I saw in our local news that a former teacher who had inappropriate relations with a student and went to prison and paid for committing the crime roughly 10 years ago was fired from an announcing job for a minor league BB team. That got me to thinking: At what point does someone pay enough for the crime that they committed? The guy will never be a teacher ever again - which I think is right and just because he abused the privilege of being a teacher in a most heinous way. But should that automatically mean that he has to wear a scarlet letter for the rest of his life?

The only reason I can think of for why he may have been fired was due to the fact that the minor league team may have organized outings that involved kids and teens in the future, and that he may come into contact with some of these kids. From what I read of the story, one of our newspapers did an investigative report to out this guy and ultimately get him fired. You could argue that he "got himself fired" by committing such a crime in the first place. But my response is at what point does he stop paying for the crime?

This can be easily expanded to ex criminals in general: At what point does society welcome the criminal back to become full fledged members of society again? I realize this may be based on a continuum and depend upon what the crime was.

Good question.

Christians, who make up a majority of this country, should be practicing and preaching forgiveness. Unfortunately there isn't a whole lot of that going on these days.

I would need to know more info on this guy and his offense to make a judgement in this situation. I do however believe that society should allow those that pay for their crimes to be allowed a normal life again.

I am involved with youth baseball and I can tell you that we do not allow anyone around the kids that has a record that includes violence against a child. Generally they have to have a clean record.

On a related note.....

The guy is now 93 years old.


Auschwitz guard says he shares moral guilt, but expects an acquittal

snippet:

Quote:A 93-year-old former bookkeeper at Auschwitz who is accused of assisting in the mass murder of Jews told a German court that he felt morally guilty for his work at the Nazi death camp, describing in detail the grisly killings he had witnessed there.

Oskar Groening, in what could be one of Germany’s last big Holocaust trials, is accused of being an accessory to the murder of 300,000 people although in his role as a clerk he did not kill anyone himself.

“In moral terms, my actions make me guilty,” Groening said on the first day of his trial in the northern town of Lueneburg.

“I stand before the victims with remorse and humility,” he said. “On the question of whether I am guilty in legal terms, you must decide.”

There is a difference between forgiveness, punishment, and repercussions.

The guy is forgiven the moment he asks the person he harmed for forgiveness, and they forgive him.

The guy's punishment is complete after he serves his time.

The repercussions could go on for a very long time. Depending on the crime and situation, he may not be able to hold certain jobs, especially public profile jobs. This is not wearing a scarlett letter. This is simply the fact that certain crimes will prevent you from attaining future employment in certain professions.

The guy that acted like an idiot to the Chik-fil-e woman is still suffering repercussions of what he did and said. He didnt commit a crime (other than the crime of stupidity and acting like a douchebag), but he is still suffering the repercussions of his actions. You may not think that is fair, but then again, why hasnt a pro-gay or liberal company hired him? The answer is because he is toxic. He may be a hero to some, but they know it could impact their business, so they avoid him like the plaque.

To overcome this, they will have to start back at the bottom, and earn trust and respect back up to the top over time. Forgiveness and punishment are like light switches, you switch them on and off. Repercussions are like radioactive decay. It takes time to rebuild yourself, and during that time you cant go shovel more radioactive waste onto the heap. It's a rebuilding process, and it is completely on the person themselves, not on the public.

(04-21-2015 12:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  There is a difference between forgiveness, punishment, and repercussions.

The guy is forgiven the moment he asks the person he harmed for forgiveness, and they forgive him.

The guy's punishment is complete after he serves his time.

The repercussions could go on for a very long time. Depending on the crime and situation, he may not be able to hold certain jobs, especially public profile jobs. This is not wearing a scarlett letter. This is simply the fact that certain crimes will prevent you from attaining future employment in certain professions.

The guy that acted like an idiot to the Chik-fil-e woman is still suffering repercussions of what he did and said. He didnt commit a crime (other than the crime of stupidity and acting like a douchebag), but he is still suffering the repercussions of his actions. You may not think that is fair, but then again, why hasnt a pro-gay or liberal company hired him? The answer is because he is toxic. He may be a hero to some, but they know it could impact their business, so they avoid him like the plaque.

