[[ New ]] - Another Criminal Record Question -

[487806]

---

Members do not see this ad.

pre med 2014 when you go to med school and are taking boards just remember the answer always is "past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior" if it is an option. You can thank me later for your guaranteed free point on step 1.

Not involved in this, but I thank you for giving some useful insight. That's actually a true statement, but at least I learned something new today. 👍

 

[pre med 2014]

Its wasn't one charge.

It wasn't two charges.

It wasn't three charges.

It was four charges.

Two of which were felonies. Possession of a stolen vehicle and forgery are not "childish squabbles."

I am 24 years old and have never even been to jail, let alone been charged with anything. You are doing something wrong if you get 4 somewhat unrelated charges in your late teens/ early twenties.


pre med 2014 when you go to med school and are taking boards just remember the answer always is "past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior" if it is an option. You can thank me later for your guaranteed free point on step 1.

That question would never be on an exam because it has no right answer and can depend on hundreds of various unique circumstances.

I would agree with you of a person decides to start selling drugs 'more carefully' because it got them into to trouble you 'could' predict that it will continue to get them into trouble.

However, if that person exercises their free-will and decides to never sell drugs again because it got them into trouble then I would not agree with you about being able to predict a future crime they may commit. I hope this helps you see how flawed your hypothetical question is.

OP did not commit 4 crimes, it was 2. The felonies were dropped and do not need to be disclosed, I believe AMCAS asks about charges that were 'pleaded guilty' too. The two misdemeanors were similar infractions close together enough to count as isolated incidents.

LizzyM,

The 7 days of food rule is not used to convict terrorists, in fact that is not its purpose. The purpose of a vague criteria that can be applied to any American is to discriminate selectively against people of a certain race or color or any other appearance we don't like or trust such as Muslims with beards.

 

[link2swim06]

That question would never be on an exam because it has no right answer and can depend on hundreds of various unique circumstances.

I would agree with you of a person decides to start selling drugs 'more carefully' because it got them into to trouble you 'could' predict that it will continue to get them into trouble.

However, if that person exercises their free-will and decides to never sell drugs again because it got them into trouble then I would not agree with you about being able to predict a future crime they may commit. I hope this helps you see how flawed your hypothetical question is.

OP did not commit 4 crimes, it was 2. The felonies were dropped and do not need to be disclosed, I believe AMCAS asks about charges that were 'pleaded guilty' too. The two misdemeanors were similar infractions close together enough to count as isolated incidents.

LizzyM,

The 7 days of food rule is not used to convict terrorists, in fact that is not its purpose. The purpose of a vague criteria that can be applied to any American is to discriminate selectively against people of a certain race or color or any other appearance we don't like or trust such as Muslims with beards.

No, they use that question frequent. It is pretty well accepted the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

You are free to believe whatever you want, but I am just telling you what is deemed correct by scientific data.



I don't understand how you can conclude someone who can't even own a gun (lost part of their bill of rights) is fit to have the privilege of a medical license.

 

[pre med 2014]

No, they use that question frequent. It is pretty well accepted the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

You are free to believe whatever you want, but I am just telling you what is deemed correct by scientific data.



I don't understand how you can conclude someone who can't even own a gun (lost part of their bill of rights) is fit to have the privilege of a medical license.

I have reviewed the original post and did not find anything about OP losing gun ownership privileges.

It also came to my attention this whole debate is pointless since OP won't have to disclose anything. The 2 misdemeanors were occurred when she was 17 an thus don't need to be reported as they are juvenile offenses. Neither do the felonies since they were dropped.

As for your question, I would have to review the circumstances of how someone came to losing gun ownership privilege. Was it simply the automatic consequence to a domestic violence charge or was there misuse of a weapon or other incident that warranted it?

I am sure that these days you could probably lose a gun license for just about anything, so I would have to carefully review the circumstances before forming a judgement.

 

[pre med 2014]

No, they use that question frequent. It is pretty well accepted the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

You are free to believe whatever you want, but I am just telling you what is deemed correct by scientific data.


.

It's highly immoral to convict a person for a future crime based on loose science and questionable statistics.

 

[link2swim06]

I have reviewed the original post and did not find anything about OP losing gun ownership privileges.

It also came to my attention this whole debate is pointless since OP won't have to disclose anything. The 2 misdemeanors were occurred when she was 17 an thus don't need to be reported as they are juvenile offenses. Neither do the felonies since they were dropped.

As for your question, I would have to review the circumstances of how someone came to losing gun ownership privilege. Was it simply the automatic consequence to a domestic violence charge or was there misuse of a weapon or other incident that warranted it?

I am sure that these days you could probably lose a gun license for just about anything, so I would have to carefully review the circumstances before forming a judgement.

What is a gun license? Owning a gun is a right, not privilege. Apart from very liberal cities, you can just buy a gun (now dangerous things like cars need licenses).

But it is a federal law that ANY domestic violence charge negates your constitutional rights (2nd amendment). For the rest of OPs life he/she can never have a gun. I'd say an unchecked Rx pad and license (think narcotics) is far more dangerous than any firearm.

17 year olds are almost ALWAYS charged as an adult. Hell, we try 14 year olds as adults and give them life sentences without parole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Tate


And per your last quote, is it morale to subject the most ill and helpless people in our society to a person with a violent criminal history? Ethically shouldn't we provide them with the safest possible caretakers? You will learn in med school patient ethics and rights almost always trumps everything else.

 

[deleted303591]

I would agree with you of a person decides to start selling drugs 'more carefully' because it got them into to trouble you 'could' predict that it will continue to get them into trouble.

However, if that person exercises their free-will and decides to never sell drugs again because it got them into trouble then I would not agree with you about being able to predict a future crime they may commit. I hope this helps you see how flawed your hypothetical question is.

Any controlled substance being sold illegally is huge social problem. People who deal drugs have no regard towards others' safety, no matter the situation.

Selling drugs "more carefully" will not get an individual far. People who CHOOSE to engage in these sorts activities including drug dealing, sex crimes, violent crimes, theft, etc have serious ethical dilemmas.

All criminals get caught.

The fact that a huge pool of applicants will never get in to medical school is fine. It is not unfair. You either have what it takes or you don't. The odds are already against me since I took medical withdrawal three times, AND my disease is POTENTIALLY REVERSIBLE. I may be rejected even with an ideal GPA.

Is it fair to me? Maybe not.

Is it in the best interests of the medical schools and the US healthcare system? Probably

And that is just the way it is.

 

[BlackSwan]

It's highly immoral to convict a person for a future crime based on loose science and questionable statistics.

PreCrime 🙂

 

[pre med 2014]

What is a gun license? Owning a gun is a right, not privilege. Apart from very liberal cities, you can just buy a gun (now dangerous things like cars need licenses).

But it is a federal law that ANY domestic violence charge negates your constitutional rights (2nd amendment). For the rest of OPs life he/she can never have a gun. I'd say an unchecked Rx pad and license (think narcotics) is far more dangerous than any firearm.

17 year olds are almost ALWAYS charged as an adult. Hell, we try 14 year olds as adults and give them life sentences without parole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Tate


And per your last quote, is it morale to subject the most ill and helpless people in our society to a person with a violent criminal history? Ethically shouldn't we provide them with the safest possible caretakers? You will learn in med school patient ethics and rights almost always trumps everything else.

I agree with you completely about patient rights.