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.
I think most people deserve a 2nd chance. You've got people who made a mistake and have changed their lives for the better because maybe getting an arrest was a wakeup call. As far as employment is concerned, the SBA agency states you're better off starting your own business.
As far as the hardliners who look down on people who have made mistakes. Phooey on you.
These people had a second chance - and a third chance - and a fourth chance...
63 percent of felons have a PRIOR CONVICTION.
For male felons, the rate of recividism is 66 percent. For female - it's 54 percent.
Drug crimes had a recidivism rate of 62.7%. Other felonies had the highest recidivism rate at 74.2%, followed closely by property crimes at 66.4%. (Property crimes are usually theft related.)
Sixty five percent of non violent convictions are a repeat offense.
Of the sentences for non-violent offenses robbery offense had the highest recidivism at 76.9%, followed by
66.4% for property crimes and 62.7% for burglary and drug.
Drug offenders were the most likely to have repeated the same type of offense. Of the recidivists sentenced for property offenses, 44.3% had criminal histories for other drug offenses. Drug offenders were the next most likely to have repeated the same type of offense.
Seems like they're sort of blowing their "second chances."
Murder and manslaughter offenders were the least likely to have current criminal behavior that was the same type as that committed in the past, by the way. Believe it or not, when I was working in placement, I could often place a person convicted of manslaughter more easily than I could place a person convicted of theft or larceny. And they often did very well in their new job with their new lease on life.
I'm NOT. I'm placing the blame on the system...and the government...that makes sure a criminal conviction follows you forever. Those records should be sealed...once the felon has done his time, he has paid his price, and now he should get a second chance.
Or do you just believe in PUNISHMENT NEVER ENDING, and not rehabilitation?
I am saying the prison system should have a plan in place for these people, when they release them...a path that they can follow...which will lead to them having a true second chance.
Otherwise...why the EFF do you release them at all?
I mean, if they are such throwaway human beings, why don't we just kill them and get it over with?
Whether you execute them or condemn them to a slow death by denying them possibilities, it's still killing them.
Oh, I believe in rehabilitation, which is why I would work very hard to place some people with prior felonies - and why my husband doesn't shy away from hiring convicted felons in some cases either.
But like I have said repeatedly (and given references for to support these figures) the rate of repeat offenses is about 70 percent or higher for theft/property crimes and drug charges. Most people I have interviewed with such charges don't have just one charge on their record - there are usually multiple charges. Even if there aren't - the ODDS are that they will rack up more similar charges. Not good odds -I'm sorry but that's just a fact. Hiring managers have to consider facts, odds, probabilities, etc - it's part of their job to do so.
No one will answer my question - which I've repeated over and over again. WHY should a hiring manager hire a convicted felon when there are so many people who DON'T have criminal records, and who have skills and experience, who need jobs too? Is there some sort of moral obligation to hire the person WITH the criminal record instead of the person who has managed to get through life so far without racking up a criminal record?
We're in a situation where unemployment is at a high. Of course a felony conviction is going to go against an applicant in most cases - sorry, but that's just the breaks. Don't do things that lessen your chances of landing a job - it really goes against you when there are plenty of applicants who DON'T have convictions in their background.
No one will answer my question - which I've repeated over and over again. WHY should a hiring manager hire a convicted felon when there are so many people who DON'T have criminal records, and who have skills and experience, who need jobs too? Is there some sort of moral obligation to hire the person WITH the criminal record instead of the person who has managed to get through life so far without racking up a criminal record?
Yea, it's tough. I think in some cases however, the type of jobs that felons go for, aren't being pursued by the most competent ambitious persons. So, somebody who is out of jail may relish a second chance and be hungrier than somebody with a clean background check.
It's hard though. I would try and hire a felon. I want to give people a 2nd chance because I know so few others would. The other applicants with clean backgrounds can find another job much easier. And I can emphasize. Not that I've been to jail or anything, but I've made mistakes that I'm paying for too.
Just for the record, I've never even known anybody who has been convicted of a felony. I mean, I have, but not well.
Part of the reason, a good chunk of the reason, people re-offend is because they can't become part of society and make their way. They are often left with no choice but to deal drugs, etc to survive.
That's not true.
