11/21/24
November 19, 2005
"I didn't find God in prison...all I found was hatred and the devil and dudes scheming up better ways to break the law." : The Dallas Observer catches up with former All-Pro Offensive Lineman Nate Newton after his 32 month prison stay for getting busted twice in five weeks transporting over 100 pounds of marijuana.
posted by Ufez Jones to football at 10:10 AM - 58 comments
"It caught up to me, but that's the way I rolled: butt-naked booty bumpin'." Didn't that come out a couple years ago starring Snoop and Bernie Mac? Seriously, as much as I went in prepared to hate on Nate ... it least he owns up to what he did.
posted by wfrazerjr at 11:57 AM on November 19, 2005
Sounds like he managed to get a little much-needed growing up done while in the pen. Good on him.
posted by chicobangs at 01:46 PM on November 19, 2005
Nate Newton has always been good at saying things the press liked to hear. I wonder how much of the real story we're getting in this interview. My guess is that Nate blew through his playing money, and then when his career ended couldn't adjust to the reduced lifestyle, so he took crazy risks to keep the money coming in.
posted by rcade at 04:58 PM on November 19, 2005
I can think of a safer risk - skydiving. I get the adrenaline rush and usually don't go to prison. As far as keeping the money coming in. Get a job with the college education he got when he lettered those four years. Go on Survivor like this guy did and try to win a million. The possibilities are endless and most don't require going to prison. Welcome to the real world Nate!
posted by skydivemom at 09:03 PM on November 19, 2005
This Guy - sorry it didn't link the first time.
posted by skydivemom at 09:04 PM on November 19, 2005
Ok. 2 things. First, I'm a coach and I played 17 years of football- you can do the math to see where I'm coming from. O-D Sports football camp will NEVER get any business from my players or any other coaches or kids that I come into contact with (if I can help it) if they hire CONVICTS. Its a pretty sad world we live in when O-D Sports thinks that by having a 'Big Name' people will want to send their kids to the camp even though he ran drugs to the children of their community. You HAVE TO AT LEAST QUESTION what kind of CHARACTER the people in this organization have! Second, at the end he says he's spending his time LAUGHING?! YOUR TAX $ payed for a MILLIONAIRE to sit in prison. That's Hillarious. Finally, anyone who wants to come to his defense by saying its just weed, you bring that weed around my community, and you'll find out real fast the difference between someone who wastes their life smoking, and someone who doesn't live their life in a vegetative state in front of a tv w/ the munchies.
posted by RushLB49 at 06:40 AM on November 20, 2005
I recently bumped into Nate Newton since he was released from prison. I didnt ask for a autograph or try to take up his time. I was glad to see he was out and so was my family. We spoke to him (hello nate glad you're home). He acted as if we were not there as he walked by in socks and house shoe's. He hasnt learned anything and will be in the news dealing with local law enforcement in near future. He can only be a fake for so long the true nate will come out sooner or later. It is sad and I will pray for him
posted by onemorechance at 08:47 AM on November 20, 2005
Your experience with Newton is similar to one shared by my brother-in-law, who was his neighbor for a while. He was always unfriendly in person.
posted by rcade at 09:17 AM on November 20, 2005
Okay, then. I probably stand corrected, though I continue to hope for the best.
posted by chicobangs at 01:19 PM on November 20, 2005
O-D Sports football camp will NEVER get any business from my players or any other coaches or kids that I come into contact with (if I can help it) if they hire CONVICTS. @RushLB49: Are you saying that someone who's paid their debt to society (to use the cliche, which is a cliche becaue it's more or less true) should not be hired in a job with which they might have useful skills? Note that I'm not talking about putting child molestors and the like in jobs where they're in contact with kids or similar edge cases. I'm also not talking only about Newton and this particular situation but more generally. So if Newton was hired at, say, a sporting goods store in your area would you stop shopping there? After all, if we (as a society) decide that convicts are going to serve a limited term then when released they need to earn a living somewhere.
