1 in 4 US Adults Now Have Criminal Record - Around 65 Million Citizens

Originally posted by ldyserenity
Just like telling smokers to quit smoking cigarettes so they can get work; it's simple don't do drugs amd don't wind up in jail. Why is it not ok to discriminate against drug addicts/users/criminals when they sure AS H*** Discriminate against people doing a LEGAL substance?

Are you really surprised? DON'T DO DRUGS! SIMPLE

edit on 24-3-2011 by ldyserenity because: emoticon

Why should anyone/entity have the power to tell anyone to not do drugs?

Regarding the criminal records thing: I propose a general amnesty when we get our new government. Only pedophiles, rapists, and serial killers excepted.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

What makes you think that convicted "criminals" lack qualifications and experience?

You replied to Bandito, but I as a hiring manager/small business owner will answer.

I am afraid I have to agree with Bandito. This is based on person experience.

I have hired dozens of "day labor" people from teens to the elderly to help me with my weekend business. Most of these people have been repeat.... UNTIL I catch them stealing. The number who DO NOT STEAL I can count on one hand. THAT is how bad the problem has become and that is why Bandito has every right to protect himself and his business.

The problem isn't whether convicted criminals should have a right to a job, the problem is MOST of these people should not have been convicted in the first place!

So how about taking aim at the root of the problem???


The Founding Fathers in this country did their darnedest to give us the tools needed to keep our Union. I suggest we use them and I am not talking about guns I am talking about our power over state and local affairs.

HERE IS JUST ONE OF OUR POWERS THAT WE IGNORE!

Please pay attention because THIS is a much more effective way to fight TPTB than protests every were.

WE THE PEOPLE have the ultimate say on what laws are valid. TPTB has tried to take that power away by cover-ups and keeping us ignorant.

I am talking about TRIAL by JURY.

There is a reason we now see only judges trying cases.

There is a reason why jurors are never told about their Constitutional rights and duties.

There is a reason laws are written in such a way that a person is denied the right to a trial before a jury, even though it is unconstitutional.

A Jury has the RIGHT to judge both the law and the facts

It is called CASE LAW and the Muslims are busy using it to slip Sharia Law into the US legal system. - SEE ATS Thread

Case Law (n) Case Law is the decisions, interpretations made by judges while deciding on the legal issues before them which are considered as the common law or as an aid for interpretation of a law in subsequent cases with similar conditions. Case laws are used by advocates to support their views to favor their clients and also it influence the decision of the judges www.legal-explanations.com...

Notice in this "legal" definition they LIE. It is not SUPPOSED TO BE "the decisions, interpretations made by judges' it is SUPPOSED TO BE decisions by a JURY!

“The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State, where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.” -- Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, Paragraph [3]

Trial by Jury, almost hidden away in the Constitution of the United State is one of the most precious freedoms that Americans possess.

The saving grace of William Penn’s trial was to establish a critical precedence, whereby jurors could act on the basis of their conscience. It is a precedence which in modern day is sorely needed, when public opinion, law enforcement agencies, and the Courts themselves heavily influence the deliberations of juries to the point of denying justice. [This has been particularly true in cases where there is a great deal of publicity, there is a serious Scapegoatology atmosphere running about, and where law-enforcement agencies, courts, and governments are seeking new ways to extend their power.]

“It is not only his right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” -- John Adams

John Adams words are fundamentally important in that every member of every jury must know they have an inalienable right to IGNORE Court-directed verdicts, public opinion, and/or the letter of the law (however interpreted by law enforcement agencies), as well as to be allowed to search for the truth in their deliberations.

No judge should dissuade or deny a juror’s right to obtain the truth in whatever way the juror determines.

This search for the truth and the decisions reached thereby must include:

1) The jury having full access to what any member of the jury considers relevant to the case (i.e. not being denied access by the Court, media, or any other source);

2) The jury being given the respect of being able to discern for themselves between rumor, conjecture, fact, and legitimate evidence, and

3) The jury taking on the responsibility for and being allowed to ask questions, doing independent research, and whatever else the jury decides to do (in it’s infinite wisdom) in order to discover, to the best of its ability, the underlying truth of any court case. The jury should not be limited by only what the Court “allows” into evidence or what the Court “decides” the jury should hear.

Every jury must stand up for their rights on the basis of Common Law (and/or the Constitution, Magna Carta, and other documents of liberty), as was the case in William Penn’s trial. They must actively pursue learning the truth, and then they must use their discernment to make their ultimate choice(s)....www.halexandria.org...

Do you want to know just how POWERFUL this right is????

