Should past criminal offences determine future job prospects?

[Kyle]

Recently a footballer was snubbed by his team and barred from returning to football after a twitter uproar following his release from prison. He served the usual half of his rape sentence and wanted to go back to football.

Providing prisoners complete their sentences, should they be allowed back into their jobs? Should te choice be at the sole discretion of the employer? Does the type of crime make any difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thread moved by mdport. (Forum Moderator) from 'Discuss Anything' as I feel it's more suited here!

[buttons]

is this guy a professional footballer? cause I'd understand not letting him back to play because he's probably a role model for young guys and it does send the message that if you're famous/well off you can get away with crime?

but mostly I think refusing them a job, although understandable, just creates a viscous cycle as they have to resort to often criminal means to get money.

[Zak]

Depends on the offence.

I think if you've served a prison sentence for something serious then no. If you can explain the situation and it isn't that bad then yes. People get wrongfully arrested all the time although wrongfully arrested people rarely go to Court.

[rce]

Depends on the offence.

I think if you've served a prison sentence for something serious then no. If you can explain the situation and it isn't that bad then yes. People get wrongfully arrested all the time although wrongfully arrested people rarely go to Court.

I mirror this, and also take opinion from my Law degree. We have a duty to give responsible rehabilitation, and to try and assist people in living lives as normal as possible after their release.

HOWEVER, some are unforgivable, murder, child molestation, rape of minors (whether you have served a sentence or not).

My opinion on the case being is that, the defendant is in the public limelight, and I honestly don't believe he would be able to mentally manage appearing infront of the cameras if he did do this, which is why he is appealing the verdict.

Regardless, he has served part of the sentence handed to him, and he is in remorse, and I believe he should be given another chance. From what I know of him, he was a good footballer (I'm not overly interested in sports).

[Bloop]

a leopard does not change its spots

if the crime committed is a serious one, i wouldnt want to hire a person like that, nor do i think anyone wants to work with someone who has a history of serial killing let alone hire them. would you let your daughter work beside someone who previously raped another person? i dont think so.

i think it shld be prepared that a criminal would have his job prospets influenced by a great deal

[Empired]

It should be up to the employer really, but you should never be allowed back into the media if you used to be a footballer, television presenter, etc. If you just bar them from leading a normal life after they've already served their punishment they'll just end up committing crimes again because they have nowhere else to turn.

[GommeInc]

It really depends on the severity, type and number of crimes committed. Some businesses really don't care, such as road traffic offences (speeding, minor and some major accidents). Rape and murder are very difficult as they're the two most serious crimes. Even after serving your time it is difficult to really believe they have learnt a lesson as rape is such a violating crime. I agree with whichever Loose Women argued that it wasn't a "horrible rape" (violent, rotten) but it is still rape and he should never have done it or even thought about it. Rape is one of those crimes that requires quite a lot of effort, even compared to murder. The act itself is longer than that actual act of murder (the part post-planning). It's understandable people think he hasn't learnt a lesson and serving that amount of time does not justify his return to football.

Personally I think he shouldn't return because he has tarnished his own reputation for committing a heinous crime so he only has himself to blame.

[Lewis]

Depends on the crimes and jobs.

I doubt you want a murderer or rapist to become a school teacher.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes they should, it is all part of crime, punishment and justice which is what the system is supposed to be about rather than imagined 'rehabilitation'.

You do something then the consequences that follow are something you probably thought of before you did it, which you decided to disregard - too bad.

[dbgtz]

I believe it depends on the crime and the job. For example, despite the controversy over Jamie Oliver hiring a convincted paedophile to work in his restaurant, it's actually probably one of the best places for the person to work since they'd be stuck in the kitchen for the majority of the day. It would be a whole different matter if Jamie Oliver owned a school :P

[Narnat,]

I'm pretty much with what has been said above. It depends on the crime and what the job was.

[Kimmy]

I agree with some of the points. It should go on what the crime and the job is.

eg.
If you're a thief, you wouldn't be allowed in to work at a Supermarket or a bank.
If you're a rapist, you wouldn't be invited to work with young people.

The whole thing with the footballer (if it's the one who was accused of raping the drunk girl) is really tedious. I think he was very wrongly accused to begin with, so he should be allowed to play with his team.

