If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Penal institution graduates pushing to have the question "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" dropped from job applications because they fear it immediately blacklists them. No word what will happen when they learn of background checks   (npr.org) divider line 154
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1892 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jul 2014 at 11:17 AM (19 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



154 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-14 08:53:13 AM  
The point, Submitter, is that background checks are fine. To have "have you been arrested and convicted for a crime" on an application is akin to asking "You know we're just going to throw out your application if you answer 'yes', right?"

/I mean, it's not like a felon would, you know, *lie* or anything, right?
 
2014-07-14 09:32:55 AM  
If you believe that prison is, to any real effect, a tool for actual rehabilitation then you're almost bound to believe that discrimination against rehabilitated agents is a bad thing. Ex-felons (who disproportionately represent poor and minority backgrounds, leading to arguments of classism and racism) suffer greatly trying to re-enter the workforce. Rehabilitated or not, that "have you been convicted of a crime?" question almost certainly disqualifies a candidate from any meaningful job.

The effect of this is, of course, to promote recidivism. Without a good job, former criminals are more likely to commit more crimes to get by and thereby re-enter the prison system. After the second offense there's almost no going back to the regular, productive world outside of prison walls.

If, on the other hand, you don't believe prison is a system for rehabilitation and you're okay accepting the consequences of just sweeping people under the rug then, well, I suppose that question on employment, service, and housing applications is just fine. If you want to acknowledge that the penal system is effective only at turning out hardened criminals and creating a more violent and less productive society, then that's okay, but don't be disingenuous about it.

Regarding classism and racism: When a kid enters the penal system (because let's be honest, there aren't exactly too many people who decide to commit their first notable crime in their 20s when they have an established life and career), he or she is at a huge disadvantage if they've not had the benefits of the middle- or upper-class behind them. They likely don't know court presentation skills (and how to act in front of a judge), how to navigate the legal system (what does it mean to have a court-appointed attorney?), options available to them (plea bargain, diversion, or probation), or really what life may offer outside of crime. I'm not talking triple-homicide gang wars here, I'm talking about people who made mistakes and are trying to improve their lives.

So, ask yourself that tough question: Are you okay with discriminating against people just because you've had a blessed upbringing? Nearly everybody has committed an infraction; most have just had the felicity not to be caught, or to be caught and been given lighter or deferred judgment. It sure helps if you're a white kid with family money. Do you feel superior, like you're a better class of person because your record is clean? Do you not feel like this is maybe a bit of "being born on third base and thinking you hit a triple," just a little bit?

Background checks are a different matter entirely. If a person is able to secure a face-to-face interview and explain their story -- because that's what it is, a story of a life -- to someone it is much, much easier to overcome that obstacle and stigma of arrest. If you can show that you're an honest person who has been truly rehabilitated and is interested in being productive, contributing to society, and bettering yourself (just as most folks outside a cell), then you have a huge step up on avoiding the black list. I guarantee you that two lines on an application form aren't going to provide enough meaning to push a candidate out of the trash bin and into the HR director's inbox. An earnest face-to-face interview, on the other hand, very well may.

For further interrogation, why not examine why it's illegal to ask a candidate's age, religion, or of any other protected status? A candidate won't be able to hide their age when they get to an interview, but it's a lot easier to overcome shortcomings and misgivings in person than it is via an application or a CV. If the penal system is truly about rehabilitation, we need to treat it as if rehabilitation is its end and not just an occasional side-effect and this means treating rehabilitated people as people, not chattel, and giving them the best possible opportunities to make amends and seek those Jeffersonian goals enshrined in our own Declaration of Independence.
 
2014-07-14 09:49:40 AM  
Chearie Phelps-El

Long-lost Kryptonian...?
 
2014-07-14 10:22:07 AM  
Everyone has burned down a store or maybe accidently strangled his girlfriend. I know that not getting caught is an important thing, but really, that's the only difference between us and the felons we're talking about. You leave one witness alive, and you'll end up with tattoos on your face. Grease him, and you'll be a productive member of society. That's a pretty fine line to be drawing, when we're talking about a person's life here.
 
