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.
Yes, it is the gov and the gov alone that assigns criminal records, thus if the gov has issues with criminals being employed, the burden is on the gov, not employers.
No. Criminal records are the result of being found guilty of a crime. The government RECORDS a person's criminal activity but it does not assign it to a person. The person has a criminal record because of his own criminal activity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
You totally missed the point of my post; the gov has issues with employers not hiring criminals, there is even a DOJ and EEOC solicitor running around trying to put the spin on things, and advocating that people with criminal records should be a protected class, thus a suit based on adverse impact can come from the gov.
My post is stating that if the gov has an issue with people with criminal records being hired, the gov is the party with the burden to do soemthing about is because it is only the gov that assigns criminal records; the private sector cannot convict someone of a crime and create a criminal record for a person.
I have an issue with the word assign. The government does not assign criminal records. It records them. If we start hiding criminal records from private employers there will be some pretty dire consequences.
That's a slippery slope. What about people who were fired from previous jobs, but committed no crimes? That's a blot on their record, too, and might keep them from getting hired. Don't they deserve to have this ugly record expunged, every bit as much as a convicted felon does? How come only the felons get to have this wonderful privilege of a clean slate? Gee I think I'll become a felon, since they're now such a protected, exalted class.
Can't you see it now? Sen. Elizabeth Warren introduces a bill: Henceforth, job applicants are not obligated to provide any job history that they deem to be negative or damaging to their prospects of being hired, and employers are not allowed to base hiring decisions on past history. Boy, that'll really fly! You might as well just say, close down the economy, because most employers will immediately stop all domestic hiring, and instead expand overseas.
You can't legislate trust.
Just my 2c.
BY law i don't think they can say-- ANYTHING but you worked there from such to such a time and your position... nothing about how you left,,,, correct me if I am wrong and if state to state is diff?
No. Criminal records are the result of being found guilty of a crime. The government RECORDS a person's criminal activity but it does not assign it to a person. The person has a criminal record because of his own criminal activity.
I have an issue with the word assign. The government does not assign criminal records. It records them. If we start hiding criminal records from private employers there will be some pretty dire consequences.
BS-- BIG BS---what you think they did before we had all these PC's and criminal background companies,,,
they only put that in recently... how old are you??? most probation officers went to the work places,, this is NEW on the scheme of things and not all states have that law,,, I think 13 do NOT-- they didn't fall into the sea
It seems like a lot of you are out of touch with reality. One can pretty much get a felony for spitting on the street.
Second DUI in some states? Convicted felon.
DUI is a serious crime. I think people should be felons for their first DUI. When I go out drinking I make arrangements for transportation or I book a hotel room within walking distance. Everyone else can do the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrEarth
Retail theft of more than $100 in some states as a young teenager? Convicted felon.
No. Young teens are usually treated as juvenile offenders if it is their first offense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrEarth
Punch some guy in a bar at 21? Could be felony assault.
As it should be. 21 is an adult. Adults should know better than to just punch people. Punching someone is usually battery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrEarth
It it's bad enough that a minor mistake will still continue to limit employment prospects due to automatic dismissal of resumes/applications that disclose the mistake, people seem to still make assumptions about people as shown in all of the threads about convictions.
DUI and battery are serious crimes not minor mistakes. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrEarth
Someone who stole $100 item at a store when 20 should not be put in the same category with someone who actually spent time in prison for armed robbery. And the whole purpose of the system is to rehabilitate. If employers refuse to hire people, ever, who have made mistakes, it is leaving few options for trying to live a normal life.
People who are trying to live a normal life don't steal things. I am the parent of a 20 year old. He does not steal. Neither do his friends. They know better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrEarth
It hurts to see some of the responses who obviously have no exposure to anything outside of their little bubble, and paint everyone with the same brush.
I don't paint everyone with the same brush but I have a hard time feeling sorry for felons.
There are jops, that by U.S. law are prohibited to be given to Felons. One is Miners. Reason they work with explosives and felons are prohibited by Federal Law from working where explosives are used.
Then there are jobs that certain felons should not be able to be hired for. One is identity theft felons, should be kept away from any company dealing with credit cards, etc. Banks. Etc.
Child molester not allowed to work in Day Care, and Teachers as an other example.
There are many jobs, where Felons especially of a certain type be prohibited from working at.
Problem: Many people with children will view them as a hazard and dangerous. They will be turned off from buying your home. Don't think if they don't like them they can tear them down. The are not going to buy your home, and not enough people that like them to be sure you can find a buyer with those pillars there.
Opinion of a long time Realtor, now retired.
One thing Realtors are taught, is to look for potential hazards that will turn off buyers, and those are a hazard to at least half of the potential buyers. And those that are turned off, are the ones that would probably be the potential buyer.
BS-- BIG BS---what you think they did before we had all these PC's and criminal background companies,,,
they only put that in recently... how old are you???
