Should past criminal offences determine future job prospects?

[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.