Rehabilitation of Offenders

[AtW]

I've got no issue with his sentence - but I also have no issue with the general public pressuring a commercial football club with regards to hiring a convicted rapist who is still serving his sentence.

But had he chosen to stay in jail to serve TOTAL time then you would not mind him getting a job in a club and would object to other people trying to stop clubs from offering him a job?

[vetran]

But had he chosen to stay in jail to serve TOTAL time then you would not mind him getting a job in a club and would object to other people trying to stop clubs from offering him a job?

Thanks AtW & Sartois well put.

[vwdan]

But had he chosen to stay in jail to serve TOTAL time then you would not mind him getting a job in a club and would object to other people trying to stop clubs from offering him a job?

I would still object because I'd rather football clubs didn't employ people who had committed serious crimes.

[vetran]

I would still object because I'd rather football clubs didn't employ people who had committed serious crimes.

so you would prefer he empties the bins or swept the streets. Not really in the spirit of rehabilitation. What happens if his case gets overturned on appeal? You and the Twitter Tw*ts are going to pay his lost earnings?

[vwdan]

so you would prefer he empties the bins or swept the streets. Not really in the spirit of rehabilitation. What happens if his case gets overturned on appeal? You and the Twitter Tw*ts are going to pay his lost earnings?

I'd just rather he did a job out of the public eye - somewhere his victim can forget about him. I don't think that should be enshrined in law, but I do think it should be encouraged. Would you like Rolf Harris to come out and resume his TV career? Again, I don't really think that it should be illegal, but I like to think we'd supply sufficient pressure onto the TV companies that it wouldn't happen.

He hasn't got an appeal. And so what if it does get overturned? As it stands, right now, the man is a convicted rapist - all I can work with is that fact. In much the same way that newspapers won't be sued for slandering him, I won't be paying his "lost earnings". Of all the arguments, this has to be the weakest of the bunch - do you think we shouldn't put people in jail or consider them convicted until they've exhausted ALL possibilities of clearing their name?

Everything else in the law makes the assumption that conviction = guilty, so I don't think it's unreasonable to have the debate on that basis.

[sartois]

I'd just rather he did a job out of the public eye - somewhere his victim can forget about him. I don't think that should be enshrined in law, but I do think it should be encouraged. Would you like Rolf Harris to come out and resume his TV career? Again, I don't really think that it should be illegal, but I like to think we'd supply sufficient pressure onto the TV companies that it wouldn't happen.

He hasn't got an appeal. And so what if it does get overturned? As it stands, right now, the man is a convicted rapist - all I can work with is that fact. In much the same way that newspapers won't be sued for slandering him, I won't be paying his "lost earnings". Of all the arguments, this has to be the weakest of the bunch - do you think we shouldn't put people in jail or consider them convicted until they've exhausted ALL possibilities of clearing their name?

Everything else in the law makes the assumption that conviction = guilty, so I don't think it's unreasonable to have the debate on that basis.

I would highly recommend reading up on this case... I have and its really quite disturbing how a jury was able to find him guilty based on the evidence presented to them. It feels like he was convicted based on his lack of morals rather than a criminal activity.

Anyway - even if he is guilty - if you believe in the justice system so much why can't you accept the punishment that was given to him by the justice system. His punishment was a prison sentence, not a lifetime ban from his career of choice. He is not a Doctor or a Lawyer, nor will he be working in a position of authority. All he will be doing is kicking footballs around a pitch. If you don't agree with his sentence, the argument should be with the justice system, not the football clubs that wish to give him a chance.

[vwdan]

I would highly recommend reading up on this case... I have and its really quite disturbing how a jury was able to find him guilty based on the evidence presented to them. It feels like he was convicted based on his lack of morals rather than a criminal activity.

Anyway - even if he is guilty - if you believe in the justice system so much why can't you accept the punishment that was given to him by the justice system. His punishment was a prison sentence, not a lifetime ban from his career of choice. He is not a Doctor or a Lawyer, nor will he be working in a position of authority. All he will be doing is kicking footballs around a pitch. If you don't agree with his sentence, the argument should be with the justice system, not the football clubs that wish to give him a chance.