2014-07-14 10:29:13 AM  
I know someone who made a bad mistake committing a crime and went to prison. He was not a bad seed before, and is a fine person now. Has said being jailed stops him from even thinking about speeding on the highway.

The other two who were involved but didn't get caught, however... they haven't changed at all, from what I hear.
 
2014-07-14 10:38:07 AM  

Shostie: Chearie Phelps-El

Long-lost Kryptonian...?


Looks more like Amanda Waller to me.
 
2014-07-14 11:04:08 AM  

rumpelstiltskin: Everyone has burned down a store or maybe accidently strangled his girlfriend. I know that not getting caught is an important thing, but really, that's the only difference between us and the felons we're talking about. You leave one witness alive, and you'll end up with tattoos on your face. Grease him, and you'll be a productive member of society. That's a pretty fine line to be drawing, when we're talking about a person's life here.


Yeah, questions like this are just a way of bringing up bad memories.  It's all water under the bridge at this point, or maybe just meth-fueled circus midget crime sprees we'd all like to forget about.
 
2014-07-14 11:22:46 AM  
I heard this on the radio this morning the lady they interviewed sounded like a complete idiot.
 
2014-07-14 11:23:22 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: The point, Submitter, is that background checks are fine. To have "have you been arrested and convicted for a crime" on an application is akin to asking "You know we're just going to throw out your application if you answer 'yes', right?"

/I mean, it's not like a felon would, you know, *lie* or anything, right?


this. if the box on page 1 is checked "yes", there are many places that would just discard such apps. if they actually get past that, and do the background check on a job candidate who seems qualified, and say they find out the candidate was convicted several years ago of some non-violent felony that would have no bearing on said candidate's ability to perform the job, then maybe that candidate has a chance of a 2nd chance at life.

people screw up...people make bad choices...some people's screw-ups land them in jail or prison. some will never be able to be a productive member of society ever again, but many will...why should a blemish on their past automatically keep them from a chance?
 
2014-07-14 11:26:23 AM  

TwistedIvory: For further interrogation, why not examine why it's illegal to ask a candidate's age, religion, or of any other protected status? A candidate won't be able to hide their age when they get to an interview, but it's a lot easier to overcome shortcomings and misgivings in person than it is via an application or a CV. If the penal system is truly about rehabilitation, we need to treat it as if rehabilitation is its end and not just an occasional side-effect and this means treating rehabilitated people as people, not chattel, and giving them the best possible opportunities to make amends and seek those Jeffersonian goals enshrined in our own Declaration of Independence.


But If my boss hires an ex-con (especially one that was convicted of a violent crime) and that person commits an act of workplace violence, I will be completely justified when I sue for buckets of money for introducing a known risk of violence into my workplace.
 
2014-07-14 11:26:41 AM  
Almost every employer does credit and criminal background checks these days. But I supposed a yes answer to such a question would save a few bucks and a bit of time, since the application would just be round-filed.
 
2014-07-14 11:26:42 AM  
If only there was a way to not commit crime and get convicted.

None of us are safe.
 
2014-07-14 11:27:30 AM  
Let's stop putting so many people in jail for crimes that don't involve fraud, abuse, or violence, then.
 
2014-07-14 11:28:40 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: The point, Submitter, is that background checks are fine. To have "have you been arrested and convicted for a crime" on an application is akin to asking "You know we're just going to throw out your application if you answer 'yes', right?"

/I mean, it's not like a felon would, you know, *lie* or anything, right?


Also, you don't get a background check untiil they are interested in actually hiring you.

At which point, getting busted for marijuana possession 5 years ago isn't likely to keep you from getting hired.

However, if you checked "yes" you will find your application tossed without even being looked at.
 
