View Full Forums : Do it for the children...


Fyyr Lu'Storm
12-02-2006, 01:03 AM
http://cdn5.tribalfusion.com/media/622696.gif

Just saw this banner ad at DeviantArt.com.

Made me kinda think.

"What if it were YOUR child who was abducted?"

Kalthanan
12-02-2006, 02:22 PM
I think it's a great idea. Get the information out there ASAP. Once the trail is cold, it's worthless.

Tudamorf
12-02-2006, 02:34 PM
"What if it were YOUR child who was abducted?"You wouldn't need the amber alert, that's for sure. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif> I think they were trying to say, "what if it were your child, and no one else had signed up for our updates?"

Sometimes I think I'm the only one that's not swayed by "do it for the children."

Fyyr Lu'Storm
12-03-2006, 02:41 AM
You are not the only one, silly.

And I have two blond haired blue eyed teenage girls, even.

B_Delacroix
12-03-2006, 04:58 PM
Sometimes I think I'm the only one that's not swayed by "do it for the children."

You aren't the only one. "Do it for the children" always makes me uneasy.

Aidon
12-04-2006, 12:58 PM
"Do it for the children" is the American catchphrase for "We're going to **** your civil liberties and you'll like it"

Tudamorf
12-04-2006, 04:58 PM
"Do it for the children" is the American catchphrase for "We're going to **** your civil liberties and you'll like it"I thought the catchphrase was "prevent terrorism."

Gunny Burlfoot
12-04-2006, 06:14 PM
I thought the catchphrase was "prevent terrorism."

No, it's "in the interests of making the country secure", we'll monitor everyone you call overseas, every deposit you make, every book you check out of the library or buy online, which websites you visit, and many, many other things we'll substitute for actually trying the effective ways to track down Islamofascist extremists in this country.

Which is, of course, electronically surveilling every Mosque we can possibly get into. Then finding the crazy imams and mullahs and bugging all their clothing. And all their friends clothing. Hell, put GPS trackers the size of rice granules in the seams, so that if their plans are really advanced and they are poised to blow up another 3,000 innocent Americans, we can thread a 500 lb precision missile down into their Fruit of the Looms (or do terrorists wear Hanes?)

To avoid cries of discrimination, you could do it equally to Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, but I seriously doubt you'd find any terrorist activity. You might get some FBI agents really, really sick of listening to hours and hours and hours of hymns and sermons, though.

.....

"For the children" is used a lot too. Heck, I use it whenever I see another child rapist/torturer/murderer get released from prison because he's been "rehabilitated".

I want to say to the psychologists that are living in some dream world:

Hellooo? So this guy ( or someone just like him) raped, tortured and killed 8 year old girls, and buried their dismembered bodies under his house or in the woods, yet he's all mentally normal now? Yeah, right.

Someone like that cannot change for the better. There is a line, and he pole vaulted across it. He ain't getting better. Just needs to get a lot deader.

Tudamorf
12-04-2006, 09:30 PM
Heck, I use it whenever I see another child rapist/torturer/murderer get released from prison because he's been "rehabilitated".

I want to say to the psychologists that are living in some dream world:

Hellooo? So this guy ( or someone just like him) raped, tortured and killed 8 year old girls, and buried their dismembered bodies under his house or in the woods, yet he's all mentally normal now? Yeah, right.

Someone like that cannot change for the better.Anyone who intentionally rapes, tortures, and kills 8-year-old girls, and dismembers their bodies and buries them in the woods, will never get out of prison. At least not in California.

But you do bring up another often used liberty-depriving catchphrase: "sex offender." You can do just about anything you want to anyone, so long as you label them a "sex offender." It doesn't matter if "sex offender" means a 19-year-old guy having consensual sex with a 17-year-old girl, and that he did it in 1967, he must be the most evil criminal alive and dealt with accordingly.

The moronic voters of California just approved a new proposition -- named after some white girl who was killed in Florida, ironically -- that requires lifetime GPS monitoring and severe lifetime housing restrictions for such "offenders." It's pure idiocy that's going to cost us a fortune, but it passed for one, and only one, reason: it used the words "sex offender" and "punishment" in the description.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
12-04-2006, 09:46 PM
Charles Rothenberg poured gasoline on his son.

And set him on fire.

He only spent 7 years in prison.

He got out of jail, changed his name to Charles Charles, and then got into some trouble; I think he got killed by a prostitute or something.

