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