I certainly see wisdom in this philosophy, but like the implementation of most good ideas, the devil is (or can be) in the details. It would be good if we are asked to support something to see the final version of it. It is clear that convicted violent offenders and drug dealers should not be presumed to be as low risk in re-employment situations as convicted drug possessors. But then, what charges were dismissed as to drug users and why were they dismissed. Plea bargaining certainly clouds the clear picture of who a convicted offender really is. I am certainly not saying second chances are inappropriate - far from it. However there is no substitute for caution and thorough investigation. When the state puts its stamp of approval on the work it has done with an inmate the public has a right to know that the state's job has been done correctly and thoroughly, especially when the state is motivated to shed the cost of $28,000+ per year to house the inmate. Having stated that one reservation, I hope the implementation of such a program can be responsibly achieved. If so, it would be a very good thing for all of us.
I certainly see wisdom in this philosophy, but like the implementation of most good ideas, the devil is (or can be) in the details. It would be good if we are asked to support something to see the final version of it. It is clear that convicted violent offenders and drug dealers should not be presumed to be as low risk in re-employment situations as convicted drug possessors. But then, what charges were dismissed as to drug users and why were they dismissed. Plea bargaining certainly clouds the clear picture of who a convicted offender really is. I am certainly not saying second chances are inappropriate - far from it. However there is no substitute for caution and thorough investigation. When the state puts its stamp of approval on the work it has done with an inmate the public has a right to know that the state's job has been done correctly and thoroughly, especially when the state is motivated to shed the cost of $28,000+ per year to house the inmate. Having stated that one reservation, I hope the implementation of such a program can be responsibly achieved. If so, it would be a very good thing for all of us.
Senator Brent Hoffman is a legislator that gives thought and research on issues.
It is good to consider supporting the rehabilitation and reintegration of formerly
incarcerated individuals. The process starts with ideas that are given to legislative
research and developed to a bill to introduce to committees and if passed moves
to the floor of the house the bill began in.. Then a repeat in the other house with
committee hearing and if passed it moves to the bill's second house for debate.
At this point if successful it goes to the Governor. Then it can be signed into law
or vetoed (with more deliberation). I look forward to the review process!