Tudamorf
12-04-2006, 09:56 PM
Charles Rothenberg poured gasoline on his son.

And set him on fire.

He only spent 7 years in prison.I'm unsure what that has to do with this thread, but seven years (actual time served) isn't unusual for attempted murder.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
12-04-2006, 10:36 PM
You don't remember what David Rothenberg looks like, I suppose?

And not much.

Aidon
12-07-2006, 09:27 AM
"For the children" is used a lot too. Heck, I use it whenever I see another child rapist/torturer/murderer get released from prison because he's been "rehabilitated".

rapists, of children or otherwise, do not deserve life in prison w/o a chance of parole. I'd venture to suggest they don't deserve life in prison, regardless. Life in prison should be reserved for murder.

Further, I can't think of the last time I've seen a murderer released from prison because he's been rehabilitated. I've only, of late, seen alleged murders falsly convicted released, and one of the kids who shot up his school some years ago, who turned 21 and they could no longer find any means of holding him.

B_Delacroix
12-07-2006, 10:39 AM
Speaking of sex offenders.

New Mexico Department of Education has decided recently to no longer wait for convictions to remove a teacher's license. Now, the simple accusation is good enough.

Klath
12-07-2006, 11:30 AM
New Mexico Department of Education has decided recently to no longer wait for convictions to remove a teacher's license. Now, the simple accusation is good enough.
You're overstating the policy just a wee bit. Accusations are still investigated by the NMPED -- they just have a lower standard of evidence than a criminal court.

If you were an employer and you were reasonably certain that one of your employees was engaging in an activity that put your business at risk, would you wait for a criminal conviction before firing them?

Aidon
12-07-2006, 11:46 AM
If you were a state run organization, you sure as hell had better wait for a conviction.

Anka
12-07-2006, 11:57 AM
If you were an employer and you were reasonably certain that one of your employees was engaging in an activity that put your business at risk, would you wait for a criminal conviction before firing them?

You could always suspend them from duty pending the investigation, rather than fire them immediately.

Klath
12-07-2006, 11:59 AM
If you were a state run organization, you sure as hell had better wait for a conviction.
Why? It seems like common sense to fire employees who have a reasonable likelihood of causing you serious legal hassles.

Klath
12-07-2006, 12:02 PM
You could always suspend them from duty pending the investigation, rather than fire them immediately.
Aye, I believe that's what the NMPED is doing. They aren't firing anyone until they've done their own investigation.

Tudamorf
12-07-2006, 02:24 PM
rapists, of children or otherwise, do not deserve life in prison w/o a chance of parole. I'd venture to suggest they don't deserve life in prison, regardless. Life in prison should be reserved for murder.Aidon, you're in America, remember? Sex is worse than killing here.

Aldarion_Shard
12-07-2006, 03:02 PM
Countdown until someone chimes in with the psychobabble "Rape isnt sex" thing...

All snide comments aside, I agree with both of you on this one: theres something very very wrong when rapists get harder sentences than murderers. Murder is the worse crime.

Aldarion_Shard
12-07-2006, 03:06 PM
The moronic voters of California just approved a new proposition -- named after some white girl who was killed in Florida, ironically -- that requires lifetime GPS monitoring and severe lifetime housing restrictions for such "offenders." It's pure idiocy that's going to cost us a fortune, but it passed for one, and only one, reason: it used the words "sex offender" and "punishment" in the description.
I know. That was the second stupidest decision CA voters made this year -- I was infuriated. To quote my girlfriend, after I explained why it was such a terrible, immoral proposition to vote for.. "Oh, I didnt know that what it was gonna do. It sounded like it was just giving tougher sentences to sex offenders".

IN CA, it is now a felony for a 19 year old to have sex with a 17 year old, and he will be GPS monitored for life because of it. I weep for our society.

Panamah
12-07-2006, 03:20 PM
I didn't vote for it either. The law would force all the sex offenders into the rural areas.

Tudamorf
12-07-2006, 10:39 PM
That was the second stupidest decision CA voters made this yearWhat was the first? <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>

Aidon
12-08-2006, 10:22 AM
Why? It seems like common sense to fire employees who have a reasonable likelihood of causing you serious legal hassles.

