[randywaterhouse]

We've already lost when an arrest is equivalent to a conviction.

Although, in some ways, we've been here for a while. Maybe less-so for individuals but for corporations, whom the law generally treats with a degree of "individual" rights (IANAL), it's long been that an indictment is worse than a conviction. After an indictment, clients turn away -> revenue flees -> shutters.

What's scary is an indictment is, in theory (under fair application of the principles of law), is more severe than a simple arrest. If we're living in a system (US) where a simple arrest results in a database entry which can result in the end of your productive life, we're living in a... [up to the reader to determine the severity]

Ultimately, the power of gov't to drop charges after such a consequence (firing) is powerful and unfair to the individual. Indeed.

[snowwrestler]

> We've already lost when an arrest is equivalent to a conviction.

It's not, under the law, of course. But since businesses can (generally) freely choose who to hire or fire, it is legal for them to ask employees about arrests and make decisions based on the answer.

This is different, though, in that the federal government itself (the FBI) is assisting companies in doing this. The FBI is reporting arrests to businesses, in full knowledge of the negative consequences for employees in doing so. Indeed, the negative consequences are the entire point of the program.

The federal government is held to different standards. If an employee could prove that they were fired because of an arrest that never led to a conviction, reported through Rap Back, I think they would have a pretty good test case for the ACLU to go to town on.

The whole point of our system of justice is to ensure that the government only punishes citizens when there is beyond reasonable doubt that an actual crime was committed. Here, the federal government is delivering punishment entirely outside that framework.

The government will argue that they're just supplying information, not punishment, but they don't get to just pretend they have no idea what happens next. Everything the FBI has ever said about this program will be reviewed and will show that the whole point is to fire people.

[mrlyc]

>> We've already lost when an arrest is equivalent to a conviction.

> It's not, under the law, of course.

It is under some circumstances. For example, the US visa waiver program:

> We do not recommend that travelers who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, attempt to travel visa free under the Visa Waiver Program.

(From https://uk.usembassy.gov/visas/visa-waiver-program/additiona...)

[throwwit]

It goes further than arrests. It's contact, and associations. At least up in Canada [1] https://www.thestar.com/topic.presumed_guilty.html

[tenpies]

> We've already lost when an arrest is equivalent to a conviction.

Doesn't even take an arrest these days - just ask any college aged male accused of rape.

[CaptSpify]

> We've already lost when an arrest is equivalent to a conviction.

source on that?

[GavinMcG]

I think it was pretty obvious that it was an evaluation the commenter was making, not something that came from another source.

That makes me wonder whether you were being sincere in your response, and if not, what you thought you were contributing.

[CaptSpify]

I'm contributing skepticism. How many arrests statistically lead to convictions? I suspect it's high, but if it's not, then his statement is untrue. I also don't see how it's obvious that was his intent, as I obviously don't see it as meaning that.

[glial]

Statistics has nothing to do with it. People should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I am honestly shocked that this appears to be a controversial assertion.

[CaptSpify]

> People should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

How did what I say imply otherwise? I completely agree with that statement.