Discrimination against convicted criminals who have served their sentence

[EqualityandFreedom]

When someone has been convicted of a crime (even a minor one) they are often subject to various sanctions (often for the rest of their life) such as travel, employment (although I realise this isn't particularly relevant in a post capitalist society), eligibility for government aid etc. I know this is particularly broad but what are your opinions of this, should someone be penalised for the rest of their life once they have served their sentence.

[yuon]

I think it is total bullshit. Once a person has been punished (and as I've said before, I disagree with the whole notion of punishment), they should not be punished again, and again.

Especially if what they were convicted of has no bearing on the job etc. that they wish to do.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

A perfect example of this is Micheal Vick. That ***** served his time, and didn't get off easy cause he was an athlete, but PETA is still on his nuts about dog fighting.

[Manifesto]

Do people feel this differentiates from pedophiles?

[Kukulofori]

Because prisons do nothing to address the problem and people know it.

[Black Dagger]

Do people feel this differentiates from pedophiles?

What do you mean? Are you asking whether discrimination against ex-cons is 'different' (i.e. acceptable or 'more acceptable') if they are/were sex offenders? It is, though i don't think it should be.

Prison (the taking away of an individuals freedom and dignity) is a severe punishment, if someone has done time and been released, the idea that they would then have to endure further punishment really makes no sense to me. Of course this is the difference between the rhetoric of 'justice' or 'law and order' in society and the reality of it... somehow people are meant to be 'rehabilitated' by the deprivation, violence and isolation of prison life, and upon release 'go straight' (into the unemployment line?). It's such a farce, and very tragic - it destroys hundreds of thousands of lives a year.

[Kukulofori]

Is it fair? No. But the person who went into the prison system a rapist has not been rehabilitated and is therefore still a rapist, and I doubt the prison experience made them a better person. From a non-leftist perspective, someone who was arrested for robbery or something is still poor after getting out of prison, too, and will likely have to do it again.

The fault here is with the prison system that nurtures the aspects of these people that make them do bad stuff.

[Manifesto]

What do you mean? Are you asking whether discrimination against ex-cons is 'different' (i.e. acceptable or 'more acceptable') if they are/were sex offenders? It is, though i don't think it should be.

Prison (the taking away of an individuals freedom and dignity) is a severe punishment, if someone has done time and been released, the idea that they would then have to endure further punishment really makes no sense to me. Of course this is the difference between the rhetoric of 'justice' or 'law and order' in society and the reality of it... somehow people are meant to be 'rehabilitated' by the deprivation, violence and isolation of prison life, and upon release 'go straight' (into the unemployment line?). It's such a farce, and very tragic - it destroys hundreds of thousands of lives a year.
Since prison does nothing they would probably still be pedophiles.

[Reuben]

Since prison does nothing they would probably still be pedophiles.

Well the question then is whether someone being a paedophile - in the sense of being sexually attracted to children - is inherently and necessarily a threat to the extent that they need to be sanctioned after release. There is no straight line between sexual preference and sexual behaviour. A paedophile is not bound to abuse children any more than a bondage/jail fetish is bound to go out and start imprisoning people. In both cases basic self-interest - aside from any moral considerations - would represent a powerful countervailing force.

[Manifesto]

Well in many cases people commit murder for self-interest like if they kill their spouse's affair.

[bromide]

Well the question then is whether someone being a paedophile - in the sense of being sexually attracted to children - is inherently and necessarily a threat to the extent that they need to be sanctioned after release. There is no straight line between sexual preference and sexual behaviour. A paedophile is not bound to abuse children any more than a bondage/jail fetish is bound to go out and start imprisoning people. In both cases basic self-interest - aside from any moral considerations - would represent a powerful countervailing force.
The thing about someone who has spent time in prison for being a pedophile is that they haven't been imprisoned because they had sexual fantasies about children, but because they acted on them. Now, statistically sex offenders (legitimate ones, not some guy who was 19 and slept with a 17 year old girl whose parents didn't like him), have a high rate of repeat offense and I do believe they should be monitored. I don't think it's unreasonable to not allow a person who has raped children near a schoolyard. I don't feel that they should be hunted down and harassed for the rest of their lives, but it would be idiotic to allow a predator near children.

I don't agree with other sanctions, I think it's completely idiotic that someone convicted of a drug offense is not allowed to receive federal aid for higher education in the US. Considering that for most people college is unattainable without it, they are really putting them in a position where if they were selling drugs before, they're unlikely to stop because they don't have a lot of other means of income aside from part time minimum wage-slave work.

[Coggeh]

I don't agree with other sanctions, I think it's completely idiotic that someone convicted of a drug offense is not allowed to receive federal aid for higher education in the US. Considering that for most people college is unattainable without it, they are really putting them in a position where if they were selling drugs before, they're unlikely to stop because they don't have a lot of other means of income aside from part time minimum wage-slave work.
F**king excellent post.Hit the nail on the head.