Comment by cubano | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cubano | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> The problem after that is the stigma that follows you around forever.

Tell me about it. Between my prison "stigma" and the discriminatory ageism that is very prevalent in the industry, and even though I have 30 years professional programming experience, I am currently finding it impossible to find any work.

Can someone please tell me...what am I supposed to do at age 55? Find a new "career"...doing what?

I know plenty of you reading this with your secure jobs and paychecks have done illegal things and not been caught...well what if you were?

I mean I hear all day all the "protections" that this group and that group are getting recognized for, and meanwhile all I want is an opportunity to work my ass off in the field that I have loved since I was a 13yo kid riding my bike to the local Radio Shack on weekends so I could literally sit-in the window display and program on the TRS-80 and save my "work" to a cassette drive.

But no...hiring me (or anyone else in my situation) would apparently pose such an existential threat to companies so in need of people with my exact talent stack that I can't even be considered once it's discovered I went to prison some 20 years ago.

I know this subject has been discussed ad nauseum here on HN, so I don't expect any new answers to my questions, but maybe a few of you with open ears and the ability to think outside the box when it comes to hiring could be a bit more understanding if a qualified candidate with past legal issues come thru your interview process.

The call to end prisons, police funding, and prison funding is partially to solve this exact problem.

I don't think ANYONE should be able to request a federal background check. I don't think background checks should be allowed for employment or housing. Same as credit checks.

A person is either safe enough to be in society, or not. There should NEVER be an in between state. And before you say anything:

1. Yes I am fine with previously convicted murderers living in the same building as me. Teaching my children. And being my co-worker. I want to be able to trust the "justice" system to allow people back into society when they're able to.

2. Yes I'm fine with sexual predators living in the same building as me. Teaching my children. And being my co-worker. For the same aforementioned reasons.

3. Yes. I'm fine with any person with any crime history that the courts and various other medical institutions have deemed that they can be a normal citizen to do what they want.

For the group of people that "maybe they're safe but we're not sure but we don't want to keep them in prison". Then you need to give them a very good stipend and let them live in relative peace. Also, don't limit their housing. Housing limits should never be done. Think of this situation as a "disability payment", because it is a state induced disability.

What someone did in the past shouldn't matter to anyone if that person has been rehabilitated.

I think this black and white view is how the constitution was written, and in boolean logic would be how it is designed. But reality has many shades of grey.

Would you trust your personal banking to an institution with history of leaking/mishandling/selling everything about you, or losing records of your balance?

Would you trust your health information to a doctor with previous history of kickbacks, malpractice, lax HIPAA compliance?

Was the institution reformed and executive board reprogrammed after it was caught?

No. They are most likely punished for their crime via a fine or a temporary license suspension with the only deterrent for future crimes being larger fines or longer suspensions.

> Would you trust your personal banking to an institution with history of leaking/mishandling/selling everything about you, or losing records of your balance?

> Would you trust your health information to a doctor with previous history of kickbacks, malpractice, lax HIPAA compliance?

Were the proper precautions taken so that this won't happen again? Then sure!

How would one ensure that it wouldnt happen again?

> Would you trust your health information to a doctor with previous history of kickbacks, malpractice, lax HIPAA compliance?

It's entirely possible that you do.

An enlightening This American Life episode dives in to who gets to keep their medical license and how they may continue practicing after grievous ethical violations: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/719/trust-me-im-a-doctor

You would trust the state to decide if a sexual predators is safe to teach your children?

The thing is... who else would decide? Isn't it the function of the state to make decisions based on information that is not available to the general public?

No-one. No-one would decide. It's not a decision that needs to be made.

Any history of sexual abuse -> be put on a register that prohibits ever working with children again.

We currently have a registry for that sort of thing, and public urination can get you put on it.

So your answer appears to be that the state decides, since they decide what constitutes sexual abuse.

