|
|
 | | Re: Here's a scary one
|
| (...) That's legitimate, IMO. Heck, if the sentence included some kind of "you may not withhold this information from prospective employers," then there's no problem with due process, either. It's analogous to the financial industry, many portions (...) (19 years ago, 17-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Here's a scary one
|
| (...) Agree with the above, and further I don't support name-and-shame as a punishment mechanism unless it's imposed at the time of sentencing, but I do support the notion of being able to inquire "is this potential employee already convicted of (...) (19 years ago, 17-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Here's a scary one
|
| (...) This is a tough conversation to have because, to some people, even suggesting that child molesters might not actually be the devil incarnate is tantamount to molesting children yourself. I've been in online forums with a decidedly left-leaning (...) (19 years ago, 17-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Here's a scary one
|
| In the UK, we do not name-and-shame as it is recognised that it can force individuals underground instead of bringing them back into society. Scott A (...) (19 years ago, 17-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Here's a scary one
|
| (...) I'm down with publishing convictions but accusations? Not so much. As it turns out maybe I'm biased, we had a recent situation where having the convictions published was a good thing as it got someone outed that really didn't need to be around (...) (19 years ago, 17-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