2014-07-14 11:29:50 AM  

bungle_jr: this. if the box on page 1 is checked "yes", there are many places that would just discard such apps. if they actually get past that, and do the background check on a job candidate who seems qualified, and say they find out the candidate was convicted several years ago of some non-violent felony that would have no bearing on said candidate's ability to perform the job, then maybe that candidate has a chance of a 2nd chance at life.


Usually a confirmed lie on an application is imediately disqualified for employment.  And can also be grounds for summary termination at any time during employment.  e.g. You are late for work one single day by 5 minutes and they wee you lied on your application, you can be summarily fired with no unemployment.
 
2014-07-14 11:31:07 AM  
The Washington resident was released from prison about a year ago after serving five years for felony assault for fighting with two other women.
Damn I feel sorry for her next boyfriend/girlfriend
 
2014-07-14 11:32:01 AM  
Convicted?  No

i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-07-14 11:33:01 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: The point, Submitter, is that background checks are fine. To have "have you been arrested and convicted for a crime" on an application is akin to asking "You know we're just going to throw out your application if you answer 'yes', right?"

/I mean, it's not like a felon would, you know, *lie* or anything, right?



And what if it is a job where any crime popping up on a background check WOULD automatically DQ you? Why should a company have to waste time and money (paying the hiring folks) to interview someone who never has a chance? My local City Council is working on something like this, to prevent anyone from asking about criminal history before a face-to-face, and it's a terrible idea.

I work in a medical field and we're looking to fill a few assistant-type positions. Since we have controlled substances around no one who has any drug history at all is going to even be considered.  Total waste of time to be forced to interview someone and then find out they have a conviction that precludes their hiring anyway


.

GORDON: If only there was a way to not commit crime and get convicted.

None of us are safe.


Also, that.
 
2014-07-14 11:34:02 AM  

Tricky Chicken: TwistedIvory: For further interrogation, why not examine why it's illegal to ask a candidate's age, religion, or of any other protected status? A candidate won't be able to hide their age when they get to an interview, but it's a lot easier to overcome shortcomings and misgivings in person than it is via an application or a CV. If the penal system is truly about rehabilitation, we need to treat it as if rehabilitation is its end and not just an occasional side-effect and this means treating rehabilitated people as people, not chattel, and giving them the best possible opportunities to make amends and seek those Jeffersonian goals enshrined in our own Declaration of Independence.

But If my boss hires an ex-con (especially one that was convicted of a violent crime) and that person commits an act of workplace violence, I will be completely justified when I sue for buckets of money for introducing a known risk of violence into my workplace.


Actually, you wouldn't be completely justified.  The idea with jail is you serve a penalty, then when you're done you get to resume life.  If society is set up such that it is basically impossible for a former criminal to ever get a productive job again, then what do you think he's going to do with his life?

In a proper societal setup, we would tell delicate little flowers like you to shut up for the good of everyone else.  NIMBY-ism with regards to people you work with is exactly the problem here.  If the attitude is "I'm fine with ex-cons getting jobs, just not with me" then you're basically dooming anyone who has ever committed a crime to a life in a subclass where they really have no other way to make money except to commit more crime.
 
2014-07-14 11:35:16 AM  

TwistedIvory: Are you okay with discriminating against people just because you've had a blessed upbringing? Nearly everybody has committed an infraction; most have just had the felicity not to be caught, or to be caught and been given lighter or deferred judgment.


Since when is not being a criminal having a "blessed upbringing"? I know plenty of individuals that haven't committed crimes that would reject them from any job...because they chose not to break the law. And I'm not talking about speeding tickets. Some of their peers went to prison...because they broke the law.

Also, are you saying that there's less of a chance getting caught it you had a blessed upbringing? That would be equal among all citizens. However, the judgement after getting caught could be significantly different.
 
2014-07-14 11:36:17 AM  

EnormousGreenRageMonster: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: The point, Submitter, is that background checks are fine. To have "have you been arrested and convicted for a crime" on an application is akin to asking "You know we're just going to throw out your application if you answer 'yes', right?"

/I mean, it's not like a felon would, you know, *lie* or anything, right?


