knowing progressives determine to be fair and equitable.
In the future, when the victims are firmly in charge of our government and the entire world has been re-balanced to accommodate their limitless needs, do you envision a society that is safer or more prosperous? I don't.
Obama and the progressives who empower him are a vast coalition of square pegs whose sole unifying characteristic is the belief that they have been victimized by America or its former free market economic system. So each day we are treated to some new mandatory re-education effort based upon what the all-knowing progressives determine to be fair and equitable.
In the future, when the victims are firmly in charge of our government and the entire world has been re-balanced to accommodate their limitless needs, do you envision a society that is safer or more prosperous? I don't.
21
Oh Please. They are called felons because they committed felonies. They ripped apart people's lives, but obviously not any one that impacts the editorial board. Yes, in many cases they served their sentence, but that is part of the penalty. Whether they murdered, robbed, or caused major damage, the did go through the system. And some may say they are paying a high price. The FACT is, they chose to do what they did, and the Scarlet F on their forehead may dissuade someone else from doing a similar "CRIME."
Doesn't mean they can't be productive, but this touchy feely attitude by the Board is insane. How much longer until we refer to everything as the "F" word to spare people's feelings?
Doesn't mean they can't be productive, but this touchy feely attitude by the Board is insane. How much longer until we refer to everything as the "F" word to spare people's feelings?
35
Wrong. Many or most people who have committed felonies did not rip apart people's lives. Many crimes are victimless. The lives that were ripped apart are strictly limited to their own and their families.
2
Thank you for speaking the truth.
Language matters. A person with a felony is more apt than a felon, just as a child with autism is much better than an autistic child. We tend to label, I suppose, because labeling is efficient and saves time. But at the expense of a more nuanced understanding of what or whom we have labeled.
1
You're really comparing an innocent person with autism to rapists. muggers and murderers?
6
The real solution is to turn prisons into places where all the money and hard work are focused on preparing prisoners to prepare for a good job when they leave. Can we imagine a situation when employers would see time in prison focusing on a job as a plus? Now prison is a warehouse for storing human beings, often people with minor offenses. If we want people who leave jail to be accepted, we need to change the reality of prison, not just the language we use.
6
Why is it that we can no longer call something what it is? The word felon is stigmatized because one has to have committed a weighty crime to be described as one. The rest of law abiding society in some instances needs to have this information in hiring, housing, and the like.
We are going too far in our political correctness when we have to resort to verbal gymnastics.
We are going too far in our political correctness when we have to resort to verbal gymnastics.
33
A felony is not always a "weighty" crime.
Once again the Ed Board at the NYT sounds more like a campus newspaper than the paper of record and the establishment. So being called a "felon" is a form of "objectification"? No, it's the truth. If I'm hiring someone who is a felon, I'd like to know. If I have a financial adviser who's been convicted of a crime, I'd like to know. Individuals can decide to give felons another chance. But they need to know the truth first. Disguising the truth? Well, that's what used to be called deception.
27
The NYT seems to have abandoned the ideas of "fact" and 'truth".
4
But we *are* defined by our deeds. A psychopath may say he loves animals, then admit to kicking a puppy to death, and see no contradiction. A sensible person would define him by his deeds.
The 'liberal' or 'progressive' or whatever they're calling themselves this week community defines a man or woman by something they may have done, or just said, twenty years (or two centuries) ago if it is an utterance or act they deem racist, sexist, or any other of a multiplicity of -isms' Yet they are eager to erase or downplay an actual violent crime? We are truly in topsy-turvy-land.
I don't know if Eddie Ellis actually was innocent. Though it has been said that if you believe what the inmates tell you, then a prison is the only community in which every single member is entirely innocent.
I agree that ex-convicts should be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. We need to eliminate the 'have you ever been arrested' checkbox on job applications, restore the right to vote, and otherwise acknowledge that you've paid your debt to society. BUT that doesn't make what you did go away. 'The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on,' said Omar the Tentmaker; ' not all your piety nor wit/Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,/Nor all your tears wash out a word of it.'
I can anticipate the reply: 'Have you never done wrong? Done things you regretted, and wanted forgiveness for?' Uh, yes. Who hasn't? But I don't equate cheating on a boyfriend with armed robbery.
The 'liberal' or 'progressive' or whatever they're calling themselves this week community defines a man or woman by something they may have done, or just said, twenty years (or two centuries) ago if it is an utterance or act they deem racist, sexist, or any other of a multiplicity of -isms' Yet they are eager to erase or downplay an actual violent crime? We are truly in topsy-turvy-land.
I don't know if Eddie Ellis actually was innocent. Though it has been said that if you believe what the inmates tell you, then a prison is the only community in which every single member is entirely innocent.
I agree that ex-convicts should be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. We need to eliminate the 'have you ever been arrested' checkbox on job applications, restore the right to vote, and otherwise acknowledge that you've paid your debt to society. BUT that doesn't make what you did go away. 'The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on,' said Omar the Tentmaker; ' not all your piety nor wit/Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,/Nor all your tears wash out a word of it.'
I can anticipate the reply: 'Have you never done wrong? Done things you regretted, and wanted forgiveness for?' Uh, yes. Who hasn't? But I don't equate cheating on a boyfriend with armed robbery.
9
These terms signify and brand people who have committed crimes or a single crime AND who have been caught AND punished. Yet how about those who have committed crimes and were not prosecuted or have yet to be prosecuted. Perjury is a crime many commit when signing an affidavit or the their tax returns, fraud is a felony like setting up an unlicensed university to scam people with lies. Or knowingly selling worthless securities to people who then loose their retirement savings.
Steal a car go to prison and be a felon for life, rob millions of their savings get the testify before Congress to brag about how you did it and receive applause.
A fraudster and con-man who should be prosecuted to a classic bait and switch scam can be a candidate for the presidency when millions of John and Jane Does must carry then stench of a singe error for which they were caught and punished while business and corporate criminals, pat themselves on the back and give each other awards and buy themselves a political party whose ownership is now being questioned.
Steal a car go to prison and be a felon for life, rob millions of their savings get the testify before Congress to brag about how you did it and receive applause.
A fraudster and con-man who should be prosecuted to a classic bait and switch scam can be a candidate for the presidency when millions of John and Jane Does must carry then stench of a singe error for which they were caught and punished while business and corporate criminals, pat themselves on the back and give each other awards and buy themselves a political party whose ownership is now being questioned.
1
Shall we extend this principle to more minor state motor vehicle law violations? If convicted of a DUI when 18 it still shows up on your driving record when your 80. No legal way to remove it.
3
Do is a minor violation?
DUI is not a felony. Therefore, one cannot be labelled a felon if convicted. Kill someone while drunk behind the wheel, then it is a different story. Frankly, I would like to know that distinction through the label! Character and choices made...
1
This is not true.
Perhaps they shouldn't have committed the felony in the first place . . .
As I have taught my children, everyone in life has challenges and bad things happen to them. What makes the difference is how they respond.
As I have taught my children, everyone in life has challenges and bad things happen to them. What makes the difference is how they respond.
21
What a simplistic and dangerous world view.
1
We love to imprison people here in the US, but then we don't do anything to help these people after they've served their time. We need to stop demonizing them and start helping them adjust and re-enter society. We have no problems spending money on lots of things (endless wars come to mind) yet we don't want to help our own citizens and scratch our heads and wonder why they're often repeat offenders. Again, America is short-sighted - chalking them up to just bad seeds takes the blame off of us as a society and is just another opportunity for us to ignore our responsibilities.
17
8 May 2016, Spoken as only one who has not been a victim of a felon can speak - with ignorance and misplaced compassion. Felonies are serious crimes and every crime has one or more victims. Our justice system does not dispense justice, so if one is convicted, usually by plea deal, the bargain rarely reflects the crime. The discrepancy, except for our drug laws, is usually on the lenient side. I was a victim - the perpetrator got 40 years and will serve one. Don't preach to me about leniency and unfairness. Get hurt, witness our justice system, then speak.
53
Right!
1
Who paid for the Wall Street felony fraudulent economic crash that began on September 15, 2008?
Who paid for not detecting and deterring the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks?
The 99.9% of the American people at the bottom of the socioeconomic political educational pyramid.
Who paid for not detecting and deterring the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks?
The 99.9% of the American people at the bottom of the socioeconomic political educational pyramid.
1
Not everyone is seriously harmed by a felony. For example, if someone stole my iPhone I would be upset for a few days maybe. I'd get over it. But in New York stealing something worth more than $250 is a felony. Should that person's life be destroyed because he stole an iPhone and got caught? And what if he made restitution? What if he made restitution three times over?
Crimes that permanently harm others should be the only crimes that can permanently stigmatize the offender.
Crimes that permanently harm others should be the only crimes that can permanently stigmatize the offender.
