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.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article