Ok. Some ideas from you, in response to questions from me.

You're full of ideas.

Any more?

Rykk wrote:

> > A simple background check is a violation of presumed innocence?
>
> If done without the persons concent.

So, if someone applies for a sensitive position and they refuse any background
check, what should occur? Should the people still be considered for the job?

> > Should they be outlawed, then?
>
> The way your talking about using them, yes.

Do private employers or government agencies which handle sensitive information
for example, have the right to investigate people who want to work for them,
even to question people they grew up with or teachers as far back as say,
junior high school (I have seen this done)? Do schools, the  Boy Scouts or YMCA
have the right to know about who is with the children?

> > Should news identifying parties in criminal cases be banned?
>
> Announcing the results, no.  All the sensationalist news stories, yes.

How about identifying suspects or defendants such as OJ, or the suspicions
around the Ramsey family, or Michael Jackson? Should we be hearing about the
(alleged) behavior of Britain's Prince Harry, Shinsuke Shimada, or other
celebrities who appear in the news?

> > Should all convicted criminals be given new identities or put under
> government protection after release because they have served their debt to
> society, and do not deserve any of the public stigma and worse, which could
> result if they and their crimes were known?
>
> Yes, if the nature of thier crime is beyond the average person's ability to
> forgive.

How about people who never even made it to trial, but suffer the consequences
such as the Ramsey family who may get called child killers by anonymous
neighbors?

> > So how is being DELIBERATELY ignorant of what CAN be known (physical
> criminal records) any better than allegedly not being able to know the actual
> truth, as people directly involved in a criminal case (criminal, surviving
> victims, witnesses) may know?
>
> People that have paid the price for thier mistakes deserve a chance to start
> fresh.  Airing someone's dirty laundry steals that chance from them.

Even if you approve of publicizing criminal rulings above? What of sex offender
registries open to public view or at least online? Do people have a right to be
able to know about their neighbors and others in their community, who have been
legally proven guilty of certain crimes? Should we be hearing about what the
President and First Lady did, or what Kerry allegedly did (and did say), even
decades ago, or is that just trash?

> People generally won't rehabilite if you continue to hold thier
> transgressions against them.

Whose fault is it they are convicted criminals with a poor image?

> So no,  I think a convict that has done thier time should be allowed to keep
> thier past a secret so long as they abide by the law.

Oh, so there should not be sex offender registries. Is it ok for your neighbors
to be convicted sex offenders without your knowledge? Can your kids sleep over
with their kids?

> If they break the law again, then I think thier past should be used to
> enforce a more stringent penalty.

And how should the community be protected, in the case of a convicted sex
offender? Should the neighborhood be assigned extra patrols or personnel, while
preserving the anonymity or privacy of the individual convict?

> > Why do you and the two others get caught up in this "metaphysical" or
> beyond the senses argument at all?
>
> Because what you propose is beyond horrible.

What does that have to do with the "metaphysical", or what I can't know about
the guilt of a person in a crime?

--
 "I'm on top of the world right now, because everyone's going to know that I
can shove more than three burgers in my mouth!"