First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969)

Defendant Jerome Daly opposed the bank's foreclosure on his $14,000 home mortgage loan on the ground that there was no consideration for the loan. "Consideration" ("the thing exchanged") is an essential element of a contract. Daly, an attorney representing himself, argued that the bank had put up no real money for his loan. The courtroom proceedings were recorded by Associate Justice Bill Drexler, whose chief role, he said, was to keep order in a highly charged courtroom where the attorneys were threatening a fist fight. Drexler hadn't given much credence to the theory of the defense, until Mr. Morgan, the bank's president, took the stand. To everyone's surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money "out of thin air" for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. "It sounds like fraud to me," intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney amid nods from the jurors. In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:

Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.

The court rejected the bank's claim for foreclosure, and the defendant kept his house. To Daly, the implications were enormous. If bankers were indeed extending credit without consideration – without backing their loans with money they actually had in their vaults and were entitled to lend – a decision declaring their loans void could topple the power base of the world....

Justice Mahoney, who was not dependent on campaign financing or hamstrung by precedent, went so far as to threaten to prosecute and expose the bank.

He died less than six months after the trial, in a mysterious accident that appeared to involve poisoning.

THAT folks is just how powerful case law is and show TPTB are scared to death of case law. That is why they killed Justice Mahoney.

WHAT WE CAN DO!

We have a RIGHT to a trial by jury in criminal matters or in civil matters over $20!

Acquaint yourself with the the fully informed jury movement and pester your state lawmakers into introduce a law mandating a juror be INFORMED of his RIGHTS and DUTIES!

Informed jury amendments have been filed as an initiative in seven states and legislation has been introduced in the Alaska state legislature....

Today, the constitutions of only two states -- Maryland and Indiana -- clearly declare the nullification right, although two others -- Georgia and Oregon -- refer to it obliquely. The informed jury movement would like all states to require that judges instruct juries on their power to serve, in effect, as the final legislature of the land concerning the law in a particular case....

Those who have endorsed the right of a jury to judge both the law and the facts include Chief Justice John Jay, Samuel Chase, Dean Roscoe Pound, Learned Hand and Oliver Wendell Holmes. According to the Yale Law Journal in 1964, during the first third of the 19th century judges did inform juries of the right, forcing lawyers to argue "the law -- its interpretation and validity -- to the jury." By the latter part of the century, however, judges and state law were increasingly moving against nullification. In 1895 the US Supreme Court upheld the principle but ruled that juries were not to be informed of it by defense attorneys, nor were judges required to tell them about it... prorev.com...

People have criminal records because they break the law.

Trying to argue the written law after the fact is nonsensincal. Trying to drum up excuses like "what about those that needed the pot for medicinal purposes?" is lame. I'll give you 1/100000 of 1% of mary-jane related offences have to do with folks trying to get it for medicinal purposes. The rest are dopers and pushers.

(edit) Sorry for those who get turned down for jobs because of their past crimes or present drug-screen failures.
Some advice; stop smoking the stuff, and if your criminal record isn't that bad, try to get it expunged, then you can answer "no" legally to the question "have your ever been convicted of a felony?". It won't seal your record from a background check, but not every employer requires one.

Originally posted by Moonsouljah
Its funny, I applied for a lousy part-time job with one of the aforementioned companies and was offered the job at the interview. The manager has to send your SSN to the company's own background checker and I eventually was rejected. The local manager doesn't know why, only green light or red light.

I looked into it and I think it was for a marijuana possession 6 years ago. I was convicted criminally for possessing a $5 bud of marijuana (about 0.3 grams of high grade).

Glad I didn't get the job actually. Wage slavery is for suckers. But I'm glad to see this thread as its an important and overlooked part of how the US actually is a soft police state.

That sucks man, I smoke too but have never been in trouble with it. Love the Kenny Powers avatar your rockin!

I totally agree with the OP that the prison population is out of control. One thing that i didnt see that anyone hit on was not only does a criminal record bar you from employment in alot of situations but what about the psychological effect of a prison stay. As everyone knows and has i'm sure made a prison rape joke or getting beat up.

Does someone that their only crime was possessing some weed or something similar deserve to have there life and dignity ruined by some thug (that could be black or white just using it as a blanket term) that rapes an innocent non violent person. unfortunately in my state this runs rampant, i've had friends and family members serve time in prison and they saw and heard it. it's not only not fair but its inhumane.

How in these cases does the punishment fit the crime?

The funny thing is that judges and cops and lawyers etc will be the first to preach "if you cant do the time dont do the crime" but i would loooooove to see either last two days in the joint without crying for their mommy's. Big ol hypocrites cause they would also be the firsts to "arrange" a private cell or some type of special treatment because of their titles and jobs!!. I see it in RI (the most corrupt state in the country) thats what Buddy Cianci did. EFFIN" JOKE!!!