posted by billsaysthis at 04:20 PM on November 20, 2005
True. Not to mention that there are more ex-convicts out there than you know. Thieves, drug addicts, former street thugs, frat boys who made youthful mistakes, people who had bad friends or a bad stretch in their lives, all of whom have served their sentences and are trying to become better people than they were. These people are all over the place, and they've already been judged. No need for people to keep judging them by something they've already served their allotted time for.
posted by chicobangs at 04:34 PM on November 20, 2005
OK, Nate ain't a very friendly person, but I gotta say, he keeps it real. As far as him working in his chosen field, which he was damn good at may I add, I say he should go for it. Based on his persona of being an asshole, hell I know a lot of those, but it don't necessarily detract from what makes them good, my boss notwithstanding. I think he should be given a chance and if he fucks up, then he can go back to the pen like so many repeat offenders.
posted by BIG D at 07:51 PM on November 20, 2005
Ex convicts that I have met: The Dalai Lama Nelson Mandela Xanana Gusmao Ex or current convicts I would like to meet (when they get out): Aung San Su Ki
posted by owlhouse at 03:37 AM on November 21, 2005
owlhouse, don't go cluttering this discussion with facts and historical perspective. We've done so well without that stuff up to now. (Mandela? Really? Cool.)
posted by chicobangs at 03:42 AM on November 21, 2005
Hiring a convicted drug felon to work the counter at Champ Sports: Possibly good idea with probably good intentions. Hiring a convicted drug felon to teach young kids at a football camp: Completely retarded idea with the intention of capitalizing on Newton's name.
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:05 AM on November 21, 2005
And why is pot (or any drug) illegal in the first place? What a waste of resources when so many cops and so much cash is used on busting people who apparently don't have the freedom to put something into their own bodies. Now if Nate where violating somebody else's property or person, then that is another story. Too bad most of the people posting here don't understand the direct link between property rights (including the property known as yourself) and freedom. If you don't have the first, you cannot have the second. Land of the free, my ass.
posted by jgalt at 09:55 AM on November 21, 2005
wfrazerjr, you might be surprised at who falls under the heading of "convicted drug felon" these days. More importantly, there is chico's point. We have this notion of serving one's time, paying one's debt to society and then being able to rejoin it -- that's a central assumption in our criminal justice system, yet we're unwilling to allow ex-cons to rejoin society. We do not allow ex post facto laws...yet, more and more, it seems we want to tack plus-you-gets onto the ends of sentences. The saying goes, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime," but really it should be, "If you can't do the time, and aren't willing to take the risk of whatever additional punishment and loss of citizenship rights the electorate decides to slap on you following the commission of the crime, then don't do the crime." This guy could indeed be a bad candidate for teaching young kids at a football camp, but if you want to state that he is categorically so by virtue of being an ex-con...that's a big issue and it needs to be addressed honestly.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:09 AM on November 21, 2005
A new user who can't comment yet sent me an e-mail about his child's experience at Newton's camp:
In defense of the OD camp, my son went to the camp last year, and thoroughly enjoyed it and learned so much from the individual attention he got. It really showed in his playing this year! Also, he says he learned some of the pitfalls of fame and fortune and consequences from Nate. This stood out in his 14 year old mind; that it takes a big man to say he screwed up in front of all the kids, and according to my son never did glorify his screw-up to the them, but rather used it to speak reality, and then moved on to teaching what he knows well-football. Obviously what Nate has said to the press is not wise, but that was not at all his demeanor in the camp from what I saw and heard.
posted by rcade at 10:21 AM on November 21, 2005
Nice red herring, Galt, but it is illegal. The fight to legalize it has nothing to do with Nate Newton. He broke the law (twice that he was caught and many, many more by his own account) and he has to pay for that. I actually agree with you in general terms. As long as what you're doing doesn't affect me, I don't really care and neither should the government. But don't use that as a way to excuse Newton's crimes. on preview: lbb, I probably wouldn't be surprised at who falls under the heading of convicted drug felon -- why do you assume such a thing? I'm stating categorically a convicted drug felon should not be teaching football to youngsters at a camp. I'm stating categorically that no convicted felon should be teaching football to youngsters at a camp. The problem lies in allowing one type of felon vs. another access -- who draws the line? Is a drug trafficker okay but a rapist isn't? An ex-con has the right to resume a place in society -- but that doesn't mean he or she gets every right and privelege back. Think that's unfair or harsh? Tough shit. I suggest you don't sell drugs or break the law in the first place then.
