 | | Here's a scary one
|
| In this article: (URL) is proposed that the government keep and publish a list of all accusations of child molestation. While the intent to make it easier to discover molesters is good, it has serious consequences for someone wrongly accused. (...) (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)
| | | | | 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) Ok, now here's one that's even scarier: (URL) really scary though is the debate over on Sean K. Reynold's boards where one guy is saying that the guy deserved the punnishment because he broke the particular law. No reasoning that perhaps when (...) (19 years ago, 5-Jul-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Here's a scary one
|
| (...) Teachers are usually assumed to have the benefit of in loco parentis, which grants them some immunity from this kind of thing (though I don't know of a good test-case that defines the boundaries). Barnaby's attorney said it exactly right: "If (...) (19 years ago, 5-Jul-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
