Paying for Life

[lamplighter]

So I was reading this article from masslive.com today, and I don't think this topic has been brought up before. It seems as though in America at least (no idea how it is in other countries), that no matter how small the crime or the nature, you pay for it for LIFE. Despite being qualified and in some cases even more qualified, people throughout the US are denied jobs everyday for crimes they committed years ago. Now, I know employers should be able to access criminal records, and if say someone whose been convicted of theft 10-15 times should be denied that retail job. But when is someone done paying for there crime? How are people supposed to make a living and find housing if they are denied such, despite having not committed a criminal offense in years? Exactly how does this current system stop re-offenders, and how long should someone's records be available to employers? Discuss.

 

[Willamena]

I agree, it's an atrocious situation. Once a person becomes a "criminal," even though pardoned they are never forgiven.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

My wife owns and runs a small business, which I perform a variety of functions for in my off-hours. One of which is to handle screening and hiring employees. I both ask people whether they've been convicted of a felony (on the application) and perform background checks on potential employees. I would not hire someone who was convicted of a felony since the position requires that we are able to trust the person working unsupervised.

In my experience, the best indicator of future performance and behavior, is past performance and behavior, and we simply do not have the time and resources to "take a chance" on somebody.

It does suck that you are "tainted" once you are convicted of a crime, but, then again, shouldn't someone who hasn't made such a poor life decision reap the benefits of being responsible and trustworthy?

 

[Nepenthe]

So I was reading this article from masslive.com today, and I don't think this topic has been brought up before. It seems as though in America at least (no idea how it is in other countries), that no matter how small the crime or the nature, you pay for it for LIFE. Despite being qualified and in some cases even more qualified, people throughout the US are denied jobs everyday for crimes they committed years ago. Now, I know employers should be able to access criminal records, and if say someone whose been convicted of theft 10-15 times should be denied that retail job. But when is someone done paying for there crime? How are people supposed to make a living and find housing if they are denied such, despite having not committed a criminal offense in years? Exactly how does this current system stop re-offenders, and how long should someone's records be available to employers? Discuss.

I thought the CORI law was just in Massachusetts?
As for the CORI law specifically, I definitely understand an employers right to access someone's criminal record if only for obvious safety reasons. Yet I do think the CORI law should be reformed or tidied up. As it stands, it's based on a name database and nothing else- not fingerprints or SSNs, so the potential for misidentification is there. It also includes crimes that the individual was not convicted of, but just charged with, which raises an eyebrow, or two if you didn't lose the other in a tragic molotov cocktail incident. I would want a heads up if an applicant had served time for a sex-crime, assault, or grand theft- violent crimes or crimes of theft where the amount stolen warrants concern. But being arrested for protesting the Iraq war, or shoplifting, or other minor crimes and having that potentially ruin your job prospects is ridiculous.

 

[Nepenthe]

I would not hire someone who was convicted of a felony since the position requires that we are able to trust the person working unsupervised.

Oops. Missed the felony part here. Yes, I agree that a felony would definitely give me pause. But I think the CORI law goes beyond felonies. I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong of course. Of course I'll just deny it and throw some ad homs their way and turn this thread into a flame war.

 

[Willamena]

My wife owns and runs a small business, which I perform a variety of functions for in my off-hours. One of which is to handle screening and hiring employees. I both ask people whether they've been convicted of a felony (on the application) and perform background checks on potential employees. I would not hire someone who was convicted of a felony since the position requires that we are able to trust the person working unsupervised.

In my experience, the best indicator of future performance and behavior, is past performance and behavior, and we simply do not have the time and resources to "take a chance" on somebody.

It does suck that you are "tainted" once you are convicted of a crime, but, then again, shouldn't someone who hasn't made such a poor life decision reap the benefits of being responsible and trustworthy?

That makes little sense, though, when the criminal who has not yet committed or been convicted of his crime applies for your job.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It does suck that you are "tainted" once you are convicted of a crime, but, then again, shouldn't someone who hasn't made such a poor life decision reap the benefits of being responsible and trustworthy?

OTOH, what bearing should a conviction on an unrelated matter have on whether a person gets a job?

Also, does this apply to other areas? Say you found out that a job applicant has a clean criminal record, but committed adultery. Would you use that as grounds to reject him from consideration for the job?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That makes little sense, though, when the criminal who has not yet committed or been convicted of his crime applies for your job.

Seeing as I don't employ the use of psychics, astrologers, tarot card readers, or a time machine in the application process, this doesn't really come into play.