Is a DUI considered something that could stop you from getting a job? I thinking yes if the job your trying to get has something to do with driving. We know of a teacher who was let go of his job because of budget cuts, during his time of unemployment he got a DUI. He has been turned down for a number of jobs and not all in the field of teaching.

I don't understand how people cannot see that a crooked system cause people to become crooked themselves. The legal system in this country is an absolute joke. It exists to make money off the citizens and nothing more.

I haven't read through this entire thread, so my apologies if this has already been brought up, but I know many people who simply lie when asked if they have a criminal record. These people apply for jobs where it is highly unlikely that the employer will actually check.

If you want a job bad enough, there are ways around the system to where you can get one. As a convicted felon who had his civil liberties restored years ago, I can attest to this fact as I've done it myself. I never got caught in the "lie" and what is the worst that could've happened to me if I had been? Getting fired? That's a chance I was willing to take. The thing is, when you get the job don't do anything stupid to draw attention to yourself like stealing company property.

There are companies that do check criminal backgrounds, but not as many as you think. If the job is tied to any governmental organization and you have a felony, don't bother. If it's a teaching job, sad but true, they probably won't check. Times are tough all the way around and even a lot of businesses don't have the extra funds to do criminal background checks on everyone that applies. Think about it. Unemployment is very high and for every 1 opening that there is, there will be roughly 100 applicants. If not more.

great post, and i am 1 of the 65 million mentioned in the ad. mine infractions are all for driving charges. and every charge i had was a misdeamenor and over 20 years ago, but since i have been hit by the economy i have seen in the last 3 to 4 years how companies have definitely biased against me. what is funny is how it is against the law to hold a misdeamenor against someone. and all mine do not involve theft, lying or violence. just driving when i was young an dumb an full of spirit.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


yes and still have a gun. unless it is a felony. felons cannot vote or have guns. but they are discriminating against non-violent, non-drug, non-theft misdeamenors. doesnt matter if all you did was flip off a bad cop and he arrests you for it. that is a misdeamenor and will count against you. i know, i have 1 for that.

This is straight out of the book Atlas Srugged. They make contradictory laws so if someone obeys one law they break another.

I think it depends on where the location is at. Where i'm currently living, i know someone who was arrested multiple times and got hired. He had a bad record and is holding a job right now.

reply to post by letscit


Well in your case, you actually may have a beef. There shouldn't be any bias against you for misdemeanors. I've only seen applications ask about felonies.
If you're applying for driving-related positions where a company vehicle may be involved, or the company insurance policy (rental car coverage), perhaps that's different.
Those offences should'nt bar you from non-driving/non-traveling related jobs.

Might talk to a lawyer to see what you can do to get those offences wiped from your record altogether.

Everything is a crime these days.

You can get a felony on your record for stupid things like getting in a fist fight, creating a public disturbance, not paying child support, saying "I'm gonna kill you" in anger over the phone, damaging public property, carrying spray paint in your back pack, keeping your legal perscription meds in a baggie instead of it's bottle (my grandmother does this), and a host of other really stuuuupid reasons.

The more we criminalize normal human activity, the more the prison industry profits, and the more people we get into "the system" and controlled. In a perfect NWO, the cities would just be giant prisons.

I dont have a criminal record been to jail once when i was 18 for not doing community service for a stupid M.I.P,got busted at a local Lake smoking a joint in the pitch black because the lake police sit and watch you at your camp ground with night vision goggles! I have never been back to that lake and WILL NEVER go back. They still pop people out there by watching them with night vision goggles. I cant believe they sit and spy on people camping with night vision!

Originally posted by woghd
Everything is a crime these days.

You can get a felony on your record for stupid things like getting in a fist fight, creating a public disturbance, not paying child support, saying "I'm gonna kill you" in anger over the phone, damaging public property, carrying spray paint in your back pack, keeping your legal perscription meds in a baggie instead of it's bottle (my grandmother does this), and a host of other really stuuuupid reasons.

The more we criminalize normal human activity, the more the prison industry profits, and the more people we get into "the system" and controlled. In a perfect NWO, the cities would just be giant prisons.

Although nobody should even be doing the above mentioned if you think about it, Why would you even do any of the above mentioned anyways? It all seems silly and stupid to do to me in the first place.

Fighting-i hate it, Creating a public disturbance-Stupid and wouldn't do it.

Child support-pay it if your smart plus it's your kids.

Saying i'll kill you on the phone- Now this one is just plain stupid!

Damaging property-Why does anyone want to damage property? Again. Stupid and for ignorant people.