posted by wfrazerjr at 10:21 AM on November 21, 2005
Oops, privilege ... as in, "Dictionary.com's spellchecking abilities are a privilege, not a right."
posted by wfrazerjr at 10:23 AM on November 21, 2005
Umm, is it just me, or does it seem that Nasty Nate is getting out kinda early after being caught with almost 400 pounds of pot?? We hear the story of the woman who gets 5 years for a pipe with some crack residue on it, and this guy gets caught with an enormous amount and serves 4 years? I guess I have to go there... Reagan admitted to Marajuana use, as did Clinton. Our current president is known to have used Cocaine. His wife was widely rumored to deal pot in College. So, Frazier and Rush... do some drugs and you can still be president, but not teach football... Something you were a multiple pro-bowler for. What a neanderthal attitude. Have you ever thought the world looks good in color, not just the black and white you see it in? Most people are enlightened enough to exercise the judeo-christian concepts of forgiveness and fairness. The man has paid his debt (I guess, see above) and should be given another chance. If we do not trust our prisons as rehabilitation resources, then why bother with them... Should we simply execute everyone because if you've sold dope once, you'll never be a worthwhile human being again?? Oh, you mean that was exactly the problem that this article brought to light... Our prisons are not effective rehabilitation resources. I do also hope Rush and Frazier will immediately stop buying Kraft and Nabisco products, as well as anything else sold by RJR or Philip Morris, as they were both recently found guilty of smuggling in South America. Start holding Corporations and politicians to the same standard you hold Nate Newton to, and the world will get alot better alot faster. By the same token, search your own soul... I know I am glad that my future is not determined by the worst moment from my past.
posted by LostInDaJungle at 10:41 AM on November 21, 2005
Hmm, so Frazier, you're saying ANY felony and all of a sudden you shouldn't be allowed to work?? So, Martha Stewart shouldn't be allowed to teach crafts to children?? At all, because she sold some stocks at the wrong time and that's a felony? By the same token, should Ken Lay be running a summer camp just because he was never charged? You ask who draws the line... Well, the Judge does. When a judge sentences a guy, he says, "In X number of years, this dude has paid his debt." You now feel it is your place and right to extend his sentence beyond that imposed by the judge as society's proxy?? You wish to punish him beyond what has already been imposed by society on your behalf. You want him punished longer, take it up with your Senator, but Nate has paid his debt to society, and should be assumed rehabilitated until proven otherwise.
posted by LostInDaJungle at 10:53 AM on November 21, 2005
Nate did his time so let him live his life. We all have to make money one way or the other. We all have made mistakes in our lives, but because we know him for playing ball we want to judge him. It is not for us to judge let god do the judging. There are more crooks in this world but we are not judging them. LOOK AT GEORGE BUSH.
posted by ladygerald45 at 11:10 AM on November 21, 2005
Lil brown bat....You want Tyson dating your daughter? After all..he's done his time right? Feel ok with letting your kids go to Neverland so Jacko can babysit? He was aquitted so it should be fine. This is the real world here...who cares about being politically correct. They put themselves in these situations and i could care less if they are labled for life.
posted by scottyooooo at 11:38 AM on November 21, 2005
Saying that an ex-con has no valuable lessons to teach children is foolish.
posted by rocketman at 11:58 AM on November 21, 2005
Lost, if you're going to attempt to insult me, take the time to spell my fucking name right. It might give you at least a smidge of credibility. I'm all for forgiveness and fairness. But my kid (and hopefully your kid) are not part of the deal. There are plenty of non-felons out there to teach football instead of Nate Newton and arts and crafts instead of Martha Stewart. And if you would take the time to actually read my posts instead of flying off half-cocked, you'd have seen I don't have a problem with felons holding lots of different jobs out there, including football coach at a university or professional level. You're right -- the judge draws the line at the number of years a guy spends in jail, even though most of the time that number is cut in half or more. But more than half of these guys end up going right back in, so if you want to assume them rehabilitated, go right ahead, but I don't and the system doesn't (ever hear of a parole officer?). In closing -- most of the world is nice in color, but viewing the appropriate segments in black-and-white saves you the trouble of occasionally getting your ass handed to you. P.S. -- I'd contact my senator but I no longer live in the States. It probably wouldn't do any good anyway, though ... I'm not a lobbyist.