I said you should be put on a registry for sexual abuse, the registry the US has is for "that sort of thing", which apparently includes things I wouldn't consider to be sexual abuse. Just because I promote the idea of a sex offenders registry doesn't mean I automatically agree with any possible implementation.

> the state decides, since they decide what constitutes sexual abuse.

True. But its a decision that can be made pretty formulaically from a persons known actions/behaviour, as opposed to predicting their future actions/behaviour.

> You would trust the state to decide if a sexual predators is safe to teach your children?

I trust the state to test the medicine I buy from a pharmacy. The state isn't some __other__ machine. It's made up of people like you and me, trying to make society operate and people to generally get along with eachother.

If I saw that we as a society are moving towards rehabilitation, and better social services for criminals, then yes. I would trust them. Just like I trust them with roads, with hospitals, with medicine, with food.

> I trust the state to test the medicine

How does the process of testing medicine compare to that of sex offenders? I don't think the two are at all comparable.

> It's made up of people like you and me

I'm not qualified to test medicine, or run medical trials, so I hope whoever does it on behalf of the government is not like me.

> I trust them with roads, with hospitals, with medicine, with food

All of which have proven physical-science process to verify them. I don't trust criminology/Phycology as a science capable of making the calls you are implying.

I disagree with you to some extent, in that the world is shades of gray, and indeed, it is naive to think that either "someone is so dangerous we should deprive them of all liberty" or "despite past activities, we are so confident in their rehabilitation that no caution should be taken in their release to society".

You do make an interesting suggestion that, if we do put a scarlet letter on someone for a past crime for which they are deemed "safe" enough to be in the public, that they should be compensated for that in some way. Shit, look at the movie "Heat" for one of many examples. If someone is trying to get their life together but can't find decent work on parole, or is abused and looked at as a criminal despite paying their debt, what motive might someone have to stay out of a past life?

I used to feel that the stigma should follow you but I’ve changed my mind because I do not believe that stigma works, is overly punitive, and forces people back into crime.

Now I believe that if you pay your debt to society, you should be square with the house and your punishment should stop including any ex-judicial punishment like denying people work they are otherwise qualified for. I think reasonable exceptions can be made for sensitive jobs involving money handling or children.

Here in UK I believe criminal records have a time limit, after which your crime is expunged from the record at leadt as far as employers, etc are concerned. The length of the limit will depend on the crime and may not apply at all the very serious crimes. But it means that there's much much less active discrimination against ex-convicts than I hear about in th US.

> 2. Yes I'm fine with sexual predators living in the same building as me. Teaching my children. And being my co-worker. For the same aforementioned reasons.

I am parent and I understand what you mean here and It makes complete sense to me. But I am having a little hard time with this, some part of my brain just wont' accept it.

If we still have sexual offender registries, etc., then you might well know that this person was a sexual offender in the past. Also, if we as a society have better resources for counseling and so forth, we may actually be able to help teach these folks better ways to live in society.

But it is a big mindset shift. If someone has paid their debt to society - their debt has been paid, and they shouldn't continue to be punished.

> I am parent and I understand what you mean here and It makes complete sense to me. But I am having a little hard time with this, some part of my brain just wont' accept it.

I completely understand, we need to "unlearn" what we know about policing and criminal justice. It's a hard process that takes generations, but at the end of the day it will lead to less offensive behaviour overall. As a society we're too "reactive" to problems. We don't provide the help for people before they turn to various forms of criminality.

> What someone did in the past shouldn't matter to anyone if that person has been rehabilitated.

That's just it though. The US prison systems, as a general rule, don't rehabilitate; they punish. There is no reason to trust that a person who spent time in prison is more safe after than they were before. In many cases, it's common for people to become more dangerous because of stay in prison.

We need to work towards the prisons rehabilitating before we can trust the people coming out of them are "safe" (understand that a lot of people that get sent to prison _are_ safe... the term has a vague meaning the way I'm using it).

> There is no reason to trust that a person who spent time in prison is more safe after than they were before. In many cases, it's common for people to become more dangerous because of stay in prison.

