Re: Sanctimonious much?
@Suricou Raven
He doesn't, being in the US. If he were in the UK he would, under Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. But he still wouldn't get the right until four years after completion of his sentence.
The 1974 act has been replaced with one requiring significantly shorter declaration periods.
However, that only provides a time limit for how long the criminal must declare their acts; It does not require the removal of their crimes from the public domain - in fact there are many databases of such information that exist. My employer validates any declarations we make with a 3rd party data provider.
Also, as a victim of crime there is no requirement to decline to name your assailant(s) [1]. While it could be held that persistently naming and shaming them would adversely interfere with any rehabilitation they were trying to undertake, but that has to be balanced with the rights of the victim to talk openly about their experiences as part of their healing and coping processes. Running an ongoing advertising campaign may be frowned upon, but naming them from time to time when you're talking about the crime is legal. All criminals choose to commit crimes, while very few victims choose to be such, which is why it is difficult for the criminal to gag the victim for public disclosure purposes.
The 'witch hunt' problem was recognised even in the seventies, and the internet has only made it worse.
If I were to choose to name any of my assailants online it would likely cause them difficulties beyond the length of their declaration period. Unfortunately, there's not a lot they can do that will make me care about that. It's certainly not a crime for me to talk about my incident openly and with full disclosure [2]. The primary reason I've not is that none of them have yet attempted to make anything of their lives, so now is not the optimal time for disclosure.
I've tried to find a reason to show them more consideration for their well being than they showed me, but I keep coming up empty handed. They chose this outcome of their own free will, I didn't, so there's no reason for me to feel bad about any consequences that befall them, or to protect them from society. As I said in my original post, those in society that feel their debt is paid in full will disregard such information, and decide if they want to hire those people, or do business with them, or not. It's simple and it's fair.
I've hired people with convictions in the past and will do so in the future, though not those with convictions for violence or sex crimes. That is my choice and each in society must make their own.
1 - not all crimes involve an aspect of assault but I'm struggling to find the right word so I've gone with that.
2 - Even if it were, I could simply make any posts from America, to American web sites, where free speech is a constitutional right and no crime would be committed.