Should prisoners have a record?

last SG · 2008-10-14T15:00:30+00:00

Rokkie in your example has already served six months for the first crime and a year for the second. Are you saying that Rokkie should serve more time than N...

NG QIBO AARON AUBREY SG

Maybe should not have a record of being in jail because they have already been punished

crimsontactics SG

Nah. Record must be there. The social stigma is the only main reason why many people avoid doing crimes. So if the records is gone, more people will be tempted to do crime.

The punishment the prisoners recieve are temporary and, most of the time, not worthy as a repentance for their mistake. For example a person who is charge with manslaughter is sent to full-life imprisonment, maybe less.

The stigma is there to prevent and to punish them.

SBS7484P SG

not only that.

record is there to keep the people in check, tells them the consequences that ull prolly be ostracised if u commit crimes, but as along as ur willing to change over a new leaf, the record wont mean harm to u if ur a past offender

BangHong SG

hmmm? There will surely be record for prisoners.

Not gonna discuss it -.-

NG QIBO AARON AUBREY SG

not only that.

the record will mean harm

crimsontactics SG

the record will mean harm

What comes around goes around.

Gedanken SG

Nah. Record must be there. The social stigma is the only main reason why many people avoid doing crimes. So if the records is gone, more people will be tempted to do crime.

The stigma is there to prevent and to punish them.

Have you actually spent any time in prison? I mean, you must be a pretty tough bugger if it's a walk in the park to you.

So how about it, tough guy? How long were you in for?

NG QIBO AARON AUBREY SG

What comes around goes around.

they did their time in prison

they paid for their crimes

iGhost SG

they did their time in prison

they paid for their crimes

they paid their crimes to the government. not the victims.

rokkie SG

with that record, they will be remembered forever, they are criminals, and cannot get job, money, or respect, even they alread wash their hands

oldbreadstinks SG

with that record, they will be remembered forever, they are criminals, and cannot get job, money, or respect, even they alread wash their hands

but thats the point right? i mean seriously if you've a record for something and your future employer hired you and didn't know that wouldn't be too good right?

as for job, money and respect . its kinda screwed up if you still expect respect after commiting a crime, its harder to gain those things but not impossible. if you're capable you'll still make it in life but harder now.

anyway on the same topic, one of my friends actually has a police record but didn't announce it while he applied for a job. he mentioned it didn't matter since no one would actually go and check it up.

turns out he was correct though. it made his life easier and his boss wanted to make him a supervisor because he thought highly of my friend as compared to his previous job where the boss picked on him for his police record and education.

Short Ninja SG

Some are repeat offenders so there must be record especially for sex offenders & drug related crimes but for other petty one time criminals their records should be wiped out clean after 10 or 15 years.>just my opinion

Gedanken SG

Well, OBS, that's the problem with maintaining a record, isn't it? Some poor bastard's trying to get back on his feet after serving his time, but nobody's going to give him a break because of his record, and then what? Is the criminal fraternity going to be the only environment that he can turn to just to make a crust? What happens then? Even if he doesn't return to prison, there's always the issue of contamination - he starts off as a burglar and moves on to armed robbery through the influence of the criminal community that the system has forced him to gravitate towards. If he stabs and kills someone in a robbery, is he exclusively to blame?

The problem with records is that they create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Well and good for the sanctimonious to say that it's preventive, but take a step back and you'll see that it's short-sighted. Any good strategy will account for a failure to achieve the ideal outcome, in this case prevention of crime - what happens when the crime is not prevented? It is a failure of the system that the doors to recidivism and further forays into criminal activities are not only opened by the system itself, but that the system gleefully shoves the poor bastard through the doorway.

It leads to the simple question: what kind of uncivilised society treats its people as write-offs? The goody-two-shoes treat citizens as pieces of tissue paper to be scrunched up and thrown away, and the government is encouraging relatives to pull the plug on people on life-support. Just what the fuck is going on? Is this the shape of the promised Swiss / First World standard of living?

Rednano SG

http://www.spf.gov.sg/epc/spent_enquiry.html

With effect from 17 October 2005, the Registration of Criminals Act as amended will allow the record of a minor conviction kept in the Register of Criminals to become spent if the person has stayed crime-free for a specified period. The purpose is to help such deserving ex-offenders put their past behind them and re-integrate into society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.spf.gov.sg/faqs/police_criminalact.htm#criteria

What is the effect of a spent record?
A person with a spent record is deemed to have no such record and may lawfully not disclose the spent record for all purposes, except in the case of:

i) any investigation by a person authorised under the law;

ii) any prosecution against the person for any offence;

iii) any proceedings before a court; and

iv) any appointment to an office or employment in a profession for which the person may be disqualified under written law by reason of that conviction.