posted by wfrazerjr at 12:00 PM on November 21, 2005
I believe in paying your debt to society but don't feel this guy did. I personally know a guy who got caught with 20lbs and got 38 months. This guy gets caught twice with over 100lbs both times and gets 32 months. I want to know how many guys he had to roll over on and who's butt he kissed to get that sentence. I don't believe he should be setting an example for kids - "Look kids I had lots of drugs went away for alittle time and now I can teach you how to make money playing football or whatever you need to do to make money. If I can do it - you can too!" Not exactly the kind of example I want set for my kids.
posted by skydivemom at 12:36 PM on November 21, 2005
I personally know a guy who got caught with 20lbs and got 38 months. This guy gets caught twice with over 100lbs both times and gets 32 months. I don't see the problem here. Nate Newton probably could afford a better lawyer, so he got a slightly better deal. The weight difference has to be close to immaterial: either way it's intent to distribute. I don't know that there are gradiations above that charge. Otherwise you're counting knife wounds. Fraze, I understand your stance here in principle, but doesn't the fact it's about Mary-do-you-wanna kind of undermine a hard line? The drug laws about weed versus say, alcohol or tobacco, seem somewhat hypocritical. I'm not advocating meth labs in my neighborhood or Headstart heroin. What I am saying is there are (doubt this is a suprise to anyone) shades of grey to US drug policy. To act as though though felony weed trafficking* is equivalent to murder makes you sound hopelessly hard line. * I know drug wars are fought over marijuana. Of course, they'd all go away if it got legalized and forgotten about.
posted by yerfatma at 12:47 PM on November 21, 2005
It is not for us to judge let god do the judging. There are more crooks in this world but we are not judging them. LOOK AT GEORGE BUSH. umm...o.k.
posted by willthrill72 at 01:04 PM on November 21, 2005
Yer, trust me ... I don't agree with the drug policy the way it stands either. I spent enough time on the police beat talking with cops to know the U.S. policy on marijuana is ridiculous and needs to be overhauled. But do you really think if dope was legal and the money to be made in trafficking was in heroin that Newton wouldn't have been running that? You have leniency for someone who made the small mistake, not a guy who was toting all day long in large quantities. That's not personal use, that's enterprise. And I'll emphasize this again -- Nate knew the law. He chose to break it and should face the consequences. I don't think those consequences extend far enough, but whatever. Because you don't believe in a law, you don't have to obey it? Same thing go if some 22-year-old creep bags your 16-year-old daughter? Hey, he thinks it's just fine and dandy, and maybe even your daughter agrees, so screw the law! To act as though felony weed trafficking* is equivalent to murder ... I did no such thing. I'm not advocating the ritual disemboweling of all criminals ... I said felons shouldn't be around kids, and making exceptions is a slippery slope. Is it a chance you have to take with kids? Why would you do that? ...makes you sound hopelessly hard-line I don't know what's so hopeless about being hard-line, but at least it came through.
posted by wfrazerjr at 01:47 PM on November 21, 2005
But do you really think if dope was legal and the money to be made in trafficking was in heroin that Newton wouldn't have been running that? I have no idea. Neither do you. And if my suggestion of gradiations in felonies is a slippery slope, the suggestion someone would commit Crime B simply because they committed Crime A is a Crisco-coated Slip'n'Slide. All copyrights belong to their original owners
posted by yerfatma at 02:28 PM on November 21, 2005
I don't see the problem here. Nate Newton probably could afford a better lawyer, so he got a slightly better deal. The weight difference has to be close to immaterial: either way it's intent to distribute. I don't know that there are gradiations above that charge. Otherwise you're counting knife wounds. Ok I see your point about weight not mattering but this guy got caught twice in 5 weeks. The ink hadn't even dried on the first charge and he was doing it again. I don't care how much lawyer your money can buy shouldn't this get a harsher penalty? I personally would have crapped my pants the first time and never thought of it again. He went back out and probably will again if the payoff is right. He should have gotten two sentences which would make him a repeat offender (which he is) and I don't want them around my kids no matter what the charge. Not good examples.