And what if it is a job where any crime popping up on a background check WOULD automatically DQ you? Why should a company have to waste time and money (paying the hiring folks) to interview someone who never has a chance? My local City Council is working on something like this, to prevent anyone from asking about criminal history before a face-to-face, and it's a terrible idea.



It's good to see that your local City Council is doing the right thing despite the efforts of people like you.
 
2014-07-14 11:37:50 AM  

milowitz: TwistedIvory: Are you okay with discriminating against people just because you've had a blessed upbringing? Nearly everybody has committed an infraction; most have just had the felicity not to be caught, or to be caught and been given lighter or deferred judgment.

Since when is not being a criminal having a "blessed upbringing"? I know plenty of individuals that haven't committed crimes that would reject them from any job...because they chose not to break the law. And I'm not talking about speeding tickets. Some of their peers went to prison...because they broke the law.

Also, are you saying that there's less of a chance getting caught it you had a blessed upbringing? That would be equal among all citizens. However, the judgement after getting caught could be significantly different.


Wait a minute...you really think the chance of getting caught doing a crime is equal among all citizens?  Like, people in the world actually think that?
 
2014-07-14 11:38:00 AM  

milowitz: TwistedIvory: Are you okay with discriminating against people just because you've had a blessed upbringing? Nearly everybody has committed an infraction; most have just had the felicity not to be caught, or to be caught and been given lighter or deferred judgment.

Since when is not being a criminal having a "blessed upbringing"? I know plenty of individuals that haven't committed crimes that would reject them from any job...because they chose not to break the law. And I'm not talking about speeding tickets. Some of their peers went to prison...because they broke the law.

Also, are you saying that there's less of a chance getting caught it you had a blessed upbringing? That would be equal among all citizens. However, the judgement after getting caught could be significantly different.


I think he is saying you better check your privilege if you think it is obvious you should not be a criminal.
 
2014-07-14 11:38:53 AM  
Some countries are better at rehabilitation than others.

"Also it is not just prison that can rehabilitate - it is often a combined process involving probation and greater society. We can give education and training, but when they leave prison these people need housing and jobs."
 
2014-07-14 11:41:03 AM  
If you've served your sentence than you've paid your debt to society. There should be no further sanctions
 
2014-07-14 11:42:02 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: The point, Submitter, is that background checks are fine. To have "have you been arrested and convicted for a crime" on an application is akin to asking "You know we're just going to throw out your application if you answer 'yes', right?"

/I mean, it's not like a felon would, you know, *lie* or anything, right?


Regardless of the merits of screening people who have been convicted of crimes, the "arrested" bit is total BS. Cops mistake you for someone else? Haha! No more jobs for you! Cops arrest you and then find out you had nothing to do with the crime they suspected you of? Tough shiat - back to the unemployment line. Someone maliciously files a false report and you get arrested? Have fun hoping HR drones will bother to read or believe your explanation.
 
2014-07-14 11:42:24 AM  

bungle_jr: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: The point, Submitter, is that background checks are fine. To have "have you been arrested and convicted for a crime" on an application is akin to asking "You know we're just going to throw out your application if you answer 'yes', right?"

/I mean, it's not like a felon would, you know, *lie* or anything, right?

this. if the box on page 1 is checked "yes", there are many places that would just discard such apps. if they actually get past that, and do the background check on a job candidate who seems qualified, and say they find out the candidate was convicted several years ago of some non-violent felony that would have no bearing on said candidate's ability to perform the job, then maybe that candidate has a chance of a 2nd chance at life.

people screw up...people make bad choices...some people's screw-ups land them in jail or prison. some will never be able to be a productive member of society ever again, but many will...why should a blemish on their past automatically keep them from a chance?


Mostly that.  The only chance a convict has in rejoining productive society is full admittance of and repentance for their crimes.  That means honesty and proving that you are not going to repeat your past actions.  If you leave something off and they do a background check and see what you've done there's no chance. Being honest about your past is the only way you can hope to be presented with opportunity.
 