First of all, there is no reasonable likelihood if they've not been convicted of anything. Its idiocy of that nature which makes men start hating women who accuse men of being rapists. You get so much as accused, these days, and you might as well move out of state, because you're going to lose your job and be vilified in town before you even get to your arraignment, most likely.

Secondly, if you're a state organization, you cannot punish someone for a crime they haven't been convicted of committing. You are part of the government, you are obligated to treat him as innocent until proven otherwise, not presume his guilt until he's proven innocent.

Aidon
12-08-2006, 10:25 AM
I didn't vote for it either. The law would force all the sex offenders into the rural areas.

how come noone is upset because of the innate injustice of branding someone for life for one crime which obviously was not so serious that the law demanded life in prison (nor should it)?

How long until we simply expand gps monitoring and restrictions on where a person can live to all ex-convicts period?

Goddamn you people are sheep.

Klath
12-08-2006, 11:12 AM
First of all, there is no reasonable likelihood if they've not been convicted of anything.
That's a load of sh1t. The standard of evidence for civil matters is significantly lower than it is for criminal matters. You're not putting the employee in prison, you're telling them you don't want them to work for you.

Secondly, if you're a state organization, you cannot punish someone for a crime they haven't been convicted of committing. You are part of the government, you are obligated to treat him as innocent until proven otherwise, not presume his guilt until he's proven innocent.
You're not punishing them for a crime. Only the legal system can do that. You're protecting your company/organization from someone who you believe to be more trouble than they are worth.

Managers, not the courts, make the decision to fire employees based upon the credibility of the evidence weighed against the risks to the company. If employee X and Y say they saw employee Z loading office supplies into the back of his car, the company can investigate the incident and decide to fire employee Z irrespective of whether formal charges are filed. Why should a teacher who is credibly suspected of engaging in improper behavior with a student be given more latitude?

You get so much as accused, these days, and[...]
That is not the case with the NMPED. An accusation is enough to get them to investigate but it is the investigation that determines whether or not someone gets fired.

Aidon
12-08-2006, 11:42 AM
That's a load of sh1t. The standard of evidence for civil matters is significantly lower than it is for criminal matters. You're not putting the employee in prison, you're telling them you don't want them to work for you.

The standard for a governmental organization is higher than that for a private entity. We're not talking about Jack n the Box here, we're talking about a State agency.

And the standard of evidence for civil matters still requires a trial (or settlement).

This is nothing less than pre-emptive punishment based on a presumption of guilt.


You're not punishing them for a crime. Only the legal system can do that. You're protecting your company/organization from someone who you believe to be more trouble than they are worth.

ITS THE MOTHER****ING GOVERNMENT YOU GODDAMN ROCK!

Its the New Mexico Board of Education. They are not a private entity. They are bound by rules and laws and concepts which a private entity is not bound...amongst them being the idea that you cannot enact punitive measures against a person without due process.

Why should a teacher who is credibly suspected of engaging in improper behavior with a student be given more latitude?

Why is he credicbly suspect? Because the police say so? Hate to say it, but those assholes are wrong a whole lot of the time.

Klath
12-08-2006, 11:56 AM
Its the New Mexico Board of Education. They are not a private entity. They are bound by rules and laws and concepts which a private entity is not bound...amongst them being the idea that you cannot enact punitive measures against a person without due process.
So there is no way to fire a government employee unless they are convicted of a crime in a court of law? I know it's hard to get rid of them but that sounds absurd.

Why is he credicbly suspect? Because the police say so? Hate to say it, but those assholes are wrong a whole lot of the time.
He would be credibly suspect because the NMPED did an investigation and found him to be so.

Aidon
12-08-2006, 12:52 PM
So there is no way to fire a government employee unless they are convicted of a crime in a court of law? I know it's hard to get rid of them but that sounds absurd.

Fire them for cause....being accused of a crime isn't sufficient cause for a government agency.


He would be credibly suspect because the NMPED did an investigation and found him to be so.

They aren't a credible investigator.

Klath
12-08-2006, 01:44 PM
Fire them for cause....being accused of a crime isn't sufficient cause for a government agency.
How about being accused of doing their job poorly? Must the basis of those accusations be subject to the same standards necessary for a criminal conviction? What complete asshattedness. It's no wonder our government agencies are fraught with lazy, apathetic, fvcktards.

Aidon
12-08-2006, 02:23 PM
If their sole complaint is that he has been charged with a crime...then he wasn't doing his job poorly.