If you commit, and are found, guilty of committing - a felony, then you are a felon, and no semantic gymnastics can make it otherwise. A dog is not the same thing as a shark and a skunk is not a fancy kitty cat.
13
Remember the good old days, when it was generally accepted "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"?
Somehow that seems to have evolved in to "If you can't do life, don't do ANY crime, no matter how minor!"
Somehow that seems to have evolved in to "If you can't do life, don't do ANY crime, no matter how minor!"
2
An outbreak of reason and humanity is always encouraging to see. Maybe the next time we dream up some vast social engineering scheme that uses guns and prison bars to treat mental health problems, we will take more time to study the likely real world consequences before we press SUBMIT so to speak.
1
The Times appears never to have hired an ex-felon despite a good number of menial jobs. Ex-felons may deliver New York newspapers, but they would be employed by a private contractor. No money where your mouth is here.
10
Why are ex felons only candidates for menial jobs?
Well, I certainly wouldn't want to stigmatize Bernie Madoff by calling him a felon, or even worse, a crook.
9
So we are to now call felons, convicts and jailbirds "persons who commuted a crime" so that we, what, don't hurt their feelings.
Is this the same reason Obama and Hillary can't mouth the words "Islamic terrorist?"
Is this the same reason Obama and Hillary can't mouth the words "Islamic terrorist?"
14
From up here in Canada, it seems like Americans like to stigmatize a person who got caught and cannot afford a good lawyer, without considering that next time it could be them or their friend, or someone from their family. It's as though by crying that the other is evil, they can avoid acknowledging their own guilt.
3
Another case of liberal political correctness run amok.
17
If you live in a small town long enough, your behavior, no matter how young you were, follows you as you grow up until you die. People do not forget if you got someone pregnant at a young age or if you had to quit school to get married, if you were someone that failed to pay your bills while you lived it up. Does anyone believe that anyone even cares if O. J. Simpson won a Heisman Trophy anymore, only that he murdered two people, no different for President Clinton, a very good President, who we found out was really a serial adulterer and possibly rapist, Eliot Spitzer whose own laws he couldn't keep and visited prostitutes. How about Tiger Woods, great golfer but serial womanizer to the nth. degree? As an adult, to me which is the age of puberty, one's life is defined from there on out. You own your behavior for better or worse. The problem with bad behavior is that most of it is not a one time incident, rather a pattern throughout life. If you like to cheat at business or work where you can embezzle money, it is not like you steal $25. one day, and that is it. People that are in prison didn't get there because they were a Boy Scout and stole one pack of gum, not in this day and age. People are afraid to live in neighborhoods with former rapists, child molesters, thieves, etc. as the human animal is given to repetitive behaviors, and are just one situation away from reoffending. There are exceptions, but anger and violence don't really go away that easily.
9
Nobody forces anybody to do anything illegal. If you know it's illegal, don't do it. If you do it and get caught, accept the consequences. "Felon" isn't a label - it's who you are if you are convicted of a serious crime against another person.
13
Another person is not always involved. Thank you drug war.
Calling a criminal a felon is not as inhumane, as ignoring them when they reenter society.
You think a person coming out of jail is more concerned about what others will call him/her ? Or, are they more interested in how they can earn a respectable living ?
The DOJ should start with ideas suggested by Sanders, if it is serious about fixing the system.
You think a person coming out of jail is more concerned about what others will call him/her ? Or, are they more interested in how they can earn a respectable living ?
The DOJ should start with ideas suggested by Sanders, if it is serious about fixing the system.
5
Take this a multiply it by 1000 for anyone who was convicted of any sexual crime, whether heinous or extremely minor teenage stupidity.
1
Yet more politically correct blather.
22
My son died from the word felon. Could not get work
4
The NYT editorial is wrong. Labels like "Felone" are not an unfair "life" sentence.
If you committed a crime and were convicted, you ought to pay for it with your jail term plus endure stigmatization. This is the only way to deter you from committing your crime in the first place. You don't get to rape a girl, do a few years in jail, and get to forget about it. If you committed a felony, you should be punished. The current punishments are not severe enough.
The NYT editorial conflates innocent people who are convicted with the term convicted felons. If you are innocent, that is an entirely different problem.
But this is another example towards being politically correct that is not acceptable.
A crime of moral turpitude means you shouldn't be put into a position of trust. Once you commit a felony involving a crime of moral turpitude, you have broken the trust. Just as we wouldn't let Carly Fiorina be the head of a public company, we surely wouldn't allow a convicted felon be a baby sitter to our attractive daughters.
I'm sorry, but convicted felons must live with what they have done. Part of that is being forbidden from taking on positions requiring trust.
If you committed a crime and were convicted, you ought to pay for it with your jail term plus endure stigmatization. This is the only way to deter you from committing your crime in the first place. You don't get to rape a girl, do a few years in jail, and get to forget about it. If you committed a felony, you should be punished. The current punishments are not severe enough.
The NYT editorial conflates innocent people who are convicted with the term convicted felons. If you are innocent, that is an entirely different problem.
But this is another example towards being politically correct that is not acceptable.
A crime of moral turpitude means you shouldn't be put into a position of trust. Once you commit a felony involving a crime of moral turpitude, you have broken the trust. Just as we wouldn't let Carly Fiorina be the head of a public company, we surely wouldn't allow a convicted felon be a baby sitter to our attractive daughters.
I'm sorry, but convicted felons must live with what they have done. Part of that is being forbidden from taking on positions requiring trust.
14
Uh, don't commit the felony in the first place?
16
I don't understand how anyone shows such compassion for ex-felons, including ex-murderers while excepting sports figures who are misdemeanants, felons and even uncharged wrongdoers. Compassion for those who have murdered co-exists with calls for lifetime banishment of the likes of Joe Paterno, Ray Rice, and Lance Armstrong. It appears that absolution for wrongdoing sports figures is uniquely inappropriate. Better to kill your mother than to not report an assistant coach to the police. If there is an overarching explanation that renders these views consistent, I think it starts with "homina...homina".
2
Its way past time to let convicted criminals do their time and return to society. This situation is akin to a blacklist and that is not what this country is all about.
7
Guilty before proving one's innocense.
In the big America that is a virtual prison, everyone is guilty.
In the big America that is a virtual prison, everyone is guilty.
6
Where does the Times come out on mandatory, lifetime sex offender registration. That's a far more damaging term than "felon", which even has a cachet in some circles. Sex offender? Not so much.
5
Can we change the label "President" to "person who received at least 270 electoral college votes?"
6
If someone commits a violent crime and is truly a danger to society, then they should not be let out of jail. However, once someone is released from jail, they have the right to participate in our democracy. Fewer criminals would go back to a life of crime if they were not sidelined and prevented from getting work, housing, and having a say in their community by being able to vote.
3
I wonder aha the average age is of first time criminals is.
I wonder what the average of common criminals is.
Somehow I don't think 'felons' take up crime later on in life;
It might be society's challenge to address the causes of crime and possible preventions of such behavior when a person is more likely to take up such a lifestyle.
'
I wonder what the average of common criminals is.
Somehow I don't think 'felons' take up crime later on in life;
It might be society's challenge to address the causes of crime and possible preventions of such behavior when a person is more likely to take up such a lifestyle.
'
Thanks to the NYT and its endless editorials on this subject, no person who can read at the 4th grade level can claim ignorance of being "branded" a felon if he or she in fact commits a felony. Understanding what the game is and committing the crime anyway comes under the concept of "consequences", a concept that all of us have to live with in every decision we make every day.
12
If every article about the elections here pull up something the candidate said or did in their past, why can't we refer to people who actually were tried and convicted that same way?
4
Buy-in is what keeps us all safer, not disenfranchisement. You have to be able to create a life worth keeping, and that's hard to do if you can't get a decent place to live, or find a living wage job, or drive a car, or vote. Or...etc. etc. I think it can be difficult for the general public to grasp that the byzantine laws around prosecution and sentencing make it pretty difficult to know who actually is a continued risk, and who presents no more risk than the average person of committing a crime. In any case, we've arranged for a system where everybody gets a life sentence, forget that "served your debt" malarkey. Certainly, the public has a right to be protected, but most crimes are not random, and we're safer now than we were 30 years ago, as crime has had a steady downhill trend. My anecdotal experience over 20 years is that they are just not so different from you and I as people seem to want to believe.
6
My problem with Mr. Obama's releasing prisoners convicted of "minor drug crimes" is that Mr. Obama will never have to live with drug dealers: He'll never be kept up at night with their shouting and loud radios, and find their trash all over his sidewalk in the morning.
Mr. Obama will never have to deal with double-parked cars, three men in the back seat, and styrofoam trays thrown out the windows.
Or have to call 911 to break up knife fights.