2014-07-14 11:42:56 AM  
balloot:

It's good to see that your local City Council is doing the right thing despite the efforts of people like you.


So forcing businesses to waste time and money interviewing people that they will never in a million years hire anyway is "doing the right thing"? Along with wasting the applicants time and getting their hopes up by giving them an interview that has no chance at all of going anywhere?  Interesting perspective.
 
2014-07-14 11:43:47 AM  
In our case, it doesn't help us at all to hire someone who can't get a security clearance. We would just have to fire them and start the process over.
 
2014-07-14 11:45:06 AM  
Interviewer:  This is a very impressing resume, Mr. Freakstorm.  But there's a seven year gap here between 2003 and 2010.

Harry:  Seven years?  Oh.... yeah.  Good behavior.  I was working for the state government.  Using basic tools, I reduced larger units to smaller one.  I had one immediate supervisor.  He said I was an excellent 'employee' and 'not a flight risk at all.'
 
2014-07-14 11:45:43 AM  

TwistedIvory: If you believe that prison is, to any real effect, a tool for actual rehabilitation


My state's penal code specifically states that confinement is for punishment.  Rehabilitation has nothing to do with it. With it codified that way rehabilitation is not given a real priority.
 
2014-07-14 11:46:13 AM  

Tricky Chicken: bungle_jr: this. if the box on page 1 is checked "yes", there are many places that would just discard such apps. if they actually get past that, and do the background check on a job candidate who seems qualified, and say they find out the candidate was convicted several years ago of some non-violent felony that would have no bearing on said candidate's ability to perform the job, then maybe that candidate has a chance of a 2nd chance at life.

Usually a confirmed lie on an application is imediately disqualified for employment.  And can also be grounds for summary termination at any time during employment.  e.g. You are late for work one single day by 5 minutes and they wee you lied on your application, you can be summarily fired with no unemployment.


Yes.  Worked as an HR manager for many years.  We would fire even good active employees if we found out they had falsified the application.  We WOULD consider people with convictions if they did not involve an act of dishonestly that seemed relevant to the work involved in the job.  Felons need not apply.

The fundamental problem is that no one is warning kids strongly enough that  stealing stuff is likely to ruin their lives.  However, before we start dragging out the 'poor children ruined for life at age 13' meme, remember that almost all Juvenile records are sealed, need not be disclosed, and thus are 'invisible' to the hiring process. You have to have f*cked up as an adult to ruin your life forever, which kind of reduced my sympathy.
 
2014-07-14 11:51:21 AM  

balloot: Actually, you wouldn't be completely justified.  The idea with jail is you serve a penalty, then when you're done you get to resume life.  If society is set up such that it is basically impossible for a former criminal to ever get a productive job again, then what do you think he's going to do with his life?

In a proper societal setup, we would tell delicate little flowers like you to shut up for the good of everyone else.  NIMBY-ism with regards to people you work with is exactly the problem here.  If the attitude is "I'm fine with ex-cons getting jobs, just not with me" then you're basically dooming anyone who has ever committed a crime to a life in a subclass where they really have no other way to make money except to commit more crime.


Yet we have prisons filled with people who committed a small crime, yet those pesky "Tough on crime"™ politicians have made almost all crimes into some sort of felony... Then those same politicians get to go on record that they made our streets safer by doing this...

Meanwhile unemployment is going crazy, because people are checking "Yes" on that box and are surprised when no one calls them back...

I've seen it personally, where something my kids have done is the same BS I did as a kid, yet where I had to pay damages or replace the stuff, now they're "serious felony charges"... I'm talking about, for example, swiping a CO2 fire extinguisher and using it to cool your beer is now 2 felony charges... 1 for swiping it, the other for discharging it unnecessarily...
 
