Hacker News Reader

Comment by workthrowaway27 | Hacker News Reader

Banning asking about criminal history seems silly. It's not like you accidentally become a criminal. Your criminal history directly reflects your judgment and character.

View on HN

In a country where nearly 100% of charges never go to trial. Where most such charges are for possessing drugs that are now legal in the state in question. Where cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional, but apparently lifetime exclusion from respectable employment is fair game. I think this comment says more about your character than anyone else's.

This regulates WHEN you ask about criminal history and requires individual assessment. There's loop holes, but I suspect you're not getting at anything nearly that nuanced.

That's a fair point with regards to drug convictions.

However, I wish you hadn't insinuated that I could only hold the opinions I do because of a character deficiency. I wrote my comment in good faith, and am perfectly willing to change my mind if given reason to. I think it's worth reflecting on your part that there are people who don't share your views and that maybe we have reasons for doing so besides being bad people. Even if my reasons are misguided, I'm still capable of being reasoned with, but attacking people's character is a quick way to polarize people who might be sympathetic to your point of view if engaged with in a more civil manner.

> but attacking people's character is a quick way to polarize people

That's funny because in your original comment you did just that to all people with a criminal record. Now somebody pushed you a little and you suddenly feel that it's unjust. Think about it a little.

My point was that treating people as enemies makes it nearly impossible to win them over to your side.

I apologize for implying that your belief that anyone whose ever plead guilty or been convicted of a crime has suspect character an hour earlier was a reflection of your own character. I didn't realize that made us feel like enemies.

>> but attacking people's character is a quick way to polarize people

You explicitly state all criminals intentionally demonstrated poor character, and implied they should be judged for that in perpetuity without legal protections. And I said that reflects on your character. If you've changed your mind, great, but I hardly think your comment demonstrates good faith at all, let alone compared to your issue with mine.

"However, I wish you hadn't insinuated that I could only hold the opinions I do because of a character deficiency."

Your post did the exact same thing regarding individuals with a criminal history. If someone got into a drunken bar fight when they were 19, should that really affect their job chances when they're 35? Or, better yet, someone who was arrested for protesting? Should a criminal conviction for essentially doing nothing but exercising your constitutional rights bar you from earning a living?

Not to mention, if persons with criminal convictions, especially ones that are not serious are not allowed to find employment, what do you think they're going to do? Who, other than society, do you think will bear that burden?

For reasons of public policy, the state wants to rehabilitate offenders and make them into productive members of society. Making it harder for employers to discriminate against them serves that public interest even if it is against the interest of specific employers.

A persons judgement and character are flexible constructs that change over time. A criminal history is a small window into that timeline that doesn't necessary reflect the person at the time an interview is given.

Isn't it also reasonable to think that history suggests future behavior?

I never suggested it didn't. Only that it was capable of change.

I agree with you.

If a person does their time, the mistakes they made in the past shouldn’t haunt them forever.

If you do your time, you are square with the state. That doesn't and shouldn't mean private business or individuals should be forced to accept you. Should we make a law that says your friends and family have to accept you once you do your time?

I choose now to live as a corporation.

Doesn't mean tabula rasa. The news is filled with actors and politicians whose careers are in shambles due to past abusive behavior.

Bad publicity does not mean much see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry

"Barry was released from prison in 1992, and two months later filed papers to run for the Ward 8 city council seat in that year's election.[72] Barry ran under the slogan "He May Not Be Perfect, But He's Perfect for D.C." He defeated the four-term incumbent, Wilhelmina Rolark, in the Democratic primary, winning 70 percent of the vote, saying he was "not interested in being mayor",[73] and went on to win the general election easily."

On October 28, 2005, Barry pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charges stemming from an IRS investigation. The mandatory drug testing for the hearing showed Barry as being positive for cocaine and marijuana. On March 9, 2006, he was sentenced to three years probation for misdemeanor charges of failing to pay federal and local taxes, and underwent drug counseling.[97][98]

He was then reelected.

I think in Barry's case (as his slogan suggests) his "bad publicity" was actually a strength to his electorate. Some are popular enough that bad press doesn't sway opinion (ie, Trump supporters). I'd argue those are extreme outliers. I don't think Harvey Weinstein or Kevin Spacey will be working any time soon.

You might be right, but I think older examples say from 2007 or before would be more relevant than recent outrage which might not last.

Would you ever hire a convicted paedophile as your babysitter?

Thankfully, the law agrees that you shouldn't have to, and allows for the following:

"If an employer does decide to deny an applicant the position solely or in part because of the conviction history, the employer must make an individualized assessment of whether the applicant’s conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justify denying the applicant the position."