Or hear gunshots at night.
These crimes are not without impact on neighborhoods. My neighbors and I are always glad when the cops bust up drug rings and worry when the guys come back around, or new crews take over.
Mr. Obama will never have to deal with double-parked cars, three men in the back seat, and styrofoam trays thrown out the windows.
Or have to call 911 to break up knife fights.
Or hear gunshots at night.
These crimes are not without impact on neighborhoods. My neighbors and I are always glad when the cops bust up drug rings and worry when the guys come back around, or new crews take over.
15
All part of today and tomorrows throw away/disposable population. We are all drone fodder now for our intentionally militarized and terrorized planet where you are either locked up or blown up by our psychopathic so-called leaders so they can have more money and feel better about living and governing in state of complete self inflicted ignorance.
2
This has never been about continued punishment. The term felon has negative connotations because ... they committed crimes. You can try and sugar coat but if you want to call them "Cauliflower heads", over time "Cauliflower heads" will come to mean "Felon".
This is not about the felons. It is about law abiding people. The Editorial Board of the Nytimes lives on the Upper East Side and U West Side, have Browstones and Coops, and send their kids to Dalton and Collegiate. They have the structural advantage of wealth and position to tell everyone else to live and work with felons when in fact they do not. I will value the Editorial Board's opinion when they admit "people who have committed violent or sex crimes" to their private clubs, help them afford and get approval from the Coop board to live in their buildings, and when their executive assistants are ex rapists.
This is not about the felons. It is about law abiding people. The Editorial Board of the Nytimes lives on the Upper East Side and U West Side, have Browstones and Coops, and send their kids to Dalton and Collegiate. They have the structural advantage of wealth and position to tell everyone else to live and work with felons when in fact they do not. I will value the Editorial Board's opinion when they admit "people who have committed violent or sex crimes" to their private clubs, help them afford and get approval from the Coop board to live in their buildings, and when their executive assistants are ex rapists.
37
"Felons" are victims of their own making.
Serving 3 years, in a plea deal,for a brutal assault is not fully paying one's debt.
The true victim never recovers.
Serving 3 years, in a plea deal,for a brutal assault is not fully paying one's debt.
The true victim never recovers.
18
Thanks to the way we have been raised and taught to think, we label everything, so we don't have to deal with it.
4
We have abandoned rehabilitation. Sweeping that error under the rug by erasing "labels" which recognize the serious nature of some offenses is hardly helpful.
5
Actions speak louder than words.
If a "felon" does not change behavior then changing the label does not do too much good.
Most felons were on a destructive path before they became felons and going forward is hard if you do not get off that path.
A rose by any other name still has thorns.
If a "felon" does not change behavior then changing the label does not do too much good.
Most felons were on a destructive path before they became felons and going forward is hard if you do not get off that path.
A rose by any other name still has thorns.
16
What a flawed logic. If people have served their time- they shouldn't have to carry that sentence with them for their life. If we want to reduce recidivism- the best way is creating real pathways to employment. Tarring them as an "ex-con" of "ex-felon" will- as evidence has shown- only make integrating into the labor market even more difficult.
2
We should also return to those who have served their sentences their right to vote.
12
This appears to be worded as an "all or none" or "take it or leave it" proposal.
Is it to be a "one size fits all" rule?
Forgetting that a person is a felon so to speak...will that apply if the person has been to prison TWICE rather than only once for, let's say, armed robbery?
These days a convicted child abuser seems to be more anathema to society than your run of the mill garden variety murderer. Many towns don't even want a child abuser to live in their town after serving a sentence in prison. Will the same people who want to do away with the label "felon" for a robber be equally charitable to a child abuser? I think not.
This all sounds well and good in a speech to the local civic association but somehow I think it will be a road strewn with potholes if put into effect.
Is it to be a "one size fits all" rule?
Forgetting that a person is a felon so to speak...will that apply if the person has been to prison TWICE rather than only once for, let's say, armed robbery?
These days a convicted child abuser seems to be more anathema to society than your run of the mill garden variety murderer. Many towns don't even want a child abuser to live in their town after serving a sentence in prison. Will the same people who want to do away with the label "felon" for a robber be equally charitable to a child abuser? I think not.
This all sounds well and good in a speech to the local civic association but somehow I think it will be a road strewn with potholes if put into effect.
16
A friend of mine demonstrated what is possible when convicted felons are allowed an honest opportunity to rejoin society.
I met a guy we'll call Bill a while back when we had a class in common. Bill comes from a poor neighbourhood and was convicted of drug trafficking charges when he was 19, right out of high school.
However, the local government here recognized that there was a good chance that he was simply caught up in the wrong crowd at the wrong time, as he was a good student. At the same time, it recognized that incarceration was expensive and counterproductive for someone Bill's age.
So they gave him a deal. The government would pay for his university education and a small living allowance as long as Bill worked hard and graduated from university. Bill chose and paid for his own apartment, was allowed to work in a laboratory, and could own whatever he wanted. The only reminder of his crime was a curfew that he had to obey, and visits from an officer once a month.
The government's bet was correct, and it paid off; we went to the graduation ceremony together. Bill is now a grad student working to make lifesaving drugs, even though he once sold dangerous ones.
If Bill never mentioned it, no one would have known about his record. Now, no one needs to ask, because he will be defined by what he is capable of doing, and not what some obscure file reads.
I am very glad to have a government that cares, and I am immensely appreciative of the wisdom of some of its policies.
I met a guy we'll call Bill a while back when we had a class in common. Bill comes from a poor neighbourhood and was convicted of drug trafficking charges when he was 19, right out of high school.
However, the local government here recognized that there was a good chance that he was simply caught up in the wrong crowd at the wrong time, as he was a good student. At the same time, it recognized that incarceration was expensive and counterproductive for someone Bill's age.
So they gave him a deal. The government would pay for his university education and a small living allowance as long as Bill worked hard and graduated from university. Bill chose and paid for his own apartment, was allowed to work in a laboratory, and could own whatever he wanted. The only reminder of his crime was a curfew that he had to obey, and visits from an officer once a month.
The government's bet was correct, and it paid off; we went to the graduation ceremony together. Bill is now a grad student working to make lifesaving drugs, even though he once sold dangerous ones.
If Bill never mentioned it, no one would have known about his record. Now, no one needs to ask, because he will be defined by what he is capable of doing, and not what some obscure file reads.
I am very glad to have a government that cares, and I am immensely appreciative of the wisdom of some of its policies.
3
Jesus Christ taught civilization for two thousand years to forgive people their trespasses.
Cops, prosecutors, judges, and countless others deny any shred of forgiveness, instead crucifying people to reinforce their Empire.
It's God versus the Establishment.
Cops, prosecutors, judges, and countless others deny any shred of forgiveness, instead crucifying people to reinforce their Empire.
It's God versus the Establishment.
3
In that case, I suggest that the State of New York discontinue the use of the term "scofflaw" to describe persons with parking challenges.
The term "scofflaw" is injurious to the self-esteem of such persons and impugns their character by intimating that they have no respect for the law, when in fact, such a situation may have arisen out of ignorance or failure to act.
The term "scofflaw" is injurious to the self-esteem of such persons and impugns their character by intimating that they have no respect for the law, when in fact, such a situation may have arisen out of ignorance or failure to act.
2
Historically, the English language has tended to be very economical. If one word can be used instead of a phrase the word will be used. "Person who committed a crime" will be shortened by most people to "criminal". "Individual who was incarcerated" will be shortened by most people to "inmate" or "prisoner". Why not use "ex-felon" or "former inmate"? They both refer to a former status in a person's life and sound like words that people would use.
2
You're right, of course, and there is nothing wrong with this essay, but it let me imagine being a different person and being incensed by a perception of the Political Correctness. People in this country aren't hatful so much as resentful. They see "people who were convicted of felonies" getting consideration and dignity while they abide the law and feel they aren't getting anything from anyone. And I can get that. People wouldn't be so anti-PC and anti-welfare and LGBT-phobic if they didn't need so much help themselves.
2
So, when a person, for example, is convicted of rape or child molestation, then,in order to aid their reentry into society, they shouldn't be refereed to as rapists or child molesters, since those words create a negative impression of the person convicted? Or how about an armed robber who puts a gun in someones face to get money? People do change, but how many parents would trust Denis Hastert as a wrestling coach for their children, even though he was never convicted of child molestation?
5
The who concept of using the EX in front is nonsensical: Something that was- that no longer is- makes no sense to reference. No one would like to be referred to as ex-smoker; ex- liar; ex-adulterer; ex-success; ex- young person. It does become quite foolish.
This change is welcome, but this editorial should mention that this issue cuts across party lines. The Koch brothers are strong advocates for prison reform and for increasing opportunities for people previously arrested:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/04/27/koch-industries-criminal-j...