2014-07-14 11:52:04 AM  

balloot: Tricky Chicken: TwistedIvory: For further interrogation, why not examine why it's illegal to ask a candidate's age, religion, or of any other protected status? A candidate won't be able to hide their age when they get to an interview, but it's a lot easier to overcome shortcomings and misgivings in person than it is via an application or a CV. If the penal system is truly about rehabilitation, we need to treat it as if rehabilitation is its end and not just an occasional side-effect and this means treating rehabilitated people as people, not chattel, and giving them the best possible opportunities to make amends and seek those Jeffersonian goals enshrined in our own Declaration of Independence.

But If my boss hires an ex-con (especially one that was convicted of a violent crime) and that person commits an act of workplace violence, I will be completely justified when I sue for buckets of money for introducing a known risk of violence into my workplace.

Actually, you wouldn't be completely justified.  The idea with jail is you serve a penalty, then when you're done you get to resume life.  If society is set up such that it is basically impossible for a former criminal to ever get a productive job again, then what do you think he's going to do with his life?

In a proper societal setup, we would tell delicate little flowers like you to shut up for the good of everyone else.  NIMBY-ism with regards to people you work with is exactly the problem here.  If the attitude is "I'm fine with ex-cons getting jobs, just not with me" then you're basically dooming anyone who has ever committed a crime to a life in a subclass where they really have no other way to make money except to commit more crime.


If I am injured like a delicate little flower, and the cause of that injury was due to the actions of a violent attack, and there was a clear and easy way for my employer to determine that the person they hired had a history of such violence, how would I not be justified in bringing a suit? My employer is responsible for providing a safe work environment.  I don't care who they hire, nor do I speak out about anybody they hire. So I don't need to shut up, since I don't speak out.

But should my employer hire a person that in turn injures me, and there are reasonable ways for them to be forewarned that the person has violent tendencies, you can bet that I will file suit for as much as I can get.

Also, if I am called to sit on a jury when somebody is injured by a violent felon that was hired, I will vote to award them the maximum allowed by the court.
 
2014-07-14 11:52:26 AM  
I had a DUI over 20 years ago, and I still have to explain it when applying for a job.  They don't just ask about felonies, nor only recent infractions..  Sometimes it's worded in a way that I'm expected to explain speeding tickets.  ("Have you ever been convicted of a crime?"). And when you put anything in that section, no matter what it was or the fact that you already paid for your mistake, you might as well throw the application away at home and save yourself a stamp.

That question is a scarlet letter that eliminates candidates from entirely consideration.  If you can make it through the screening process and interview and get to the point where they want to hire you, they are free to do a background check and decide then if the crime outweighs your assets.  But when that question is asked up front, you never get a chance.
 
2014-07-14 11:53:13 AM  

doubled99: If you've served your sentence than you've paid your debt to society. There should be no further sanctions


A great sentiment. A noble sentiment.  I admire your sentiment.

There's just one small problem with it:


National Statistics on Recidivism
Bureau of Justice Statistics studies have found high rates of recidivism among released prisoners. One study tracked 404,638 prisoners in 30 states after their release from prison in 2005.

Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.

Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year.

Property offenders were the most likely to be rearrested, with 82.1 percent of released property offenders arrested for a new crime compared with 76.9 percent of drug offenders, 73.6 percent of public order offenders and 71.3 percent of violent offenders.
 
2014-07-14 11:53:18 AM  
If you ever committed any crime, or were even arrested, you should never be allowed to have a job or participate in society ever again.

That way, you won't commit more crimes. Since you have no legal way to support yourself.
 
2014-07-14 11:54:09 AM  

milowitz: Since when is not being a criminal having a "blessed upbringing"? I know plenty of individuals that haven't committed crimes that would reject them from any job...because they chose not to break the law. And I'm not talking about speeding tickets. Some of their peers went to prison...because they broke the law.

Also, are you saying that there's less of a chance getting caught it you had a blessed upbringing? That would be equal among all citizens. However, the judgement after getting caught could be significantly different.


