Not exactly what challenger is saying, but in my opinion the man should be treated the very same as any other people who weren't convicted.
Mom Beats Up sex-Offender
- Thread starter jessiej920
- Start date
Not exactly what challenger is saying, but in my opinion the man should be treated the very same as any other people who weren't convicted.
Bells
Staff member
Every single job I ever applied for asked me if I had been convicted of any crimes in the last 10 years and yes, they actually do a police check to make sure you are not lying on your application. While you do need to sign for permission to do this, refusal to sign will pretty much result in your application being discounted right from the outset. If it is discovered that you lied on your application, you can find yourself fired for misrepresenting yourself or worse, face possible criminal action depending on the position. I don't know where you got the idea that it is somehow permissible to lie about your criminal record. It is not allowed and should not be recommended under any circumstances. If you have lied to Centrelink or any institution affiliated with them (eg. Job Search agencies), you can find yourself with all payments canceled. They even tell you so on every single form you have to sign with them.
Financial institutions will sometimes check if potential employees are registered with the debt database (ie. if they have defaulted on loans or bills or run out and not paid outstanding bills and loan repayments, etc).
While it is not publicly available, potential employers will do a check. Just like Centrelink will check with the Tax Office to make sure you aren't lying about your earnings if you are receiving payments from them. Again, that is part of the package if you receive payments from Centrelink.
Do not be mistaken Asguard. Your Government knows everything about you. They know of every single bank transactions you make and everything you buy. So really, to say that the Americans stupid in this regard is misleading because it is quite similar in Australia.
i agree, too many people are just looking for excuses to be violent. i'm not sure whether this was conjecture or put into legislation, but the idea was if you could show ur child was going to be babysat by a person, you could contact the police to check whether the babysitter has any relevant offences, such as child abuse. so long as the babysitter's permission was required before personal information was released, i'd think that would be a pretty good system.
Excellent idea, though I would limit the information given out along these lines as well as permission could be forged. Safe, reasonably safe, unsafe, don;t even think about it could be the code levels.
There shoud be a sex offender registry but it should only be brought up in the case of a missing child. It should NEVER be made public. In fact it should be law that the only time your criminal history can be brought up is criminal investigation and in criminal trials (and possibly a Civil case tied directly to a criminal case)
You mean AFTER another child goes missing? ...like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped? Interesting.
So you'd be okay with a vicious axe murderer living next door to you? A man who'd just been released from prison because of some idiotic technicality in the wording of the law? And you think everyone else would like that, too?
Baron Max
So you would like to punish people for a crime they have no commited? Fine, take out your sidearm and blow your brains out for being a traitor to the Constitution. You made an oath, follow through with it.
99% of the time a murderer murders for gain. Since nobody really could gain anything from killing me, i would feel perfectly safe living next to any ex-con. Now I will admit that when something happens that fits his criome comes up I would question him first, but untill then I would go by "innoccent until proven guilty."
Oh and those technicalities do end up freeing more innoccent people than they do guilty ones. So I'm afraid even then I would be more secure than if i lived next to you.
How do you search for suspects BEFORE a child a goes missing?
Read the associated posts ...BEFORE.... you post such ignorant thoughts.
Baron Max
Actually Drunk driving has a much higher reoffense rate than even possession of narcotics. Why? Becuase the penalty is laughable and alcoholism is one of the hardest addictions to treat. Honestly one could be treated for pedophillia much more easily than they can be weaned form the bottle permanently.
Plus many sex offenders are on the list for either harmless (Public Urination, Public nudity, and Public sex) or crimes where there was no real victim (Prostitution, 18 yr old guy and 16 yr olf girlfriend, the current trend of sending your own naked picture to people you know) These people have a low reoffense rate or their crime is completely harmless. Who cares if John Park and his girlfreidn find a secluded spot at Jellystone to do anal? Yet if park rangers catch them they are labeled a sex offender
Back to the lady,
She claims she was protecting her child a year later, yet where was she when this guy was taking to her daughter? If she was there at the time and nothing inappropriate was said then she is way out of line, if she wasn’t there then she wasn’t protecting her child in the first place.
A year later she attacks the guy with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill him in the name of protecting her child and gets only three months in jail. This is very wrong! Taking justice in your own hands is wrong regardless of the situation.
She is claiming she will do more to the guy when she gets out and this is a threat and should be dealt with as well before she is released. (More jail time for her threats of bodily harm)
It’s almost impossible to protect your child while you’re sitting in jail, she and her daughter both lose.
The Sex offender can now petition the court to have his name and information be removed from the public registry with legal reason and sue the county and state, as well as the lady.
Wonder what this lady would think if the Sex offenders Mother came to her house with a bat and beat her up and claimed she was protecting “Her” child. Would she feel this Sex Offenders mother was justified in attacking her?
IMHO Registries are not helpful but actually are causing more long term unintentional
consequences to our society such as this story I linked below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29918460/
14 year old girl might have to register as a Sex offender:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29912729/
Here is a good example of how registries are not as effective as we would like. These people were never criminals or listed on any registry and yet they are out there as these “new” never caught offenders and such stories are happening almost every day.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29690388/
She claims she was protecting her child a year later, yet where was she when this guy was taking to her daughter? If she was there at the time and nothing inappropriate was said then she is way out of line, if she wasn’t there then she wasn’t protecting her child in the first place.
A year later she attacks the guy with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill him in the name of protecting her child and gets only three months in jail. This is very wrong! Taking justice in your own hands is wrong regardless of the situation.
She is claiming she will do more to the guy when she gets out and this is a threat and should be dealt with as well before she is released. (More jail time for her threats of bodily harm)
It’s almost impossible to protect your child while you’re sitting in jail, she and her daughter both lose.
The Sex offender can now petition the court to have his name and information be removed from the public registry with legal reason and sue the county and state, as well as the lady.
Wonder what this lady would think if the Sex offenders Mother came to her house with a bat and beat her up and claimed she was protecting “Her” child. Would she feel this Sex Offenders mother was justified in attacking her?
IMHO Registries are not helpful but actually are causing more long term unintentional
consequences to our society such as this story I linked below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29918460/
14 year old girl might have to register as a Sex offender:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29912729/
Here is a good example of how registries are not as effective as we would like. These people were never criminals or listed on any registry and yet they are out there as these “new” never caught offenders and such stories are happening almost every day.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29690388/
Yep. I think Australians believe the above more strongly than many other nations precisely because our society was founded by convicts and ex-convicts. Back in good ole colonial Australia, once you had served your sentence, you had many opportunities open to you which probably wouldn't be open today, given the discrimination against ex-cons.