We've been here before - the law is on our side. If the legal system was truly designed to ship people back into the world and allow them to resume as though nothing had happened then the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act would allow offenders the right to not disclose their criminal past. Rather than do that, however, it sets a variety of timescales which allows certain offences to be "spent" after a period of time. Unspent offences must be disclosed when requested and can be used in order to make a decision.

In this case, not only is his conviction considered unspent, he's not even started the clock yet because he's still serving it.

By the way, the following is a list of jobs where you must disclose all convictions:

hose working with children and other vulnerable groups, such as teachers and social workers
Those working in professions associated with the justice system, such as solicitor, police, court clerk, probation officer, prison officer and traffic warden
Doctors, dentists, pharmaceutical chemists, registered pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, nurses or paramedics
Accountants
Veterinarians
Managers of unit trusts
Anyone applying to work as an officer of the Crown
Employees of the RSPCA or SSPCA whose duties extend to the humane killing of animals
Any employment or other work normally carried out in bail hostels or probation hostels
Certain officials and employees from government and public authorities with access to sensitive or personal information or official databases about children or vulnerable adults
Any office or employment concerned with providing health services which would normally enable access to recipients of those health services
Officers and other persons who execute various court orders
Anyone who as part of their occupation occupies premises where explosives are kept under a police certificate
Contractors who carry out various kinds of work in tribunal and court buildings
Certain company directorships, such as those for banks, building societies and insurance companies
Certain civil service positions are excluded from the act, such as employment with the Civil Aviation Authority and the UK Atomic Energy Authority.[1]
Taxi drivers and other transport workers.
Butlers and other domestic staff
Aside from these trades and professions, the law also exempts organisations if the question is asked:

by or on behalf of The Football Association, The Football League or Premier League to assess someone’s suitability to work as, or supervise or manage, a steward at football matches.
by the Financial Services Authority and certain other bodies involved in finance, when asked to assess the suitability of a person to hold a particular status in the financial and monetary sectors.
to assess a person’s suitability to adopt children, or a particular child, or a question about anyone over the age of 18 living with such a person
There are also a number of proceedings before a "judicial authority" (widely defined) that are excluded from the Act, and where spent convictions can be disclosed. These include applications for adoption or fostering, and for firearms certificates

I love the irony that someone who nicked a car 20 years ago could be stopped from being a steward!

[NotAllThere]

Regarding Gary Glitter:

....
Anyway - even if he is guilty - if you believe in the justice system so much why can't you accept the punishment that was given to him by the justice system. His punishment was a prison sentence, not a lifetime ban from his career of choice.

Footballers are celebrities. Even if only locally. That's what's stops him taking up his career again.

[original PM]

I'd just rather he did a job out of the public eye -

somewhere his victim can forget about him

. I don't think that should be enshrined in law, but I do think it should be encouraged. Would you like Rolf Harris to come out and resume his TV career? Again, I don't really think that it should be illegal, but I like to think we'd supply sufficient pressure onto the TV companies that it wouldn't happen.

He hasn't got an appeal. And so what if it does get overturned? As it stands, right now, the man is a convicted rapist - all I can work with is that fact. In much the same way that newspapers won't be sued for slandering him, I won't be paying his "lost earnings". Of all the arguments, this has to be the weakest of the bunch - do you think we shouldn't put people in jail or consider them convicted until they've exhausted ALL possibilities of clearing their name?

Everything else in the law makes the assumption that conviction = guilty, so I don't think it's unreasonable to have the debate on that basis.

Well seeing as he was convicted based on the fact she cannot remember what happened I fail to see how she could forget about him seeing as she freely admits she cannot remember him.....

Which as others have said seems pretty flimsy evidence to convict someone on.....

[vwdan]

Well seeing as he was convicted based on the fact she cannot remember what happened I fail to see how she could forget about him seeing as she freely admits she cannot remember him.....

Which as others have said seems pretty flimsy evidence to convict someone on.....

Look, I'm not a lawyer, I wasn't in the courtroom and I don't have access to all of the facts. All I can say with certainty is that a trial was conducted and those there found him guilty. My arguments are based on that and therefore him being a convicted rapist.

If he's NOT a rapist, well obviously my arguments are invalid for this case - though I stand by them for any other convicted rapists.