from the punishment-and-rehabilitation dept.
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled that a state law (the Older Adults Protective Services Act) banning convicted criminals from getting full-time jobs in nursing homes violates due process rights and is unconstitutional:
The Commonwealth Court in Pennsylvania unanimously ruled Wednesday that a state law that prevents convicted criminals from getting full-time jobs in nursing homes or long-term care facilities is unconstitutional. By a vote of 7 to 0, the court found the law violates the due process rights of otherwise law-abiding people who may have run afoul of the justice system decades earlier. The court also concluded that a lifetime ban on employment for people convicted of crimes is not "substantially related" to the "stated objective" in the Older Adults Protective Services Act—to safeguard the elderly.
The ruling represents a victory for plaintiffs like Tyrone Peake, featured in an NPR story in April. Peake was arrested with a friend in 1981 for trying to steal a car. Peake never got behind the wheel, but he was convicted of attempted theft of an automobile and served three years of probation. The case became a black mark that prevented him from working full-time as a drug counselor for decades. "I've been fired from three jobs," Peake told NPR, "because [of] having a criminal record. And my record is like 32 years old, and I haven't been in trouble since then."
Advocates said the ruling would give fresh momentum to a nationwide movement to allow rehabilitated criminals more access to housing and employment in fast-growing sectors of the economy. Social science researchers say the risk of returning to crime declines as convicts age, and three years ago the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission warned that excluding job candidates because of criminal history can have a disparate racial impact. Aside from Peake, the other plaintiffs had convictions between 15 and 34 years ago for theft, drug possession, writing bad checks and assault and disorderly conduct. Since then, they had each maintained a clean criminal record. But advocates say the law on the books in Pennsylvania treated them the same as murderers and rapists.
More coverage at PennLive. Here's an editorial from a week ago written by a lawyer with Community Legal Services of Philadelphia.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 31 2015, @05:11PM
I don't get the 'Justice' system in this country.
EITHER: you believe the sentence handed down for the crime is appropriate and upon completion of commutation of the punishment, you restore *ALL* rights of the now redeemed individual
OR: you don't believe the sentence is appropriate so you toss the fucker in the bin for a little longer
Either you believe that people can be corrected through the correctional system or you don't in which case any and all sentence you hand out should be a life-sentence without possibility for parole or early release (i.e. throw away the key) and you should stop calling it a correctional system.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by wisnoskij on Thursday December 31 2015, @05:47PM
What is there to get? The punishment is supposed to be appropriate to curb the revenge lust of the victims. But if the person was not a lifelong hardened criminal before the punishment , they sure are now, and must be watched and kept out of vulnerable areas for the rest of their life.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 31 2015, @06:25PM
$$ > Logic
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Thursday December 31 2015, @06:54PM
You are conflating state actions with private actions. Hence your confusion.
(I suspect that the vast majority of people no longer believe in the concept of "corrections". It was a nice concept for the 60s.)
Private actions, (avoidance of hiring ex-cons) are based simply on the fact of there having been a prior conviction.
The present ruling simply prevents the state from mandating further punishment (forbidding hiring). It doesn't mean that private nursing homes HAVE TO hire them. It does exactly what you are demanding, restoring rights. But it doesn't mandate that people forget, or that the state forget.
We don't have the right to be forgotten in the US.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 31 2015, @07:04PM
So taking away voting rights is restored freedom? Being required to tell people about past transgressions is free? Anyone is allowed to remember but there is no freedom in a scarlet letter.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday December 31 2015, @11:34PM
What a lot of Americans actually believe:
1. There are two kinds of people in the world: Good people, and bad people. Nobody really changes from one to the other - if you're a good person, you'll always be a good person, if you're a bad person you'll always be a bad person.
2. One purpose of the criminal justice system is to sort out the good people ("law-abiding") and the bad people ("criminals").
3. Protecting yourself and your organization against crime is best done by making sure you only come in contact with good people.
4. Therefore, businesses and organizations should have the right to not hire criminals because we already know they are bad people and thus it must be a higher risk than hiring non-criminals.