And many republican lawmakers are also leading these efforts:
"Republican Senator Rand Paul has teamed up with Democrat Cory Booker to propose making it easier for juvenile and nonviolent offenders to have their records expunged, while Republican Mike Lee is working with Democrat Dick Durbin to reduce mandatory-minimum sentences. Republican Representative James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin... is working on a comprehensive package of reforms to address such issues as asset forfeiture, sentencing disparities, and the restoration of rights to young offenders."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/do-the-koch-brothers...
You know who hasn't worked on these issues? Hillary and Bill Clinton!
http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/04/27/koch-industries-criminal-j...
And many republican lawmakers are also leading these efforts:
"Republican Senator Rand Paul has teamed up with Democrat Cory Booker to propose making it easier for juvenile and nonviolent offenders to have their records expunged, while Republican Mike Lee is working with Democrat Dick Durbin to reduce mandatory-minimum sentences. Republican Representative James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin... is working on a comprehensive package of reforms to address such issues as asset forfeiture, sentencing disparities, and the restoration of rights to young offenders."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/do-the-koch-brothers...
You know who hasn't worked on these issues? Hillary and Bill Clinton!
http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-...
7
All well and good, but are you going to prohibit private employers from considering job candidates records, as we do with age, race, etc, which are not a result of choices we have made in life? Will a dry cleaner or restaurant franchise owner be prohibited from hiring a convicted thief to work with cash? This will require a "right to be forgotten" law like Europe has, since google reveals all.
2
I appreciate giving people a second chance but when I hire an office worker, I should be able to find out whether he has a conviction for embezzelment.
When I hire someone to come in and fix my furnace, I assume they are not sending a convicted rapist.
Giving people a second chance should not take any priority over the rights and well being of those that never needed one to begin with.
When I hire someone to come in and fix my furnace, I assume they are not sending a convicted rapist.
Giving people a second chance should not take any priority over the rights and well being of those that never needed one to begin with.
16
Post of the day!
1
This is political correctness run amuck. Felons have broken laws and lives and in the process may pay a small percentage of the "cost" to society by being imprisoned. They deserve the stigma of the world knowing who they are and what they have done. It is up to them, not us, to change and do whatever is necessary to reintegrate themselves. This silliness of doing away with labels is just another way of blaming the victim for the victimizer. Thank goodness we're coming to the end of this era of dumbness.
54
But here's the problem; they don't get the opportunity "to reintegrate themselves." I promise you, all those paths are closed for the average person with no money.
15
Tell it to the "loving" politicians....
This may be so for some, perhaps many but this unfortunate consequence is one more reason NOT to commit a crime. If we continue to remove these reasons or construct forgiveness paradigms that somehow erase the past, we will only be inviting more crime. I grant you that there's a dilemma here, both for society and the felon but giving more chances to felons that already have had many before going to jail cannot be the answer for them or us. If we must err, let's do so on the side of caution and society that has not done anything to deserve placing itself at greater risk by ignoring the past histories of criminals.
2
We can do better. Felon is to broad a term. If we call someone a felon we don't know how serious their crime was. To better identify what people are inclined to repeat, since many people who are convicted of crimes repeat them, we should be more descriptive. Examples of better descriptions, instead of felon, would be murderer, rapist, child molester, armed robber, thief, arsonist, terrorist, drunk driver, etc.
2
See bud, thats the point...You shouldn't get to see what their crime was. It is none of your business nor mine. They did their time.They are good and owe nothing. If having a certain type of person around you offends your delicate sensibilities...the problem is you. Labels are bad dude. Why don't we tattoo "Bad Person" on the foreheads of bad people? Because, there aren't really any bad people,only ones that make mistakes.
There is another solution. We take a state with not that much going for it, New Mexico,Kansas, Arizona etc.. fence it off,(let Donny do it), then we put all of the "bad people" in it and all of us can sleep easier...sigh. Now seriously...
There is another solution. We take a state with not that much going for it, New Mexico,Kansas, Arizona etc.. fence it off,(let Donny do it), then we put all of the "bad people" in it and all of us can sleep easier...sigh. Now seriously...
1
"Felony" is a category descriptor, not an offense descriptor, see also "misdemeanor." With "felon," we know quite well how serious the crime was - very. What we don't know is how much violence, if any at all, was involved in the commission of the felony crime. Court proceedings are matters of public record and, from which, do require some effort to glean information, but it is in there.
We already call them that in everyday discourse. It is more likely this is referring to job, loan, and housing applications among others. I think the object here is to lessen the chance a felon will be asked more in depth questions by using, shall we say, a less alarming description
of the person who committed a felony. It does nothing to protect the general public and appears to be a softening of the ground in which the federal government may say it is discriminatory to not rent, hire, loan, etc., to convicted felons along with requiring all states to allow felons complete voting rights. This, in fact, may very well be the goal.
of the person who committed a felony. It does nothing to protect the general public and appears to be a softening of the ground in which the federal government may say it is discriminatory to not rent, hire, loan, etc., to convicted felons along with requiring all states to allow felons complete voting rights. This, in fact, may very well be the goal.
2
Oh, speeches --- aren't they wonderful?
Look, the problem is that nothing concrete is being proposed. That is what an editorial is supposed to do: put forward ideas.
In the absence of these may I humbly suggest: 1) expunge the records of felons after parole; 2) make it illegal to ask if someone has committed a crime; 3) modify criminal background checks so that only the most heinous crimes such as murder and rape are in a background check (excluding robbery where no one is hurt); 4) make it a severe felony to reveal details of a background beyond the exceptions noted above; and 5) to satisfy the police, allow complete backgrounds for felons to be retained by the FBI to be provided to local law enforcement only on request for a particular crime and with the involvement of a case worker.
Look, the problem is that nothing concrete is being proposed. That is what an editorial is supposed to do: put forward ideas.
In the absence of these may I humbly suggest: 1) expunge the records of felons after parole; 2) make it illegal to ask if someone has committed a crime; 3) modify criminal background checks so that only the most heinous crimes such as murder and rape are in a background check (excluding robbery where no one is hurt); 4) make it a severe felony to reveal details of a background beyond the exceptions noted above; and 5) to satisfy the police, allow complete backgrounds for felons to be retained by the FBI to be provided to local law enforcement only on request for a particular crime and with the involvement of a case worker.
5
Please add "and employers will not be held responsible nor can be sued if the person they hire kills, rapes, steals from or harms another employee or customer".
7
If I am hiring somebody I want to know whether they were ever a felon or not. Period. It is then my decision whether or not to give them the job. Do you think I want to hire a former child abuse as a babysitter? Or a drug dealer as a pharmacist? Are you crazy? This information has to be available.
22
You ever talk to a victim? Robbery? The fact that for the rest of their life they will live in fear, never knowing what that thump means? Robbery with nobody hurt? Think about living the rest of your life checking and double checking every lock on your window. Living the rest of your life afraid. Nobody hurt? No a robbery IS NOT nobody hurt.
3
When someone is released from prison, their imprisonment should end. The stigma of labeling one a "felon" forever damns them to their past, not their present or future.
And the best way to keep one from recidivism is to allow them to be full citizens upon release. The criminal labeling is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And the best way to keep one from recidivism is to allow them to be full citizens upon release. The criminal labeling is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
20
Those who actually get convicted of a felony are the worst offenders. Young people who commit crimes for the first time are offered a chance to plead to a misdemeanor, and diverted to non-prison rehab programs, and have their records expunged if they cooperate. Then, if they're convicted again, they're sent to jail for a short spell and put on probation. It is only persistent offenders who commit many crimes who eventually end up being convicted and sent to jail for long terms.
So, yes, these convicted felons really are no good. They have committed many crimes, and are justly considered to be bad people.
So, yes, these convicted felons really are no good. They have committed many crimes, and are justly considered to be bad people.
9
USA FOUNDERS Believed that after fulfilling a prison sentence, a person has repaid the debt to society is then entitled to participate fully in the rights of citizenship. Much has been made of the idea of, Love the sinner but hate the sin, a notion that has been distorted to, Hate the sinner and the sin for a lifetime. But it is only the right of a judge and jury to impose a life sentence without parole. So states that exclude prisoners who have paid their debt to society could be argued to be imposing a criminal sentence without due process of law. There is also a distortion in the administration of justice when the 1% whose reckless, predatory banking practices, caused the Great Recession, from which the nation is still struggling to recover. But none of the perpetrators were sent to jail. During the Reagan years, bankers who perpetrated the savings loan scandal were imprisoned. That cut down significantly on financial crimes. Until 2008, at which time top bankers who caused the mess were not even indicted. Yet there are inmates serving a life sentence without parole for using marijuana, an act that has been widely decriminalized. To force such prisoners to fulfill what are now unjust sentences is imposing an unfair burden upon them and their families, not to mention the needless burden to taxpayers. The GOP has created the US Gulag, as we have the largest number of prisoners of any country in the world. Are we still the Land of the Free? If not, why not?
