Implications of a misconduct warning? Forum

[Pearalegal]

i don't think "untrustworthy" applies to a person with a dui in the same sense that it does someone who cheats on a high-stakes test.

Even if it doesn't apply in the same sense, it still applies.

[Duralex]

i don't think "untrustworthy" applies to a person with a dui in the same sense that it does someone who cheats on a high-stakes test.

OK-- go lend a drunk your car keys, make them promise not to drink, and then ask them to drive your kids to school. Feeling any hesitation?

[vanwinkle]

Definitely! In no way do I disagree with that. However, that doesn't mean that that person doesn't need to face the consequences of their actions--even the long ranging ones that pop up long after the event. Thats how people continue to grow up.

I would argue someone who has a DUI and really learned from the experience wouldn't whine about having to explain themselves when it comes to law school admissions and the bar.

I think we fully agree then. You're right on that last point.

[MC Southstar]

Before I say anything else, I am just very against the idea that a "criminal" can never be redeemed for their actions, and that all criminals MUST share some common set of immoral attributes just because they violated one of the codes of our society. This is a common belief and is why a DUI might get you cockblocked for important jobs, but it is just an extreme way of categorizing people that fails to really account for their circumstances or moral integrity. It's easy to sit on one side of the fence and heckle other people, but what if you were the one that made the mistake? What if you just slipped up once and didn't have a DD, or maybe you didn't think you were that drunk but you happened to get into an accident anyway. Do you think YOU would deserve to be judged as a completely irresponsible, immature, or immoral person just because of that one mistake? You would know who you really were, but the stigma used to enforce the law is a double edged sword when it comes to forgiving people for violating that law.

Btw, I don't drive drunk and I dislike drinking in general.

[Pearalegal]

What if you just slipped up once and didn't have a DD, or maybe you didn't think you were that drunk but you happened to get into an accident anyway. Do you think YOU would deserve to be judged as a completely irresponsible, immature, or immoral person just because of that one mistake? You would know who you really were, but the stigma used to enforce the law is a double edged sword when it comes to forgiving people for violating that law.

Btw, I don't drive drunk and I dislike drinking in general.

....yes, I would think that my actions, though out of character, would be no less deserving of the consequences and stigma they'd carry.

Btw, I love to drink.

[MC Southstar]

What if you just slipped up once and didn't have a DD, or maybe you didn't think you were that drunk but you happened to get into an accident anyway. Do you think YOU would deserve to be judged as a completely irresponsible, immature, or immoral person just because of that one mistake? You would know who you really were, but the stigma used to enforce the law is a double edged sword when it comes to forgiving people for violating that law.

Btw, I don't drive drunk and I dislike drinking in general.

....yes, I would think that my actions, though out of character, would be no less deserving of the consequences and stigma they'd carry.

Btw, I love to drink.

Iuno. Then it just comes down to difference of opinion. I don't believe that people are so simple that laws can fully categorize them into "good eggs and bad eggs".

[Kant]

You should probably start considering a new career

To be honest I have no idea how this will affect you. I doubt it will affect bar passage

[Pearalegal]

Iuno. Then it just comes down to difference of opinion. I don't believe that people are so simple that laws can fully categorize them into "good eggs and bad eggs".

No one is doing that.

[superserial]

how about people who drive drunk to the LSAT and cheat on it?

[Pearalegal]

how about people who drive drunk to the LSAT and cheat on it?

They didn't cheat, theeeey achhcidenntalleey mis unbubbubled.

[superserial]

how about people who drive drunk to the LSAT and cheat on it?

They didn't cheat, theeeey achhcidenntalleey mis unbubbubled.

. OP's excuse?

[MC Southstar]

@pearalegal: You are trying to do that, lol. You're saying that one act in violation of the law that exists on your record justifies others stigmatizing you as a criminal or social deviant and that you should bear responsibility for that your whole life.

There is no other basis for your character in an interview process, so you are conveniently allowing this arbitrary factor to determine the overall moral fitness of a person. The practice is simply not objected against because most people don't have anything bad on their record and feel free to punish the minority who do.

[Pearalegal]

@pearalegal: You are trying to do that, lol. You're saying that one act in violation of the law that exists on your record justifies others stigmatizing you as a criminal or social deviant and that you should bear responsibility for that your whole life.

There is no other basis for your character in an interview process, so you are conveniently allowing this arbitrary factor to determine the overall moral fitness of a person. The practice is simply not objected against because most people don't have anything bad on their record and feel free to punish the minority who do.

Uh, no I'm not.