Klath
12-08-2006, 03:14 PM
If their sole complaint is that he has been charged with a crime...then he wasn't doing his job poorly.
Their complaint is the evidence which led to being charged with the crime, not the charges themselves. Under criminal law, being innocent doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime you were accused of it merely means that the prosecution was unable to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. If I were in business, my standard for firing someone would be one heck of a lot lower than that when the risks to my business or reputation were high.

In any case, I'm not sure what laws exist to prevent this from happening with government positions but we'll see how NMs policy stands up to them if/when this gets challenged.

Gunny Burlfoot
12-08-2006, 05:59 PM
So there is no way to fire a government employee unless they are convicted of a crime in a court of law? I know it's hard to get rid of them but that sounds absurd.

I can tell you working in the 2nd biggest government agency in the country, employee number-wise, that it's even more absurd that you imagine.

You can't even fire people that have been convicted of a crime. The only two ways you can fire someone without it dragging on through 18 months of continual paperwork filing is :

A) They don't show up for work for 6 months.
B) They refuse a direct order by their immediate superior. (And there's an asston of qualifications on that. The order must not be unsafe, illegal, unethical, insensitive to the employee's beliefs or other people's beliefs, sexually harassing, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.)

So A) above is the only sure fire way to fire a federal career employee without question or appeal, as it is very easy to show the time clock records that they didn't clock in for 6 months.

Technically, they don't get fired for committing a crime when they are convicted of it, or even when they get jailed, they get fired 6 months after they've been convicted and in jail, because the 6 month time limit for them to show up for work is over.

Ta-Da! Your government tax dollars um. . hard at work?

:lmao:

The only sane response is to laugh maniacally.

Klath
12-08-2006, 06:52 PM
I can tell you working in the 2nd biggest government agency in the country, employee number-wise, that it's even more absurd that you imagine.
Why is it so difficult? That is, specifically what law(s) protect them from being held to the same standards as employees at a private firm?

B_Delacroix
12-11-2006, 08:45 AM
Goddamn you people are sheep.

All I can do is hope to survive it.

Aidon
12-12-2006, 10:58 AM
Under criminal law, being innocent doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime you were accused of it merely means that the prosecution was unable to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.


I'm sick of this silly argument...but I had to comment on the above quote...

If the prosecution was unable to prove your guild beyond a reasonable doubt, then you didn't commit the crime you were accused of. It really is that simple.

B_Delacroix
12-12-2006, 12:06 PM
The trend I see is that people make up their mind on a persons innocence or guilt and don't believe the justice system when it comes out with a verdict that is in contradiction. That disturbs me because the very reason we have a justice system is avoid this kind of mob justice.

Klath
12-12-2006, 12:26 PM
If the prosecution was unable to prove your guild beyond a reasonable doubt, then you didn't commit the crime you were accused of. It really is that simple.
No, you are confusing legally innocent with actually innocent. If I kill someone and a prosecutor can't prove it, the space-time continuum is not altered so as to change the fact that I killed someone. I know you lawyers like to think you're all-powerful but, come on.

Aidon
12-12-2006, 01:41 PM
No, you are confusing legally innocent with actually innocent. If I kill someone and a prosecutor can't prove it, the space-time continuum is not altered so as to change the fact that I killed someone. I know you lawyers like to think you're all-powerful but, come on.

If you kill someone and a prosecutor can't prove it, it means you are not guilty of murder.

It really is that simple.

Whether you actually killed the person is immaterial.

Klath
12-12-2006, 01:46 PM
Whether you actually killed the person is immaterial.
Tell that to OJ. He got cleaned out in civil court where, as I stated earlier, the standard of proof is lower.

Aidon
12-12-2006, 01:54 PM
He was held responsible for the deaths in civil court.

He was not held guilty of murder in civil court.

If OJ gutted his ex and her boyfriend with a piece of jagged turkey baster and then danced the fandango on their corpses....he did not commit murder, because the state was unable to prove he committed murder.

Are you mentally stunted that you cannot grasp this most simple of concepts?

If the state cannot prove you committed a crime, you did not commit the crime.

Klath
12-12-2006, 02:27 PM
Are you mentally stunted that you cannot grasp this most simple of concepts?
Do you have a law book shoved so far up your ass that you are incapable of understanding that the terms 'guilty' and 'innocent,' when used in a legal context, are tied to the standard of proof required by the court and not a declaration of reality?