2
The "controller" you sense was not Reagan, that "attempt" was botched, thank God. The Germans named Schiffe aka GHW and family, are who you are sensing. They are NOT southerners/Texans, BTW.
So, why are we registering convicted sex offenders that are released? What is the rate of recidivism for them compared to other felons? We believe in redemption, but do we really want to make the accounting department of a business defenseless? That is what we are doing when we say a business can't ask if a person has been convicted of a felony. This defies reason but it sure makes the President feel good. I bet his daughters won't be exposed to felons. (Whether sex offenders, robbers or embezzlers.)
5
As far as I'm concerned, the man who murdered my Grandmother and nearly succeeded in murdering my Grandfather in order to steal their car will always be a murderer, batterer, criminal, felon, thief, drug dealer, drug addict, and convict. I sincerely hope that he's never an ex-convict, but if he ever manages to lie well enough to convince a parole board, I will continue to use those names to refer to him for the rest of his life because he's done everything in his power to earn them. He deserves them. And they function as a very proper warning to the rest of society. "Proven Danger Here!! Beware!!"
9
While I'm all for giving people second chances, and have no objection to the less pejorative semantics, there are some places and times where a criminal record should be a red flag, and judgments and/or actions taken on the basis of them. If you Google the names "Linton" and "Hamlin" linked with the VA you will be shocked, or you can just read about it here: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/05/feds-put-credit-card-felon-in-charge-o...
Who puts a convicted credit card embezzler in charge of a large department already being investigated for abuses of government credit cards? Then there's the case of Elizabeth Rivera, arrested for armed robbery and plead guilty, reinstated at the VA because VA Under Secretary David Shulkin said “criminal prosecution or conviction for off-duty misconduct does not automatically disqualify an individual from federal employment” unless there is a link between the crime and job duties. She was awarded her job back because, as her lawyer pointed out, it would be discriminatory not to reinstate her. Why? Because Santiago Martinez, another VA employee, is a convicted sex offender and he still works there. I invite all to investigate for themselves, I, at least, couldn't make this stuff up.
If the VA is to any degree representative of the rest of government, and I'm quite certain it is, then we got trouble in River city, as the saying goes. I use the VA exclusively for healthcare, and this scares the bejesus out of me.
Who puts a convicted credit card embezzler in charge of a large department already being investigated for abuses of government credit cards? Then there's the case of Elizabeth Rivera, arrested for armed robbery and plead guilty, reinstated at the VA because VA Under Secretary David Shulkin said “criminal prosecution or conviction for off-duty misconduct does not automatically disqualify an individual from federal employment” unless there is a link between the crime and job duties. She was awarded her job back because, as her lawyer pointed out, it would be discriminatory not to reinstate her. Why? Because Santiago Martinez, another VA employee, is a convicted sex offender and he still works there. I invite all to investigate for themselves, I, at least, couldn't make this stuff up.
If the VA is to any degree representative of the rest of government, and I'm quite certain it is, then we got trouble in River city, as the saying goes. I use the VA exclusively for healthcare, and this scares the bejesus out of me.
5
Should a felon be 'forgiven'? In most cases yes, but it's also fair that a pederast not be allowed to run a kindergarten, or an embezzler to run a bank. That part is simple.
But in all things legal, America is at a crossroads with its own past. The legal and penal system in America needs to look at other countries for guidance, because we are failing at this. We're still in the Old Testament.
If we can agree that revenge is not the job of a civilized state, we can work towards a society where the ex-con can earn their place in society. Then theories will no longer be necessary.
We need to look deep into our hearts and minds to ask if private prisons are ever moral, ever to be allowed. Questions about rehabilitation for ex-cons, etc. won't be resolved so long as we're betting against our own citizens, which is what privatization is.
I'm afraid the liberals are right on this one. Jesus was a liberal.
But in all things legal, America is at a crossroads with its own past. The legal and penal system in America needs to look at other countries for guidance, because we are failing at this. We're still in the Old Testament.
If we can agree that revenge is not the job of a civilized state, we can work towards a society where the ex-con can earn their place in society. Then theories will no longer be necessary.
We need to look deep into our hearts and minds to ask if private prisons are ever moral, ever to be allowed. Questions about rehabilitation for ex-cons, etc. won't be resolved so long as we're betting against our own citizens, which is what privatization is.
I'm afraid the liberals are right on this one. Jesus was a liberal.
2
Sarah,
Jesus was also against crime and for punishment!
"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."
— Matthew 21:12–13
Jesus was also against crime and for punishment!
"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."
— Matthew 21:12–13
2
Government statistics show that 2/3's of felons are rearrested with 3 years and 3/4's are rearrested within 5 years. I fully understand that the way we treat ex convicts may be part of the problem. But you are asking a lot of society to just ignore peoples past. Because as sure as I'm reading this article today if we make these changes some horrible criminals will have increased opportunities commit unthinkable crimes against innocents and the finger pointing will begin. While criminals have rights so do the people at large have a right to live in as much safety from violence as possible.
7
Concepts of 'felon' and 'convict' have little application in modern society anyway. But no one here however should be able to argue that many forms of sex offenders are not on-going problems to society - whether in or out of a facility - and that's also why we've moved toward civil commitment facilities for this population and why we still may need a few labels to deal with the worst among us.
But when we turn to young car thieves and drug offenders, 'branding' them is simply not helpful to society as a whole. Returning them to voting members of society with 'skin in the game' benefits all of us. We all benefit when they go back to work, pay taxes and fit back into our neighborhoods. I would encourage those in government to move much more swiftly to restore those citizen's civil rights in their entirety once they have completed paying their debt to society. It's just the smart thing to do for everyone.
But when we turn to young car thieves and drug offenders, 'branding' them is simply not helpful to society as a whole. Returning them to voting members of society with 'skin in the game' benefits all of us. We all benefit when they go back to work, pay taxes and fit back into our neighborhoods. I would encourage those in government to move much more swiftly to restore those citizen's civil rights in their entirety once they have completed paying their debt to society. It's just the smart thing to do for everyone.
2
A good first step would be to require the Department of Justice to officially update all its records so arrests which are thrown out of court as a matter of law are not reflected in FBI records. I was charged with assault in 1971 while in Army uniform for anti-war activities and was met in court with the judge stating, "This case involves the draft". This was after I was honorably discharged, but the court would not permit evidence of my honorable discharge into evidence. The jury verdict was overthrown in June, 1977, I was reinstated as a member of the NJ Bar, and later became a PE in New York. Despite this I was arrested by the
2
The gist of this editorial is correct; in most cases, once a convicted felon has served his or her sentence, he or she should be allowed to reenter society. A convicted felon should be allowed to vote, and the use of criminal histories to preclude employment should be restricted, though not eliminated (we probably don't want convicted child molesters to work in elementary schools).
But the solution is to change how we treat convicts/felons, through a change in societal attitudes, and in carefully formulated regulations.
We should not be practicing Orwellian doublespeak. A person who was convicted of a crime is, in fact, a convict. In the case of serious crimes - felonies - he or she is a felon.
The Editorial Board of the Times, and many others, like to play games with
language. To the Times, affirmative action is not discrimination, when, in reality, it is.
In a more egregious example, a Times editorial discussing the post-Scalia Supreme Court described immigrants who entered the US illegally as "law-abiding" which, of course, they are not. This same linguistic nonsense is also being imposed by the Library of Congress, which is even more worrisome.
A rose is a rose is a rose. Let us stop using language to mislead; this serves no worthwhile purpose. When we use labels for untoward ends we must stop - I agree with the central argument of this Editorial. But, by and large, words mean what they mean.
But the solution is to change how we treat convicts/felons, through a change in societal attitudes, and in carefully formulated regulations.
We should not be practicing Orwellian doublespeak. A person who was convicted of a crime is, in fact, a convict. In the case of serious crimes - felonies - he or she is a felon.
The Editorial Board of the Times, and many others, like to play games with
language. To the Times, affirmative action is not discrimination, when, in reality, it is.
In a more egregious example, a Times editorial discussing the post-Scalia Supreme Court described immigrants who entered the US illegally as "law-abiding" which, of course, they are not. This same linguistic nonsense is also being imposed by the Library of Congress, which is even more worrisome.
A rose is a rose is a rose. Let us stop using language to mislead; this serves no worthwhile purpose. When we use labels for untoward ends we must stop - I agree with the central argument of this Editorial. But, by and large, words mean what they mean.
