[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Speegleagle

Well the party is over for him in my book. Did he also sign the new Trucking usage tax bill, which in reality is a tax on every CT citizen ?

I’m not sure if he signed the trucking bill, but I would be shocked if he didn’t. He will also surely sign the Zoning bill because he is a party loyalist that’s caving to the agenda of the extreme left wing. He is now one of them, as far as I’m concerned.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Speegleagle

Well the party is over for him in my book. Did he also sign the new Trucking usage tax bill, which in reality is a tax on every CT citizen ?

Not yet. I have no doubt he will sign whatever is put in front of him.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I’m not sure if he signed the trucking bill, but I would be shocked if he didn’t. He will also surely sign the Zoning bill because he is a party loyalist that’s caving to the agenda of the extreme left wing. He is now one of them, as far as I’m concerned.

Amen, and that describes both the state and national Democratic party well. Extremists.

I would advise people with children to print out the names and addresses of those on the Sexual Offenders register ASAP, and store it as a pdf. That way, when Uncle Ned wipes out their criminal history, you can still know which addresses housed them, and have your kids avoid those streets in the vicinity.

[mdovell]

https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-...ivy-story.html

The other thing I was thinking about is this. Let's say records are sealed and someone was in prison for more than two years (any crime, just pick one). It's going to be obvious once a background check shows a gap of two years or more. Let's say it was five years..heck seven. How exactly can anyone explain two or more years of nothing on a resume? The only reasons someone would be unemployed outside of going to rehab would be prison..period. You can't say it was taking family leave off because even if paid that only is months, not years.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...he-box/494435/

"When I first met Malaki Mathieson last winter, he was desperately trying to find work. Mathieson, then 27, had been going to business school before he went to prison. When he got out, he went on job interviews. When the question about criminal history inevitably came up, he tried to stress to potential employers that he’d changed. But they still wanted to know about his conviction, and why he’d been in prison. It usually turned out badly.

“I told her about my conviction, and she wanted me to go deeper into what happened,” he told me, describing one interview in particular. “When I explained that I shot somebody in the back of the head, she didn’t want anything to do with me anymore.”

Well yeah of course.

"Their conclusion, that banning the box may have some substantial, unintended consequences, has been backed up by other research, too. In another study, Amanda Y. Agan of Princeton University and Sonja B. Starr of the University of Michigan Law School submitted thousands of fake job applications from young, low-skilled men of random races and criminal histories in New York and New Jersey, where ban-the-box policies had recently been introduced. And in a separate paper, Starr used CPS data from between 2004 and 2014 to measure how banning the box affected government employment rates. Her results also suggest that black men ages 18 to 64 were hurt by these policies. Overall, their study found that before ban the box, white applicants were called back slightly more often than black applicants were; after ban the box, white applicants were called back six times more often than black applicants were. White ex-offenders were actually helped by the rule, they found, possibly because employers assumed white applicants were unlikely to have criminal histories.

When employers have less information about an applicant, they discriminate against minorities, research suggests. For example, when employers are prevented from doing credit checks on potential employees, the likelihood of black applicants being hired is reduced by between 7 and 16 percent, one study found. When employers have more information, though, they are actually more likely to hire minorities. One study found that black employment rates actually increased, by between 7 and 30 percent, when employers require drug tests for employees. And another found that when firms conducted criminal background checks, the last hire was 37 percent more likely to be a black man."

Even if crime doesn't go up after this passes we don't have any real evidence that it's going to help. Employers have standards for reasons. Drug testing creeped in during the 80's, criminal background 90's and then credit. I'm not saying that all tests apply to all positions but still.

It's like the paradox of home security. Sometimes a criminal might be more likely to go after a house with a security system...why? Because they know you must have something good to justify spending that amount. Likewise if someone tries to get hired with a gap of two or more years they have to say what happened otherwise what's the explanation? If someone replies "I was in prison" ok yeah not all crimes are applicable. This is where these laws fail because you can't have transparency in hiring and then say there's some things you can't see. I know a director of a homeless shelter in Mass and he has to segregate off level 3 sex offenders and convicted arsonists. It's also a fundraising issue as a non profit who is going to give aid to group sheltering such people? How can you protect the general population and the building itself if you don't separate?