posted by skydivemom at 02:31 PM on November 21, 2005
Thanks for pointing that out Frazier... I just typed it like I said it, but from now on I'll make a point of spelling it any way I choose. I apologize if you were insulted, that was not my intent, and I don't believe I even tried to go that route. In the same vein, I don't believe you need to use filthy language with me for trying to engage you in a debate. I'll respect your point alot more if you can make it without resorting to 4 letter words and potty mouth. Keep comparing Newton to a rapist... Makes perfect sense.... As RCade pointed out, "kids" are smart enough to figure out what is going on... Sounds to me like Nate did a good job of explaining why he was in that situation, and tried to counsel kids to avoid it. Half the guys go back in... Well, then half of them don't... Right?? Seems to be a glass half-empty, glass half-full type of thing. Plus, I could go on about how recidivists are usually those without means or support after leaving prison, a situation Nate is not in, which means there is better than a 50% chance he won't ever go back. In fact, if we wanted to increase the chances he could go back, we could deny him gainful employment after his incarceration.... A delightful little irony. Having Nate Newton working at a football camp is hardly equivalent to sending your kids to MJ's for a sleepover. So, if you want to make overblown analogies to a "22 year old creep".... Well, you're comparing a situation where someone has committed a crime against a minor to a non-violent offense between 2 adults. You can raise the straw man that Newton was selling pot that might have gotten sold to a Middle Schooler... But we all know that a weak argument. By that standard we should elimainate the Condom companies because they might be an accessory to statutory rape. "but viewing the appropriate segments in black-and-white saves you the trouble of occasionally getting your ass handed to you." A) What is "appropriate" seems to be the problem here. B) Yeah, but you really miss alot of the beauty in the world that way too. Some folks walk very carefully though life, and never expect to fall, so every fall is a huge deal to them. Some folks dance through life, they fall down too, but they're just not suprised and are able to hop right back up.
posted by LostInDaJungle at 02:32 PM on November 21, 2005
Words are words, Lost ... intentions are what are filthy. You can't respect my name, I have no respect for you. I guess I have no reason to go any further than that.
posted by wfrazerjr at 02:42 PM on November 21, 2005
But do you really think if dope was legal and the money to be made in trafficking was in heroin that Newton wouldn't have been running that? I have no idea. Neither do you. Actually, yes I do. It's part of being a hard-line hard ass, Yerfatma, and I believe if a guy's willing to break the law in manner A, he's very much likely to be willing to break the law in manner B. If that belief means I miss out on the possible love and affection of ex-cons everywhere because I think they shouldn't be hired to with children or I suspect they're (gasp!) more likely to break the law than people who haven't actually broken the law ... I'll live.
posted by wfrazerjr at 02:49 PM on November 21, 2005
I don't capitalize my user name. If you can't respect that, we're done. this guy got caught twice in 5 weeks Good point. I sorta left that out.
posted by yerfatma at 03:29 PM on November 21, 2005
Dude, I totally respect that. Now I'm going across the hall for some of those kickass pepperoni sticks -- who's in?
