What ever happened to Gary the artist?

“Why not let hiring be done on a case-by-case basis, without the state meddling in the deal?”

A Bar Association isnt the state. It is a guild that determines who will be licensed to practice law. Even if you are licensed in one state it does not mean you can practice in another without meeting their requirements, and passing their bar exam, or being waived in.

There are many things you can do, and many jobs you can get with a law degree without being a member of the bar in any state.

I understand your point of view. On the other hand, I see how high standards elevate the profession and the people in the profession.

Before my husband was an attorney, he used to hit me. He realized that one blow could cost him his license and decided to stop. On a daily basis he makes decisions based on the high standards needed to be an attorney. He practice is beyond reproach.

He was told something interesting by a prosecutor yesterday. My husband’s client pled to a misdemeanor theft. The prosecutor said that he didn’t mind. The conviction, one of moral turpitude, meant that he could never vote or serve in a jury.

My husband points out the link between these laws and racial discrimination. It is difficult to find black jurors, and therefore get a jury of peers. It is also more difficult to have equal representation.

Yes, the is a big ripple effect.

Why is it so hard? Look at the statistics. Recidivism is quite real. Prison clearly does little to prevent ex-inmates from committing crimes after they are released. In many cases it looks like it actually encourages it. Are there exceptions, certainly. But exceptions are exactly that, exceptions.

"What ever happened to Gary the artist?"

He's got a roof over his head - motel in Illinois. I get his VA mail for him and other mail and send it to him with little cute notes.

Miss him, but I'm so happy he's gotten settled.

"Recidivism is quite real."

There's more recidivism if you can't get work.

And it should not be out of bounds to be an attorney if you have done your time and are no longer engaging in criminal enterprise.

Why Do We Make It So Hard For Ex-Convicts To Become Productive Members Of Society?

Um, because they were convicted of a crime against society. Should we trust them immediately upon release with our life savings, with our wives and daughters? Trust is earned and their stockpile was depleted upon conviction. They'll need to start from scratch in refilling that larder.

Ex-convicts have, by definition, shown little-to-no inclination to become productive members of society before they became ex-convicts - that lack of connection to society is how they became ex-convicts in the first place. The onus is on them to provide reliability, not on us to provide reliance.

That said, we should make a straight path for them to integrate into society. Notice I didn't say "back into society." Their ex-convict status shows they were not terribly interested in being a functioning part of society prior to becoming ex-convicts. That straight path does not need to be, nor should it be, a road paved with gold - with full benefits available immediately upon repatriation.

As Ben points out, the recidivism rate for ex-convicts is high. How much of that is due to society putting roadblocks in the way of ex-convict becomin functioning members of society and how much is due to ex-convicts never having wanted to become functioning members of society (working for minimum wage kinda sucks) should be determined before we blame society for their integration problems.

One guy becoming a lawyer behind bars is not illustrative of the overall situation; nor is one ex-convict successfully becoming an assistant for a red-haired advice columnist in Venice Beach.

I agree that making it hard to reintegrate with society increases recidivism. But history also shows that even without barriers recidivism is very high. It would be nice if there was a good path for people to follow to earn back trust as Conan puts it. The problem is no one has figured out how to do that.

In some of the difficult nature of this problem, pilot program after pilot program has been tried and been successful. And then rolled out to the general populace and failed utterly. So the odd lesson seems to be pilot programs work, but you can't scale them.

Ex-cons are restricted from certain occupations because there's a huge potential for abuse in those occupations, and they've shown they lack good character. It's probably a good thing that they can't be hired by friends or family to teach children or set up shop as a dentist or lawyer. While missing an editorial deadline isn't good, it wouldn't wreak the same damage as unneeded or badly done dental work or bilking people's life's savings in patent or immigration scams.

Jen wrote:

Before my husband was an attorney, he used to hit me. He realized that one blow could cost him his license and decided to stop.

That's terribly sad.

Fortunately, Kanye West recently met with Trump to discuss job availability for ex-convicts. I think we'll seem some positive movement in this regard from Trump really soon.

