The  'carers'  of people can be virtually  anyone.  At  a domestic and private setting even the  worst offender may look after his/her  children or  other older  relatives. And  it doesn't  usually cause any problem ;  that said in  certain sitiuation the court may impose  an  'avoidance' or  'no-contact' order on parents indicted for child abuse!  I am not talking about such situations .  

 

The issue here is whether  someone with a  criminal record of definite conviction , past judicial penalties eg  prison sentence etc., be allowed to  be employed  at a care institution for  direct physical care duties. Such  cases have been  reported and  the 'employers have not taken any action'.  It is  true that just having a conviction years ago, doesn't necessarily make someone 'evil'  needed to be barred frm the usual social life including helping others. A part of modern  justice system is just not to 'punish' people for what they have done but also to 'rehabilitate' them back to 'normalcy'.  Punitive actions may be  felt  justified  as an immediate 'knee-jerk' response but there should always be a place for  'forgiveness' and 'reconciliation'  even for the serious offenders.  It may not work always and some commit further crimes but , punishment does not 'change' people .

 

Now should people with  a history of minor convictions be  'marked' for life? Or perhaps each case should be assessed individually and following a thorough 'risk-assessment' some may be considered 'safe'  to work with the vulnerable.

Speaking in general terms , our society does not look at the elderly , the way they look at children.   Before any one is let loose on children, detailed  checks are  carried out including  their 'training' in child care. Whilst for the vulnerable old ( and our care homes are full of them) the so-called 'vetting' is relatively  'superficial'  -- I am more  concerend about some of them actually 'fit for the purpose' - without any criminal record or not!  Those ladies in that Farnworth Care home did not have any past criminal record but were they suitable to care for the  frial elderly?  I would rather have  a 'caring' individual who might have done something wrong many years ago rather than someone with  a totally  wrong attitude and perhaps no  training in the field !!  these are the real dangerous ones who should be checked , vetted and  continuously monitored.

Of course  I am not suggesting serious repeated offenders of violent crimes , drugs , sexual offences be allowed to work  in care homes but  just having a minor offence record shouldn't exclude them.  That would be incorrect.