To clarify, those who are born into a privileged class (viz., white/middle-class income/etc.) are less likely by far to be arrested or convicted of crimes. That's what I meant by a "blessed upbringing." Those arrests or convictions that don't happen may be due to a lack of police presence in affluent areas, political influence, a willingness for a responding officer not to arrest a kid for, say, drug or alcohol possession, etc. They may also be due to a family's ability to afford a lawyer, knowledge of legal resources, and so on. White people are arrested at a lower rate comparative to the population than are black people. If memory serves, this also applies to low-income vs. middle-income adolescents (though I'd have to dig to find this resource, as the last time I looked up these figures was over a decade ago and things may have changed).

CSB: When I was a punk high-school kid I drove with disregard to speed limits. I couldn't afford a lawyer, but I found that I could use the legal library to research local and case law and act as my own attorney. In this manner I was able to have virtually all of my traffic citations dismissed. At one point, I even acted as a pro tem solicitor (though I ended up representing him in court, too) for a friend who had been arrested for a slew of charges (for instance, "carrying a concealed weapon;" he had a decorative knife in his glovebox) following a traffic stop. I put in a bunch of hours and became well-acquainted with Black's Law Dictionary, relevant statues, and the procedures required to subpoena people and evidence. On our day in court I won the case handily and all charges were dismissed.

I wasn't a privileged upper-class kid, but I had access to a solid public education and community resources such as a law library. As such, I was able to learn how to navigate the legal system and how to represent myself in court. These avenues are not always available to everyone. Arrests and consequences thereafter are often tied to socioeconomic status prior to offense.

And, to the main point, if we are to treat prison as a rehabilitation device we need to do so by not branding a scarlet letter on those who wish to re-enter society as productive citizens -- not just selectively allowing certain people to resume their lives and subjecting others to menial tasks forever or returning to crime. Not everyone can write a tell-all autobiography or start a felon security consulting firm, after all.

I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear, by the way. I have strong feelings on this topic and much to say; it's difficult to be concise while conveying all relevant points.
 
2014-07-14 11:55:48 AM  

Arcturus72: balloot: Actually, you wouldn't be completely justified.  The idea with jail is you serve a penalty, then when you're done you get to resume life.  If society is set up such that it is basically impossible for a former criminal to ever get a productive job again, then what do you think he's going to do with his life?

In a proper societal setup, we would tell delicate little flowers like you to shut up for the good of everyone else.  NIMBY-ism with regards to people you work with is exactly the problem here.  If the attitude is "I'm fine with ex-cons getting jobs, just not with me" then you're basically dooming anyone who has ever committed a crime to a life in a subclass where they really have no other way to make money except to commit more crime.

Yet we have prisons filled with people who committed a small crime, yet those pesky "Tough on crime"™ politicians have made almost all crimes into some sort of felony... Then those same politicians get to go on record that they made our streets safer by doing this...

Meanwhile unemployment is going crazy, because people are checking "Yes" on that box and are surprised when no one calls them back...

I've seen it personally, where something my kids have done is the same BS I did as a kid, yet where I had to pay damages or replace the stuff, now they're "serious felony charges"... I'm talking about, for example, swiping a CO2 fire extinguisher and using it to cool your beer is now 2 felony charges... 1 for swiping it, the other for discharging it unnecessarily...


Now, the issues of what crimes are prosecuted and classified as felonies and the associated penalties is an entirely different thing all together.
 
2014-07-14 11:56:10 AM  
Kid, have you rehabilitated yourself?
 
2014-07-14 12:00:34 PM  

dajoro: That question is a scarlet letter that eliminates candidates from entirely consideration. If you can make it through the screening process and interview and get to the point where they want to hire you, they are free to do a background check and decide then if the crime outweighs your assets. But when that question is asked up front, you never get a chance.


The entire point of applicaitons and resumes is not to get you an interview. Their purpose is to narrow down the field of applicants for the hiring manager to a reasonable level.  If you are the only person applying for a job, then congratulations you are likely to get the job.
 