We can't effectively rehabilitate when we have so many people in prison.

Our rates of re-offense are also messy because we literally don't give people another option other than returning to crime.

>We can't effectively rehabilitate when we have so many people in prison.

But the reason we have so many people in prison is that we have stupid laws that mark as jail-able offenses the stupidest stuff. Just take financial fraud, why must someone be jailed for that? Are they a menace if outside?

> A person is either safe enough to be in society, or not. There should NEVER be an in between state.

Doesn't this contradict the whole idea of parole? My understanding is that people who are out on parole are deemed not safe to be fully left to their own in society, they often have not served their full sentence, but are given the chance to ease back into society earlier.

Wouldn't a more hard-line approach of either 100% safe or unsafe result in even more time spent in jail?

> A person is either safe enough to be in society, or not. There should NEVER be an in between state.

I worked with my Dad growing up and going to school, and I’m fortunate enough to have worked along side people that had felony records.

Some of them for some scary sounding crimes.

I’ve learned just how much nuance is lost in our current “scarlet letter” system (as well as how a crime is judged changes significantly over time).

I can see the notion that somebody should have some kind of re-integration or probationary period, but until we can have an objective and perfect means of conveying the nuance behind every crime, sentence, and rehabilitation (which I say facetiously, because I don’t believe that’s possible) then we should err on the side of not having any scarlet letters.

> 1. Yes I am fine with previously convicted murderers living in the same building as me. Teaching my children. And being my co-worker. I want to be able to trust the "justice" system to allow people back into society when they're able to.

I was talking to my friend over the weekend and a funny story came up. My friend is a chess player and made friends with an elderly gentleman at a local starbucks over a game of chess. They became chess buddies and played many games and my friend even visited his house to play a games after the man developed a severe joint disease and had difficulty moving.

It turns out he was playing chess with Nicholas “Nicky No Socks” Facciolo a convicted mobster and murder who learned and fell in love with chess while in jail. My friend told me that after learning that he continued to play with Nicky until he could no longer play due to his disease. He never felt threatened or uncomfortable. As far as he was concerned Nicky paid his debts and was no longer the person he was.

I don't understand what policy you would want in regards to sexual predators. The recidivism rate for pedophiles is e.g. 14% after 5 years, 24% after 15 years.

Does that mean we should just lock them up forever? Or do you really think having someone like that live next to children is a necessary gamble?

I think a free, and accessible counselling system should be funded with the money saved from not having so many prisons, and sexual predators should be required to go to mandatory meetings with their counsellors. But that's the extent of the "consequences" they need once they're in society. And the counselling shouldn't be seen as a punishment, rather a public service for them and the community they reside in.

imo the risk of convicted child molesters having a hard time finding jobs involving children despite being deemed rehabilitated by some beurocratic organization is preferrable to the risk of giving them ample oppertunity to molest more children, unless it could be scientifically demonstrated with great certainty that the rehabilitation program was completely effective in like at least 99.99% of cases (how would you even falsify this hypothesis given how many victims choose not to speak out?). Similarly i would not want people such as bankers or politicians convited of corruption/fraud or similar things being in positions where they have significant influence over the economic conditions of millions of people without proper supervision (which clearly is there is not) The strategies for dealing with criminals should really vary depending on the type of crime thats been commited i think, as others have pointed out i think your views on this are too black and white

Child sexual predators have one of the highest probabilities of recidivism, so for the sake of your children I hope you change your mind on that.

probably he doesn't have kids. That's why the virtue signaling.

> I want to be able to trust the "justice" system to allow people back into society when they're able to.

Where should people stay before then?

For this to work at scale and sustainably, all people would have to be fully rehabilitated. I don't think that's possible with how people are currently. Maybe in some utopia 500 years from now society can overlook a convicted but "rehabilitated" sex offender raping someone's five year old daughter, but not today.

