This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
Mainly because an act of terrorism is about spreading terror and the like; however, I've always thought that for each person a murderer kills, they should be charged individually for each life taken away.
Post by
gnomerdon
are we americans terrorists? =(
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Here
is one for debate.
Currently, in California, a school district cannot fire a teacher for merely being accused of a crime- they have to actually be convicted. Based on a case of a teacher who was accused of sexually abusing a large number of young children in his classes, and who could not be fired and was paid to resign instead, they tried to pass a bill to make it much easier to fire a teacher who had only been accused but not convicted of specific types of crimes- violence against students, sexual abuse, drugs. The bill failed, and the teachers unions said it was denying teachers due process. An important note, is that a school district IS allowed to put a teacher on paid administrative leave if they are accused, meaning that they do have a mechanism to make sure that the accused have no contact with the students and no further chance to harm them while the matter is under investigation, and if they are found guilty they can then be fired. This bill would have just allowed them to be fired for just being accused of certain things, before the investigation had concluded one way or another.
So what do you think? Which side do you fall on? Is this necessary to protect kids/save districts money, or is it too easy for someone to be accused of something unfounded or maliciously, and have no protection from being fired without any proof of wrongdoing? Is administrative leave enough to protect the kids?
Post by
Atik
I would like to think that giving the district the option of firing them after accusation would work. I would like to think kids couldn't totally lie to get them fired. I would also like to think they would get their jobs back if a thorough investigation was done and they were found innocent.
Unfortunately, I know it wouldn't work like that. So I have to fall on the side of the teachers here.
However, I would hope that the district would get in quite a bit of trouble if a teacher accused of abusing students wasn't put on paid leave.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
It's reasonable that the bill failed. I don't believe you should be firing anybody on accusations of crimes, nor should you do so as a cost cutting measure.
Post by
gnomerdon
angelina jolee
ahahahah
http://austriantimes.at/image/32063/news/Around_the_World/2012-08-26/43762/Jolie_Lookalike_Raped_Me
Post by
Magician22773
The big issue here, is that the teacher cannot be fired, and can then retire, with full benefits. Even if later found guilty, that retirement and benefits continues to be paid.
I agree that no one should be fired based only on an alleged crime, but they should be
able
to be fired, if there is enough evidence, even before a criminal trial. If it is reasonable to conclude that they are guilty, then being forced to continue to pay them, and allow them to retire, is wrong.
This is why I am so anti-union, and especially anti-tenure. A job is a priveledge, not a right. If you are not performing your job, or worse, you commit a crime while on the job, your butt has no right at all to one more dime from your employer.
Post by
Squishalot
Wouldn't it make more sense to cancel their benefits if they're found guilty, rather than firing them before they've been tried?
Post by
Magician22773
So, lets say a teacher is busted for dealing drugs. They are arrested, booked, and then bail out.
They have not been tried, and should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court. Should they be placed on paid leave while awaiting trial? When I was busted with drugs, it was nearly 3 years from my arrest until my final court date. Why should the teacher get paid (by our tax dollars) for what could be years before a conviction?
Or another scenario. We have had several discussions about how messed up courts and trials are. Lets say a teacher is accused of having sex with a student. There is ample evidence to support this. But, during the trial, a juror is found to have violated the rules by discussing the trial outside of the courtroom, and a mistrial is declared. Should this teacher continue to be paid...or continue to work. They were not convicted, so why not?
I agree there needs to be protections for teachers (or anyone, for that matter) from false allegations. But those cases are rare. And usually, it is appearant to anyone with some common sense if someone is guilty or innocent after a short time in an investigation. At that point, they deserve no more job, and no more money. They do not deserve a 2 year paid vacation while awaiting trial.
Think about it....Casey Anthony was found to be innocent. I don't think any sane person in the world believe she was, but the prosecutor's in her case sucked, and she walked. If she had been a teacher, by your standards, she would have her job back.
Post by
Squishalot
Let's make it clear - I don't believe in tenure either. For me, performance based employment is the only way to go.
Now, that said, Casey Anthony was convicted of check fraud in the meantime, which would be grounds for dismissing her, no? I would also make the point - if a jury finds that she's innocent, it's not because the prosecutors aren't good, it's because the evidence doesn't stack up. Even if the whole world doesn't believe her, she is innocent until proven guilty. And even after she's proven guilty, if there isn't any smoking gun evidence,
there is always the possibility of error
.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
yukonjack
I agree that no one should be fired based only on an alleged crime, but they should be able to be fired, if there is enough evidence, even before a criminal trial.
Then if they are found innocent in a court they come back with a wrongful dismissal suit and cost the taxpayers even more money.
Post by
Magician22773
Even if the whole world doesn't believe her, she is innocent until proven guilty. And even after she's proven guilty, if there isn't any smoking gun evidence, there is always the possibility of error.