This is a stupid mindset, though, because:
1. Otherwise good people can do terrible things (see Stanley Milgrim's work, for example), and otherwise lousy people can do the right thing.
2. Sometimes, good people become bad people and vice versa.
3. There's all sorts of evidence that the criminal justice system does a not-terribly-accurate job of sorting out the good people from the bad people.
So a lot of people also take mental shortcuts in sorting out good people and bad people. Usually, in most Americans' minds (barring other information available): white and female = good, black and male = bad, pretty = good, ugly = bad.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by CortoMaltese on Thursday December 31 2015, @05:20PM
Yeah we expect you to be a law abiding citizen after you've done your sentence, even if you can't get a job, housing or VOTE
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Thursday December 31 2015, @07:15PM
There are only 11 states [procon.org] where you lose the right to vote even after completing your sentence, probation, and parole. Further even in the majority of those 11, most felons can qualify to vote at some point.
Getting a job is a private matter, unless you work for the government (at some level). Many states [helpforfelons.org], counties, and cities [theblaze.com] hire a surprising number of ex-cons.
There are even a lot of companies [exoffenders.net] that have policies of hiring ex-offenders.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 31 2015, @08:14PM
You say "only", but if there is even a single state where that is true, then this is an egregious violation of the people's rights and must be taken seriously.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday December 31 2015, @08:50PM
if there is even a single state where that is true, then this is an egregious violation of the people's rights and must be taken seriously.
So speak to your state legislators.
However, I think it can be argued, that there can be punishments specified in law, that do not appear in the sentence handed down by the court.
For example: No judge specifies that a convict can not vote while in prison. Its just part of the underlying fabric of the law of the state.
In most cases, the time spent incarcerated, or fines paid, are NOT the total punishment. The law often specifies additional punishment.
Thus you may lose some rights permanently, even after you serve your full sentence, because that loss of rights was specified in the laws of the state as an additional punishment. Shoot someone, and your right to possess a gun is usually lost permanently.
So loss of the right to vote is not an egregious violation of rights. Nor is it capricious, whimsical, or excessively punitive. In fact it is enshrined in the 14th Amendment:
Fourteenth Amendment, which says that states shall lose congressional representation "when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime."
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 31 2015, @10:28PM
So loss of the right to vote is not an egregious violation of rights. Nor is it capricious, whimsical, or excessively punitive. In fact it is enshrined in the 14th Amendment:
You're confusing the legal implementation of certain rights with the rights themselves. Any laws which violate someone's individual liberties to such an extent are morally wrong.
Anyway, since amendments change the constitution, the 26th amendment overrides that: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." Nothing about crimes or anything; it just establishes an absolute right to vote for all people 18 years of age or older without listing any restrictions the government can place. That's not how the courts interpret it I'm sure, but they are simply incorrect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 31 2015, @11:05PM
In the English as I understand it, it means that *age* shall not be a disqualifier for voting, if age >= 18. It doesn't say that having engaged in sodomy can't be a disqualifier.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday December 31 2015, @11:07PM
Reading is fundamental.
"On account of Age" means that and only that. It does not give a total universal right. All it does is say that voting can't be denied due to AGE after 18.
It doesn't remove any other existing reason people can be denied the right to vote. It doesn't suddenly give the right of incarcerated felons the right to vote. It just says AGE is not a valid reason for denial.
The courts interpret this correctly. They can read and understand the English language in the actual text of the amendment.
Your problem is you don't understand english. Yet you somehow appoint yourself as the final arbiter of what the text means!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 31 2015, @10:31PM
Shoot someone, and your right to possess a gun is usually lost permanently.
That's a violation of the second amendment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01 2016, @07:36PM
While this is true even for a convicted murderer (who has served his sentence in full, etc.), it is of course also true for a person who shot someone else in justified self-defense!
(Score: 2) by mendax on Friday January 01 2016, @11:39PM
It is also true for someone who committed a non-violent crime. Get convicted of a felony of any kind and you are automatically disqualified to own a firearm by federal law. Martha Stewart, for example, cannot own a gun, even though all she did is engage in insider trading. The same goes for Scooter Libby, who outed a CIA spy. (Bush, Jr. gave him a get-out-of-jail-free card but did not eliminate the felony conviction.)