What are the criteria for a person's criminal record to be rendered spent?

Under the Registration of Criminals Act, there are stipulated criteria to ensure that the need to provide a second chance to ex-offenders is balanced with the security of the rest of society. These criteria are listed in the new section 7B and 7C of the Registration of Criminals Act.

First, the person must satisfy a crime-free period. This is a period of 5 years starting from either the date of sentence (for cases where no term of imprisonment is imposed) or the date of release from legal custody. During the 5 years, the person must not be convicted of another crime, or be unlawfully at large for a crime. He must not be detained or placed under police supervision under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, and he must not be subject to supervision or admitted to a drug rehabilitation centre or other centre for drug or inhalant abuse.

Secondly, the person must not be disqualified from having his record spent on any of the grounds in section 7C , which are that --

a)his conviction was for any offence specified in the Third Schedule;

b) the sentence imposed on him for that conviction included-

i) a term of imprisonment exceeding 3 months; or

ii) a fine exceeding $2000;

c) that conviction was for a crime committed within 5 years after he had been released from-

i) an approved institution under the Misuse of Drugs Act; or

ii) an approved centre under the Intoxicating Substances Act;

d) he has been detained or subject to police supervision under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act anytime before that conviction;

e) from the time being, he has a warrant of arrest for any offence issued against him which is outstanding ;

f) he has more than one criminal conviction in the register kept by the Police, whether or not those convictions arise from the same particular occasions; or

g) he has had any previous record in the criminal register being rendered spent

Gedanken SG

So what happens for that five years, then? Does the ex-con go knocking on doors to be met by holier-than-thou twats like crimsontactics who say, "Well, you've had a three-year holiday at the taxpayers' expense, so it's time for me as the taxpayer to punish you personally"?

Amendments to the penal code are a step in the right direction, insofar as they provide redress for an archaic approach to manhandling the citizenry in the first place. It's not a solution until the prissy members of society get knocked off their little soap boxes and genuine efforts at rehabilitation are reciprocated by fair chances. Until then, we're still living in the dark ages and simply pretending to be enlightened.

rokkie SG

but thats the point right? i mean seriously if you've a record for something and your future employer hired you and didn't know that wouldn't be too good right?

someone said they have been punished already,so we should give him a break, because he serve his time already. And do we need to make a mark in his face, so everyone could know that he is a criminal immediately, it happens in ancient times,

criminal are just ordinary people like us, they make mistakes, i believe people are evil in nature, is not so much, so the idea of imprisonment is to re educate them, hope that they won't do that again, that's say they come back to the society, found out everyone look at him with hostility, is it a bit over? if he regret for what he have done, and have we take the only hope, that he want to rehabiliate in the society again?

yamizi SG

I think is simply whether the employers willing to give them a second chance in finding job. When they claim to society looks down on them, which part of the society are they refering to? It's too vague.

I used to work with ex-convicts, I think they are pretty okay.

noahnoah SG

some humans in this society are worse then ex covict

they stab you from behind

rokkie SG

some humans in this society are worse then ex covict

they stab you from behind

i thought singapore is a safe place, who are you talking about

Darkknighthuang SG

Untrue Story (the names have not been changed as this is not true and there’s no need to protect the identity of those in the story):

Rokkie & Short Ninja are business friends. Rokkie commits a crime and spends 6 months in jail. Ninja is a law abiding citizen and did not commit any crime.

Rokkie is released from prison and as suggested by some people here, his criminal record is not kept.

When their business failed, Rokkie & Ninja decided to commit fraud but were caught. The judge noted that both does not have a criminal record and sentence both equally to 1 year in prison. After their release, they again had their record wiped out.

During the recent recession, Rokkie & Ninja became desperate and together with the new found friend Noah (who did not commit any crime before), decided to commit robbery. Again they were caught and the judge who noted all 3 did not have any criminal record, sentenced 3 of them equally to 2 years in prison.

So, do you still think it’s fair not to keep a criminal record.

Having said that, I agree with Ninja that such records for less serious crime should be wiped out after a probation period and there’s enough to suggest the person have definitely turned over a new leaf.