6
I teach in a prison where (as in most prisons in the US) the residents are officially called "offenders" and those who have been freed "ex-offenders." Most of my students have indeed offended against the law at some point (as have most of the rest of us), but calling them "offenders" throughout their prison term is liking calling all of us "liars" because we have at some time in the past been untruthful. My students are nearly all models of decorum, and I forbid the use of a term in my classroom that suggests otherwise.
1
Once again the utter domination of Identity Politics raises its ugly head in the reporting of this article in the NY Times. And because of the constant reporting and agitation from the "diverse" elements in there newsroom -- who owe their very positions to Identity Politics -- this domination is very effectively.
In this particular discussion the problem or concern is there are numerous shades of grey on the topic. If someone breaks into a house, gets caught, convicted and is put away for a few years Or perhaps another kid is caught selling pot. Convicted and incarcerated then their branding / labeling for life as a “felon” is arguably problematical and counter productive relative to a second chance.
On the opposite side of this discussion if a person is murdered and then convicted and incarcerated for 10-30 years whereby its reasonable to be ‘labeled’ a felon for life, since his actions had severe consequences and the label fits going forward . Meaning … potential employers need to know (and weigh the pros vs cons) they may be risking co-workers with a convicted violent felon.
Regarding the title ... "Labels Like 'Felon' Are an Unfair Life Sentence" Well guess what ? There is a long list of items and things in life that are unfair. Get use to it and grow up
In this particular discussion the problem or concern is there are numerous shades of grey on the topic. If someone breaks into a house, gets caught, convicted and is put away for a few years Or perhaps another kid is caught selling pot. Convicted and incarcerated then their branding / labeling for life as a “felon” is arguably problematical and counter productive relative to a second chance.
On the opposite side of this discussion if a person is murdered and then convicted and incarcerated for 10-30 years whereby its reasonable to be ‘labeled’ a felon for life, since his actions had severe consequences and the label fits going forward . Meaning … potential employers need to know (and weigh the pros vs cons) they may be risking co-workers with a convicted violent felon.
Regarding the title ... "Labels Like 'Felon' Are an Unfair Life Sentence" Well guess what ? There is a long list of items and things in life that are unfair. Get use to it and grow up
7
I believe that the public does have a right to know that certain individuals engaged in certain actions that evidence a tendency to do harm. As a result, I don't agree that that information should be withheld.
We would all like to believe that inmates in our prisons come out rehabilitated and ready to move on but we know it isn't true. Recidivism is high and to pretend that isn't the case is inappropriate.
There seems to be a tendency to say "wouldn't this be nice" let's do it with little or no concern for the consequences or the rights of those who in this case haven't broken the law.
I support programs to assist inmates to reenter society and overcome their history. I also support reform in our justice system to assure fairness. However, each of these issues must be dealt with with substantive change not label changing. It's just too easy and will not resolve the core problems but it will sure make some people feel better. Then they can just move on "problem solved"!
We would all like to believe that inmates in our prisons come out rehabilitated and ready to move on but we know it isn't true. Recidivism is high and to pretend that isn't the case is inappropriate.
There seems to be a tendency to say "wouldn't this be nice" let's do it with little or no concern for the consequences or the rights of those who in this case haven't broken the law.
I support programs to assist inmates to reenter society and overcome their history. I also support reform in our justice system to assure fairness. However, each of these issues must be dealt with with substantive change not label changing. It's just too easy and will not resolve the core problems but it will sure make some people feel better. Then they can just move on "problem solved"!
3
Usually, violent criminals who are locked up for a period of time have not, "paid their debts." The thugs in Oakland who assaulted my mother at 85 years of age never "paid that debt." Maybe they were caught and convicted and served time for some other crime, but never for the crime against my mother. Most criminals only serve time for a very small portion of the crimes they committed.
I know a number of men who have spent a long time in various prisons in California. They deserved to be there. They have rehabilitated themselves. Many of them still refer to themselves and convicts, as felons. They discovered that if they stopped committing crimes, they stopped getting arrested.
It is incredibly difficult to rebuild a life following criminal convictions. What term you call a felon matters much less than that cons or ex-cons behavior.
I know a number of men who have spent a long time in various prisons in California. They deserved to be there. They have rehabilitated themselves. Many of them still refer to themselves and convicts, as felons. They discovered that if they stopped committing crimes, they stopped getting arrested.
It is incredibly difficult to rebuild a life following criminal convictions. What term you call a felon matters much less than that cons or ex-cons behavior.
7
"Felon" is not merely a label if punishment continues because of it.
If we actually believe in rehabilitation (And we certainly seem to believe in rehabilitation, particularly for "upscale" felons and white collar criminals, so much so that we don't even prosecute some of the worst offenders.) we must fully redeem past offenders as forcefully as we prosecute and sentence them.
Otherwise, our whole system of "justice" is a cruel and self-destructive charade.
If we actually believe in rehabilitation (And we certainly seem to believe in rehabilitation, particularly for "upscale" felons and white collar criminals, so much so that we don't even prosecute some of the worst offenders.) we must fully redeem past offenders as forcefully as we prosecute and sentence them.
Otherwise, our whole system of "justice" is a cruel and self-destructive charade.
2
I always preferred to use the term "ex-felon", rather than felon, for a convicted felon who has completed their prison time. I like the term "citizen" even better for someone who has returned to society after finishing their prison sentence. In Massachusetts, where I came from, the day when someone gets out of prison, even if they are on parole or probation, they can register to vote. I wish Florida could be like that. We will be lucky to allow "formerly incarcerated citizens" to be allowed to vote only after they have completed parole, probation and paid all fines(with the exception of all murderers & rapists).
1
Criminal records are arbitrary stains on the records of both criminals and those that got on the wrong side of someone with a badge. I've personally wAtched as convicted felons had their records expunged and given pistol permits - after a bomb conviction - while others can't get a job from a drug conviction. The drug conviction is a personal use issue but the bomb (actually made but not put in use) would have hurt people yet a judge who was friends with the lawyer no doubt, expunged the bomb record so the person could purchase a handgun. Such law is certainly not fair and not equal. Criminal records are obstacles only for the poor. the way it was designed.
Maintaining criminal records is barely a step above bigotry and racism, only its hard to tell the criminals from the non-criminaLs in the public - or you surely would have a new group to marginalize on sight and discriminate for sadistic enjoyment.
Abusing and denying Criminal Record holders is the latest bias and its permitted! Let's go find us some felons to string up
Maintaining criminal records is barely a step above bigotry and racism, only its hard to tell the criminals from the non-criminaLs in the public - or you surely would have a new group to marginalize on sight and discriminate for sadistic enjoyment.
Abusing and denying Criminal Record holders is the latest bias and its permitted! Let's go find us some felons to string up
1
If the threat of "shutting people out for life" actually worked in deterring crime that would be one thing, but I am sure it is not. However, to generalize about redemption is always a mistake, as we see everyday in one crime report or another. Recidivism is relatively high but is it because of the nature of the beast, the subsequent incarceration, the lack of forgiveness and the making of a place for the person in society, or some combination of all that might be very different from individual to individual? In our society, which has become more and more anonymous, forgiveness does not seem like such a wise course. Making a place for a person, does, but since we are having a lot of trouble doing that for people without an antisocial history, it does not seem very realistic and appears as one more reflection of a nation of moral worriers. For people without a history of violent crime, and few repeat offenses, it would be more realistic, particularly those convicted of illegal possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use. That makes some sense, but you take the risk. I'll wait to see how it goes. I would rather see some hard evidence first.
2
The other perspective is that of other people who, after the felon's release, find themselves in contact in the same society with the former felon. Historically, America has considered the commission of a felony to be a major event, worthy of serious judicial and criminal justice intervention, and the commission of a felony is a major, relevant fact that should be considered in areas like employment, housing, and access to responsibility over others who could be affected by recidivism. We do have sex offender registries, after all, so the idea of stigma following felons is certainly not without precedent and wide societal acceptance.
2
Leave it to lawyers and journalists to play word games that define and confine human lives. The problem is not what we call people who engage in certain behaviors and end up in and out of our prisons. The root problem is who we put in our prisons and why we put them there.
A nation that has 5% of the world population that imprisons 2.3 million human beings or 25% of the Earthlings incarcerated does not have language problem. When 40% of those in American prisons are black even though blacks make up only 13.2% of Americans no new euphemism will provide an escape from American history.
For decades more than twice as many whites have been arrested each year for all categories of crime as compared to blacks. Indeed, more whites are arrested for each specific type of crime as compared to blacks as well except for robbery and gambling. Arrests, while not convictions are not random events. They are the beginning of the prosecution process. But blacks are persecuted for doing the same things that garner a white pass.
Incarceration of any person for non-violent minor property and personal crimes including drug use and possession primarily based upon race and color is unjust, inhumane and immoral.