To overcome this, they will have to start back at the bottom, and earn trust and respect back up to the top over time. Forgiveness and punishment are like light switches, you switch them on and off. Repercussions are like radioactive decay. It takes time to rebuild yourself, and during that time you cant go shovel more radioactive waste onto the heap. It's a rebuilding process, and it is completely on the person themselves, not on the public.

I agree that there are differences between punishment, forgiveness and repercussions. The example of the man I used was fired from a job where he was the announcer for a minor league professional baseball team. Now if the announcer also has to have a lot of dealings with children and teens, then I can understand the issue. Regarding the repercussions, the man can no longer work in the profession he chose - teaching anywhere from elementary thru high school. That is a permanent consequence that should be enforced until he dies. But getting fired from a job where he's supposed to be sitting in an announcers booth surrounded by adults? Why in this case?

This is but an example from the papers today. But what about other non-violent crimes? In particular, I can see drug users be tarnished forever because they have a criminal record.

It's the blanket application of these employment rules that make them a problem. No one has a problem with those who have harmed children being kept away from jobs associating them with children, but I don't necessarily want him being convicted of that decades prior to result in him not being able to get a job as a, say, mechanic. A guy who was convicted of fraud shouldn't be prevented from, say, driving a forklift after serving his time. I want to say most jobs simply won't hire someone with a significant record of any sort. Maybe a DUI or something like that, but a felony is like a scarlet letter from what I've heard.

(04-21-2015 10:59 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I saw in our local news that a former teacher who had inappropriate relations with a student and went to prison and paid for committing the crime roughly 10 years ago was fired from an announcing job for a minor league BB team. That got me to thinking: At what point does someone pay enough for the crime that they committed? The guy will never be a teacher ever again - which I think is right and just because he abused the privilege of being a teacher in a most heinous way. But should that automatically mean that he has to wear a scarlet letter for the rest of his life?

The only reason I can think of for why he may have been fired was due to the fact that the minor league team may have organized outings that involved kids and teens in the future, and that he may come into contact with some of these kids. From what I read of the story, one of our newspapers did an investigative report to out this guy and ultimately get him fired. You could argue that he "got himself fired" by committing such a crime in the first place. But my response is at what point does he stop paying for the crime?

This can be easily expanded to ex criminals in general: At what point does society welcome the criminal back to become full fledged members of society again? I realize this may be based on a continuum and depend upon what the crime was.

Probably not. He probably failed to disclose on an application/interview of what he did, and was convicted of.

The pertinent question is, would he have been hired had he disclosed it? Because if not, and the job had nothing to do with his previous charge, what do you expect? I'd lie if that was the only way to get a job, I'm sure everyone here would. A few weeks of being open and honest with prospective employers, seeing doors shut in my face, and you'd better believe I'd start taking my chances.

That's the danger with this sort of thing, if you make the punishment too harsh and too broad, people can't realistically be expected to not lie about their past when applying to jobs.

This baseball team is in an industry that relies upon the goodwill of it's patrons because it's not providing a product that people can't do without. Imagine how that goodwill would be effected if it came to be public knowledge they were employing a child molester and took no action? They couldn't claim to be a family friendly atmosphere while employing a sexual predator.

(04-21-2015 12:57 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 12:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  There is a difference between forgiveness, punishment, and repercussions.

The guy is forgiven the moment he asks the person he harmed for forgiveness, and they forgive him.

The guy's punishment is complete after he serves his time.

The repercussions could go on for a very long time. Depending on the crime and situation, he may not be able to hold certain jobs, especially public profile jobs. This is not wearing a scarlett letter. This is simply the fact that certain crimes will prevent you from attaining future employment in certain professions.

The guy that acted like an idiot to the Chik-fil-e woman is still suffering repercussions of what he did and said. He didnt commit a crime (other than the crime of stupidity and acting like a douchebag), but he is still suffering the repercussions of his actions. You may not think that is fair, but then again, why hasnt a pro-gay or liberal company hired him? The answer is because he is toxic. He may be a hero to some, but they know it could impact their business, so they avoid him like the plaque.

