Log in

9/20/2005

Tuesdays with Vishnu.

Mad props to the Czelt for the reading material.

Intelligent Design

Filed under: Link Larceny | | Comments (14)

14 Comments

  1. hey check out this article.. apparently, we want to help victims of Katrina only if they don’t have a criminal background.. then we just put them in jail..

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/22/katrina.criminals.ap/index.html

    Comment by Chad! — 9/22/2005 @ 3:03 pm

  2. No suprise that my opinion on this is; Doing background checks for people asking for shelter is no worse than having a background check done when applying for an apartment.

    If they didn’t do background checks and 12 year old little Suzie gets raped in her own home by a man with a previous record, who was placed there by the government, then who is to blame? Is it discriminating, maybe, but it also is their (the government) responsiblity to keep the public safe.

    Just my two cents

    Comment by call it like it is — 9/23/2005 @ 7:58 am

  3. It’s a fine point, “call.” But I can say it is a surprise you feel that way, because I have no idea who you are.

    Comment by steelbuddha — 9/23/2005 @ 9:06 am

  4. I’m going to beat your rear in worms tonight. Now know who I am?

    Comment by call it like it is — 9/23/2005 @ 12:20 pm

  5. Sorry call but I’ll have to disagree.

    Let’s reverse your situation, little Suzie is a evacuee and is placed in home by someone who rapes her.
    Or what if Suzie gets raped by a man in her own home with no record?

    I hope you don’t think that only those with criminal backgrounds are able to acto out violent crimes.

    Also, another thing that’s wrong with your argument, you are assuming that only those who have homes to give are the “Public”. Have the evacuees been given 2nd class citizenry?

    You know the problem with discrimination is, just fucking doesn’t work..

    Comment by Chad! — 9/23/2005 @ 2:44 pm

  6. Discrimination is not the problem. Blind discrimination and prejudice are. If the background checks are being performed only on displaced blacks, then that is racism (and I do recognize that many New Orleans evacuees are black). But to place a (violent) criminal in someone’s home when that someone is trying to help is irresponsible; petty theft, fraud. etc. should obviously be excused.

    Whether crime can happen in the home outside of someone’s record is irrelevant. We must prevent what can be prevented, which is the lesson FEMA and the President learned in their late response to the disaster.

    Comment by steelbuddha — 9/23/2005 @ 3:32 pm

  7. I’ll agree that those scenerios you thought of suck, Chad. Little Suzie could be messed up anywhere and any time. However, it would be irresponsible to not try and prevent it when they are placing people into groups. Besides, if they didn’t do these checks and one case of rape/abuse gets reported the damn press would go on a witch hunt to find out why the government didn’t do background checks.

    I do agree with Steel that only doing background checks on blacks is racist and totally wrong. Equal checks should be done.

    I still think if you want a roof over your head and you got some skeletons in your closet you should accept that you’re going to sleep in the contained area and not little Suzie’s house.

    Comment by call it like it is — 9/23/2005 @ 4:25 pm

  8. You can’t conditionalize help and still call it help. If you want to parade around and pretend you’re doing good, go ahead.

    You don’t have me convinced that you are doing a good thing, or that this is the right thing to do.

    It’s funny that the rape of one white/middle class girl is worth thousands of black/lower class people’s rights.

    Comment by Chad! — 9/26/2005 @ 11:34 am

  9. Touché.

    But for one point. We never said little Suzie was white or of any certain class.

    Should someone’s unconditional help be taken advantage of simply because we didn’t first at least _ask_ if they were a convicted rapist or child molester, that would be tragedy on top of tragedy. You can still help a criminal (I don’t agree they should be immeiately sent to prison for past crimes), but is it such a horrible thing to give the parents fair warning not to leave their children, etc. alone with them?

    There is a needs of many outweighs needs of one sentiment there, Chad, that I can get behind but let’s _not_ turn the opposite argument into a hate statement. They’re both rational.

    Comment by steelbuddha — 9/26/2005 @ 1:12 pm

  10. I don’t really want to continue with this conversation, cause I’d rather just chill with you guys instead. : )

    We don’t really know how this whole help system works; how they pick people to give shelter, etc. The system may not even allow for families with little Suzies (or neighborhoods with schools?).