 

[Nepenthe]

ATS can certainly speak for himself, but I don't think Willamena or 9-10ths' examples apply since he did specify conviction for felonies. That's why I double posted to cover that clarification. (though I admit I'm reluctant to allow info' on a felony to be made available unless the specific circumstances warranted it- i.e., sex crimes).

 

[Willamena]

Seeing as I don't employ the use of psychics, astrologers, tarot card readers, or a time machine in the application process, this doesn't really come into play.

Haha None of which are examples of crimes.

Edit: Oh, I see. You didn't address the point. Nevermind.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

OTOH, what bearing should a conviction on an unrelated matter have on whether a person gets a job?

The best indicator of future performance and behavior, is past performance and behavior. I'm not going to put our business at risk by hiring a convicted felon when I can hire someone else who has shown better judgment in the past.

Just like I check their work references. If a past boss says they showed up late half the time, I'm not going to be inclined to hire them either.

Also, does this apply to other areas? Say you found out that a job applicant has a clean criminal record, but committed adultery. Would you use that as grounds to reject him from consideration for the job?

No, as being unfaithful to a spouse wouldn't indicate to me that I cannot trust them for the particulars of our business, unlike someone who was convicted of a felony.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Haha None of which are examples of crimes.

Edit: Oh, I see. You didn't address the point. Nevermind.

Re-read for comprehension.

 

[Willamena]

Re-read for comprehension.

Yeah, I thought you were addressing the point. My bad.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

ATS can certainly speak for himself, but I don't think Willamena or 9-10ths' examples apply since he did specify conviction for felonies.

I think it does. If someone's been convicted of aggravated assault, I can see how that would be relevant: an employer has an interest in maintaining a safe workplace. OTOH, if, say, a person's criminal record only consists of one incident where he shone his friend's laser pointer at a plane while he was drunk at age 18(remembering that "discharging a laser at an aircraft" is a felony in some places), then I'd be hard-pressed to say why that person would be inherently less qualified than, say, someone who has a misdemeanour conviction for getting drunk at age 18 and being caught peeing in an alley.

 

[Nepenthe]

I think it does. If someone's been convicted of aggravated assault, I can see how that would be relevant: an employer has an interest in maintaining a safe workplace. OTOH, if, say, a person's criminal record only consists of one incident where he shone his friend's laser pointer at a plane while he was drunk at age 18(remembering that "discharging a laser at an aircraft" is a felony in some places), then I'd be hard-pressed to say why that person would be inherently less qualified than, say, someone who has a misdemeanour conviction for getting drunk at age 18 and being caught peeing in an alley.

I agree. I thought I clarified that in my post with the emphasis on sex/violent crimes.

What if someone were peeing in public while shining a laser light at overhead helicopters? That person should never be hired for anything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, as being unfaithful to a spouse wouldn't indicate to me that I cannot trust them for the particulars of our business, unlike someone who was convicted of a felony.

So... the fact someone engaged in adultery is not relevant to your business, but the fact that someone was convicted of the felony offense of bigamy is?

I'm not saying that no felonies are relevant; I'm saying that some are and some aren't. The mere fact that someone's a felon doesn't necessarily imply lack of qualification for a particular job.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree. I thought I clarified that in my post with the emphasis on sex/violent crimes.

Yes, you did... but it wasn't clear in my own head when I confused myself about who I was responding to.

 

[lamplighter]

Alright yeah, felonies should be an important factor in being hired, but what about misdemeanors, and for that matter exactly how long should those records be on file for employers to see? Because so far you're giving people very little option to stop stealing and selling drugs to make money. People have to make money to live and if they can't do that by working at a job they'll do it by any means necessary.

Also, while the CORI is a problem that needs to be addressed, people with any sort of criminal history face many of the same problems across the US.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So... the fact someone engaged in adultery is not relevant to your business, but the fact that someone was convicted of the felony offense of bigamy is?

I don't know, but the next time someone convicted of bigamy applies, I can assure you that I will explore the issue fully.

I'm not saying that no felonies are relevant; I'm saying that some are and some aren't. The mere fact that someone's a felon doesn't necessarily imply lack of qualification for a particular job.

No, but it most likely implies lack of good judgment.

 

[Phasmid]

Yeah the system doesn't work. Hence why people fall back into crime. It's not because they're, "bad" or like prison. It's because once they get out of the slammer, they're screwed because no one will hire them. Or, they'll be hired in a job that's not worth their time and so go back to crime.