Carrying spraypaint in your backpack-who the hell does that anyways?.. besides a couple of taggers

Keeping prescription pills in a baggie instead of a bottle-Another boneheaded move why put them in a baggie and not the bottle they come in? Seems silly and not smart if you happen to get searched.

Maybe none of these are worth a felony but Nobody should be doing any of these things in the first place right?

reply to post by crimvelvet

The problem isn't whether convicted criminals should have a right to a job, the problem is MOST of these people should not have been convicted in the first place!

You know, I have read many of your posts in various threads, mostly because they are threads of where I have posted in, and I am compelled to say this:

I DO NOT FOR A SINGLE SECOND APPRECIATE YOU CONSTRUING MY WORDS TO MEAN ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT THEY MEAN!

Apparently you do not return the favor and read my numerous posts where I have worked tirelessly to make the very same argument I have just quoted you as making. I do not need you to lecture me on this, and your disregard for the tireless effort I have made in the defense of freedom, and the absurdity of legislation that proliferates in the United States does not leave me feeling much respect for you now.

In fact, where in the past I have read your posts all the way through, you have so angered me with this post, with your smug presumption that I don't understand this, I couldn't even contain my rage long enough to read the rest of your post.

It makes no sense for two people who are clearly politically aligned to bicker with each other, but if you are so disrespectful that you can't be bothered to acknowledge the tireless effort I have made to make essentially the same arguments your are lecturing me with now, then I will not show you any respect at all.

I have never, EVER, argued that people have the right to a job! In fact, in this very thread I made mention of the fact that the State of California has the audacity to define "employee", of which I have nothing to do with, and apparently you can't be bothered to read all of that and are no foolishly lecturing me?

Your lectures on jury nullification directed at me, is just one more example of your extreme disrespect you have shown me, as again, I have worked tirelessly in this site to get the message out in regards to jury nullification.

I don't know what to think of you at all, at this point, but I will not tolerate in any way shape or form you presenting me as someone that doesn't understand the law. Real law, not legislation, but law!

From my point of view:

It is not in the interest of the nation to put people into jail because it costs money and decreases tax revenue.

The government can extort more more money from tax payers to pocket it themselves and to control people. It's a win-win. The CIA is obviously involved with Afghanistan's (95% of all heroin is produce here) poppy fields. Might as well make tax payers and drug dealers support their drug war/operations.

The only reason Americans are allowing this is because most of these "65 million citizens" are black who will never get a job. White people prefer it that way and most of them either don't know or don't give a crap about the resulting economic damage. This is another form of control and it's always good for rulers to have subjects with have people that they can sneer at.

Originally posted by NewEmpire816

Originally posted by woghd
Everything is a crime these days.

You can get a felony on your record for stupid things like getting in a fist fight, creating a public disturbance, not paying child support, saying "I'm gonna kill you" in anger over the phone, damaging public property, carrying spray paint in your back pack, keeping your legal perscription meds in a baggie instead of it's bottle (my grandmother does this), and a host of other really stuuuupid reasons.

The more we criminalize normal human activity, the more the prison industry profits, and the more people we get into "the system" and controlled. In a perfect NWO, the cities would just be giant prisons.

Although nobody should even be doing the above mentioned if you think about it, Why would you even do any of the above mentioned anyways? It all seems silly and stupid to do to me in the first place.

Fighting-i hate it, Creating a public disturbance-Stupid and wouldn't do it.

Child support-pay it if your smart plus it's your kids.

Saying i'll kill you on the phone- Now this one is just plain stupid!

Damaging property-Why does anyone want to damage property? Again. Stupid and for ignorant people.

Carrying spraypaint in your backpack-who the hell does that anyways?.. besides a couple of taggers

Keeping prescription pills in a baggie instead of a bottle-Another boneheaded move why put them in a baggie and not the bottle they come in? Seems silly and not smart if you happen to get searched.

Maybe none of these are worth a felony but Nobody should be doing any of these things in the first place right?

No as a general rule nobody should be doing these things. But there are perfectly legit reasons that somebody might do at least some of this stuff, and none, I repeat NONE, of this should be a felony! That means doing time, dude. I don't think my grandmother should do time just because she has to do a lot of meds and its easier for her to sort them all out at the beginning of the day and carry them in a baggie in her purse. It's stupid for someone to have to spend a half hour in handcuffs when they are 80+ years old and have to explain what they are doing over and over to a string of cops who claim "They are only doing their job"

The prison industry is way out of control in this country. And whether people realize it or not, we are ALL at risk of being charged with felonies for very idiotic and immoral reasons. Follow the money folks. incarcerating people is BIG BUSINESS.