Rykk wrote:

> > 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?
>
> First you offer blanket background checks for everyone,

No I did not. It is people like you who were complaining that a person's guilt
was beyond my perception, saying I can't talk about "metaphysical" guilt, yet
it is you who remain blind to the legal status of people around you, and now
claim should remain private.

> now your modifying your stance?  Your using qualifiers now?

No.

> >>> 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?
>
> Stick to a theme here.  Now your trying to sound reasonable.  What happened
> to your first argument of haveing everyone have thier background stamped on
> thier forehead for all to see?

I didn't argue that.

Why don't you stick to your argument when you joined in the thread about
"metaphysical" guilt? Why is an actual conviction you deliberately keep
ignorant about, any more meaningful than arguing about the actual truth of the
matter?

> > 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?
>
> As it never went to trial, they may persue a name change and move by normal
> channels.

People featured on national, maybe even international news as in sensational
cases are rather beyond being helped by normal channels. Even a common office
supply thief no one would normally pay attention to, who was famously
sentenced to walk up and down the street with a sandwich board and shown on
TV, escaped to the UK.

> > 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?
>
> Sure they have a right to know.

I thought you claimed background checks should be illegal above, or that even
sex offenders have done their time below.

What do people have a right to know about people's pasts?

> >> 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?
>
> We are talking about rehabilitation.  If you want the criminial to repat
> thier errors, prove to them that reforming is a waste of thier time.

Would a convicted sex offender continue committing crime for that reason, and
not due to their continuing mental condition or the continued opportunity to
commit crime if they remain anonymous?

> >> 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?
>
> Ignorance is bliss.

Oh, so you do not mind if the people who mind your children are convicted sex
offenders, as long as you do not know about it.

Right.

> And giving trust is the best way to earn it.

Is that a good idea with a convicted sex offender? Entrust them with your
children, and they will reward your trust?

> >> 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?
>
> As I said, they did thier time.

They did the time demanded of them or were paroled. But were they also cured
of their problem that led to the original offense?

> So long as the penalty was sufficiently
> harsh, there shouldn't be any more risk from a convicted sex offender than
> from your friendly catholic priest.
>
> Your point is moot.

Your point a while back about verifiable facts is moot, if you do nothing to
know them, or claim that facts such as prior convictions, should not be known.

Do you claim the same level of risk from a convicted sex offender as from the
average Catholic priest?

And why should Catholic priests not be investigated for sex offenses if they
want to be in sensitive posts such as youth ministry?

--
 "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!"