On November 2, 2015, to great fanfare, Obama signed an executive order banning the box. In case you're unfamiliar with that particular euphemism, it refers to the part of the application for federal jobs which refers to whether you've ever been convicted of a crime. Now, applicants for federal jobs no longer have to say whether they've ever been convicted of a crime.
The idea is that everyone deserves a second chance, and once criminals "have paid their debt to society" -- as per the White House press release -- they deserve an opportunity to make something of themselves, otherwise they will be tempted to turn back to a life of crime.
Sounds reasonable enough. But if someone has a conviction for a violent crime, you'd think his coworkers would have a right to know. And shouldn't people who've maintained a clean record have preference over those who haven't?
In any case, "ban the box" appears to be one of Obama's many domestic initiatives motivated primarily by racial considerations. (You've got to love that alliteration -- this administration certainly knows how to appeal to their constituency.)
Fast forward three months. On February 8th, Obama signed the International Meghan's Law, which requires that the passport of anyone ever convicted of a sex crime be specially marked so that he's immediately identifiable to foreign authorities.
Doesn't that law conflict with the spirit of banning the box? If sex criminals have done their time, and paid their debt to society, don't they too deserve a second chance? And they're not even applying for taxpayer-funded jobs; all they want to do is travel.
The case can be made that sex criminals are irredeemable: once a child molester, always a child molester. Peoples' sexualities simply don't change. So, it seems reasonable that foreign authorities be alerted when a known child molester is in their country.
But aren't criminal predilections also somewhat ingrained? A man who's been convicted of assault and battery in the past is still prone to violence, even after he's served his term. Wouldn't it be unfair to his future employers to keep them in the dark about this?
And what does this mean for federal employment? Now that the box has been banned, will sex criminals -- including child molesters and rapists -- no longer have to let federal employers know of their crimes? That results in a situation where we're alerting foreign authorities -- but not their coworkers in the US -- to the sex criminals' presence.
Keep in mind, the definition of a sex crime varies from country to country. In the US, if a 19 year old male has sex with a 15 year old female, he's considered a criminal. Likewise, if a 24 year old female teacher has an affair with a 17 year old male student, she is breaking the law. In many countries, these are not considered criminal acts. Yet at the same time, Obama lectures African leaders on how homosexuality -- which is illegal there -- ought to be decriminalized.
Is there a value judgment there? And might that judgment possibly be influenced by the fact that Obama himself is a homosexual?
Obama always claims that he is on "the right side of history." But does the right side of history consist of forgiveness, or the scarlet letter?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
The USA Today article you link to implies that an applicant will have to disclose a criminal record later in the hiring process, just not on his original job application. There is still some chance a few superpredators will get screened out before the federal government grants them lifetime employment with great benefits.
Mark --
I hope so….And in the meantime a guy who had a 15 year old girlfriend when he was 19 will have a scarlet letter branded on whenever he travels abroad. I'm actually in favor of real child molesters being ID-ed, don't get me wrong. It's just the Obama administration's double standard i wanted to point out. It's also a little ironic that the Obama administration doesn't feel that being HIV positive is a good reason to bar anyone from this country. A lot of those immigrants will spread their disease, but no matter, political correctness trumps that.
Obama is impressed by himself, thinking he's the "cat's meow.". He is not one who listens to " the people.". Instead, he maneuvers to have his way, irregardless of the consequences. We live in a country where anything goes. Our society is breaking down.
- Susan
Susan --
Obama's hypocrisy has been front and center ever since he assumed office, to anyone willing to take a hard look at him. Unfortunately that number does not include most of the media.
I agree with you about the media, no actual unbiased reporting going on. I have noticed that some current day "journalists" are not very good at their jobs, some articles being badly written.
- Susan
I am referring to articles that I might read on www.msn.com, etc. Some articles are poorly written these days, making me question how good our journalism schools are. I was not referring to any of your blog work.
- Susan
Susan --
No worries, I didn't think you were referring to me.
To defend Obama if we are heading into a situation when half of the jobs are in the Federal Government or liberal state Governments and seventy-five percent of the good paying jobs are there then being banned for life from these jobs is a hardship. It also hits his supporters harder then the general public. I don't mind banning the box if it has no predictive value but I would doubt anyone who claimed that. I worked with a guy who will be in prison for the rest of this decade for a sordid sex crime involving a child. Frankly, I would rather work with him(it was an adult environment) then an embezzler. I read about an embezzler who was making about twice what I was making at the time from their salary and still stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from some little company. Unrelated, but it just ticks me off.
How is this different than the catholic church shuffling around the child molesters and hiding their problem?
"Ladies and gentlemen : lets welcome father X. he just came off a lovely vacation and is here to serve. Of course there are 100 kids who are in for some tough sledding but lets not bring that up."
The church has been vilified ever since. so now convicted criminals can make up some explanation for their time inside and walk in the door with no one having a heads up. what can possibly go wrong with this ?
Mark --
I've known both crooks and child molesters, and, honestly, the child molesters didn't seem like such bad guys (I didn't realize either was a child molester until later, and only one of them actually indulged his passion). The crooks generally seemed untrustworthy right off the bat. Still…..that's a tough choice.
Either way, I think future employers and coworkers have the right to know about them.
Dave --
That's a good analogy.
The Catholic church i snow being vilified by everyone for that reason, but at the same time, the Obama administration is pushing the Boy Scouts of America to allow gay troop masters. Yet the Boy Scouts themselves have had over 2000 lawsuits brought against them because of molestation incidents. Gee, what could possibly go wrong there, too?
Here's a link to a notorious murder in Charlotte, NC, where the killer had served his time and paid his debt to society for his previous crimes. A local restaurant gave him another chance. The restaurant owner never alerted his other employees about the new hire's background.
http://www.wbtv.com/story/20668491/flying-biscuit-killer-pleads-guilty-to-double-murder
Mark --
The statistics on recidivism are pretty grim. People's natures don't change for the better after a few years in jail. And that does seem pretty remiss on the part of the restaurant owner.
Post a Comment