Tudamorf
12-12-2006, 02:36 PM
If the state cannot prove you committed a crime, you did not commit the crime.You mean, if the state cannot prove you committed a crime, you cannot be punished for that crime.

Aidon
12-12-2006, 03:04 PM
No, if the state cannot prove you committed a crime, than you committed no crime. Its a vital concept to our way of life. The loss of that concept has bred some grave injustices over the years.

Americans seem to love to peg people as criminals, regardless of whether they actually committed the crime, to the extent that our society starting to reflect it broadly, with public institutions (especially schools) enacting punitive measures at the mere accusation of certain crimes, and so called "rape shield" laws, and the finding of public guilt in the media long before a case ever goes to trial, so tainting the jury pool as to make a fair trial all but impossible.

Anka
12-12-2006, 03:06 PM
If the state cannot prove you committed a crime, you did not commit the crime.

How can you even consider insulting a person for recognising that to be misquoted legalese. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

A crime is not purely defined by the state and is not dependant upon the state. If the state doesn't exist then crimes will still exist and the person who commited the crime still exists. Even if no court ever deliberates on a murder then the victim still exists and so does the murderer. A factual event does not vanish because a group of people in a courtroom make a decision, or not.

We should certainly treat people as if they were innocent until proven guilty, but your statement takes that ethical procedure to an illogical conclusion. Perhaps you would like to rephrase your statement or define some of your terms more clearly?

Aidon
12-12-2006, 03:14 PM
How can you even consider insulting a person for recognising that to be misquoted legalese. It falls over on so many levels.

I consider insulting people over such trivialities as what their favorite brand of pencil is. Miscomprehending fundamental philosophical ideologies of our criminal justice system is easy.

A crime is not purely defined by the state and is not dependant upon the state. If the state doesn't exist then crimes will still exist and the person who commited the crime still exists. Even if no court ever deliberates on a murder then the victim still exists and so does the murderer. A factual event does not vanish because a group of people in a courtroom make a decision, or not.

Killing is not necessarily murder. In the US, without a conviction in a court of law, you are not a murderer and did not commit murder. Now, I understand that in France and Communist China, you can be guilty of a crime without the state proving it, but the United States (in theory) is different.

We should certainly treat people as if they were innocent until proven guilty, but your statement takes that ethical procedure to an illogical conclusion. Perhaps you would like to rephrase your statement or define some of your terms more clearly?

I would like to do no such thing, for my statement and terms are proper.

OJ Simpson murdered noone. He may very well have killed two people, he may not have. I tend to give anyone found innocent the benefit of the doubt, as I'm a believer in justice, but that irrespective of that, under no circumstance is he a murderer.

Klath
12-12-2006, 04:43 PM
I would like to do no such thing, for my statement and terms are proper.
If I had failed to make a distinction between innocent and legally innocent then you'd have a point. However, I've made that distinction abundantly clear in just about every post.

With respect to my original point, I don't think employers should have to use the same standards of proof that criminal courts use when deciding whether to fire someone. Having a job is not an inviolable right.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
12-12-2006, 04:50 PM
Ya, he thinks the word means the same thing in all contexts.

He is honestly trying to impose the definition of a word in one realm into another, and vice versa.

I don't know how successful he generally is when he does that, it doesn't convince me. He might be very successful in changing people's opinions with regard to that, for all I know. For he never stops trying it out here.

Klath
12-12-2006, 05:03 PM
Aye, in this thread it just looks silly. I suspect he realized this himself about 10 posts back when he got sick of the argument. He now perseveres only out of stubbornness and conflict addiction. :)

Fyyr Lu'Storm
12-12-2006, 05:14 PM
No, I honestly think that he wants to convince us.

But first he is going to have to convince me, that 12 uneducated unemployed people too stupid to get of jury duty, are smarter than me(or you).

And that is going to be a tough one for him to pull off.

Wanna watch me pull a rabbit out of this hat...didn't think so.


They would not let me on a jury. They would not let you be on a jury. I know that they would never let Aidon be on a jury. Not at all, well unless we all lied, of course.

Anka
12-12-2006, 07:34 PM
Miscomprehending fundamental philosophical ideologies of our criminal justice system is easy.

Well you seem to have done it. There's no point repeating the 'innocent until proven guilty' argument over and over again. Everyone else is talking about the reality rather than perception.