First of all, your record is your record. Your actions, even the out of character ones, are your actions. Yes, you need to take full responsibility and deal with the consequences of all your actions--the good ones and the bad ones.

An arbitrary factor? Doing something illegal and endangering others is arbitrary? Jesus christ.

I review board reviews everything-looking at the full record, the full resume, the full recommendations. Your volunteer work, your school transcripts. And yes, that DUI had when you were stupid one night in college or whatever. Of course I think thats valid. Thats life. What interview are you talking about?

One action determining moral character? I never said that.

[somewhatwayward]

Before I say anything else, I am just very against the idea that a "criminal" can never be redeemed for their actions, and that all criminals MUST share some common set of immoral attributes just because they violated one of the codes of our society. This is a common belief and is why a DUI might get you cockblocked for important jobs, but it is just an extreme way of categorizing people that fails to really account for their circumstances or moral integrity. It's easy to sit on one side of the fence and heckle other people, but what if you were the one that made the mistake? What if you just slipped up once and didn't have a DD, or maybe you didn't think you were that drunk but you happened to get into an accident anyway. Do you think YOU would deserve to be judged as a completely irresponsible, immature, or immoral person just because of that one mistake? You would know who you really were, but the stigma used to enforce the law is a double edged sword when it comes to forgiving people for violating that law.

Btw, I don't drive drunk and I dislike drinking in general.

i agree that people should get second chances especially when a long period of time has elapsed and so forth. the people who get second chances, though, should not have the attitude that a DUI does not bring their character into question or that everyone does it and they were just unlucky, etc.

what i object to is people who have driven under the influence (whether they got caught or not) minimizing the seriousness of it....or i guess anyone minimizing the seriousness of it.

[MC Southstar]

@pearalegal: You are trying to do that, lol. You're saying that one act in violation of the law that exists on your record justifies others stigmatizing you as a criminal or social deviant and that you should bear responsibility for that your whole life.

There is no other basis for your character in an interview process, so you are conveniently allowing this arbitrary factor to determine the overall moral fitness of a person. The practice is simply not objected against because most people don't have anything bad on their record and feel free to punish the minority who do.

Uh, no I'm not.

First of all, your record is your record. Your actions, even the out of character ones, are your actions. Yes, you need to take full responsibility and deal with the consequences of all your actions--the good ones and the bad ones.

An arbitrary factor? Doing something illegal and endangering others is arbitrary? Jesus christ.

I review board reviews everything-looking at the full record, the full resume, the full recommendations. Your volunteer work, your school transcripts. And yes, that DUI had when you were stupid one night in college or whatever. Of course I think thats valid. Thats life. What interview are you talking about?

One action determining moral character? I never said that.

Like I said, it's just a difference of opinion. The difference has nothing to with whether I think drunk driving is dangerous or a serious problem. I do agree with that. I'll just never be so personally enraged or judgmental of drunk drivers until one of them causes me a personal tragedy, not to the point where I think a relic of someone's past really reflects on their ability to assume responsibilities.

[Pearalegal]

@pearalegal: You are trying to do that, lol. You're saying that one act in violation of the law that exists on your record justifies others stigmatizing you as a criminal or social deviant and that you should bear responsibility for that your whole life.

There is no other basis for your character in an interview process, so you are conveniently allowing this arbitrary factor to determine the overall moral fitness of a person. The practice is simply not objected against because most people don't have anything bad on their record and feel free to punish the minority who do.

Uh, no I'm not.

First of all, your record is your record. Your actions, even the out of character ones, are your actions. Yes, you need to take full responsibility and deal with the consequences of all your actions--the good ones and the bad ones.

An arbitrary factor? Doing something illegal and endangering others is arbitrary? Jesus christ.

I review board reviews everything-looking at the full record, the full resume, the full recommendations. Your volunteer work, your school transcripts. And yes, that DUI had when you were stupid one night in college or whatever. Of course I think thats valid. Thats life. What interview are you talking about?

One action determining moral character? I never said that.

Like I said, it's just a difference of opinion. The difference has nothing to with whether I think drunk driving is dangerous or a serious problem. I do agree with that. I'll just never be so personally enraged or judgmental of drunk drivers until one of them causes me a personal tragedy, not to the point where I think a relic of someone's past really reflects on their ability to assume responsibilities.

You addressed absolutely nothing I actually said.

[laidoffjournalist]

I'll just never be so personally enraged or judgmental of drunk drivers until one of them causes me a personal tragedy, not to the point where I think a relic of someone's past really reflects on their ability to assume responsibilities.

