In 2000, two young girls were molested by two WM employees, both of whom had previous records as sex offenders. Now, the North Carolina government is considering requiring all large businesses to check applicants against a sex offender database:
Wal-Mart won�t say how many convicted sex offenders it has kept out of its South Carolina stores since it began doing criminal background checks about a month ago on all new hires.While the very high recidivism rate for sex offenders has no chance of being lowered, refusing employment to those who have finished their jail term and probation could lead to enormous legal and ethical problems for the NC criminal justice system.Wal-Marts in 46 states, including South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia, are now doing the checks, Wal-Mart spokesman Gus Whitcomb said last week.
South Carolina stores have been doing them about a month, he said, but he would not say how many applicants had been rejected because of the background checks.
The Arkansas-based retail giant also won�t say whether any people already employed were found to have sex offense records and were removed from their jobs.
Because Wal-Mart hasn�t been forthcoming, a Charleston legislator said last week he has not ruled out filing a bill requiring all major retailers in the state to do background checks on prospective employees....
�I�m going to take a wait-and-see approach,� said Limehouse, a Republican. �If I feel things in South Carolina are moving in the right direction in terms of Wal-Mart � where most of the problems appear to be � then I might not file this bill.�...
Limehouse said he believes known sex offenders, particularly those convicted of offenses involving children, should not be allowed to work in Wal-Mart stores.
�With a sex offender, once they start, they do not stop � especially an adult who preys on children.�
Just where will sex offenders permitted to work? Minor (small) retailers? Nowhere?
That's not a feasible solution, unless all convicted and released sex offenders are to be given welfare checks to cover food, clothing, and shelter expenses. Otherwise, this really implicitly extends to life the punishment for sex offenses, which, if done formally through statute, might be considered a punishment that's too severe...
Posted by Kevin on December, 5 2004 at 03:48 PM