Lets say I go out and kill someone. With a little thoughful preparation, and proper disposal of the body, and the murder weapon, there is actually very little chance of getting caught. It is nearly impossible to be convicted of murder without either a body, a weapon, a confession, or DNA. Even if I tell you I killed the person, without any further evidence, your word against mine will not result in a conviction.
So, I have now killed someone, and I have told you I did it. No jury has convicted me. There is no evidence.
Am I guilty, or innocent?
Or, lets look at something less extreme, and that I know a lot more about personally....drug dealing.
You would be shocked if you knew how many drug dealers are simply let go in exchange for information. Drug cases are so difficult to build because most dealers above the street level are actually quite smart about their "profession", and they let very few, if any, strangers in on what they do. Police use street level busts to obtain the needed information to take down the bigger dealers.
When I was busted, I was offered a free walk if I gave up information on my supplier. The officer that arrested me even said he would personally drive me back to my car if I just gave them a name. I could have walked away like nothing had ever happened that day, and I "could" be sitting here today with no criminal record. (Other than I would probably be dead, either from continuing to use drugs, or getting killed for being a snitch)
Again, I could have not been convicted....but would I be
innocent?
My point is,
guilt
is not something that only a court should be able to establish. Just as you pointed out a case where they wrongfully convicted someone, a thousand times as many guilty criminals walk free because of lack of evidence, or deals made with police. A court should be the final decision in deciding jail time, or a similar sentance.....not making judgements on employment.
Post by
Squishalot
So, I have now killed someone, and I have told you I did it. No jury has convicted me. There is no evidence.
So, based on your scenario, would you envisage being able to fire someone on suspicion of murder without any evidence? My word against yours?
I agree that you're not innocent in the circumstances you describe. But in lieu of having any evidence, it would be wrong to treat you as guilty.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
ElhonnaDS
What about a compromise? An independent review panel, let's say. To evaluate a teacher accused of inappropriate behavior. The standard in a criminal court is beyond reasobable doubt, but the standard in a civil trial is more likely than not. That's why you have people found not guilty of a crime, but still liable for the damages caused by that crime (for instance, OJ Simpson).
I would say it's acceptable to have a standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" in terms of serving jail time, but in terms of keeping them away from kids, more likely than not should be sufficient. Just have an independent panel review the evidence and determine whether sufficient evidence exists that the teacher should be fired, regardless of a criminal conviction. That way it could cover things that aren't technically criminal- like drinking on the job, using derogatory/vulgar language around children, etc.- and wouldn't allow people who have significant circumstantial evidence against them to remain in contact with children, or be rewarded for their misconduct with a hefty settlement package.
It might also be good to add a clause in for teachers who are put on administrative leave because of an investigation into criminal activity, that if they are convicted they are liable for all of the salary paid to them during that leave as they have violated their contract and were not entitled to it in the first place.
Post by
Magician22773
You know gas prices are too high, when gangbangers start pulling "
Ride-by Shootings
"
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Here
is a doozy. I don't even know how to write a synopsis for this.
Post by
Adamsm
Here
is a doozy. I don't even know how to write a synopsis for this.
Ugh, isn't that what all pedophiles say? Also, his comments here:Furthermore, Groeschel expressed a belief that most of these "relationships" are heterosexual in nature, and that historically sexual relationships between men and boys have not been thought of as crimes.
"If you go back 10 or 15 years ago with different sexual difficulties — except for rape or violence — it was very rarely brought as a civil crime. Nobody thought of it that way... And I’m inclined to think, on first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime."That may have been 'true' back anywhere from Roman to just before the 18th century, but sure as hell not just a few decades ago. Of course, it's since been updated with a comment that the guy has changed his tune:Update: National Catholic Register has taken down the interview and Groeschel has offered this statement:
I apologize for my comments. I did not intend to blame the victim. A priest (or anyone else) who abuses a minor is always wrong and is always responsible. My mind and my way of expressing myself are not as clear as they used to be. I have spent my life trying to help others the best that I could. I deeply regret any harm I have caused to anyone.Still a little sickening though.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I love the irony that this is an official whose position is that same sex relationships between adults is wrong and a sin, but if one of them is underage then not only is it not a crime, it's not even actually gay.
And revised opinions after bad PR is garbage. His actual opinion is the one he started with, not the one they fed him to try and do damage control. And this is a man who they have in charge of "working with" priests accused of sexual misconduct.
Post by
Adamsm
I love the irony that this is an official whose position is that same sex relationships between adults is wrong and a sin, but if one of them is underage then not only is it not a crime, it's not even actually gay.Aye, that's just as sad and pathetic; think the Vatican should consider doing a massive clean sweep and finding all of the people who think this way and put them into some massive monastery where they are all locked up and kept away from the main population of the world.
And revised opinions after bad PR is garbage. His actual opinion is the one he started with, not the one they fed him to try and do damage control. And this is a man who they have in charge of "working with" priests accused of sexual misconduct.
Oh of course it's just a line fed to the old man, and yeah it's sad when they pick someone like that.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.