Instead of trying to find a softer euphemism for felon we should face the truth and call them "slaves" or "involuntary servants" as originally intended by the13th Amendment. Prison is the carefully carved colored exception to the abolition of slavery and involuntary servitude.
A nation that has 5% of the world population that imprisons 2.3 million human beings or 25% of the Earthlings incarcerated does not have language problem. When 40% of those in American prisons are black even though blacks make up only 13.2% of Americans no new euphemism will provide an escape from American history.
For decades more than twice as many whites have been arrested each year for all categories of crime as compared to blacks. Indeed, more whites are arrested for each specific type of crime as compared to blacks as well except for robbery and gambling. Arrests, while not convictions are not random events. They are the beginning of the prosecution process. But blacks are persecuted for doing the same things that garner a white pass.
Incarceration of any person for non-violent minor property and personal crimes including drug use and possession primarily based upon race and color is unjust, inhumane and immoral.
Instead of trying to find a softer euphemism for felon we should face the truth and call them "slaves" or "involuntary servants" as originally intended by the13th Amendment. Prison is the carefully carved colored exception to the abolition of slavery and involuntary servitude.
5
There are more mentally ill Americans in prisons than there are in mental institutions and medical facilities. Most crimes in America including felonies are intra-racial.
Each year of the 33,000 Americans who die from gun shots over 60% are suicides. With 77% of whites "choosing" suicide and 14% of blacks exercising that "option".
While 19% of whites are victims of homicides primarily by white killers about 84% of blacks die from homicide primarily by black killers.
But "we" only talk about the bane of black-on-black crime when another armed white person kills an unarmed innocent black person.
From President Obama to Eric Holder to Loretta Lynch we get continuing cowardly colored criminal injustice confusion that "talks down to black people".
Each year of the 33,000 Americans who die from gun shots over 60% are suicides. With 77% of whites "choosing" suicide and 14% of blacks exercising that "option".
While 19% of whites are victims of homicides primarily by white killers about 84% of blacks die from homicide primarily by black killers.
But "we" only talk about the bane of black-on-black crime when another armed white person kills an unarmed innocent black person.
From President Obama to Eric Holder to Loretta Lynch we get continuing cowardly colored criminal injustice confusion that "talks down to black people".
2
blackmamba's assertions regarding arrest demographics are incorrect.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aus9010.pdf
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arre...
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aus9010.pdf
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arre...
2
@Ted Pikul
There are not more blacks arrested nor incarcerated than whites because blacks are more criminal than whites.
There are more blacks arrested and incarcerated and shot than whites because they are not armed and dangerous and white men like Cliven Bundy and sons, Eric Rudolph, Eric Frein, Lee Oswald, Arthur Bremer, John Hinckley, James Ray etc.
Instead they are "armed with toy guns while black boys like Tamir Rice or pellet guns like John Crawford or no guns like Walter Scott, Mike Brown, Trayvon Martin, Oscar Grant, Eric Garner and Jordan Davis.
See FBI Uniform Crime Reports over the last 46 years. See US Bureau of Prisons Report over same period. There are no statistics for whites who are not profiled nor stalked nor stopped nor shot for doing things while white that sentence and condemn black folks. See "The New Jim Crow" Michelle Alexander
There are not more blacks arrested nor incarcerated than whites because blacks are more criminal than whites.
There are more blacks arrested and incarcerated and shot than whites because they are not armed and dangerous and white men like Cliven Bundy and sons, Eric Rudolph, Eric Frein, Lee Oswald, Arthur Bremer, John Hinckley, James Ray etc.
Instead they are "armed with toy guns while black boys like Tamir Rice or pellet guns like John Crawford or no guns like Walter Scott, Mike Brown, Trayvon Martin, Oscar Grant, Eric Garner and Jordan Davis.
See FBI Uniform Crime Reports over the last 46 years. See US Bureau of Prisons Report over same period. There are no statistics for whites who are not profiled nor stalked nor stopped nor shot for doing things while white that sentence and condemn black folks. See "The New Jim Crow" Michelle Alexander
2
One size does not fit all.
Perhaps the legally accurate label of "felon" is an unfair life sentence for some people who committed a felonious act.
If the offender has committed a non violent felony, once, then upon release perhaps he or she should be granted some lattitude. However, the person's original conviction and record of time served should remain and upon a second conviction, it should be BAU.
However, for those individuals who have committed violent felonies, the argument raised by the editors is harder to accept. Perhaps the families of the victims should have a voice in any such decision.
Finally, for repeat offenders who commit multiple acts of violent felonies, should we have a new label of "predator?"
I guess the point is that the label did not cause the person to commit his or her felony and the lack of a label will not deter a person from becoming a repeat offender. Some people just are predatory and violent and need to be recognized as such.
Perhaps the legally accurate label of "felon" is an unfair life sentence for some people who committed a felonious act.
If the offender has committed a non violent felony, once, then upon release perhaps he or she should be granted some lattitude. However, the person's original conviction and record of time served should remain and upon a second conviction, it should be BAU.
However, for those individuals who have committed violent felonies, the argument raised by the editors is harder to accept. Perhaps the families of the victims should have a voice in any such decision.
Finally, for repeat offenders who commit multiple acts of violent felonies, should we have a new label of "predator?"
I guess the point is that the label did not cause the person to commit his or her felony and the lack of a label will not deter a person from becoming a repeat offender. Some people just are predatory and violent and need to be recognized as such.
4
I fear that this type of thought will make being a felon who has served time into the same status as a "disability" in that it will become a crime to consider a persons past criminal acts for hiring purposes or other admissions to certain types of communal organizations. We all know that sentences are often very inconsistently imposed because of factors ranging from plea bargaining, whether an offense was a first conviction or two or three or more strikes, jail overcrowding etc. Serving sentence is not, by definition, a complete "cleansing" or the stain of being a criminal. Recidivism is a huge problem and certain traits, like being a child molester, sexual predator, scam artist or other fraudster, simply don't change easily and may reflect something inherent in a personality. This is even recognized in the "bad boy" provisions of certain licensing regulations of Federal agencies, such as the SEC. Employers, schools or other communal organizations have a right, and in some cases a legal obligation, to assess characteristics of a potential person being brought into their midst for the protection of others. People who want to commit crimes need to know that there are potential lifetime consequences. While rationality does not always prevail in a potential criminal, the knowledge of these lifetime consequences may discourage a few.
25
We should do all that we can to first rehabilitate, then assist in building a productive, law abiding life. The former prisoner is a person who committed a crime; who has fulfilled the punishment which society metes out for that particular crime; and has been deemed fit to return to society. He/she should be allowed to fully do that.
If the punishment is not long enough, then that law should be changed. Labeling for life; keeping from full participation in society (not being allowed to vote as a citizen); or lengthening the sentence to something indefinite in time at a mental health or other facility is not how a democracy should work.
If the punishment is not long enough, then that law should be changed. Labeling for life; keeping from full participation in society (not being allowed to vote as a citizen); or lengthening the sentence to something indefinite in time at a mental health or other facility is not how a democracy should work.
9
Thank you. How does erasing people's humanity and civil rights make them better human beings? America's approach of further economic and social isolation after prison doesn't seem to be working -- and doesn't make sense. i appreciate the Obama administration's new initiative.
38
Jail should be reserved for cases where a person would be a danger to the community if not segregated. Prisons should not exist as profit centers and punitive object lessons in subjugation morality. They should be for rehabilitation of people who need rehabilitation. People in prison for one or another variant of having been discarded by the corporate world will only be embraced by humanity when corporations no longer own and run the world. Corporate criminals who do extensive damage to the economy do not go to jail.
62
"Corporate criminals who do extensive damage to the economy do not go to jail."
But by your assertion that "Jail should be reserved for cases where a person would be a danger to the community if not segregated," jail is exactly where corporate criminals should be. Corporate criminals subvert capitalism, which should be treated as an economic covenant, if we are to practice capitalism in a healthy productive way. Economic crimes should be treated as seriously as any other physical crimes. One can harm another by stealing someone's food, or shelter, just as much as one can with a gun.
But by your assertion that "Jail should be reserved for cases where a person would be a danger to the community if not segregated," jail is exactly where corporate criminals should be. Corporate criminals subvert capitalism, which should be treated as an economic covenant, if we are to practice capitalism in a healthy productive way. Economic crimes should be treated as seriously as any other physical crimes. One can harm another by stealing someone's food, or shelter, just as much as one can with a gun.
1
Rehabilitation, yes, but there is also the question of punishment. Isn't that one of the main purposes of being sentenced to jail, especially for someone who commits a violent crime? I suppose the question in this case is, when is enough enough, and I think it's very hard to know the answer. Or to put it another way, how does one do penance for a serious crime, which is efficacious, and would allow the incident to really be put behind him?