To overcome this, they will have to start back at the bottom, and earn trust and respect back up to the top over time. Forgiveness and punishment are like light switches, you switch them on and off. Repercussions are like radioactive decay. It takes time to rebuild yourself, and during that time you cant go shovel more radioactive waste onto the heap. It's a rebuilding process, and it is completely on the person themselves, not on the public.

I agree that there are differences between punishment, forgiveness and repercussions. The example of the man I used was fired from a job where he was the announcer for a minor league professional baseball team. Now if the announcer also has to have a lot of dealings with children and teens, then I can understand the issue. Regarding the repercussions, the man can no longer work in the profession he chose - teaching anywhere from elementary thru high school. That is a permanent consequence that should be enforced until he dies. But getting fired from a job where he's supposed to be sitting in an announcers booth surrounded by adults? Why in this case?

This is but an example from the papers today. But what about other non-violent crimes? In particular, I can see drug users be tarnished forever because they have a criminal record.

For companies, its simply a case of liability. If this guy did anything to someone at their location(s), the company would be sued, and this type of activity can lead to millions in damages. Many insurance companies will not offer coverage, but even if they do, the damages can exceed the coverage.

Also, there is the PR aspect of it. The company can be hit with a viral public bashing, and its just something most companies dont want to have to deal with.

For drug crimes, it just depends. If the person is to operate machinery or vehicles, and they have a drug conviction, insurance companies will not want to ensure them for liability.

Miko had it right with this being on a continuum. A 19 year old who has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend is much different than a 40 year old who rapes an 8 year old girl. But both are "sex offenders".

It's on a case by case basis.

(04-21-2015 12:57 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 12:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  There is a difference between forgiveness, punishment, and repercussions.

The guy is forgiven the moment he asks the person he harmed for forgiveness, and they forgive him.

The guy's punishment is complete after he serves his time.

The repercussions could go on for a very long time. Depending on the crime and situation, he may not be able to hold certain jobs, especially public profile jobs. This is not wearing a scarlett letter. This is simply the fact that certain crimes will prevent you from attaining future employment in certain professions.

The guy that acted like an idiot to the Chik-fil-e woman is still suffering repercussions of what he did and said. He didnt commit a crime (other than the crime of stupidity and acting like a douchebag), but he is still suffering the repercussions of his actions. You may not think that is fair, but then again, why hasnt a pro-gay or liberal company hired him? The answer is because he is toxic. He may be a hero to some, but they know it could impact their business, so they avoid him like the plaque.

To overcome this, they will have to start back at the bottom, and earn trust and respect back up to the top over time. Forgiveness and punishment are like light switches, you switch them on and off. Repercussions are like radioactive decay. It takes time to rebuild yourself, and during that time you cant go shovel more radioactive waste onto the heap. It's a rebuilding process, and it is completely on the person themselves, not on the public.

I agree that there are differences between punishment, forgiveness and repercussions. The example of the man I used was fired from a job where he was the announcer for a minor league professional baseball team. Now if the announcer also has to have a lot of dealings with children and teens, then I can understand the issue. Regarding the repercussions, the man can no longer work in the profession he chose - teaching anywhere from elementary thru high school. That is a permanent consequence that should be enforced until he dies. But getting fired from a job where he's supposed to be sitting in an announcers booth surrounded by adults? Why in this case?

This is but an example from the papers today. But what about other non-violent crimes? In particular, I can see drug users be tarnished forever because they have a criminal record.

That's true. Possession of certain drugs, no matter how simple, can be an automatic felony.

That record makes it hard to dig out.

God forgives and I protect myself and those I love.

(04-21-2015 10:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  God forgives and I protect myself and those I love.

The cute phrase known as "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is merely words used by religious to provide cover for what is actually put into practice..."hate the sin, hate the sinner even more".

So, anyone think the 93 year old Nazi should go free??