Should prisoners have a record?

Nikar 3 SG

actually, for first-time petty offences like fighting, theft, shoplifting, vandalism etc., the records should be erased away to give them a chance.

if they commit the offences 2nd time, then only do you make it a permanent record.

of course, major crimes like gun robbery, murder, terrorism, rape etc should have records.

i think yesterday (monday) got this Christopher lee and Quan Yifeng where they interview this tatooted guy who was jailed 2 years for fighting, and he has a wife and 2 baby kids.....now he cannot find job even though he wants to change....

i despise employers and bosses who, upon seeing you have a tatoo, immediately dismiss the idea of hiring you.

come on lah........people got tatoo doesn't mean they're bad.......some might used to be bad but now they change liao cannot meh?

in fact, some of these guys are even more hardworking and have better character than us, because they're more eager to prove to the world they have changed.

Short Ninja SG

Lai sit down relac and have a glass of kek huay.Why you got tatto izzit? I wouldnt employ anyone who doesnt know how to hide his tattoos during an interview.By the way, I do have tattoos on my body and If I could turn back the clock I would just stand outside Brass Basah 'Johney 2 thumb' and listen to my classmate's advice against having my first one.Records are like tattoes even if you erase them,the mark is still there.

Patrik SG

Thats why i always say.

U paid the price and u are still paying for it everyday.

Gedanken 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.

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 Noah, even though they both committed the same crime?

Let's apply the same principle to a different situation. Nikar is buying his first car, and he pays $10,000 COE on it. Darkknighthuang, on the other hand, has bought and sold two other cars, but has to pay $30,000 COE because it's his third car, even though he's already paid $10,000 COE on each of his previous cars.

Still think it's fair?

Short Ninja 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.

In the ancient days criminals were forcibly tattoed so anyone could easily identify them.I strongly recommend records for hardcore criminals and the incorrigibles, they should be also given jobs at certain places to be tagged and monitered.For those who can be reformed I say give them a clean slade and welcome them back to society.

Short Ninja SG

Still think it's fair?

not fair but hilarious.

Darkknighthuang SG

Still think it's fair?

What I was trying to point out is, if there is no criminal records, repeat offenders will be able to get away with the same sentence as a new offender, regardless of how many times they commits a crime.

rokkie SG

in this case, record should have, but not open to public

Gedanken SG

Oh, I got precisely what your point was, and the question still stands. You do the crime, you do the time and everything's squared. You pay COE once for each car and everything's squared. Why should something that's already been settled be dragged out again?

Yet another example. As a student, you take out a personal loan and pay it back with 7% interest. Later you take a loan to buy a car and pay that back with 7% interest too. When it comes time to buy a house, the bank tells you that the interest is 21% because you've taken loans from them twice before. It's your fault because you keep borrowing money, and because you're a repeat borrower, you should not be able to get away with the same interest as a new borrower. Does that make sense?

rokkie SG

this is not the point, i think dark's point is, people can mercy you, but you cannot repeatly make mistake, if you repeatly make mistake, that means you probably take that for grant, and abuse people's mercy and tolaronce, most importantly you endanger the society.

Nikar 3 SG

(short ninja)

--------------------------

what's "kek huay"? bean curd? and no lah, i don't have tatoos, but i know and seen people who have, and what happened to them when they find jobs, so i know how they feel.

and if records are erased, nobody except the guy himself will know, so it's good.

also, from what i know, most companies don't even bother to check whether you got prison record or not......on the interview form, under the "Offences" section, there's questions like:

-have you committed any crime before?

-have you been in jail before?

-do you have tatoos?

-do you plan to kill, murder or rape in the next 3 years?

if you answer No to all the questions above, who will know the truth, other than yourself?

anyway, regarding tatoos, i wonder why some people want to tatoo the entire body..........if tatoo a dragon on the back or on the arm, i can understand, but entire upper body? that's crazy.

Gedanken SG

So let me get this straight. For someone who commits robbery as a first crime, the sentence is two years for argument's sake. For someone who commits the exact same crime, but has a prior for fraud, the sentence should be four years.

Is that correct? More importantly, is that right?

caleb_chiang SG

Okay... that is for criminals... but what if wrongly accused?

LatecomerX SG

Is that correct? More importantly, is that right?

I don't see anything wrong with increasing the length of the jail term if the offender is not a first-timer. A jail term is not only meant as a punishment to the offender, but also a form of deterrence. Simply put, the additional two years is meant as a form of deterrence to ex-offenders from committing a crime again once they return to the society, and NOT because that guy is an ex-offender and thereby deserving a heavier punishment as compared to a first-time offender for the exact same crime.

And why does it matter to the ex-offenders who have turned over a new leaf even if the jail term is quadripled? Not as if they're going to commit a crime again, right?

oldbreadstinks 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?

eh... i forgot to add this part, my friend in that case actually took home extra incentives amount to more than $20,000 which he "rewarded" himself with at his second job with 2 months and quited when his boss started to suspect him.

and something else ironic the boss didn't know was i was the one stopping him before that till i was sack for insorbordination.

Gedanken SG

A jail term is not only meant as a punishment to the offender, but also a form of deterrence. Simply put, the additional two years is meant as a form of deterrence to ex-offenders from committing a crime again once they return to the society

Hey, sounds great! I'll happily support that! Where do I sign up?

Oh, hang on. Where's your proof that a longer jail term is a deterrent?

Gedanken SG

and something else ironic the boss didn't know was i was the one stopping him before that till i was sack for insorbordination.

Hang on - are you telling me that you abetted theft?

oldbreadstinks SG

Is that correct? More importantly, is that right?

probably? but i would prefer to keep it separate because people do get forced by circumstances into crime. unless you're talking about a person who keeps appearing in court for different offenses.

thing is, we judge people by their track records, past achievements before we hire them, whether they did well or poorly. you can't have people doing poorly to be judged the same way as those doing well. i doubt i'll have a favourable review if i quited my last job after walking out shouting "I QUIT"

where past records are concern i definately would not hire my friend to place him with money or something sensitive after what he did. neither would i be comfortable if i find out my banker's someone who commited fraud before and cheated his ex employer out of millions before.

i'm ok if you hire a banker who drew on walls(vandalism) before, knifed someone or even arson but not fraud. just like you wouldn't want a molester/rapist to become a kindergarden teacher even if his ex targets were all grandmothers.

oldbreadstinks SG

Hang on - are you telling me that you abetted theft?

when i was around i actually stopped him everytime he wanted to do anything funny. i found out the rest when he told me after i left, besides i considered myself ill treated by the employer, wouldn't make sense to do my own friend in for them. its non of my business anyway.

Gedanken SG

probably? but i would prefer to keep it separate because people do get forced by circumstances into crime. unless you're talking about a person who keeps appearing in court for different offenses.

Well and good, but let's flip things around. If a banker got out of jail after a sentence for fraud, would it be right if he applied to be a waiter and was refused because he had a record?

I'm glad you raised the issue of sensitive positions. It becomes a moot point when someone is convicted of fraud, since the convict becomes a disqualified person. Now, you may ask, given that the person is disqualified by the court, how is this different from a prison record?

Simple. The "disqualified person" status precludes the person from holding a financially-sensitive position, but if the person applies for an unrelated position, he or she is not disadvantaged by the criminal record.

« Previous Page Next Page »