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jdavidb on Thursday December 31 2015, @05:42PM
My thinking is let nursing homes decide who they want to hire or not hire, and then don't give them money if they don't meet your standards.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 31 2015, @06:22PM
Race to the bottom!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 31 2015, @10:25PM
Good thing we have medallions for competitive businesses like restaurants preventing this scary scenario.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 31 2015, @07:34PM
Violent offenders merit more scrutiny than non-violent offenders. I really don't think it very smart to allow violent criminals access to helpless potential victims. It seems reasonable to bar them from working with children, the elderly, and the mentally handicapped.
If the people doing the hiring are capable of distinguishing between violent and non-violent offenders, they might make better decisions.
Not many retailers are willing to consider people with theft convictions, but many of them will hire felons with other types of convictions. And, that makes at least some sense.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday December 31 2015, @10:06PM
Agree.
Except that you conflate the existence of a previous violent offence with "high probability that person will re-offend violently" rather than "some probability, which is to be assessed on a case by case basis".
---
And it's not the first time you've done it: last time that I recall [soylentnews.org] you were even saying that non-violent offenders are actually violent ones which missed their chance to become violent.
Now, don't take me wrong, I'm not attacking you character.
Take it as an observation from outside yourself and perhaps my hint: one is never too old to exercise critical thinking (instead of relying on a life-long baggage of formed mental reflexes, many of which may have been injected into you without a proper validation in the first place)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday December 31 2015, @10:15PM
And it's not the first time you've done it: last time that I recall [soylentnews.org] you were even saying
I couldn't even see where runaway posted on that thread (kinda messy url you sent... )
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday December 31 2015, @10:53PM
Here it is again [soylentnews.org] stripped to the essential.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday December 31 2015, @11:15PM
Ok.
I thought you were replying to RunAway, and claimed he said something, but apparently the second part of your post was referring to something someone else, cuz runaway didn't post on the thread you linked to.
It's new year's eve, and my ability to follow a thread may be subject to impairment.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday December 31 2015, @11:38PM
Oh, shit. You are right!!
I'll use for myself the excuse you proposed (the post NYE-impairment), but I'm afraid I actually committed the mistake of mis-attribution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 31 2015, @11:43PM
Like Frojack, I'm left a little confused.
A guy who has served time for violent offenses probably is more likely to commit another such offense, than some other person who has never committed a violent offense in his life. Neither of us can say how much higher the probabtility is, but he has a proven capability to get violent. Why put him into rather intimate contact with people who are unable to defend themselves, and may even be unable to report abuse?
The lyrics from a song come to mind - "Jesus might forgive, but a daddy don't forget". http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/collin-raye/little-rock-5651.html [cowboylyrics.com]
Aside from songs, there's this old adage: 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'
When we are talking about the helpless, shouldn't we err on the side of safety?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday December 31 2015, @11:49PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday December 31 2015, @11:47PM
Apologies for my profoundly mistaken reply [soylentnews.org].
Not only I wronged you by mis-attribution [soylentnews.org] (thanks, frojack), but I realize I totally missed the screaming SOME in the thread title.
Mea culpa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 01 2016, @12:22AM
No problem - thanks for clarifying!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by Guppy on Friday January 01 2016, @06:03AM
The restriction was put in as part of a (misguided, I think) attempt to protect the elderly. They are an extremely vulnerable population, and occasionally you get bad apples who rob and cheat the disabled and demented. While most higher-level staff are better screened (and have more to lose, like a license for example), a lot of the bottom-tier health aides have minimal training and are basically treated like burger-flippers by the agencies that hire them - this even when the work is back-breaking, requiring the patience of a saint, and high tolerance for all sorts of smells and fluids.
In some markets with rock-bottom pay, I've even heard rumors that the more dishonest health aides consider looted spoils to be essentially part of the salary, making up for the poor pay and bad working conditions.