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by mdovell

https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-...ivy-story.html

The other thing I was thinking about is this. Let's say records are sealed and someone was in prison for more than two years (any crime, just pick one). It's going to be obvious once a background check shows a gap of two years or more. Let's say it was five years..heck seven. How exactly can anyone explain two or more years of nothing on a resume? The only reasons someone would be unemployed outside of going to rehab would be prison..period. You can't say it was taking family leave off because even if paid that only is months, not years.

An employer will speculate but it certainly won’t be “obvious” they they were in prison. Many things can cause people to take time off of work. Having children, medical issues, etc. The last thing an employer will think of is “they must have been in prison” but of course, that’s depending on the job you’re applying for.

That said, do you know how criminal background checks work? Of course a two year gap in no convictions is going to be overlooked. Many people have multiple times that since they’ve been convicted of a crime. Additionally, if you’ve been convicted of a sex crime and it was your only conviction, there will be zero evidence of that, thus no speculation on any “gap”.

I think you’re focusing too much on non concrete ways a potential employer or landlord could come to the conclusion their applicant was possibly involved with the judicial system, and not enough focus is being placed on the widespread ramifications. Even if that potential employee finds our about their sex crime or robbery prison time, via Google or pure speculation, and they decide jot to hire based on that, it’s discriminatory since the official record is clean and the felon legally does not have to disclose such.

[BobNJ1960]

Signing this was the worst action by a Ct governor in decades. Reprehensible. I hope these dangerous ex cons move next to Lamont and family. Its merited.

[norcal2k19]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Signing this was the worst action by a Ct governor in decades. Reprehensible. I hope these dangerous ex cons move next to Lamont and family. Its merited.

No it's not. Do you live in Connecticut? Our state has a bunch of good momentum right now. There were amendments that tempered the bill and the governor + legislature are open to updating it in the next session. Stop the fear mongering.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

An employer will speculate but it certainly won’t be “obvious” they they were in prison. Many things can cause people to take time off of work. Having children, medical issues, etc. The last thing an employer will think of is “they must have been in prison” but of course, that’s depending on the job you’re applying for.

That said, do you know how criminal background checks work? Of course a two year gap in no convictions is going to be overlooked. Many people have multiple times that since they’ve been convicted of a crime. Additionally, if you’ve been convicted of a sex crime and it was your only conviction, there will be zero evidence of that, thus no speculation on any “gap”.

I think you’re focusing too much on non concrete ways a potential employer or landlord could come to the conclusion their applicant was possibly involved with the judicial system, and not enough focus is being placed on the widespread ramifications. Even if that potential employee finds our about their sex crime or robbery prison time, via Google or pure speculation, and they decide jot to hire based on that, it’s discriminatory since the official record is clean and the felon legally does not have to disclose such.

I was under the impression sex crimes were excluded as clearly stated in the excerpt posted by another here.
Did they change that and include it now? I'm just asking, I have no business going head to head with a pro in the field. You know the drill. I'm out of sports analagy examples.
I think the other guy is just out fear mongering. He has no clue.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by norcal2k19

No it's not. Do you live in Connecticut? Our state has a bunch of good momentum right now. There were amendments that tempered the bill and the governor + legislature are open to updating it in the next session. Stop the fear mongering.

I do live here. he should have vetoed it. Now let them present a far more modest bill and consider. Instead he signed a bad bill, and the legislature which is far left wing, will not update it.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

I was under the impression sex crimes were excluded as clearly stated in the excerpt posted by another here.
Did they change that and include it now? I'm just asking, I have no business going head to head with a pro in the field. You know the drill. I'm out of sports analagy examples.
I think the other guy is just out fear mongering. He has no clue.

Not all sex crimes are excluded. Enticing a child is included in what qualifies for erasure:

(a) A person is guilty of enticing a minor when such person uses an interactive computer service to knowingly persuade, induce, entice or coerce any person (1) under eighteen years of age, or (2) who the actor reasonably believes to be under eighteen years of age, to engage in prostitution or sexual activity for which the actor may be charged with a criminal offense.


Incredibly disturbing. I really don’t know how anyone can support Lamont after this.