2014-07-14 12:01:27 PM  

Penal institution


heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh

"Penal"

cdn.screenrant.com
 
2014-07-14 12:05:32 PM  

Harry Freakstorm: Interviewer:  This is a very impressing resume, Mr. Freakstorm.  But there's a seven year gap here between 2003 and 2010.

Harry:  Seven years?  Oh.... yeah.  Good behavior.  I was working for the state government.  Using basic tools, I reduced larger units to smaller one.  I had one immediate supervisor.  He said I was an excellent 'employee' and 'not a flight risk at all.'


And that gap is the job killer. When I applied for my last job They wanted a job history from the time I graduated high school. I filled in the 10 year gap with fakes. They didn't check and I worked there 15 years (until the plant closed). Yes, I lied. Yes, they would have fired me if they found out. But that would have happened within the first 90 days if it was going to happen. It didn't.
 
2014-07-14 12:07:15 PM  

balloot: you're basically dooming anyone who has ever committed a crime to a life in a subclass where they really have no other way to make money except to commit more crime.


fightinginsanity.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-07-14 12:14:15 PM  

Mirandized: that gap is the job killer


I had an interesting issue converting from a temp to a full-timer at my current gig.

They did a background check through a third party, and the third party was having trouble verifying my most recent gig via the temp agency, even though it was in service of this same employer.

I can kinda see it (if the employer gets involved in the background check, they lose their +2 amulet of "we do independent background checks"), but it was annoying trying to get hold of someone at that temp agency (I'm still not convinced the agency actually had any humans running it).
 
2014-07-14 12:14:29 PM  
National Statistics on Recidivism
Bureau of Justice Statistics studies have found high rates of recidivism among released prisoners. One study tracked 404,638 prisoners in 30 states after their release from prison in 2005.
Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year.
Property offenders were the most likely to be rearrested, with 82.1 percent of released property offenders arrested for a new crime compared with 76.9 percent of drug offenders, 73.6 percent of public order offenders and 71.3 percent of violent offenders.


So you're saying statistics show that this group of people is more prone to committing crimes.
 I wonder what other groups might not like this generalization applied to them?
 
2014-07-14 12:15:30 PM  
Recidivism

"It's an ugly word, Hi
/okay then"
 
2014-07-14 12:15:54 PM  
Has any screw really been far even as decided to use even go want to do convicted more like?
 
2014-07-14 12:17:48 PM  

dywed88: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: The point, Submitter, is that background checks are fine. To have "have you been arrested and convicted for a crime" on an application is akin to asking "You know we're just going to throw out your application if you answer 'yes', right?"

/I mean, it's not like a felon would, you know, *lie* or anything, right?

Also, you don't get a background check untiil they are interested in actually hiring you.

At which point, getting busted for marijuana possession 5 years ago isn't likely to keep you from getting hired.

However, if you checked "yes" you will find your application tossed without even being looked at.


If you didn't check it, and a conviction shows up on a background check, I'm going to toss your application because you lied on it.
 
2014-07-14 12:18:41 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Now, the issues of what crimes are prosecuted and classified as felonies and the associated penalties is an entirely different thing all together.


Yes, but it doesn't matter if it's a 4th degree felony or 1st degree, the lawyers and prosecutor were all saying the same thing: "These are some pretty serious felony charges" when I was saying "Um, no... I'm still surprised it's a felony when it was a misdemeanor when I did it"...

I also agree with what the earlier commenter said about ability to hire a lawyer... They looked at my income and said "You don't qualify for legal aid. You have to hire your own lawyer"... It didn't matter that I am living paycheck to 3 days before paycheck, I made too much money to be able to use a court appointed attorney... I had to take a loan from my own dad to hire one, but the fact that I did saved him getting charged as an adult...

Jail isn't and hasn't been about rehabilitation... It's all about how some politician who can make "Tough on crime"™ laws and fill those for profit prisons for getting kickbacks from the people who run them, and keeping them filled.... Piss on those lowly enough to get sent to prison and their families who have to figure out how to keep food in their bellies and a roof over their heads without a primary provider...
 
Displayed 50 of 154 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report