I worked an temporary overnight job in a large grocery store chain managing the front end. (cashier). The overnight crew stocking shelves were work release prisoners from the local prison (plus some employees); they'd come and go on the prison bus. They were awesome to work with, they thought they were important staring at people coming in near me so I wouldn't get "robbed" etc. LOL. They were funny and friendly. They were SO HAPPY to be out of the prison and worked very hard. They threw the most heavy volume of all the employees and made great numbers. EVERY ONE had the opportunity to get full time employment by the company after their release if they proved themselves on work release. Including full benefits.
Meanwhile, they had the WORST JUDGEMENT of anybody I ever met in my life. They could NOT comprehend store rules. Work rules. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TOUCH ANYTHING YOU DIDN'T BRING WITH YOU ON THE BUS. PERIOD. You are not allowed to bring anything BACK from the store to the jail. You are not allowed to leave the premises for any reason. Logical stuff like that.
"OBJECTION!" Such as:
All damaged merch goes on the last conveyor belt to get disposed of by management.
"NOT FAIR, IT"S ONLY GOING IN THE TRASH WHY CAN"T WE EAT IT???"
"Not fair, that newspaper was thrown on the front chair why can't I take it?"
"Well, I had to make a phone call so it's no big deal I only walked down the shopping center to the pay phone."
And other silly things. Like asking ME if I could get them any weed.
Several made really bad choices like buying watches at the store then smuggling them back to the jail to resell. Or getting busy with a customer out in the parking lot in her car and being missing for XX amount of time. WTH! Yes, a couple made it. And a couple were on the straight and narrow. But for the most part, you could see why they were in prison. Even a couple were serial drunk drivers - you gotta be pretty bad to get jail time for that.
Of course even some employees were outright stealing; you have to be VERY CAREFUL in that job I had or they'll take you down with them. I made it VERY CLEAR: Do NOT try any monkey business on my conveyer belt or I'll take you down. You're not getting ME FIRED for your foolishness. Guess what - two employee people got fired for trying to flim flam me on my register. I totally turned them IN because it's MY JOB on the line.
I tried my best to coach them and look out so they didn't make stupid mistakes but it was constant.
Some people just HAVE POOR JUDGEMENT AND WON'T TAKE GOOD ADVISE TO IMPROVE THEIR OWN LIVES. I would say THESE particular guys needed to have like some kind of 24/7 buddy system and even THEN they're gonna screw up until they get it in their hard heads JUST FOLLOW THE RULES!!!
I'm not hiring ANYBODY with a record, felony or not. There are some businesses who will. NOt mine, tho.
Last edited by runswithscissors; 01-21-2014 at 12:05 PM..
I'm NOT. I'm placing the blame on the system...and the government...that makes sure a criminal conviction follows you forever. Those records should be sealed...once the felon has done his time, he has paid his price, and now he should get a second chance.
Or do you just believe in PUNISHMENT NEVER ENDING, and not rehabilitation?
I am saying the prison system should have a plan in place for these people, when they release them...a path that they can follow...which will lead to them having a true second chance.
Otherwise...why the EFF do you release them at all?
I mean, if they are such throwaway human beings, why don't we just kill them and get it over with?
Whether you execute them or condemn them to a slow death by denying them possibilities, it's still killing them.
You apparently have NO experience in this matter.
There is PLENTY OF REHABILITATION, in fact, to an excess.
Including paying for their schooling and starting them off in businesses. MILLIONS are spent - hundreds of MILLIONS every year.
A friend of mine got his bachelors AND MASTERS degree and an entire business set up from the NJ dept of rehab when he got released from a 5 year stint from a felony in ANOTHER STATE. He didn't even live in NJ his FATHER did, so he used HIS address on his release instead of his own address becaue 1. You need to have a "reference" and 2) NJ had/has awesome FREE BENEFITS for released felons.
Perhaps you're talking about the MENTALLY ILL contingent, which exists compliments of LIBERALS insisting on releasing mentally ill people onto the streets promising them the FEDS would provide local community health support and never DID. Deinstitutionalization. Starting with law in the KENNEDY era when Liberals were so SURE schizophrenics would just take their new medication and be perfectly NORMAL.