Forgiveness isn't a thing.

No one believes in forgiveness. No one.

Christians don't. They preach forgiveness, but they believe in a God who, unless you observed certain things (denominations vary as to what those things are) during your lifetime (which averages about 77 years in the U.S.), you are consigned to hell for all eternity to suffer unspeakable agony. You could stay in hell for billions of years but your sentence is no closer to completion.

That's not a god of forgiveness.

(And for the record, I am a Christian, but I subscribe to Universal Reconciliation.)

SJWs certainly don't. Transgress their rules, pissant, and they will do their level best to ruin your life. Regardless of how much you kiss their collective ass, shed tears of contrition, damning yourself for your mistake, you will not be forgiven. Ever. They will still make sure your life is ruined and stays ruined.

Which is why I say that the best response to give SJWs who call you out for your transgression, real or imagined and regardless of the magnitude of your transgression, is "Get fucked."

That is the only acceptable response.

Grovel to the left and you will never be forgiven and the right will have nothing but contempt for you. Tell them to get fucked, and at least the right will respect you, even if the left does not.

So, where do you get this idea that convicted felons should be forgiven? Why should they have special privileges?

If people want to forgive for their OWN sakes, fine.

However, one of my favorite columnists said she'd been known to forget things she would not forgive.

Maybe she meant that with regard to dear friends and relatives she wanted to keep seeing - I don't know. However, what's wrong with expanding that practice a little? As in, forgetting not only the misdeed - assuming it WASN'T criminal - but also the person's very existence, if it's possible to stop seeing that person?

In other words, there's nothing inherently wrong with not forgiving, so long as you don't let it poison your soul - and you stop THINKING about the misdeed or the person who committed it. (If that breaks the other person's heart, tough.)

"Ex-convicts have, by definition, shown little-to-no inclination to become productive members of society before they became ex-convicts - that lack of connection to society is how they became ex-convicts in the first place. "

By god, if that felon ex-con Martha Stewart ever gets hold of a gun or a ballot - well, the bloodshed will be horrific.

Horrific!

Every felon is exactly the same - never forget that, at the risk of your life and the integrity of the Republic.

Sounds to me like the system worked just fine for the ex-con lawyer. The bar looked at his situation, and ultimately decided he was a good risk. Although with the criminal conviction, I'm not sure what kind of pretzel the bar twisted themselves into to give him a pass on the moral turpitude clause.

Also, what Conan said. You break the trust piggy bank, it takes a long time to put it back together and fill it up again. You don't get to do your time and your slate is wiped clean. That's not how it works. Also, here's novel idea, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. I've lived on this earth 50+ years...haven't broke the piggy bank of trust in all those years. Oh sure, I think about it, but my moral compass keeps me from walking into a bank and robbing it, it also kept me from killing my offspring when they were young.

So many people were graduating nursing school, then failing the TXBON background check and not getting licensed, that you now have to pass the background check before you start nursing school. Why? Because no one wants an addict or a thief or someone with piss-poor judgement, handling their medical care.

Nor do I want someone who was willing to commit criminal acts, having access to my legal issues or financials.

Cool, that guy turned his life around, so it seems. He's less than .001% of ex-cons, I'd be willing to bet. We don't base policy on exceptions.

Plus, how smart is he, really, if he didn't look into if hed be able to sit for the Bar, before starting law school?

I'm glad your assistant is working out. But her not being available to edit you on deadline day is a far, far cry from a felon lawyer stealing clients assets on a large scale. The potential damage some careers can cause, means the higher barrier to entry is necessary.

Patrick.. I don't see where you are coming from regarding "special privileges". Asking for a chance to make a living? A path back to voting rights? (Thumbs up for Conan's post) You did have a full head of steam by the end of your post... *grin*

Does denying voting rights inflict taxation without representation?
Both sides argued here:

https://felonvoting.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000664

If ever in the market for expensive and tasty bread, this company is very committed to giving ex-cons a second chance.

http://www.daveskillerbread.com/secondchances/#secondchances-slideshow

Apologies to the Goddess for plugging carbohydrates on her blog...

