| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 8:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you have a criminal record isn't there something on your passport's security info (if you can get a passport) to indicate this? If so, wouldn't that make the need for a criminal background check rather superfluous? |
Maybe if you had raped children or something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jeonnam Jinx
Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Location: Jeonnam
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
The article didn't say that the immigration authorities would conduct criminal background checks. It did say however, that the police would "magnify its investigations into the forging of diplomas, and criminal background certificates." If your job doesn't require a criminal background certificate then you remain unaffected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Homer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
A criminal records check seems to be a good idea for all teaching hires.
It seems they (ROK) are heading in that direction when it comes to hiring foreign teachers. This just makes sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Homer wrote: |
It seems they (ROK) are heading in that direction when it comes to hiring foreign teachers. This just makes sense. |
Certain schools are, but there is really no mechanism in place to carry out background checks on foreign nationals (unless you are from the US in which case it can be conducted on line by average Joe). Other than requiring a criminal background certificate the authorities are powerless. For nationals of some countries, obtaining a certificate is near impossible once in Korea too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Homer
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed G-boy.
I was talking about having people provide a criminal records check certificate before they are hired. Much like the request for a degree and sealed transcripts.
Some already require this (ex: EPIK).
I think this is a good measure and hope to see it implemented industry wide at some point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Homer wrote: |
Agreed G-boy.
I was talking about having people provide a criminal records check certificate before they are hired. Much like the request for a degree and sealed transcripts.
Some already require this (ex: EPIK).
I think this is a good measure and hope to see it implemented industry wide at some point. |
I agree in some part, but I would leave it with the individual employers to decide whether they want to request one or not. Some applicants might have a record for a crime they committed many years ago that wouldn't make them a danger to children (property crimes, non-sexual offences etc). Under those circumstances, the applicant would be better served by undergoing an interview to decide if they are suitable for the position. Immigration officials would be too detached from the applicant on a personal level, and refuse his application outright. An employer might be willing to hear the guy out. I do think however that foreign governments should share information on sex offenders, and compile a sex offenders register that is readily accessible to the imigration authortities. I don't think it's right that we treat a one time shoplifter etc in the same way as a person convicted on molesting children when it comes to employment opportunities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ThePoet
Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: No longer in Korea - just lurking here
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
| I don't think it's right that we treat a one time shoplifter etc in the same way as a person convicted on molesting children when it comes to employment opportunities. |
But is it right to make generalizations either way? You compare a shoplifter (singular) with a person convicted of molesting children (plural) and yet, not all sex crimes are child molestation, and it is also being found out that not all (or even most) of the people who have a sex crime conviction will ever commit a crime again.
I have mentioned before that I know someone who had an accusation from one of his students about improprieties. His life was ruined because of it and he even spent some time in jail. Guess what; he didn't even do it. The girl got away with an accusation that ruined his life. I would hire this person in an instant to work for me because I know he is super-competent, highly intelligent, and very good at what he does. But I've known him for many years -- what chance does he have with an employer who equates one blot on his criminal record with someone who molests children. He actually had to go to university again to retrain for a job that would not put him into that type of situation again, and he is making a lot less than he used to as a teacher.
More sex crimes are one-time than habitual, and most don't involve children -- only the publicized ones.
What is the difference between a one time shoplifter and someone who has 50 - 100 convenience store thefts? They are both convictions of robbery. Should we let the one time shoplifter over here to teach? S/He might rob again and hurt our foreigner reputation.
Couldn't we assume there is a potential for the shoplifter to be just as much of a habitual robber as the convenience store robber and therefore not to be given a second chance?
Of course, that is rediculous, but there used to be a saying that if you've done the crime, and done the time, then you paid your price.
I think a more effective way with dealing with criminals is the California system (and other states I believe) of "three strikes, you're out". It basically recognizes that some people can make mistakes, but when it becomes habitual, you must keep those people from society. They basically get life for any conviction on their third chance. This does two things...it keeps those people from being a problem to the public and to other countries, and it stops the onus from being on those who once made a mistake (shoplifting, drunk driving, pot smoking...all the way up to some sort of sexual touching) from having to pay for it for the rest of their lives, both in the ability to make a living, and the ability not to be disdained from society in general who truly aren't at risk anymore.
Poet |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Homer
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the criminal records check should be mandatory and the hiring decision left to the schools if the candidate is not automatically ruled out by certain prior criminal acts (ex: crimes involving children, sex or felonies).