posted by wfrazerjr at 03:36 PM on November 21, 2005
on preview: lbb, I probably wouldn't be surprised at who falls under the heading of convicted drug felon -- why do you assume such a thing? Deep breath, wfjr (am I being respectful enough?). I assumed it because, guess what, most people would be surprised. It's not some kind of character attack, so don't be in such a hurry to jump salty. I'm stating categorically a convicted drug felon should not be teaching football to youngsters at a camp. I'm stating categorically that no convicted felon should be teaching football to youngsters at a camp. Very well. So, you will now dedicate your life to championing the cause of legal reform that would codify your beliefs, such that ex post facto punishment is now legal? This is the problem that I have with it -- not that not every ex-con gets to have every civil right, but that it's all so arbitrary and hypocritical. We say one thing, and we do another. How many people do you think are aware of just what civil rights they surrender, on a permanent basis, if they're convicted of, say, armed robbery? How many people check the law on a regular basis to see if that list of rights has changed? If you were convicted of a drug offense, do you know, right now, exactly what you'd be losing -- or is your attitude, hey, if I was convicted of a drug felony, I don't deserve to retain any rights at all?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:52 PM on November 21, 2005
How many people check the law on a regular basis to see if that list of rights has changed? I occasionally check the statutes for sentencing changes regarding indecent exposure.
posted by rcade at 07:50 PM on November 21, 2005
I occasionally check the statutes for sentencing changes regarding indecent exposure. That was you??? Third row, fourth from the right?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:58 PM on November 21, 2005
We all have to make money one way or the other. Yeah, poor, poor Nate, it's not like he's a former professional athlete or anything.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 07:49 AM on November 22, 2005
I assumed it because, guess what, most people would be surprised. It'd have been the same then to say, "Most people would be surprised," right? I'm not most people, and you assumed incorrectly. This is the problem that I have with it -- not that not every ex-con gets to have every civil right, but that it's all so arbitrary and hypocritical. We say one thing, and we do another. I don't think I've been arbitrary or hypocritical at all. You commit a felony, you don't work with children. Pretty rigid standard, eh? It's not a right, it's a privilege -- and putting felons with kids is unnecessary and taking chances with individuals (the children) who are counting on you to make the best decision for them.
posted by wfrazerjr at 08:55 AM on November 22, 2005
wfrazer, my issue with your assertion is that you're making ex post facto law which, back here in the States, is unconstitutional. Though, to be thorough, there are cases where the SCOTUS has split hairs (IMO) to get around that so one can't say with certainty this wouldn't too.
posted by billsaysthis at 03:33 PM on November 22, 2005
In my mind, Bill, it has to do with which rights are more important to you -- a felon's right to work with children (and by extension, I suppose, wherever they might be hired), or a child's right not to have a felon in direct contact with him or her, especially not without notification of said child's parents. I understand the other side of the argument -- that it's unfair to punish people who have already paid their debts to society and might have a unique way of conveying their experiences to teenagers. I also understand that close to half of them people don't end up reoffending. But doesn't it make sense that the people who might be most likely to do harm to kids in whatever fashion are the ones who have already proven themselves criminally inclined? Is it so foolish to look at Nate Newton and say, "You know what? A guy who just got out of prison for running drugs might not be the best candidate to work with youth." Let felons pass along their knowledge in school assemblies and counseling settings. Just don't hire them to work directly with children on a largely unsupervised basis.
posted by wfrazerjr at 05:26 PM on November 22, 2005
a felon's right to work with children Hold up Homey: is this a public school? I'm guessing parents have to pay to get their kids into there. Additionally, I don't care for the broad "felon" brush: it tars my favorite mayor, James Michael Curley, with your Nate Newton marijuana ink.
posted by yerfatma at 07:56 PM on November 22, 2005
wfrazer, as yerfatma points out this is not a public school and parents can certainly choose to withhold their custom from businesses which employ anyone they don't want their kids in contact with. Allowing ex post facto laws, on the other hand, is a huge change in our society that requires a heck of a better reason than this example. On the gripping hand, if Texas or some other state legislature were to pass a law saying that from today on anyone convicted of a felony cannot be employed in a job where they would come into contact with children then my specific objection would not apply.
posted by billsaysthis at 10:18 PM on November 22, 2005
Do you guys suppose the football camp told each of the folks registering their children, "Hey, guess what? We've added a recently released drug runner to our staff! Awesome, huh?" That's the problem I have with it -- there's nothing to compel the staff of the camp to tell parents the background of those hired. Should parents have to conduct an exhaustive records check of the staff of everywhere they send their children? Or would it be simpler to just recognize that felons and children might not be a particularly good mix? And what's with all this ex post facto stuff? I'm saying pass the law now, going forward. I agree that it's unfair to apply the law retroactively -- although I think the benefit outweighs the possible harm.