That's kind of like saying you're cool with stealing until someone steals your stuff or murder unless someone murders someone you love. I've never been affected by drunk driving but I still think drunk drivers are assholes. On the other hand, someone cross bubbling on the their test really doesn't affect anyone else. The odds that it will be me vs. them for admission to some school is incredibly small and I have full control over how I perform. No one cheating will make me do worse or better and I control how well I do.

That said, this entire discussion, started by talibkweli:
--ImageRemoved--

[MC Southstar]

I'll just never be so personally enraged or judgmental of drunk drivers until one of them causes me a personal tragedy, not to the point where I think a relic of someone's past really reflects on their ability to assume responsibilities.

That's kind of like saying you're cool with stealing until someone steals your stuff or murder unless someone murders someone you love. I've never been affected by drunk driving but I still think drunk drivers are assholes. On the other hand, someone cross bubbling on the their test really doesn't affect me. The odds that it will be me vs. them for admission to some school is incredibly small and I have full control over how I perform. No one cheating will make me do worse or better and I control how well I do.

That said, this entire discussion, started by talibkweli:
--ImageRemoved--

Hum dum diddly dum. I agree with the picture.

@pearalegal: I'm tired of advocating a position that I don't have strong opinions about when you obviously do. Drunk driving is pretty much universally unacceptable. If extremely negative opinion about it serves to reduce the number of incidents of drunk driving, then I guess it serves its bigger purpose.

[Pearalegal]

@pearalegal: I'm tired of advocating a position that I don't have strong opinions about when you obviously do.

My position is that a full review of a person should be a full review. I never once said a person should be defined by one action...that was all you. My opinions regarding full disclosure and character and fitness reviews has nothing to do with my personal feelings about DUIs.

[MC Southstar]

@pearalegal: I'm tired of advocating a position that I don't have strong opinions about when you obviously do.

My position is that a full review of a person should be a full review. I never once said a person should be defined by one action...that was all you. My opinions regarding full disclosure and character and fitness reviews has nothing to do with my personal feelings about DUIs.

No, you actually said a lot about what a drunk driving offense says about a person. A lot of bitter words. Stop trying to one up me, it's transparent.

[D. H2Oman]

@pearalegal: I'm tired of advocating a position that I don't have strong opinions about when you obviously do.

My position is that a full review of a person should be a full review. I never once said a person should be defined by one action...that was all you. My opinions regarding full disclosure and character and fitness reviews has nothing to do with my personal feelings about DUIs.

No, you actually said a lot about what a drunk driving offense says about a person. A lot of bitter words. Stop trying to one up me, it's transparent.

Are you serious?

[Pearalegal]

@pearalegal: I'm tired of advocating a position that I don't have strong opinions about when you obviously do.

My position is that a full review of a person should be a full review. I never once said a person should be defined by one action...that was all you. My opinions regarding full disclosure and character and fitness reviews has nothing to do with my personal feelings about DUIs.

No, you actually said a lot about what a drunk driving offense says about a person. A lot of bitter words. Stop trying to one up me, it's transparent.

...what? seriously?

Arguing a position about disclosure and arguing that a DUI can be an indicator of a lack of integrity are two different things. I never said one person is defined by those actions. Not once.

The conversation was linked when I tried to explain possible reasons review boards/professions consider aspects of a person's record such as DUIs, when you brought that up. I stand by those. I also said several times that yes, obviously a person can learn and mature from bad decisions.

One up you? We're having a debate. If I wasn't trying to further my point, there would be no debate. I guess that means I'm trying to, "one up you." I guess.

[Kant]

Look everyone does these things once or twice in their life...most of us dont get caught.

[D. H2Oman]

@pearalegal: I'm tired of advocating a position that I don't have strong opinions about when you obviously do.

My position is that a full review of a person should be a full review. I never once said a person should be defined by one action...that was all you. My opinions regarding full disclosure and character and fitness reviews has nothing to do with my personal feelings about DUIs.

No, you actually said a lot about what a drunk driving offense says about a person. A lot of bitter words. Stop trying to one up me, it's transparent.

...what? seriously?

Arguing a position about disclosure and arguing that a DUI can be an indicator of a lack of integrity are two different things. I never said one person is defined by those actions. Not once.

The conversation was linked when I tried to explain possible reasons review boards/professions consider aspects of a person's record such as DUIs, when you brought that up. I stand by those. I also said several times that yes, obviously a person can learn and mature from bad decisions.

One up you? We're having a debate. If I wasn't trying to further my point, there would be no debate. I guess that means I'm trying to, "one up you." I guess.

Quit trying to one up him.

[Pearalegal]

A lot of bitter words.

Also, please explain.

Quit trying to one up him.

Apparently its transparent.