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.
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?
Something to think about before committing a felony which means serious crime. Do you think its fair to hid serious offenders record and have some company send them to people home in trust situations. Also remember that employer are held civilly liable for their employees and need to vet as well as possible.The corrections system seldom corrects people they detain them away from pubic. We see it all the time where say a person with several DUI arrest is hired to drive a school bus and get in wreck and etst positve for alcohol.Who deserve the protection?
It's a tricky wicket, but I think an employer deserves to know the truth about whom they're hiring. They're responsible for their employee's conduct on the job, so it's only right that they have access to the right information. I think a rational employer can differentiate between someone who got arrested when they were 21 for getting into a bar fight after one too many pops, and some hardcore sex offender or narcotics trafficker.
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.
The government decides the things which constitute a crime, and decides who has done those things.
Unless someone is applying for a job where a person's background could cause harm to someone - i.e. child care provider, police officer, then their criminal history should not be available to an employer after 5 or 7 years. If a person has not re-offended after that length of time, it's not very likely they will do so again. And the reality is there are tens of thousands of people who are hired every day who have committed horrible crimes, they just haven't been caught...
When you remove the ability for an ex offender to get a job, or rent an apartment (crime free multi-housing programs) you are pretty much leaving them with no path to re-entering society.
Honestly, it's not my problem. I know some people with criminal records and they have jobs. They do not have great jobs, but they have jobs.
Well, Pontius Pilate, you can't wash your hands of this problem so easily. It turns out "actions have consequences" works both ways. If you tell people who you say haven't followed your rules that they are forever anathama and eligible for only the lowliest of employment if they follow the rules, the inevitable consequence is they are going to decide that following the rules in the future is a loser's game. They have no incentive to follow the rules any more, and significant disincentive. You're actively encouraging recidivism.
Well, Pontius Pilate, you can't wash your hands of this problem so easily. It turns out "actions have consequences" works both ways. If you tell people who you say haven't followed your rules that they are forever anathama and eligible for only the lowliest of employment if they follow the rules, the inevitable consequence is they are going to decide that following the rules in the future is a loser's game. They have no incentive to follow the rules any more, and significant disincentive. You're actively encouraging recidivism.
Circular reasoning. If they behave as rationally as you suppose, then why did they commit the crime in the first place, and get caught, too? "Dumb" comes to mind, as does "immoral jerk".
The problem with this "incentive" argument is that you're basically saying society has to bribe people not to go back to a life of crime.
However this approach has been tried back in the 60s and 70s and it just didn't work. Being nice to the criminals, coddling them, telling them "we understand your pain" and all of that crapola just didn't work. It did however create an atmosphere of tolerance for crime. It's incredible what people put up with these days that would never have been put up with a few decades ago.
In the '80s, Americans got fed up with the crime wave, booted out the liberal judges, instituted "3 strikes" and police foot patrols and anti-gang measures and gradually took back the streets, albeit at the cost of very crowded prisons to hold all those misbehaving Baby Boomers.
Now a few apparently want to take us back to the good old days of the 1970s when criminals were practically folk heroes, misunderstood rebels, Robin Hood gun slingers. No, they're not.
Here's my incentive program: if you go back to a life of crime, we'll double the punishment next time. Your choice.
Consider this. Colorado made weed legal and people raced to buy. One guy even said he was selling his home and moving there. So can we assume most of them were first time smokers? My point is all those buyers show you never know who is doing what or they may have done.
There are those who were caught doing something but th ed are also people who were not caught yet did the same act. Some people need to be locked away from society then there's those who just messed up and should be allowed to pay a price and move on with their life.
There are felonies and then again there are felonies.
I often wonder what happens to all the felons who can't find work. Do they go out and commit more felonies? You can bet they're going to find some way to eat.
It's not a matter of which behavior is "worse" in some cases.
It's more a matter of a person NOT BEING BONDABLE if they have any sort of theft in their background, as I explained in an earlier post. Many employers guarantee that their employees are bonded. Lots of people don't even realize this when they're applying for a job.
And theft offenses carry with them the question of deceit. Would you really want your bookkeeper or your accountant or your cashier to have theft in their personal history? Would you, as an employer, want tot ake on that liability and pass that on to your customers?
As for drug offenses, addictions are very hard to shake. Most people know that and consider drug offenses, especially multiple ones - as a red flag.
If a person shoplifted when they were 18 and careless, I would not hold it against them as an employer. It doesn't mean they would try to bankrupt your company. Many people have shoplifted when they were young.. most of them just haven't gotten caught.
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.