I worked an temporary overnight job in a large grocery store chain managing the front end. (cashier). The overnight crew stocking shelves were work release prisoners from the local prison (plus some employees); they'd come and go on the prison bus. They were awesome to work with, they thought they were important staring at people coming in near me so I wouldn't get "robbed" etc. LOL. They were funny and friendly. They were SO HAPPY to be out of the prison and worked very hard. They threw the most heavy volume of all the employees and made great numbers. EVERY ONE had the opportunity to get full time employment by the company after their release if they proved themselves on work release. Including full benefits.
Meanwhile, they had the WORST JUDGEMENT of anybody I ever met in my life. They could NOT comprehend store rules. Work rules. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TOUCH ANYTHING YOU DIDN'T BRING WITH YOU ON THE BUS. PERIOD. You are not allowed to bring anything BACK from the store to the jail. You are not allowed to leave the premises for any reason. Logical stuff like that.
You are a good writer. I really thought this story was going to have a happy ending. I guess you fooled me.
I'm not "royal" and don't feel royal. However, I have managed to live 52 years without being charged with either a felony or a misdemeanor, and so has my husband. Honestly, it's not that difficult.
Nor is it that difficult to go 20 years and get a felony conviction. I dare to say that, knowingly or not, a majority of people have COMMITTED a felony, some without even realizing it. I've made it 40 years without a felony or misdemeanor conviction.. Only a handful of traffic tickets. But.. I have also seen people pick up a felony conviction too easily. Especially from some of the stories I hear from a family member who is part of the DOJ. Tax evasion is a felony, after all. My closest thing to a crime.. The illegal fireworks I had in the state of Virginia were seized, but they didn't charge an 11 year old.
Quote:
Let me tell you a little about my job history. I was a professional recruiter and placement specialist for many years. We ran a criminal background check on every applicant. It was actually RARE to find an applicant with only one conviction on their record. Usually there were several - in some cases there were literally PAGES of convictions. I'm not "stereotyping" when I say that the rate of recividism is over 70 percent for most convicted felons. IT IS WHAT IT IS.
You're applying a set of beliefs, factual or not, to a group of people as a whole. Yes, it is what it is.. And it's called stereotyping. Even if there is a 70% recidivism rate, assuming that ALL people convicted of theft will offend again is still stereotyping.
Stereotyping - a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment
What you don't appear to be considering here is that the 'pages' of convictions could very well be from one incident. If someone is charged with 23 counts of drug trafficking and pleads guilty.. Guess what? They have 23 convictions. Which will be listed as separate items on a criminal history. That's a harsh example, that person probably won't be applying for a job because they'll never get out.. but.. It's very possible that someone might get hit with felony DUI, driving with an open container, possession w/intent to distribute, endangering a minor, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and failure to stop for blue lights all from one incident. That's not uncommon.
Ugh, and something I didn't think of.. People being charged as adults.. so.. Being convicted at 16 now.. That could show up on your record forever.
Quote:
In a hiring manager position, you don't usually get emotionally involved in each applicant's interview process or their lives - especially not in an environment of high unemployment and lots of qualified applicants applying for most positions. You interview and choose the best candidate for the job, as quickly as possible in most cases. A person going into an interview with one (and usually more) criminal convictions on their record is definitely going in with more negatives. Why - WHY - should a hiring manager further complicate the placement process when there are others sitting right in front of them with good qualifications AND no criminal background?
So what is your process here? Is the conviction an auto-disqualifier? You see that and they're out? But, no.. You don't do that, so you're reading the resume.. and if the person is the best qualified for the position but has a conviction you send them through? Is the criminal conviction the first thing you see or the last? You're flat out saying above that it makes no sense to send the person with a felony conviction through when there are 'good' candidates that don't have felony convictions. Which, to me, says that you would take a less qualified candidate over a higher qualified candidate with a conviction.
You may not be SAYING that you'd hire a less qualified person over a more qualified with a conviction, but you seem to be strongly implying it or de-facto doing it by other policy. Sort of like the government policy on firearms. The gun control act of 1964 bars felons from owning a firearm. However, it contains a provision where a felon can petition the government to have those rights restored.. BUT.. Congress will not allow money to be spent on investigating whether the person should have their rights restored. So, in effect, they nullify the law.
Quote:
No one will answer my question - which I've repeated over and over again. WHY should a hiring manager hire a convicted felon when there are so many people who DON'T have criminal records, and who have skills and experience, who need jobs too?
Because they're the most qualified candidate.