If you're claiming that a crime doesn't exist until it is proven in court to be a crime, then say so. That is different to your previous statement (implying that the crime exists from the time it was committed, but the perpetrator does not the commit the crime until/unless it is proven in court).

Aidon
12-13-2006, 04:49 PM
No, people are talking about government punishment..and the fundamental concepts our society is founded on, along with the erosion of those concepts.

We are not talking about various contexts...we're speaking about a specific context, the notion of the state taking punitive action for alleged criminal action, before there is any finding of guilt. We're also speaking with regard to the general dispensation the public has embraced of the concept of innocence until guilt is proven.

I am fully serious in my contention that in the US, until a jury of peers has found a person guilty of a crime in a court of law, I will not hold that they were guilty (and frequently I don't necessarily believe a conviction means guilt, either. The current deck is stacked heavily in favor of the police and prosecutors).

Did OJ Simpson kill his ex and her boytoy? Most likely, yes. Its almost a certainty. Did he commit murder? Absolutely not. Is he a murderer? Absolutely not. He may be a killer. He may be a cold hearted natural born killa. He isn't a murderer though.

If you feel its merely semantics, then perhaps you should contemplate the import of the distinction further, for there is a distinction and a very important one.

As for the original argument...it became moot, you suggested the guy had simply been suspended with pay. That is reasonable (though not ideal, lending an implication of guilt). So long as he is working for the government, though, he should not be fired because he has been charged with a crime.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
12-13-2006, 07:08 PM
You are imposing the definition of words within a court of law, or within law, to apply outside of that space.

That is inappropriate.

A person can be a liar.
A cheat.
An adulterer.
A philanderer.
A drug dealer.
A murderer.
A rapist.
A traitor.

Without ever even being charged, let alone convicted.

And a person can be guilty of any of those things, or more, without ever seeing inside of a court or jailhouse.

Just as an innocent person can be convicted and is currently serving time in prison.

You are attempting to force the limited legal definition of a word, onto the broader general definition of the word. I will assert that these words, or words which had the same general meaning, were in existence long before there were courtrooms or lawyers. That is to say, that the words were taken by the legal profession initially, then given a different meaning within the confines of law; trying to now impose those newer meanings onto pre-existing words outside of that confined legal space in invalid.

Anka
12-13-2006, 09:46 PM
We are not talking about various contexts...we're speaking about a specific context, the notion of the state taking punitive action for alleged criminal action, before there is any finding of guilt. We're also speaking with regard to the general dispensation the public has embraced of the concept of innocence until guilt is proven.

You're talking about that. Everyone else is using the English language in its day to day meaning.

Even so, you need to tidy up your semantics. Can you really argue that a crime can exist but nobody can have commited that crime until it comes before a court of law? You can surely only have both or neither?

If you feel its merely semantics, then perhaps you should contemplate the import of the distinction further, for there is a distinction and a very important one.

Yes we've considered it and made our points. Your turn to consider it. I see that in your last post you said 'guilty' instead of 'commit a crime'. That's what you should have said in the first place.

I am fully serious in my contention that in the US, until a jury of peers has found a person guilty of a crime in a court of law, I will not hold that they were guilty (and frequently I don't necessarily believe a conviction means guilt, either. The current deck is stacked heavily in favor of the police and prosecutors).

How can you possibly say that the legal system is the absolute arbiter of guilt, except when you personally don't like how the case was managed in court. That's really not going to convince anyone.

Klath
12-14-2006, 08:26 AM
We are not talking about various contexts...we're speaking about a specific context, the notion of the state taking punitive action for alleged criminal action, before there is any finding of guilt. We're also speaking with regard to the general dispensation the public has embraced of the concept of innocence until guilt is proven.
In this specific context, we're talking about firing an employee, not putting them in prison. Also, as I've said before, the employee is not being fired for an alleged criminal action (although the action may be criminal), they are being fired because they violated some part of their employment contract.

Employees can be fired for all sorts of things that don't need to be proven in a criminal court. It's not a criminal offense to tell their boss to fvuck off every time they are asked to do something they were hired to do but it'll damn sure get them fired. Employees who are fired can always sue their ex-employers for wrongful termination but it will be treated as a contract dispute rather than a criminal prosecution and the standards of evidence will reflect this. The employee's actions will be measured against whether they violated their contract rather than whether or not they committed a crime.