[velvet]

like everyone else says, depends on the crime and the job.
if i had a business, i don't think i'd hire anyone who's committed violent crime (rape, murder, GBH etc) since i wouldn't want to put my employees or customers at risk.
some things like drug offences and minor traffic ones wouldn't bother me though.

[Zak]

You do something then the consequences that follow are something you probably thought of before you did it, which you decided to disregard - too bad.

Again if someone is wrongfully arrested, or charged, or warned, or convicted how is that fair?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Again if someone is wrongfully arrested, or charged, or warned, or convicted how is that fair?

And what has that got to do with it? I love in these types of crime and punishment debates on here that arise, and the group who you just know want to argue for being soft to criminals come up with all sorts of illogical excuses for them: and this is a common one, pointing out the fallibility of the justice system which we all know exists and which will always exist. So of course the justice system isn't infallaible, but neither is any system or institution that is designed by mankind. The logic of what you are saying there is to abolish the justice system and punishment entirely because sometimes it makes mistakes. A similar argument to the one always put forward by opponents of the death penalty. But on that same logic... should taking out a loan then also be abolished on the basis that sometimes a financially stable family will take one out, their financial situation suddenly changes through no fault of their own, yet they still have to repay the loan? No, of course not.

If you are convicted and punished by the justice system, that punishment should continue (and will) by society long afterwards you have left prison. And rightly too so. Would you want a fraudster as your bank manager? Would you want a guy who watches child porn babysitting your children? 'course not.

[Zak]

And what has that got to do with it? I love in these types of crime and punishment debates on here that arise, and the group who you just know want to argue for being soft to criminals come up with all sorts of illogical excuses for them: and this is a common one, pointing out the fallibility of the justice system which we all know exists and which will always exist. So of course the justice system isn't infallaible, but neither is any system or institution that is designed by mankind. The logic of what you are saying there is to abolish the justice system and punishment entirely because sometimes it makes mistakes. A similar argument to the one always put forward by opponents of the death penalty. But on that same logic... should taking out a loan then also be abolished on the basis that sometimes a financially stable family will take one out, their financial situation suddenly changes through no fault of their own, yet they still have to repay the loan? No, of course not.

If you are convicted and punished by the justice system, that punishment should continue (and will) by society long afterwards you have left prison. And rightly too so. Would you want a fraudster as your bank manager? Would you want a guy who watches child porn babysitting your children? 'course not.

I'm not saying "abolish the justice system and punishment entirely because sometimes it makes mistakes". However if you were involved in an altercation - someone attacked you for what ever reason and you acted in self-defense and got arrested for it.. is that a criminal offense? And if it is a criminal offense should that altercation should determine your future job prospects?

In that situation then I don't think so. Obviously as every one has mentioned in this thread it depends on the crime (except you may be?). This is why I questioned your post because personally I thought you meant that any crime should severely determine your future?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm not saying "abolish the justice system and punishment entirely because sometimes it makes mistakes". However if you were involved in an altercation - someone attacked you for what ever reason and you acted in self-defense and got arrested for it.. is that a criminal offense? And if it is a criminal offense should that altercation should determine your future job prospects?

Well your conflating the issues there. Now you're bringing in parts of the justice system and rules on self-defence in this country which is a completely different issue, and one I would agree with you needs looking into. But that isn't the issue at hand.

The question is, looking at the crime/the justice system as a whole, should what you have done affect you in society? It should and it will.


In that situation then I don't think so. Obviously as every one has mentioned in this thread it depends on the crime (except you may be?). This is why I questioned your post because personally I thought you meant that any crime should severely determine your future?

Every crime should do, yes. And it will by your records.

I wouldn't hire a shoplifter and put them on a till and neither I think would you or any other sane person. It's all every well saying it shouldn't affect their future (if thats what you really believe) but whether you personally would hire them like in my example is another.

[FlyingJesus]

The Ched Evans case is wholly ridiculous and is in the process of being fought and overturned. I'm sure he's not a particularly nice guy regardless of his guilt or innocence perhaps but there are plenty of absolute bells in every line of work, and it should be solely down to the employer to decide whether they want to take a risk on someone - work sanctions are not a part of the penal system except in order to protect vulnerable people (ie stopping child abusers from working specifically with children) and there don't tend to be many drunk women on a football pitch.