The rub though is that people probably wouldn't want to hire that kind of a person for any job. The law doesn't allow for that.

Very true, even though nearly everybody reading this are in a position where that type of history has no bearing on anything. I wouldn't hire that person to watch my kids, but there is nothing I do for work where it matters. Maybe you should tell me to look of my coworkers shoulder once in a while to make sure she is not looking at something she shouldn't. However even if the pictures she is looking at are legal it is still something my company would fire her for doing at work.

Do things like the job atmosphere (and hence people wanting to leave rather than work or be associated with that kind of felon) and the perceived increased likelihood of a criminal to commit the crime again (and hence you not wanting to be associated with that) not enter your equation?

In a lot of areas public urination can be considered a sex crime, one advantage of this law will be that instead of the employer getting a box ticked that indicates some kind of crime, they'll be required to actually look up the criminal history and make a reasoned judgement.

I wouldn't mind working with someone who got hammered one time in their youth, alcoholism is pretty easy to pick up on and if the person is sane and level-headed in the workplace that's perfectly alright with me.

Your criminal history reflects your conviction history, not your propensity to break the law. Most people who don't abstain from alcohol have driven over the legal limit, been publicly intoxicated, and been a minor in possession. Many have been in possession of illegal drugs. Many older high schoolers and college students have committed acts that should put them on national sexual offender registries. If you've done any of the above, kindly show yourself the door so your employer can hire someone with better judgment.

I drove and got arrested once for being on the BAC limit (not over, on). It was after a company party. I couldn't let my car parked for the night so I decided to drive. If I had known that I was going to be pulled over that night I would have chosen to take an uber and let my car be towed. Or better, drink water.

All it takes is one mistake. Who should care except me if I got convicted? As long as I know, this incident never prevented me from doing my software engineer job.

> Who should care except me if I got convicted?

Someone who is considering hiring you as a truck driver, delivery driver, or pilot probably would care.

> Your criminal history reflects your conviction history, not your propensity to break the law.

It's an imperfect correlation, not a non-existent correlation.

> It's not like you accidentally become a criminal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/04/us/record-number-of-false...

Better to let 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person be punished.

There are other ways to figure out someone's judgement and character. I've had a couple of interviews where I believe the interviewer was trying to trigger an anger response, I assume to see how people handle stress. I've had interviews where the question of views on sexual harrasment came up. I've applied at places that required passing drug tests before sending an offer letter. In other words, there are plenty of ways to detect bad behavior without discriminating against the 100 million Americans with a criminal conviction [0], especially considering this discrimination particularly effects certain minority groups.

0: https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/just-facts-many-americans...

> without discriminating against the 100 million Americans with a criminal conviction

Word "discrimination" has a negative meaning that's not always true. Wouldn't you discriminate against 200 millions Americans who can't write FizzBuzz when interviewing for coding position?

But what if those FizzBuzz-failing people are racial minorities? Surely we should then ban FizzBuzz because those people tend to be a certain skin color. \s.

That's all this criminal history check ban amounts to, IMO.

If you can't FizzBuzz, you can't code; if I need a coder, I don't need you.

Nothing to do with skin color, sexual orientation, or anything else relevant to me as an employer. I'm not following how a criminal background check ban is equivalent to a bonafide occupational qualification.

so you're saying that you should never have a second chance at life if you have criminal history?

better answer from the heart... what you despise today, you could become tomorrow. all it take is a moment for your life to change.

No, I didn't say that. But on reading the linked article more carefully I'm more inclined to be supportive of the change since it doesn't disallow background checks, just prevents criminal history from being used to screen at the application stage.

your talking semantics. you didn't directly say it, but you did directly mean it.

"It's not like you accidentally become a criminal. Your criminal history directly reflects your judgment and character."

sorry dude, but if you're going to expression your opinions and make statements, either stand by and defend them or just don't make them at all.

> It's not like you accidentally become a criminal.

Well - that's debatable:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15846711

While the guy wasn't criminally charged or arrested (that last is also ingenuous, because being stopped for a traffic violation as he was is technically an "arrest"), things could have went far differently for him.

All for not wearing a seatbelt and for having his life savings in cash with him...

As it was, he lost that money for more than 8 months; he should get it back with interest earned or something (opportunity costs, etc).

Note that there is no ban on running a background check. This information will come out then. No reason to require people to disclose something you might not have cared about (as an employer) to begin with.

Good point. I didn't read that when I posted my comment.

Have you ever had sex with someone you're not married to? Which church do you go to?

Please don't respond to a bad comment with a worse one. Even if the other comment doesn't deserve better, the community does.

Yes, and I don't go to church. As far as I know neither is a crime in my state/country.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com