Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Both can be depending on what the prosecutor decides to throw at you. Furthermore, drug offenses and shoplifting will disqualify you from certain kinds of jobs (notably financial ones) even if they don't rise to the level of a felony. Yep, swipe a shirt at 18, get fired from your job as a bank teller at 57.
Is shoplifting a common youthful practice? It seems many of this thread feel it is.
Maybe he would not HAVE a seventy percent chance of being convicted of a felony again...if he was given an honest chance to start over with a clean slate...ya think?
No, not really. People with felonies are not barred from ALL JOBS. They are barred from SOME jobs. So what? Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Another topic we haven't even discussed is that usually people with a felony are not first time offenders. Show me a felon and I can probably show you someone with a string of lesser offenses dragging behind them.
No, not really. People with felonies are not barred from ALL JOBS. They are barred from SOME jobs. So what? Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
This isn't about doing the time. This is about what happens AFTER you do the time.
No, not really. People with felonies are not barred from ALL JOBS. They are barred from SOME jobs. So what? Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
If you (the royal you) refuse to consider someone with a felony conviction.. Or, as it seems you have said before.. Would hire someone less qualified over the person with a felony conviction.. Then you are de-facto barring them from a job with your company.
There are jobs where, by law, a felony conviction disqualifies you. That's fine.. I mean.. It's hard to be a cop if you can't carry a gun, right? I think everyone understands that part.
However.. Let's take my earlier example of a possession with intent to distribute charge.. I think that's a felony everywhere.. And the 'intent to distribute' part doesn't mean they were intending to distribute.. Just means they had over a certain amount. You've stated that there's no better predictor of future behavior than past behavior. So.. You would not hire the above mentioned person.. Even if it was 20 years ago that it happened. That is your right. I don't agree with it, but.. If you own the business.. You get to make the rules. Myself, I would prefer to judge the person as a whole, not by one single event. If in viewing the whole, there is, indeed, a string of misdemeanor convictions, and a slew of other felony convictions.. Then that's taken as part of the whole and would affect my decision.
You use terms like 'usually'.. Tell me.. Is what you said a whole lot different from "Jewish people are usually good with money"? You're stereotyping, either without realizing you're doing it, or because you feel that it's OK to do against that group of people.
By your example.. Anyone who gets a DUI conviction should lose their license forever. After all.. There's no better predictor of future behavior than prior behavior, right? Once a drunk driver, always a drunk driver. This person.. Single Glass of Wine Immerses D.C. Driver in Legal Battle as an example(Even though she wasn't officially convicted).. Nope, she's a drunk.. Got a DUI.. No more driving for her, ever. circumstances don't matter.. It's a DUI. Groups like AA.. Wasting their time. There's no helping these people.. Just wad them all up and throw them away.
You are saying it's a black and white issue to you.. That's fine.. That's your right. Many people can see the shades of grey. Don't you think the world would be better if we could all see those shades of grey a little more clearly?
I consider you the poster child for NIMBY. "They're not banned from all jobs, but I ban them from my jobs". NIMBY, just in case you don't know.. "Not In My Back Yard"
I think it's absolutely fair to consider criminal history in hiring.. To a point. I think asking if someone has been convicted in the past 7 years.. Check that. Has a conviction in the past 7 years, or is currently on parole/probation for a felony, or were released from prison in the past 7 years (I mean, if you got a 20 year sentence and just got out, you likely weren't convicted in the past 7 years, right?).. That's fair to ask. If someone has been clean for 7 years.. And they're not going for a job where the conviction would be a concern.. ie child molester going to day care.. Embezzler working at a bank, etc.
I've tried rewriting this several times to make it sound less attacky-ish.. It still comes across like that far more than I intend, but.. Not meant to be.. So, after you've read it.. Read it again with the 4th/5th paragraphs being a "Let me use an example that's really out there as contrast" rather than "Let me be an absolute smart-ass". It comes across, even to me as the latter, but is meant to be the former.
This isn't about doing the time. This is about what happens AFTER you do the time.
Bingo.
If you don't give them a chance, you are basically setting them up to fail again.
Might as well just lock them up for life if you're going to do that.
They might not be surrounded by bars, but they are still in prison.
Bingo.
If you don't give them a chance, you are basically setting them up to fail again.
Might as well just lock them up for life if you're going to do that.
They might not be surrounded by bars, but they are still in prison.