Here's an example:
Lets say that a school has an explicit policy against fraternization with students outside of school sponsored activities unless special dispensation is provided by the school administration.

A student at this school claims a teacher invited her to his hotel room and had sex with her. The hotel has them on their security camera entering his hotel room. The students parents find out and contact the school. The school investigates and finds three other students with no ties to the original student who claim that they were also invited by the teacher to meet at a hotel for sex. The teacher denies he had sex with any of the students and there is no physical evidence that sex took place.

If I were the teachers' boss in this scenario, I'd fire him whether or not he was convicted of (or even brought to trial for) a crime.

B_Delacroix
12-14-2006, 12:57 PM
Intense scrutiny of educators' backgrounds have made some teacher organizations uncomfortable; they believe the climate would become ripe for witch hunts and false accusations.

"We frequently represent teachers who are accused by students or others and many times their records are cleared," said Wythe Keever, spokesman for the Pennsylvania State Education Association, "but their careers are ruined." He said he had no statistics on false-accusations cases handled by the PSEA.

While Keever noted there are no penalties for students who make false accusations against teachers, the University of Oregon's Kris Wilson believes aggressively pursuing bad teachers is worth the risk of an occasional false report.

"You damage a child, and you do it for a long, long time," she said. "I know it's damaging for a teacher to be falsely accused, but I can tell you, they can get over it.

"A child may never get over it."

SOURCE: http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19991102dsabuse1.asp

Book Description
Teachers and others caught in false allegation misconduct are facing the decimation of their careers. This book is a survival plan for teachers, school administrators, and others working with young people. It details both proactive and reactive measures that the accused should know in the event of an allegation. This book will help them to know and to protect their rights. No one knows how many careers have been ended by students who intend retribution for reasons as varied as extortion, revenge, misplaced affection, or sheer malice. No data or studies have documented the extent of the problem. A few experts say false allegations never happen; others say it rarely happens. Yet false allegations are all too common. Educators and other professionals who work with young people know that such allegations can be career killers, yet their ruined lives often become silent statistics due to the stigma of shame surrounding the charges. This book looks at relevant law, policies, criminal investigation procedures, and problem behavior, offering an informative and easy-to-use guide that will assist practitioners, administrators, and anyone beginning a career with children and youth.

From the book Rumors, Lies, and Whispers: Classroom "Crush" or Career Catastrophe? (http://www.amazon.com/Rumors-Lies-Whispers-Classroom-Catastrophe/dp/0275978346)

Why am I so bothered about this? Aside from the fact that its just as wrong to ignore false accusations as real ones, I've been involved in a false accusation. It wasn't against me. In the end the accused was found not guilty but we were then told by the state agency (child protective services) that they knew he was guilty and they'd get him some day. Essentially, they made up their minds about his guilt without viewing any evidence.

Aidon
12-19-2006, 10:45 AM
You are imposing the definition of words within a court of law, or within law, to apply outside of that space.

That is inappropriate.

A person can be a liar.
A cheat.
An adulterer.
A philanderer.
A drug dealer.
A murderer.
A rapist.
A traitor.

Without ever even being charged, let alone convicted.

Not in the United States, at least regarding murderer, rapist, and traitor. The top four aren't crimes, and 'a drug dealer' shouldn't be a crime.

And a person can be guilty of any of those things, or more, without ever seeing inside of a court or jailhouse.

No, they cannot. The idea that they can be is what spawns yahoo's to go out there and hang "that damn nigger who done raped all dem white girls" without even the facade of a fair trial. People are idiots, they are even bigger idiots, however, when not tempered by a court of law.

Just as an innocent person can be convicted and is currently serving time in prison.

The two are neither analogous nor synonymous, because our system is supposed to be geared in favor of those who stand accused.

You are attempting to force the limited legal definition of a word, onto the broader general definition of the word. I will assert that these words, or words which had the same general meaning, were in existence long before there were courtrooms or lawyers.

Well, no, not really. The definition of murder is "to illegally kill someone with malice aforethought". By its definition it requires you to act against the law, and in the US only a jury of your peers before a court of law can determine that your actions were against the law. You may assert all you wish, but the concept of murder did not exist, nor could have existed, before there were laws, and with laws came courts.

Rape is defined as unlawful sexual conduct, which is how we have the notion of Statutory rape, versus rape as part of an assault.

