10/03/2007 11:55:05

I responded to your poll and will leave an explenation why Im not sure if they should or shouldnt omit canidates with a criminal backround. I dont have a criminal record, but in the world we live in it is very easy to get one. If a record submitted by an authority lables  a person as a criminal (depending on the crime and circumsatances) it has a tendency to omit any and all of his/her good qualities. This question is complicating because depending on the enviroment you are in, sometimes lines/rules have to be bended or broken. I dont see why a person with a criminal record (depending on the infraction) shouldnt be given an opportunity to prove his or her finer qualities. I'm not saying a person that choped up his family with a log splitter should be given an opportunity but there are or should be some exceptions. I live in Chicago and have heard, seen and personaly known civilians and authorities commit severe crimes and your average (well no one is looking so why the hell nots) Bottom line: Until a machine is invented (besides alcohole) where a person can be interviewed and throughly annalyzed to see if this person is Good, Evil, or Pure Evil I guess most canidates with a criminal backround should or shouldnt be omited. The pungie pit of bottom lines: Its all up to the boys in the office who are infinitly "wiser" than the average Joe ?  Very interesting poll question. If a person with a criminal record was permited to join up and later in life is responsible for saving our asses and preventing the end of the world, than we would just kick ourselves for having a policy that omits "criminals". It's all about being able to trust a person and have confindence that that person will be capable to do the job right without stealing a suvienor lol  What do  you think ?