I agree with this 100%. Anyone who wants to give these people a chance should not be stopped from doing so. But that should be the employers choice. It's their money and they should get to choose how they spend it.
I'm happy to say that there is a growing trend for Cities and States to pass "ban the box" ordinances which prohibit employers from asking about criminal convictions. Push to ban crime box on job applications expands - SFGate Most iterations of this law allow employers to ask about convictions, but not at the time the application is submitted.
And while Walmart. Labor Ready and a number of other employers absolutely refuse to hire anyone with a conviction - Costco has no problem hiring ex-felons. I worked in law enforcement for over 20 years and a few years ago I ran into a guy working at Costco who had been arrested many times when I was working in the Police Dept. He recognized me and with a big grin proudly told me about how his whole life had turned around after getting hired at Costco, so yes people can actually turn their lives around but it's pretty darned hard without a job...
Walmart does hire ex-felons. I work with at least three right now. Two of them were actually rehires who came back after they finished their sentences. One for a year and one for 18 months. The other is a new hire. Walmart does 'punish' them a little though. They mess with their schedules, don't let them go back to their old dept. until they've been there at least three months and they start back as cart pushers. They hire back people that they've fired as well. Depending on what they got fired for. They get jerked around a little for a while too but they all stay and everything works out, eventually, to everyone's satisfaction. These guys were all convicted of drugs/alcohol. No robbers or murderers. I think even Walmart would draw the line at that!
For all of you people who say ex-cons or people with a felony conviction should not be allowed to have jobs (insane), would you rather them sit back and collect welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, and HEAP the rest of their lives?? Or should they not get that, either? If that's the case, then what is YOUR brilliant solution?
As for "liability" --- the Dept of Labor does provide Bonds for people convicted of felonies so employers don't have to worry.
If you're worried about a sex offender ---- the easiest thing for an employer to do is to check the sex offender registry (public information) and if that person is on it, don't hire them.
The ignorance by some of the people on this thread is sickening. Someone commits a crime and takes their punishment. They now want to live a law-abiding life, which includes working for a living, and you all think they should not be allowed to have jobs. Brilliant.
Ex-felons in my state are not allowed ANY of the above things so, no, they don't get that either. They aren't allowed to vote either. If they are lucky enough to have a strong family connection when they get out they will probably be okay. Getting a job IS the hard part but it can be done with enough 'want to'. I have a few relatives who are ex-felons and they are doing pretty good.
For all of you people who say ex-cons or people with a felony conviction should not be allowed to have jobs (insane), would you rather them sit back and collect welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, and HEAP the rest of their lives?? Or should they not get that, either? If that's the case, then what is YOUR brilliant solution?
As for "liability" --- the Dept of Labor does provide Bonds for people convicted of felonies so employers don't have to worry.
If you're worried about a sex offender ---- the easiest thing for an employer to do is to check the sex offender registry (public information) and if that person is on it, don't hire them.
The ignorance by some of the people on this thread is sickening. Someone commits a crime and takes their punishment. They now want to live a law-abiding life, which includes working for a living, and you all think they should not be allowed to have jobs. Brilliant.
Just like if someone is worried about a sex offender, they are worried about other felons. If you think it should be different for one kind of felon vs another, I must point out your hypocrisy.
My home state is considering a bill that will seal non-violent felony records allow people with a record a chance. Of course having nothing better to do, our office had a discussion about this for fun the other day.
Basically speaking, it never made any sense to me to me about not hiring people with felony records. Isn't the point of our corrections system to try to correct these people and give them another chance?
I know McDonald's won't hire a person if he's got a felony record. In other words, someone who made a stupid mistake years ago would still have trouble getting job. This way, society is literally pushing these people into a corner and force them to steal, rob, etc. again.
I also understand the other side of the argument. I understand that it is a legit concern of employers about these people's background.
What do you guys think?
I think the government should devise some sort of certification system for ex-cons and felons in order to "certify" them as employable or to otherwise help them with the job search process.
I don't have a criteria for certification beyond the idea that it could be along some sort of point system or category table based on things like "clean time" since the last offense, psychological evaluations perhaps, endorsements or references from LE or judicial experts, etc. And the score could improve over time as a job history developed and rehab efforts continued to show continuous improvement.
And boil it all down to a simple numerical score that gives potential employers a referential value to base a judgement about this person on... maybe 5 being "most employable" to 1 being "serious deficiencies".... something like that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