Traitor, in that context, means one who commits treason. Treason means an attempt at overt acts to overthrow a government. By definition, attempting to overthrow the government of a land is against the laws of that government.

It causes me great despair that even bright American citizens are too goddamned stupid to understand the thin, but essential, barrier between guilt and innocence in our society, which must need extend even into our vernacular.


That is to say, that the words were taken by the legal profession initially, then given a different meaning within the confines of law; trying to now impose those newer meanings onto pre-existing words outside of that confined legal space in invalid.

No, Fy'yr, they were not, your understanding of the definition of these words, their usage, and their history is flawed.

These words came in to existance because someone felt the need to differentiate between the "normal" usage and the "unlawful" usage.

Even the 10 commandments. In the Hebrew, the commandment is not "You shall not kill", but translates into "You shall not murder". Killing someone is not the same as murdering someone. Murder demands your killing be illegal, and in the United States of America, no action you take is illegal until a jury has convicted you.

And to answer Anka...yes, there can be crimes committed in which we do not know the transgressor. It happens all the time. Just because you think you know who the perpetrator is, doesn't mean you do.

Aidon
12-19-2006, 10:49 AM
In this specific context, we're talking about firing an employee, not putting them in prison. Also, as I've said before, the employee is not being fired for an alleged criminal action (although the action may be criminal), they are being fired because they violated some part of their employment contract.

Employees can be fired for all sorts of things that don't need to be proven in a criminal court. It's not a criminal offense to tell their boss to fvuck off every time they are asked to do something they were hired to do but it'll damn sure get them fired. Employees who are fired can always sue their ex-employers for wrongful termination but it will be treated as a contract dispute rather than a criminal prosecution and the standards of evidence will reflect this. The employee's actions will be measured against whether they violated their contract rather than whether or not they committed a crime.

Here's an example:
Lets say that a school has an explicit policy against fraternization with students outside of school sponsored activities unless special dispensation is provided by the school administration.

A student at this school claims a teacher invited her to his hotel room and had sex with her. The hotel has them on their security camera entering his hotel room. The students parents find out and contact the school. The school investigates and finds three other students with no ties to the original student who claim that they were also invited by the teacher to meet at a hotel for sex. The teacher denies he had sex with any of the students and there is no physical evidence that sex took place.

If I were the teachers' boss in this scenario, I'd fire him whether or not he was convicted of (or even brought to trial for) a crime.

And if you worked for the state and I was a Judge, I'd force you to retain him, to pay him backpay for any pay lost, and to keep paying him until such time as a court of law has proven he acted illegally.

Regarding the policy of fraternization, that would depend on how previous examples of that had been enforced. All you need is one teacher to have tutored a student on his or her own time, after school, who wasn't fired to render your policy ineffective and the selective enforcement thereof to be prejudicial.

Now, if you're at a private school, you can do whatever the hell you want. You might have to defend a lawsuit, but that's another issue.

Anka
12-19-2006, 03:38 PM
And to answer Anka...yes, there can be crimes committed in which we do not know the transgressor. It happens all the time. Just because you think you know who the perpetrator is, doesn't mean you do.

But you've just argued exactly the opposite. You've just said that killing is not murder until it is proven to be murder in a court. Theft could be borrowing or repossession, until it is proven in court. Rape could be consensual sex, until it is proven in court.

So, lets get back to square one, do you still insist that a crime can be committed (regardless of a trial) but nobody has committed the crime until it is proven in court?

Klath
12-19-2006, 04:03 PM
And if you worked for the state and I was a Judge, I'd force you to retain him, to pay him backpay for any pay lost, and to keep paying him until such time as a court of law has proven he acted illegally.
And if you were my next door neighbor and I was a 12 year old kid, I'd leave a burning bag of dog sh1t on your doorstep, ring your door bell, hide behind your hedge, and snicker at you when you came and stomped out the fire.

Hypotheticals aside, we'll have to wait and see what happens if/when the NMPED policy is challenged.

Aidon
12-20-2006, 09:18 AM
As I mentioned, if they placed him on paid leave for the duration, then they acted fine, he suffers no loss at the hands of the state.

Aidon
12-20-2006, 09:19 AM
Oh, and now days, if you leave a burning bag of dog**** on someone's front door, you'd best watch it, you could be declared a terrorist and punished without being convicted of a crime.