These people had/have a criminal journal:
Martin Luther King JR.
In addition, you have to try Googling ‘ activists prison criminal record ‘ and read all the news articles about it, just in the last month.For me this is reason enough not to do this.
Criminalising activism is what governments do to maintain power, so you don’t have to give politicians the means to do so.However, this is not a problem in the education or the taxi industry. There are far fewer consequences for the system/society if there are selection criteria for teachers and drivers than for politicians.
In addition, there is also a very direct consequence for safety of children and customers.For both professions, others should be confident that you won’t get crazy things in your head if you’re alone with a child or a drunk customer. There is no reason to leave a politician/-A in professional context alone with a small child or a drunken person, so you don’t have to screen it.
I can’t read your article because that site comes up right away with “sign up now for our personal newsletter” which I can’t click away.
Some research teaches me that the theorem is simply not true. In The Netherlands We know the statement about behaviour or VOG.When applying for this, one looks at the purpose of the statement. For a taxi driver, we look at what someone has done for the last 5 years and whether this is relevant:
In fact, the Netherlands is a democracy where we find the right to vote, active and passive and not just take it off.Furthermore, we know the idea that at the time a punishment has been served a fact has been dismissed.
I do not think it is so crazy that someone with a criminal journal can ride a taxi and become prime minister.I do not think it is a crazy idea to ask politicians at every level to see if they have been penalised for fraud or property offences over the last 5 years.
The right to practice politics is really very basic.It is too easy to give people a criminal journal in Weird times and to exclude them from politics.
There are, of course, crimes in which you even temporarily lose this right.Because the rights of others are compromised.
Teacher and taxi driver may be is not a basic right.Here other interests play. We are entitled to safety and security when it comes to our lives and our children.
Is that always “righteous”?Well…
Right, like democracy, is an artificial concept, where we try to aim at as much as possible and as little harm as possible.Very difficult exercise. There are also no examples in nature that we can focus on. All of us have our own invention, who knows we are even good at it.
Crooked like many things in the Netherlands.People with a criminal journal, depending on the offence, should be able to return to society and rebuild their existence. So if your minister wants to be or teacher that shouldn’t make a difference. Ask yourself the question why does someone become a politician or president regardless of the criminal journal and is deprived of the opportunity as a teacher or taxi driver, so this says a lot more about the system than the person in question. 😉
Beyond that I do not know whether people with a criminal journal should not be a taxi driver or a teacher, it seems reasonable to me that anyone who has had something wrong and has undergone his punishment at the end of it should just be treated equally again To every other person.
That is the “standard explanation” that our current legal system is based on.
To be honest, I have never really deepened myself in the fundamentals of our legal system, because I believe it is working pretty well in 99.9% of cases.Unlike many other institutes in the Netherlands, I have a lot of confidence in the sincere independence of our judges and their desire to do objectively justice to our society by pronouncements that are appropriate to the violation or The crime.
Having said that, and I am really struggling to give a nuanced answer at the same time AND to keep writing in understandable Dutch, the role of “teacher” in our society is a very complicated one.It is someone who needs to take our next generations and in many cases serve as an example.
It seems to me very reasonable that a criminal journal should be a serious obstacle to the function of a teacher.
I’m not a fan of taxi drivers myself.In my opinion, it’s all criminals and I sincerely hope that they are all replaced by self-driving cars within a few years.
It is also difficult for me to answer your question.
Finally, whether a prime minister with a criminal offence is a problem?
Nope… As long as you are in a democracy, it is the responsibility of the people who they want them to lead.If the people are so stupid to elect a convicted criminal to Prime minister, then it is their own fault.
Every nation gets the government that deserves it.
“What do you think of the fact that in the Netherlands people with a criminal journal may become prime Minister, but not a teacher or taxi driver?”
Apart from the (to my knowledge) actually incorrect statement that people with a criminal journal cannot become a teacher or taxi driver, this is an interesting question.In my opinion, there is no objectively correct answer possible in this instance. Criminal law is in many ways well founded in subjectivity (= Many laws know their origins in social taboos and also the way of punishments is often debatable-but more on that below), whereby only a taught opinion is possible-hereby the Mine.
The answer to this question can be illustrated by the debate between Retributivism and utilitarianism.These two theories both have a perspective on the function of criminal criminal law-or: Why do we punish?
The first of these two (retributivism) believes that punishments are needed from moral perspective.When someone has committed a murder for example, he (or she-women murders too) has committed a moral slip. This misstep must be punished, this person must suffer as he has let others suffer. The punishment is thus both a moral duty and a return service to the victims. Retributivism is very present in the Western world and in many other cultures. Some even argue that retributivism represents the basis of the Western legal system.
(An old example of retributivism 鈫?corporal punishment)
Utilitairianism explains another function of criminal punishment: the prevention of further suffering in the world.
The function of punishments in utilitairanism is then branching into functions: deterrence and rehabilitation. The first function assumes that the introduction of penalties will have a negative effect on the number of criminal actions. In other words, someone who knows the punishment for murder will be less likely to pick up a weapon. The second function, rehabilitation, is most relevant to your asked question. Rehabilitation assumes that penalties are needed to re-program criminals. Cell penalties and clinical assistance are necessary to allow a criminal to see the mistakes of his/her behaviour, so that these people can return to society as full citizens after serving their sentences.
Now, how is this relevant to the question asked?I think people who are indignant about criminal-journal owners in politics especially think from a retributivist perspective. People who have been sanctioned have shown moral error to act; For this reason, they should not have an influential political function (such as Prime Minister).
In my respect, the function of criminal law is a combination of both perspectives.The sitting of a punishment is emotional: the redemption of a moral debt against the society. The purpose of the punishment, however, must in my opinion always be rehabilitation. I believe that punishments must be directed at the preparation of society, not only because a moral deviant is reschooled into a productive member of society. But above all because punishments to punish are barbaric and can lead to non-proportionally harsh measures. This leads me to the following answer to your question:
The punishment that someone is given-due to criminal or moral misconduct-must be separate from one’s position in society.For, if rehabilitation is the goal of punishment, then a person must be able to return fully in society without the burden of past deeds. A person who has a criminal journal must be able to cover all the functions he/she wants.
That is because it is a political function. Actually, it is strange because ministers need to take note of state secret information.Their officials may only do so if they have passed a screening by the AIVD. These officials should not have a criminal offence, but their minister.
If so, it’s downright silly.