Should Sex Offenders Be Firefighters? What about Pardoned ones?

This topic was first posted on FireCritic.com here: http://firecritic.com/2010/11/should-sex-offenders-be-firefighters-...

Can Sex Offenders be firefighters? Should sex offenders be firefighters? What about pardoned ones?

I am currently working on a story and one of the intriguing details is that a current firefighter WAS a convicted sex offender. The person was pardoned and is not a registered sex offender. The offense was bad (they all are). The offense
happened 30 years ago prior to the current laws that protect us from
these criminals. Should he be allowed to be a firefighter?

Here are my thoughts. Sex offenders should not be firefighters. I do not know of a National standard or regulation on this issue. However, if this man was pardoned and the infraction occurred prior to current
regulations should he/she still be punished for a crime they was
pardoned for? After all, they were pardoned and basically the crime is
no longer part of their wrap sheet (hopefully there is nothing else).
This is basically a loophole due to previously lackadaisical laws.

I just wonder if fire departments can legally disqualify someone from being a firefighter for something that might not show up on their background check. I am not sure it would in this case, but what if
someone brought it to the FD’s attention.

The questions are:

Should sex offenders be allowed to be firefighters? What about EMT’s?
Should previously pardoned sex offenders be allowed to be firefighters?
What about EMT’s?
Does your department look for this information in their background checks?

Here are some articles I found on the topic of sex offender/firefighters:

NSOPR – National Sex Offender Public Registry

FBI Sex Offender Registry

You might remember a while back that I posted a question on Firefighter Nation about Felons being firefighters. That discussion continues to spark interest from time to time and the conversation is rehashed. My answer remains to be NO. Several people
said that it depended on the crime. My reply….Name a GOOD Felony! I
didn’t think so. Felonies are felonies for a reason. They are crimes.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on November 11, 2010 at 5:01pm

"Just because something is legal doesn't make it right."
Really? If it's legal how can it be wrong?
Alcohol - legal and fine in moderation (and some health benefits, at least with red wine)
Tobacco - certainly not the smartest thing to do but...it is legal.
Abortion - someone may personally believe it's wrong, but that's their opinion. It's legal.
Same-sex marriage - who's business is it who someone marries? Some states, it's legal.
65 mph highway speed limit - driving slower has been proven to be safer, but so long as it's posted.
Quitting school at 16 - totally stupid, but totally legal.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeremiah stefonich on November 11, 2010 at 5:03pm

No person at is a sex offender's should be allowed in fire to be Firefighter or in Fire Department if you a felon you had no right to be a Firefighter or Emts you do the crime you do the time next ask we can let killer and murder in the fire department as Firefighter sex offender's and killer and murder had no place in a fire department

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clay Matthews on November 11, 2010 at 5:18pm

Simple, NO to it all. They should not be able to work or Volunteer for any public safety dept. PERIOD!!!!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Oomkes on November 11, 2010 at 5:31pm

Slavery was legal, was it right?

Hitler killed 6 million Jews, that was legal.

Women are treated like third or fourth class citizens in certain Muslim countries, it's legal, but what an absolute disgust it is to treat mothers\sisters\daughters (God's gift to man) like that.

It was legal to segegrate by race and make blacks drink out of different water fountains, sit in the back of the bus, etc, etc. Was it right?

Someone is getting assaulted in front of you, it is legal to not intervene, but it isn't right.

Trying to keep it apolitical, so how's that for starters?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jacob Cook on November 11, 2010 at 5:35pm

absolutely not. plain and simple

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on November 11, 2010 at 5:43pm

Slavery was legal, wrong and based on biblical interpretation.

If what hitler did was legal then clearly WWII was illegal.

What's legal in one country may not always be legal in another. Many of our constitutional rights are illegal in other countries. Who's legal metric are we using?

How women are treated in other countries is "legal" only because it's based on their religious beliefs, which in turn govern their laws. Therein lies the danger of a theocracy.

If the assailant is 6'6" and weighs 300lbs and the bystander is a petite, 5'5" female it would be insane for her to intervene. Unless she's a martial arts expert.

The invasion of iraq was predicated on lies, falsehoods and agendas. How legal it was is up for debate, so whether or not it was right or wrong remains to be seen.

But I assumed that the discussion pertained to that which is relevant in the present US, so therefore, if it's legal it has to be right, it's kind of the definition of legal.

But I'll throw you a bone - Eminent Domain. It "legal" but not always "right".

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Derek R. on November 11, 2010 at 11:31pm

Wouldn't you think that the judge who is overseeing the case would take those conciderations into his passing of judgement. I see what you are saying, and agree with you, I would have to see stats regarding those types of cases. Maybe they would be arrested for the sexual offense, but then maybe tried on a lesser charge after looking at the case. I don't know. Just thinking out loud. Maybe if an applicant were to outright bring the issue of peeing on the road, or having a picture of his kid in his wallet, to the table at first, then who knows, maybe the decision would be different than what it would have been if the particulars were unknown.
But I stick to my vote of auto-reject if checks come back not in favor for the applicant.