I'm not advocating hiring a felon over a more qualified non-felon. But, pending on the type of crime, the time since the crime.. Don't exclude the felon simply because they're a felon.
Quote:
I will keep the acronym that comes to my mind about you to myself.
And I shall keep what you can do with it to myself.
You're applying a set of beliefs, factual or not, to a group of people as a whole. Yes, it is what it is.. And it's called stereotyping. Even if there is a 70% recidivism rate, assuming that ALL people convicted of theft will offend again is still stereotyping.
Stereotyping - a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment
But I am not assuming that ALL people convicted of theft will offend again. In fact, I'm figuring that roughly 30 percent of them won't offend again. Still - those odds aren't good. How do I, the hiring manager, know which applicants fall into the 30 percent and which fall into the 70 percent?
Quote:
What you don't appear to be considering here is that the 'pages' of convictions could very well be from one incident. If someone is charged with 23 counts of drug trafficking and pleads guilty.. Guess what? They have 23 convictions. Which will be listed as separate items on a criminal history.
What you don't appear to be considering is that after running and then perusing the criminal records of thousands of applicants - I know how to read a criminal record. These records usually have (get this, this is really cool) DATES of offenses and arrests and convictions listed on them! It's amazing!
Quote:
So what is your process here? Is the conviction an auto-disqualifier? You see that and they're out? But, no.. You don't do that, so you're reading the resume.. and if the person is the best qualified for the position but has a conviction you send them through? Is the criminal conviction the first thing you see or the last?
It depends on the job. Sometimes it's the only thing I can see, because of legal issues. Sometimes it's only of minor interest to me, because of the nature of the job, or the offense, and/or the length of time since the offense/conviction. Case by case basis.
Quote:
You're flat out saying above that it makes no sense to send the person with a felony conviction through when there are 'good' candidates that don't have felony convictions. Which, to me, says that you would take a less qualified candidate over a higher qualified candidate with a conviction.
Pure paranoid conjecture on your part, or orneriness, I can't really tell which - maybe defensiveness, for that matter. Anyway, your conclusion is not based on what I've actually said. What I SAID - atually ASKED - was this: in a pool of applicants with very similar credentials, WHY would I hire someone with a criminal background when I can hire someone whose credentials fit the job description well who DOESN'T have a criminal background? Both applicants want and need the job, after all.
Quote:
You may not be SAYING that you'd hire a less qualified person over a more qualified with a conviction, but you seem to be strongly implying it or de-facto doing it by other policy. Sort of like the government policy on firearms. The gun control act of 1964 bars felons from owning a firearm. However, it contains a provision where a felon can petition the government to have those rights restored.. BUT.. Congress will not allow money to be spent on investigating whether the person should have their rights restored. So, in effect, they nullify the law.
I've told you I've hired felons or convinced (or sometimes tried unsuccessfully to convince) employers to hire felons. I've told you that my husband has hired felons, and he will probably hire felons again in the future, or contract labor out to crews that include felons. At the same time, I am not going to just assume, willy nilly, that every felon I interview is fully reformed and can or will lead a crime free life in the future - not when there is a 70 percent or more recividism rate for many sorts of felonies. Like I said, gotta take it case by case.
Quote:
And I shall keep what you can do with it to myself.
Excellent. May I remind you that you are the one who has stooped to twisting my words, putting words in my mouth, misrepresenting what I am saying, and personal insults. Don't be surprised when people don't respond all warm and fuzzy to that approach.
You are a good writer. I really thought this story was going to have a happy ending. I guess you fooled me.
HAHAHA I have lots of stories. There WAS a happy ending there. For the guys who kept their head down, followed the rules and took good advise. They got JOBS. Good jobs with benefits and security and a career path.
Stories? Like the time I hired a deaf guy who was fabulous at his job. He actually used to hang around the store before I bought it but the previous owner wouldn't hire him. Just use him for his knowledge. (a pet store)
Ya know how much I LOST because of that?
All the idiot customers told me they were "uncomfortable" and avoiding shopping when he was working!
People who never OWNED businesses - you can't tell them anything. They think life is about some type of academic utopia. Until THEY have to fork up money to create the non existant utopia - then it's always the fault of the mean old "rich" people who work 16 hours a day, take risks with THEIR money, stay sober and reward TALENT and HARD WORK. .
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.