    Also, we don’t know what happens to these people who are identified with criminal backgrounds (who may have served their time 7 years ago).. I think some go to jail (per the example in the article). But certainly they aren’t jailing criminals who have served their time? (I’d also hope that they aren’t jailing people based on parole violation).

    If the system weeds out little Suzies/families ill-equipped to handle people who lost everything in their life, in a matter of days, then what are the background checks for other than the state to take the opportunity to look in the private lives of these hurricane victims? Imagine having a background check done on you just because you want to move to a new state.

    And if we still feel the need to run these checks for the safety of the people donating their shelter, then why don’t we scrap this idea and just have people donate time/money to provide professional care facilities instead?

    Certainly, this is a better use of everyone’s time/money?

    Random: What did happen to the New Orleans/Louisiana/etc. prisoners who were in prison when Katrina hit? That would be interesting to find out.

    Comment by Chad! — 9/27/2005 @ 3:43 pm

  11. It’s an interesting suggestion; I can only hope that’s where my Red Cross donations are headed.

    I hope you don’t feel like there’s animosity behind our debate here. You’re a friend, we differ in opinion, the discussion is interesting. I mean for it to remain civil.

    Call, another friend who often differs in opinion from me, used to be a social worker for underprivileged — and let’s face it, criminally inclined — children in Chicago. He’s earned a fair amount of respect from me for taking on such a difficult task. That fact makes me consider his opinion as most definitely not motivated by prejudice or lack of compassion. Since you have no such familiarity with him, I just wanted you to be aware that he’s not just some bigoted asshole.

    In the spirit of reciprocity, Chad is also an educated and compassionate individual who has earned my respect. Politically, I more often agree with Chad, but not in this case.

    So I love you both like brothers.

    As for background checks, the most pertinent point I think is that one must pass a check to get an apartment, and that’s essentially what the refugees from NOLA are doing. In that sense, you do have to pass a background check to move to another state, or even just another place in the same city.

    From the article: “Some state and local governments screened just those refugees evacuated by the federal government. Others screened anyone placed in private homes — and screened the hosts as well.” The hosts are being screened as well. That’s at least making it clear that it’s motivated by keeping people safe. Obviously the undertone of classism and racism is dangerous, but in this case it may be a necessary evil.

    The background check is not the problem, I don’t think, so much as what the reaction should be to an ex-convict. If they are wanted, they of course should be remanded into custody. If they have paid their debt, then their situation should be reported to the people housing them. That’s just how I feel.

    Re: prisoners, I have no idea, but Call will know what I’m saying when I say “Belle Reve Day Pass!”

    Comment by steelbuddha — 9/27/2005 @ 4:20 pm

  12. Don’t worry, I’m not feeling attacked or anything.

    I just don’t want to hi-jack your blog and turn it into a platform for my political views.

    : )

    I’m not really sure why I’m even so hot-headed

    Comment by Chad — 9/27/2005 @ 7:25 pm

  13. oops.. I hit send!

    I’m not sure why I’m hot-headed about this topic.. I guess it’s the criminal law class I’m taking while reading Foucalt philosophy around punishment and law.

    Weee!! How fun!

    Comment by Chad — 9/27/2005 @ 7:34 pm

  14. This topic is spicey because it makes you choose between public saftey and privacy rights. When does one impede the other? It’s extremely hard to stand on the fence with it though. Thus people are on one side or the other. They may jump on the fence for a sentence or two but then as your balance starts to falter you need to jump back to the side you believe more strongly with.

    I believe its a dangerous line for laws to cross either way. No American wants to live in a country where the government knows everything you do, controls everything you do, and basically takes away all your privacy and/or freedom. Then again, no American wants to live in a country where the government isn’t there to protect you. The balance act has and will forever be done by the politicians we elect and the f’ing Supreme Court, whom we don’t elect. It will continue to slide ever so slighty to the protection side due to the media shoving horror stories down our throats and people wanting to feel safe.

    Comment by call it like it is — 9/28/2005 @ 8:06 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.