Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> Ok. Some ideas from you, in response to questions from me.
>
> You're full of ideas.

I'm too busy countering yours. Just listen to the news to hear peoples 
discussions of how to improve the legal system.  We do it every day.

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

>
>>> 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?

>
>>> 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?

Simple announcements, no, All the other crap, yes.


>>> 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?

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

>
>>> 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?

Sure they have a right to know.  But they should have to do the work.  Not 
have it delivered in a little packet.

>
>> 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.

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

>
>> 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.  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.