Every felon is exactly the same - never forget that, at the risk of your life and the integrity of the Republic. ~ Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 18, 2018 2:31 PM

Because that's what I said, Gog, that all ex-convicts are exactly the same and should be shunned and avoided at all costs.

Chances are, if you've been convicted of some criminal behavior, it's not the first time you've skirted the law. Your investment in society, with its myriad laws and codes of behavior, was probably pretty low for a while before your arrest and conviction.

So, yes, it's not unreasonable for society to ask for a demonstration of your commitment to live under its rules before it makes a deposit into your trust account, handing over its money, secrets, or family members to you.

Some will readily demonstrate that commitment, perhaps by getting a law degree while in prison. Others, however, will not. The problem comes where there is no clear path to redemption on which ex-convicts can make that demonstration and are instead left to fend for themselves with few skills with which to do so.

However, many who find their way onto that elusive path will find working for minimum wage just as undesirable as being in prison, perhaps more so, and will stray from the path of building trust - a disdain for delayed gratification and the slow-and-steady method of working one's way up the ladder having gotten them into trouble in the first place.

Give Theodore Dalrymple's Life at the Bottom a read. Dalrymple was a doctor in hospitals serving the poorer sections of Britain, including Britain's prison system. His insights into the behavior and motivations of those at the bottom of the socio-economic scale are enlightening.

Dalrymple dealt with violent criminals, abuse victims, addicts, etc. In one anecdote, he tells of a patient imprisoned for stabbing another man. The two got into an argument and "the knife just went in." As if the stabber had no control over it. Dalrymple watched in frustration as abuse victims and addicts regularly went straight back to bad situations, only to appear later in the hospital's morgue.

The common thread, according to Dalrymple, was that the criminal classes felt they had little control over their lives and exhibited even less desire to take control, letting circumstance carry them along to whatever fate it had in store for them.

Abusive wives routinely went back to abusive husbands, viewing the men who were nice to them as "less manly" than the abusive husband. Their parents' relationships were abusive and they saw it as normal (see, Capp, Andy).

Patrick.. I don't see where you are coming from regarding "special privileges".

If you read my entire post, you'll see that the comment you're referring to is intended to be ironic. My point was that, according to most religions, God does not forgive. Once you're in hell, you stay there. The left does not believe in forgiveness.

So, to suggest ex-felons should be forgiven by the judicial system is to claim forgiveness. No one else does. Why should our justice system?

Punish them all.

Stone the adulterers and amputate the hands of thieves, forgive nothing, make a prison sentence only the beginning of a lifetime of alienation and imprisonment, and make damn sure those marihuana-smoking Negroes know they don't belong in decent society!

Then we can work on those pesky Whigs. Filthy bastids.

My point was that, according to most religions, God does not forgive. Once you're in hell, you stay there. ~ Patrick at October 19, 2018 8:35 AM

Dante had a problem with that, too. His Inferno was an argument that even Hell should not be, and is not, a permanent punishment for the truly repentant.

Then we can work on those pesky Whigs. Filthy bastids. ~ Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 19, 2018 9:00 AM

I'm chuckling at this because I've got a friend who actually tried to register as a Whig on his voter registration in Florida in the '90s. He put down W and was told he could only choose an extant political party or Independent.

By the way, Gog, there is a Modern Whig Party that sounds an awful lot like a more-mature Libertarian party.

I registered "I" here in NC and just received a text from MoveOn inviting me to help make the Blue Wave a reality. I might have considered it prior to the Kavanaugh hearings. That display of lunacy by the Democrats turned me off to most of them - Feinstein, Booker, Harris, Hirono, et al did not do their party any favors.

Being a crook disqualifies you from practicing law? Huh? I thought it was a requirement. . .

"there is a Modern Whig Party "

Irony is finally dead.

I give up.

Rex: Being a crook does not disqualify you from being a lawyer (or anything else). Getting caught does.

If you're not smart enough to steal legally, with all the opportunities an American run by lawyers and bankers provides, you're not smart enough to be a lawyer!