I seem to remember that, long ago, we used the term "ex-felon" for those people who had served their sentences. Why is that not used any more? I think that is very regrettable; I see it as a symptom of the harsh-on-crime mentality that seized the country a few decades ago and went far beyond reason.
23
Ex-con is the term. Deservedly so.
I don't get the NYT anymore. They've lost me.
I don't get the NYT anymore. They've lost me.
8
You are a convicted felon for life. Short of a pardon.
3
The problem with insistently liberal pronouncements is that they tend to be exception-free. As a general matter, if someone breaks into a house to rob it, gets caught and is put away for a few years; or if a kid is caught and incarcerated for selling pot on the streets of Harlem or Chicago’s South Side, then their branding for life as a “felon” is problematical and should be reconsidered.
However, if a murderer is incarcerated for only 7-10 years, as some are in some of our states, then released, I have a lot less problem with his being called a “felon” for life. Or with not forcing employers to risk putting that individual into an work setting with co-workers who don’t want to be murdered and leave spouses to grow old alone and children to be partially orphaned – not to mention losing the promise of their own lives.
There are some acts whose redemption cannot be easy, and shouldn’t be abetted artificially by the state. Society may go beyond what is rational or even fair in branding those who stray, but this tendency didn’t develop from stupidity or innocence … or even unfairness.
However, if a murderer is incarcerated for only 7-10 years, as some are in some of our states, then released, I have a lot less problem with his being called a “felon” for life. Or with not forcing employers to risk putting that individual into an work setting with co-workers who don’t want to be murdered and leave spouses to grow old alone and children to be partially orphaned – not to mention losing the promise of their own lives.
There are some acts whose redemption cannot be easy, and shouldn’t be abetted artificially by the state. Society may go beyond what is rational or even fair in branding those who stray, but this tendency didn’t develop from stupidity or innocence … or even unfairness.
71
Richard, I owe you an apology for my diatribe a week or so ago. It was wrong to do and it was rightly deleted.
2
Thomas:
I only remember that one of my own comments, and a lengthy conversational thread of responses, was deleted last week by Moderation, a VERY rare occurrence. It was on a highly sensitive matter, of the causes of lengthy airport security lines, and my own position that attention to ethnicity was perhaps an appropriate acceptance that our constitution is not a mutual suicide pact. If your response was part of that discussion, I suspect that Moderation concluded that the whole conversation came too close to what the Times regards as unacceptable, or even too risky.
If it wasn't that, it's already forgotten: onward.
I only remember that one of my own comments, and a lengthy conversational thread of responses, was deleted last week by Moderation, a VERY rare occurrence. It was on a highly sensitive matter, of the causes of lengthy airport security lines, and my own position that attention to ethnicity was perhaps an appropriate acceptance that our constitution is not a mutual suicide pact. If your response was part of that discussion, I suspect that Moderation concluded that the whole conversation came too close to what the Times regards as unacceptable, or even too risky.
If it wasn't that, it's already forgotten: onward.
11
It wasn't, and thank you. Onward!
2
It is the law, not just the words we use. People convicted of a felony do have lifetime legal disabilities.
They also are proven risks.
A person convicted of a felony of violence is proven violent in a major way.
A person convicted of a felony of dishonesty is proven dishonest.
A convicted sexual predator?
Which serious, felony crimes are we willing to forgive and forget?
Which do not prove something about the character of the convicted person? Which are not a risk of more violence, more dishonesty, more sexual predation?
I think felons should have the vote. I think the legal disabilities are overdone and counterproductive to letting them out.
But sorry, they are felons. They did it. They are that sort of person who did do that, and might again. They are not washed clean and new and risk free.
They also are proven risks.
A person convicted of a felony of violence is proven violent in a major way.
A person convicted of a felony of dishonesty is proven dishonest.
A convicted sexual predator?
Which serious, felony crimes are we willing to forgive and forget?
Which do not prove something about the character of the convicted person? Which are not a risk of more violence, more dishonesty, more sexual predation?
I think felons should have the vote. I think the legal disabilities are overdone and counterproductive to letting them out.
But sorry, they are felons. They did it. They are that sort of person who did do that, and might again. They are not washed clean and new and risk free.
119
Mark Thomason, you are wrong on all counts except for the legal fact that the law, which varies from state to state, in many states does impose lifetime legal disabilities.
"A person convicted of a felony of violence is proven" to have been violent. Not to be violent now. People change. Many ex-felons have changed, especially if young when they committed the crime.
"A person convicted of a felony of dishonesty is proven" to have been dishonest. Not to be dishonest now. People change.
"A convicted sexual predator?" If by "predator" you mean multiply repeated crimes, you are not talking about ex-felons any more. You are talking about some of them, who have been detected by conviction for repeated sex felonies.
"Which serious, felony crimes are we willing to forgive and forget?" How did forgiveness get into this? Forgetfulness is different: if a person commits a crime, serves jail time, reforms themselves (as many can do, and more if we provided the means for them to do so, such as education), then why not forget? You are tarring all ex-felons with the worst of them.
"They are that sort of person who did do that": No, they are a person who did that at that time. They may not be exactly the same person any more. They may not be very different from you, especially now, years or decades later.
"Washed clean and new and risk free" -- that's just mouthing off to arouse emotion; it has more connection with washing machines than with people.
"A person convicted of a felony of violence is proven" to have been violent. Not to be violent now. People change. Many ex-felons have changed, especially if young when they committed the crime.
"A person convicted of a felony of dishonesty is proven" to have been dishonest. Not to be dishonest now. People change.
"A convicted sexual predator?" If by "predator" you mean multiply repeated crimes, you are not talking about ex-felons any more. You are talking about some of them, who have been detected by conviction for repeated sex felonies.
"Which serious, felony crimes are we willing to forgive and forget?" How did forgiveness get into this? Forgetfulness is different: if a person commits a crime, serves jail time, reforms themselves (as many can do, and more if we provided the means for them to do so, such as education), then why not forget? You are tarring all ex-felons with the worst of them.
"They are that sort of person who did do that": No, they are a person who did that at that time. They may not be exactly the same person any more. They may not be very different from you, especially now, years or decades later.
"Washed clean and new and risk free" -- that's just mouthing off to arouse emotion; it has more connection with washing machines than with people.
73
Thomas,
Most Felons never serve their entire sentence, the prisons are too full. They are let out on unsupervised parole or supervised parole which is often the same as being unsupervised. The recidivism rate is also high.
A felon who is released early should remain a Felon for the term of their sentence or 5 years which ever is greater. After that time they should be able to request some of their rights back like the right to vote. They should never be able to own a gun and Felons convicted of a sex crime should be supervised for 20 years before being able to make any such request.
The only way to demonstrate that change in a Felon of which you speak is the passage of time!
Most Felons never serve their entire sentence, the prisons are too full. They are let out on unsupervised parole or supervised parole which is often the same as being unsupervised. The recidivism rate is also high.
A felon who is released early should remain a Felon for the term of their sentence or 5 years which ever is greater. After that time they should be able to request some of their rights back like the right to vote. They should never be able to own a gun and Felons convicted of a sex crime should be supervised for 20 years before being able to make any such request.
The only way to demonstrate that change in a Felon of which you speak is the passage of time!
9
Some felons do change for the better. But the following statistics show that fewer than 50% of them do:
April, 2014 study from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Following Prison Releases for Three and Five Years:
An estimated two-thirds (68 percent) of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of release from prison, and three-quarters (77 percent) were arrested within five years, per the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).
More than a third (37 percent) of prisoners who were arrested within five years of release were arrested within the first six months after release, with more than half (57 percent) arrested by the end of the first year.
April, 2014 study from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Following Prison Releases for Three and Five Years:
An estimated two-thirds (68 percent) of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of release from prison, and three-quarters (77 percent) were arrested within five years, per the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).
More than a third (37 percent) of prisoners who were arrested within five years of release were arrested within the first six months after release, with more than half (57 percent) arrested by the end of the first year.
9
In RJ, people who have harmed take on their own responsibility in their crime, the rippling impact of that crime, and their remorse for the harm they have caused. They then work to make amends. In doing so, they reduce the victim's negative experience—specifically incidence of PTSD and desire for violent retribution.
While language alone cannot move us from retribution to reconciliation, it can reflect a shift that is now taking place. If we care about safety, let’s do things that make us safer. If we care about the victims' rights, let’s build a justice system that actually meets their needs. Victims deserve more than just seeing someone punished. Language that labels does little to protect victims or promote safety. It also ignores the almost universal truth that people who have caused harm are often people who have been harmed.
Should we not seek systems, language, and modes of justice that—to paraphrase Thomas Mott Osborne—restores the largest number of productive citizens to society?