Hacker News Reader

Comment by timwaagh | Hacker News Reader

You could be hiring a murderer. Or you could be hiring literally anyone else. These jobs are in demand. There is no business reason to do this and there sure as hell is no ethical reason. I'm not saying: don't hire a murderer. If you have a cleaning job or something that just pays bad and you can't find anyone else, sure. But don't go bragging about how you are giving a murderer 100k a year. A lot of capable engineers who are not a murderer would have been happy to get that job.

View on HN

No one should be defined by the worst thing they've ever done. If someone who made a terrible mistake and paid their debt to society is able to acquire the skills to get the job based on merit despite the circumstances, they probably have an incredible work ethic and a strong desire to continue growing.

When the system is a competition for even the most basic human needs people will judge and define others by anything that puts them a rung up on those others. People are very fast to put people into "deserve" and "doesn't deserve" piles here. I've met loads of lying, cheating, philandering, racist etc people who would "never" hire someone who had been in legal trouble despite their own poor, often technically criminal behaviors. It makes them feel "better than" and positions them for a better chance at a life in the pay to play society.

I don’t have sympathy for murderers. Plenty of other deserving people before we have to start caring about the plight of people willing to end someone else’s life. That’s one hell of a “mistake.” If you kill someone on purpose, I don’t give a flying —- about your “rehabilitation.” Murderers deserve a second chance when their victim gets one. (Note, I am not talking about manslaughter, negligence or any other situations where it might have been an actual mistake; if you intended to kill someone, you don’t deserve second chances.)

Murder is not a 'debt'. You can't just repay and i question the morality of economising murder. But hypothetically, you have taken someone's life and if I want to go into reasonably pricing that life, if there is a price it's equivalent to all the money his victim would have expected to have made in his life, ie we are talking millions. He did not repay millions. Even if he did, this debt is to the victim. Since the victim isn't around anymore, it can't be repaid. As for the rest, those are all assumptions. I don't think 'completed a coding course' gives anyone superior moral characteristics, let alone a murderer.

A twisted logic you have here my friend. Those capable engineers could also be murderers later in life, as you know, being in IT rise stress levels to it max... :)

So don't judge as everyone should have a chance for redemption, and it's way better to have them coding than committing another crime.

Redemption has to be earned. Spending x years with murderers, rapists, sadists behind bars is hardly a good way to turn you into a better character.

They don't have this chance in prison. So do you have other idea for better in-prison programs? Or maybe you would like them to not return back into society? If so how can they "earn" redemption?

Save it for the flock. I do not believe in Redemption, or Christ, or Allah, or anything. Even if making murderers rich 'works' it should only be taken into consideration if the benefits (to soceity) are exceptional, because the practice is morally bankrupt. It should never be advertised, of course.

Religion aside (it wasn't my point), yet, everyone deservers fair chance to repay their bad deeds. I admire The Last Mile program, as it can pull out of from the claw of criminal past, and show them what they never had a chance to see, a chance for a better life.

Internet is such a tool that can empower all kind of people all over the world to make something meaningful. We should encourage this and not ban it on moral grounds, showing that they can earn a good life without a crime. Something that wasn't so obvious 25 years ago.

I too admired this program when it first was announced. giving thieves or dealers a chance at a tech job, i'm all for it. Or most other criminals. Nor would I want to discourage even a murderer from creating something meaningful with code. Or even to start a business with it. But this is about a murderer pushing good people out of a good job and i don't think i can forgive a murderer to that extent.

> Or even to start a business with it. But this is about a murderer pushing good people out of a good job and i don't think i can forgive a murderer to that extent.

What if "good people" aren't good enough? You know that he got this job because of the specific skillset required in that position, and he learned most of that from paper books without internet access? I if he wasn't good enough for this job he wouldn't land it.

In the case of a specialist with unique skills I would find this acceptable, but also something to be kept under close wraps. I am not against business doing what they have to do. Everything suggests this is not something that was found out by accident and not doubting his talent but his background suggests he is a junior level engineer. Meaning plenty of others can be found. Perhaps he was the most capable for the money in a high-wage area, but I find even that improbable. Taking a second-best candidate should be a relative no-brainer in that case. Usually companies have screenings to prevent taking someone morally compromised. What I see is a company that is doing this and having him give interviews to score points. It would be better if they don't get any, before others jump on the trend.

Hiring a murderer is probably better than hiring someone convicted of a white collar crime. Murder has the lowest recidivism rate among common felonies.

Because most murderers spend a very long time locked up or have life sentences — so there is some selection bias when it comes to the type of murderer that would get released and then re-offend.

White collar crimes often hurt nobody. The fact that they are both crimes does not make them in any way equivalent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com