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:54 AM on November 23, 2005
Do you think they didn't plaster Nate Newton's mug on the posters? You were the one suggesting they were trying to trade on his name.
posted by yerfatma at 10:39 AM on November 23, 2005
Isn't prison a strange place to look for god? I would start with a church/mosque/synagouge.
posted by HATER 187 at 10:45 AM on November 23, 2005
I thought church was the last place we were supposed to look.
posted by yerfatma at 12:07 PM on November 23, 2005
Do you think they didn't plaster Nate Newton's mug on the posters? So you think every parent out there follows football closely enough to know Nate Newton not only played for the Cowboys, but also did time in the pokey? Think they had that plastered on the promos? Not everyone can be as well-read as us, Yer.
posted by wfrazerjr at 02:56 PM on November 23, 2005
wfrazerjr, you can always choose to patronize schools, camps, whatever that have a policy of conducting background checks and not hiring felons, drug or other. You don't have to scrutinize the newspapers or be particularly well-read, just ask the camp or whatever. Let that be the parent's choice and the parent's responsibility, and let's step back from our society's lamentable tendency to try to make children's lives absolutely and perfectly safe and stress-free.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:33 PM on November 23, 2005
Isn't prison a strange place to look for god? Especially when you've got perfectly good public schools around. /ducks and covers
posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:08 PM on November 23, 2005
Or you could just put the onus on the camp or the school, which I think would be more likely to fulfill it. You and I might be the kind of parents who would ask those questions, but I can guarantee as a former teacher, many, many parents won't. I think concern for the child carries more weight than concern for the felon or burdening the parent. I guess it comes down to this for me -- it sounds as if you had a child who had attended the O-D football camp and you found out a convicted drug-runner pretty fresh out of prison was hanging out with your kid, you'd be fine with it. That's fine -- for your child. It's not fine for my child, and it's not fine for the kid whose parents aren't responsible enough to ask. I'm also not getting the connection on "stress-free" children. You're talking bicycle helmets and play dates, I'm talking keeping convicted drug peddlers and rapists away from our kids. If it means an embezzler or a drunk driver can't work at Sally's day camp ... tough nuts.
posted by wfrazerjr at 08:01 PM on November 23, 2005
Or you could just put the onus on the camp or the school, which I think would be more likely to fulfill it. Meaning that no camp, school, youth group, church, or hot dog stand that might have minors somewhere around it can ever employ a convicted felon in any capacity? Well, I've already said what I believe to be the (very serious) problems with placing that kind of constraint on someone whom, we hypocritically say, we want to rejoin society...so there's no point in repeating myself. We agree to disagree, and I hope you see that you've got a profound body of legal precedent to overturn if you hope to change the world to do things your way. I'd wish you good luck with your life's work (it is a life's work, at the very least), but I think it would result in a world that's much more screwed up than you appear to realize. Yes, yes, I know you're aware of the downsides, or at least some of them. I just don't think you see their full potential repercussions.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:49 AM on November 24, 2005
Employers are already free to require job applicants to inform them of criminal convictions in the States and most seem to do so.
posted by billsaysthis at 01:00 PM on November 24, 2005
I just don't think you see their full potential repercussions. Nope, I just don't give a shit about those who might be repercussed (if that's not a word, it should be) in comparison with the others involved. And no, I'm not saying no job whatsoever -- I'm saying a job that would put felons in unsupervised (or largely unsupervised) contact with minors. I'll keep from making any patronizing statements, but if you'd like to add more, feel free. Bill, it's not the disclosure to the employer that concerns me. Again, if you can show me that the camp told parents that Newton was a convicted felon, I'd be somewhat mollified.
posted by wfrazerjr at 02:04 PM on November 24, 2005
Remarried and living in Wylie, the 43-year-old Newton spends his days working as a regional coordinator for O-D Sports football camp.