Hacker News Reader

Comment by booleandilemma | Hacker News Reader

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com