Hiring Manager is a sex offender (employer, attorney, best, college)
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.
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,135,033 times
Reputation: 3814
Advertisements
They have always asked, or had the ability to ask if you have ever been convicted of a crime, including misdemeanors.I was arrested for Breech of Peace 20 years before applying for my current job. I answered honestly and was hired.
There has always been the ability to do background checks for employers. Why wouldnt there be?
And, depending on the nature of the work and business they have a right to hold it against you. Just like you cant type very fast.
A convicted theif seeking employment at a bank, or anything envolving access to cash and valueables might not be considered a good candidate for those positions. A convicted child molester seeking employment at a library, school or day care center would not be considered a good candidate for those positions.
You can find platonic reasons to decline their applications. "We had another candidate that suited our needs better", is one. You dont have to pass judgement on them, but you would be foolish to totally disregard an infraction depending on the nature of that infraction as it relates to the job and client base.
It depends on the nature of what happened. Maybe the hiring manager was 19 and the "boy" he "assaulted" was his 17 year old gay lover and it was consensual by both parties.
There are tens of thousands of silly convictions like that, such as a guy just out of high school having sex with a girl just a year younger. And that mutually consensual action can brand someone a sex offender for life? Why? I think we need to be more reasonable when processing sex "crimes".
I'm all for punishing actual crimes, like real rape (not the "I got drunk and regretted it the next morning" nonsense) or where one party was truly too young to consent. Do you know the nature of what the guy did or are you just looking at the label?
To be sure there are tens of thousands of actual perverts in this country who should be shunned or set aside from normal society, but is this particular person one of those?
It has already been pointed out in this thread that the assault was a sexual assault against a 7 year old boy.
Also, somebody being a sex offender doesn't necessarily mean that they did anything really bad like molesting a kid for example. He could have been an 18 year old senior and been dating a 15 year old sophomore for instance and things happened and the parents turned him in. There are laws to protect the older person in that situation now as long as the 2 people were actually in a relationship, but depending on the age of the hiring manager, those laws might not have existed then. I'm not sure when those laws actually became law.
The law I'm talking about is called the Romeo and Juliet law and most states have it, but I don't know about all states. Anyway, it says that a minor can be with somebody 4 years older than them and the older person not get in trouble as long as it's: a) consensual and b) the 2 were in an established relationship at the time that the older of the 2 turned 18. The details may vary by state also. For example, here in Indiana, it says 4 years, but another law may say 3 years or even only 2 years. I do believe that MOST states say 4 years though.
Why comment on a thread and not bother to read what the OP wrote?
OP has stated more than once it was involving a young boy, and that a picture was posted of the offender on the website.
Why comment on a thread and not bother to read what the OP wrote?
OP has stated more than once it was involving a young boy, and that a picture was posted of the offender on the website.
Proof that not all people read the entire thread.
I can understand if it's a 150 page thread, but even the previous page makes the distinction in this case that it was a young boy that was sexually assaulted, NOT a 'romeo and juliet' or whatever else thing they call it.
And? It's still none of your business. You aren't judge, jury, and executioner. Besides, if you're so concerned about it, bow out of the race for this $100K+/year job and apply at HEB or Walmart
Judge, jury, and executioner spoke and the guy was convicted. He's most likely a danger to society and this org that he works for gives him the type of living that will enable him to victimize more kids. They're legitimizing his behavior by implying it's not a big deal. He's dangerous.
Crime happened more than 20 years ago. I think he's been with the company for a long time.
To the smart a.ss saying bow out of the $100k job race and apply at heb, I am currently employed and making $100k+. This job is just slightly better pay wise.
What exactly is unfair?if they served their time, there's really no reason to hold it against them as a fairness issue. The victims might feel otherwise but you as an employee? Why?
Judge, jury, and executioner spoke and the guy was convicted. He's most likely a danger to society and this org that he works for gives him the type of living that will enable him to victimize more kids. They're legitimizing his behavior by implying it's not a big deal. He's dangerous.
Judge, jury and executioner spoke and determined that this person had served his punishment and was no longer a danger to society. If he continued to be a legitimate danger to society, he'd be back in jail.
This isn't about legitimizing criminal behavior, especially when it involves crime against vulnerable populations like children. It's ludicrous to claim that gainful employment creates a more dangerous environment for past offenders than being shunned from society does. The sex offender registry doesn't protect anyone. For one, it doesn't identify intent so a truly heinous criminal like a child rapist is listed right alongside someone who got caught peeing behind a bush during a spring break party weekend. For another, it creates a class of potentially dangerous individuals who have no roots, no hope, and little future. Do you want a criminal who has nothing to look forward to in life or do you want a criminal who, if not completely changed, at least has important connections like gainful employment that keeps them from reoffending? If we're going to continue treating criminals as imprisoned criminals even after they've been released and have served their probation, then we might as well never release them at all.
The OP can't really know the exact nature of the offense without digging much deeper. The OP likely wasn't interviewing at a school, a children's hospital, a library or a toy store so there shouldn't be children at the workplace. There shouldn't be any reason to prevent this hiring manager from gainful employment if he has served his time and proven to no longer be a danger.
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.