I am 48. These criminal background checks didn't just sprout up last week. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because it was more cumbersome to do a background check that there weren't any background checks.
When I worked on Wall Street in the early 1990s I had a criminal background check done on me. I was also fingerprinted and drug tested. Just because a criminal background check was more difficult to do years ago that does not mean that it did not exist and that it was not done.
My experience has been that a person who disclosed an arrest that was old and it was minor they were still able to be hired. However, no matter how minor it was if the person lied about it they did not get hired. I know a few people who had public urination arrests who were not hired because they did not disclose the arrest and it came up in their background check. However, I know other people who had more serious arrests (DUI) who did get hired because they disclose the arrest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinytrump
most probation officers went to the work places,, this is NEW on the scheme of things and not all states have that law,,, I think 13 do NOT-- they didn't fall into the sea
What law is "that law?" As far as I know there is no law compelling employers to do criminal background checks. They just do them because it is in their best interest.
There are jops, that by U.S. law are prohibited to be given to Felons. One is Miners. Reason they work with explosives and felons are prohibited by Federal Law from working where explosives are used.
Then there are jobs that certain felons should not be able to be hired for. One is identity theft felons, should be kept away from any company dealing with credit cards, etc. Banks. Etc.
Child molester not allowed to work in Day Care, and Teachers as an other example.
There are many jobs, where Felons especially of a certain type be prohibited from working at.
That's the main one that I'd be concerned about. If such a law were passed, to hide your felony records from potential employers, there'd have to be several major exceptions.
Sexual predators usually aren't cured; they're incarcerated to protect the public. To be so stupid and naive as to think these people should be allowed to work some place where they'd have contact with children, well it boggles the mind.
Now, let's take a woman who was raped and brutalized by her man until she shot him dead, and had to serve time (unfair, but it happens, especially if you have an ambitious, ruthless D.A. and a lousy defense attorney).
I basically have no problem with her getting a full pardon, getting some kind of restitution from the man's family, getting public assistance for as long as she needs it, and her record expunged. I'd have some lingering questions about how she got into this relationship, why she didn't get out of it sooner, etc., but it's easier said than done.
But take a guy who spent a year embezzling tens of thousands of dollars from his employer's treasury through some shady scheme -- unfortunately a very common occurrence since the 1960s in our amoral society. I have no problem seeing him picking up roadside litter for the rest of his life. White collar crime is committed by people who dress nicely for work, sit in air conditioned offices all day, and make a decent salary--maybe not a fortune but better than many others.
And DUI that kills or maims an innocent person -- yeah, I have a big problem with forgiveness. 34,000+ deaths last year from car accidents, plus hundreds of thousands of injuries including paralysis, brain damage, etc. At least a third of these accidents are said to be alcohol related. Without DUI, there'd be 10,000 or more extra people walking around, alive, every year.
I feel good about my position on felony records. You can get nitpicky about certain victim-less crimes, like the 18-year-old picked up for weed possession, and I'm persuadable. But overall, we need people to suffer the consequences of their actions more, not less.
That's the main one that I'd be concerned about. If such a law were passed, to hide your felony records from potential employers, there'd have to be several major exceptions.
Now, let's take a woman who was raped and brutalized by her man until she shot him dead, and had to serve time (unfair, but it happens, especially if you have an ambitious, ruthless D.A. and a lousy defense attorney).
I basically have no problem with her getting a full pardon, getting some kind of restitution from the man's family, getting public assistance for as long as she needs it, and her record expunged. I'd have some lingering questions about how she got into this relationship, why she didn't get out of it sooner, etc., but it's easier said than done.
But take a guy who spent a year embezzling tens of thousands of dollars from his employer's treasury through some shady scheme -- unfortunately a very common occurrence since the 1960s in our amoral society. I have no problem seeing him picking up roadside litter for the rest of his life. White collar crime is committed by people who dress nicely for work, sit in air conditioned offices all day, and make a decent salary--maybe not a fortune but better than many others.
And DUI that kills or maims an innocent person -- yeah, I have a big problem with forgiveness. 34,000+ deaths last year from car accidents, plus hundreds of thousands of injuries including paralysis, brain damage, etc. At least a third of these accidents are said to be alcohol related. Without DUI, there'd be 10,000 or more extra people walking around, alive, every year.
I feel good about my position on felony records. You can get nitpicky about certain victim-less crimes, like the 18-year-old picked up for weed possession, and I'm persuadable. But overall, we need people to suffer the consequences of their actions more, not less.
The issue is, the felony record permanently puts them in a "life of crime" or crappy track that makes living straight 10x harder: end result is more thugs repeating they're crime.
I worked for a jerk who used to hire tons of prison labor....he took full advantage of the fact many of his employees had no bargaining chips. After working for that *******, I'd have slung drugs too if I have no other job opportunities.
Personally I'd rather just exile most violent offenders to some island...
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.
