CRB - enhanced disclosure

surreysaver

What is the point of going to court and being found not guilty if a chief constable can still disclose? Its like you should never accept a police caution - you are basically saying you are guilty, when you would probably have never been taken to court if you refused a caution.

Incisor

surreysaver wrote: »

What is the point of going to court and being found not guilty if a chief constable can still disclose? Its like you should never accept a police caution - you are basically saying you are guilty, when you would probably have never been taken to court if you refused a caution.

It is because in many cases the Police are above the law. And it is the law that puts them there. But the price of this is that people will respect the Police even less.

Kimitatsu

Even if one is convicted of murder and serves 30 years, that in itself is the only specific punishment allowed for by law. There would be nothing in the judge's summing up that requires upon release of the guilty person that they be further subject to restricted work patterns for the rest of their natural life and the subsequent disclosure of their past into the public domain upon a fee, paid to a private company, using information stored supposedly sensitively, on the Police national computer!

To further compound this by the necessity to divulge ones past having effectively paid for the crime as dictated to by the state's own legal processes should be totally unnecessary and without justification. If society considers that such individuals are actually still dangerous and unsuitable for work in sensitive areas, why the hell assume the general public should be at liberty to suffer any potential latent criminality that society obviously believes remains?

The punishment should fit the crime. Once the crime has been paid for in whatever terms the law lays down, then that is it, finished. The state nor any individual does NOT need to know what you do, or where, thereafter. Otherwise, it acts with a force not legitimately given to it by any court of law, in the execution of court's original responsibilities to issue punishment relevant to the crime as tried and recorded.

I agree with you up to a point here Thorshammer BUT because of the human rights act (even offenders have these) then a person is not entitled to be detained for longer than the law allows. So you could have for example a serial peadophile apply for a job as a teaching assistant at a school, under your rules because he has served his time this never needs to be disclosed. Under the current rules he is not obliged to have any treatment, nor any "re education" whilst in prison and can be released into the community, the only safeguard being the CRB and the sex offenders register.

I do agree though that a speeding ticket 20 year ago is ridiculous as is any court appearance for which it becomes obvious that you were not guilty (except in the case of repeat offenders - after all if you have been up on the same charge 10 times then there is a question to be asked!)

Unfortunately in todays letigious society, all charities and organisations which work with "vulnerable" groups have to safeguard themselves, and the CRB is the only recognised way of doing so.

JimmyTheWig

dodgy_damo wrote: »

I hope it didnt affect your job offers?

Actually it wasn't for a job. It was to be a school governor.
School were very understanding, and as I say its all sorted now.

surreysaver wrote: »

And I suppose Jimmy's prints and DNA is now permanantly on the database.

No DNA taken, just prints. Apparently they were checked against outstanding crimes but then destroyed. But I'm not about to commit any offenses just to find out if they were telling the truth...

thorshammer_2

Kimitatsu wrote: »

I agree with you up to a point here Thorshammer BUT because of the human rights act (even offenders have these) then a person is not entitled to be detained for longer than the law allows. So you could have for example a serial peadophile apply for a job as a teaching assistant at a school, under your rules because he has served his time this never needs to be disclosed. Under the current rules he is not obliged to have any treatment, nor any "re education" whilst in prison and can be released into the community, the only safeguard being the CRB and the sex offenders register.

I do agree though that a speeding ticket 20 year ago is ridiculous as is any court appearance for which it becomes obvious that you were not guilty (except in the case of repeat offenders - after all if you have been up on the same charge 10 times then there is a question to be asked!)

Unfortunately in today's litigious society, all charities and organisations which work with "vulnerable" groups have to safeguard themselves, and the CRB is the only recognised way of doing so.

Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately the undeniable fact remains that if the legal and judicial system was seen to be capable of doing its job and did its job in a manner that was acceptable to the general public in terms of sentencing for particular crimes, then no group would NEED to protect itself from otherwise suspicious characters that may or may not apply for a position working with vulnerable people.

It is not the fault, nor should it be, of the criminal perpetrator to be bound to provide or be subject to, the provision of information relating to their past to a third party, to essentially provide a character reference on actions which have previously been judged upon under due legal processes and previously dealt with by the appropriate authorities.

The Police (or anybody else for that matter) DO NOT need to know, nor should they have access to, those whose criminal misdemeanours that have already been subject to social inspection within a lawful environment and sentence issued and served within the existing requirements of law.

I say again, if crimes are so heinous to be even considered suitable for potential future work applicants, how does society actually expect past offenders to earn a living and therefore avoid the gradual decline of their lifestyle to the point of re-offending? Don't let them out, simple! All other crimes once judged and sentences past and served accordingly, should therefore vanish from the records indefinitely.

If one is to be a free man, it should mean FREE without restrictions. Society (actually, incompetent authorities) should not have it both ways.

Savvy_Sue

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

No DNA taken, just prints. Apparently they were checked against outstanding crimes but then destroyed. But I'm not about to commit any offenses just to find out if they were telling the truth...

We did have one person 'invited' to go and give their prints to check they weren't someone with an interesting record with a similar name. But at least in that case that happened before their CRB check came back with someone else's 'history' attached!

peter270357

is thisdiscussion finished because i have some relevant info ... well , I think it is anyway .. :rolleyes:

markelock

i'm more concerned that his 4 yr old just happened to be at the station having his prints taken. that's some bad parenting. I presume it wasn't his first offence either!

CRB checks are unfortunate, I have them to work in schools on behalf of my Company. It's 3 months of patience I don't see the point of, especially as you need to update them.

looby75

markelock wrote: »

i'm more concerned that his 4 yr old just happened to be at the station having his prints taken. that's some bad parenting. I presume it wasn't his first offence either.

I suggest you go back and re read JimmyTheWigs first post in this thread before you go jumping to totally unfounded assumptions.

Luvly.cuppa.T

I suggest.... sense of humour?

And whats the relevant info Peter?