If you are talking shop lifting or past drug use then the school should be notified and left to make its own decision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ThePoet wrote: |
| But is it right to make generalizations either way? You compare a shoplifter (singular) with a person convicted of molesting children (plural) |
Fair point, but if I compared a man convicted of sexually abusing a child with a man convicted of theft once, which record would worry you the most if you were a headteacher?
| Quote: |
| and yet, not all sex crimes are child molestation, and it is also being found out that not all (or even most) of the people who have a sex crime conviction will ever commit a crime again. |
That is an important distinction to make, but child sex offenders often reoffend. Trying to treat a padoephile for his sexual cravings is akin to changing the sexual orientation of someone who is gay, or straight.
| Quote: |
| I have mentioned before that I know someone who had an accusation from one of his students about improprieties. His life was ruined because of it and he even spent some time in jail. Guess what; he didn't even do it. The girl got away with an accusation that ruined his life. |
If it was later discovered that the girl lied, why wasn't his conviction quashed?
| Quote: |
| More sex crimes are one-time than habitual, and most don't involve children -- only the publicized ones. |
But sex crimes involving children are more often than not habitual. It is very difficult to treat padeophiles.
| Quote: |
| What is the difference between a one time shoplifter and someone who has 50 - 100 convenience store thefts? |
If a period of 5 or more years have elapsed since the single conviction does this not indicate a willingness on the part of that person to lead a crime free life? If someone has 50-100 convictions of store theft does that indicate a more serious pattern of criminal behaviour?
| Quote: |
| They are both convictions of robbery. |
They are not. They are convictions of theft.
| Quote: |
| Should we let the one time shoplifter over here to teach? S/He might rob again and hurt our foreigner reputation. |
If a period of many years has elapsed since the conviction I think it shows that the chances of that person committing theft again are slim. Most reoffenders commit crime shortly after their last conviction.
| Quote: |
| Couldn't we assume there is a potential for the shoplifter to be just as much of a habitual robber as the convenience store robber and therefore not to be given a second chance? |
If a considerable period of time has elapsed since the single conviction how could such an anology be made?
| Quote: |
| Of course, that is rediculous, but there used to be a saying that if you've done the crime, and done the time, then you paid your price. |
I agree with you here.
| Quote: |
| I think a more effective way with dealing with criminals is the California system (and other states I believe) of "three strikes, you're out". It basically recognizes that some people can make mistakes, but when it becomes habitual, you must keep those people from society. They basically get life for any conviction on their third chance. |
I recall studying this at university. (I studied law in the UK) There was a well known case where a man stole pizza from some students (it was his third offence) and he was sent to prison for life. I think such a system can produce perverse results.
| Quote: |
| This does two things...it keeps those people from being a problem to the public and to other countries, and it stops the onus from being on those who once made a mistake (shoplifting, drunk driving, pot smoking...all the way up to some sort of sexual touching) from having to pay for it for the rest of their lives, both in the ability to make a living, and the ability not to be disdained from society in general who truly aren't at risk anymore. |
I couldn't agree more with you here. However, as opposed to the "three strikes and you're out system" governments should strike offences of someones record if a certain time has elapsed since the offence. In the UK the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act allows people with convictions who have not reoffended for a period of a year to 5 years (depending on the nature of the offence) to keep their convictions from potential employers. The Act doesn't go far enough though because they are compelled to disclose their convictions when applying for certain types of positions. A person convicted of murder, or padeophilia doesn't benefit from the Act though. Do you have a similar sytem in the US? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Homer wrote: |
I think the criminal records check should be mandatory and the hiring decision left to the schools if the candidate is not automatically ruled out by certain prior criminal acts (ex: crimes involving children, sex or felonies).
If you are talking shop lifting . |
I agree with you in part, but even those convicted of certain felonies should not be deprived of the right to make a fair living for their rest of their lives if they have genuinely turned over the new proverbial leaf. If years have elapsed since a conviction people should be given a second chance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bellum99
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Location: don't need to know
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In Canada there is now the options of a pardon. After 7 years without re-offence the person can apply for and get a full pardon and a clean slate. This is not for every crime but for most of them. This is a good way to help someone young get back on their feet, sometimes people make mistakes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Homer
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| If years have elapsed since a conviction people should be given a second chance. |
Indeed...hence the school should have the decision...the applicant should not be rejected outright.
Also, as bellum pointed out...pardon does exist in some countries and this can expunge your criminal record after a certain time under the right conditions.
I still think the school should be made aware of the criminal record, especially if the person is applying to teach kids. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