This is defense in depth. We are way too lenient on the people who are not safe enough to be in society IMO, so it's good to have another mechanism. Recently, it's even worse than it's used to be... e.g. in Seattle they quickly release people back onto the streets after multiple separate violent assaults.

I think the incarceration for drug crimes and such should be stopped, but I am also a-ok with stigma following repeated and/or violent crime. I personally think people who have repeatedly shown to be too dangerous to live in society should never be released into said society, but if that mechanism is broken due to "compassion", at least I prefer to never interact with them.

I would support treating ex-cons as a protected class where you can reject candidates for specific roles for specific reasons but can't just discriminate against anyone with any history. History of theft? Okay, let's not leave you alone with people's valuables. History of assault? Okay, let's not leave you alone with vulnerable people. But beyond that, if we're not willing to say that your sentence is finished when your sentence is finished, we're admitting a major flaw in our criminal justice system. And maybe that flaw is there, but then we should fix it. "Guilty for the rest of your life for ANY conviction" is just as bad as "guilty until proven innocent" in my opinion. I don't know what you were convicted of, but there aren't many things that would block me from trusting you to sit at a computer in an office and contribute to a software project as part of a team.

Side note: are there really NO companies that let you in the door? I've had some larger corporate places ask me about any criminal history and have even run a background check. But I don't think it's come up at small and medium-size companies, where I'd also expect there's a bit more understanding and flexibility anyway. Maybe the ageism is more of an obstacle there? But then maybe I just don't notice because I don't have a conviction to tell them about. I certainly don't mean to minimize your problem, just wondering if it's really a complete deal breaker everywhere.

I’m getting out of tech by 55. Maybe I won’t go insane in a smaller shop, but watching everyone without experience commit the same atrocities over and over is like hell.

After a remodel I learned how lucrative cabinet makers have it. I started building my wood working shop a while ago and at some I’ll transition to that.

I’ve got some growing and I have a lucrative position, but this battery is about depleted.

One thing about woodworking is that parts of it are easier for someone who has had a career in thinking logically and several steps ahead. If you also have had experience laying out user interfaces, that can help too. However there is the flip side, in that a number of techniques in woodworking aren't easily discoverable unless you've been working in the field for a while, and it is all too easy to get hurt (even when not using power equipment). I personally love doing projects, but on every single one I end up getting some sort of injury (typically something small like a splinter under the fingernail, or a tool slipping causing an abrasion on my hand, but annoying none the less).

But you are right, in that there can be a good bit of coin to be had with furniture building, especially if you can draw on some standardized design principles to output good customized pieces. Think things like a closet organizer that is "perfect" for a customer's bedroom. Or things like cranking out desks needed by students doing school from home.

In fact, I probably could have made a killing in selling "pandemic" desks (there were absolutely no desks to be found at the beginning of the school year). I made a couple for family members, made out of real hard wood (no partical board) for about $130 in lumber and connecting hardware -- nice 3-drawer desk units. I basically used rail-and-stile frames to make the back, sides, and drawer box using pocket screws, then 1/4 inch plywood tacked from the inside of the drawer box. Took about 3 hours to cut, drill, and assemble everything but the drawers themselves. If I was out of work I probably would have made a bunch and sold them for $350 a piece.

Thank you for mentioning the insanity of perpetually and badly reinventing the wheel.

I’m in my 40s now, and I realized last year I’m utterly burned out. The passion for programming is just gone. I get home from work now and the last thing I want to do is look at code again. My garage is filled with Arduino projects I can’t bring myself to finish or throw out.

Unlike you, I haven’t found another career path, but I did find solace in making music. At least it is much more permanent than software and something I can share with my kids.

Art, in general, survives time, whereas it has become apparent that software does not.

As soon as I reach this age, I will try to work as Appliance technician, fixing stuff like refrigerator, laundry machine, etc.. It is something that I do for fun, and I see a real shortage in this market. People call you, you fix it. Done. No deployment, no issue tracker or SCRUM.

> I can't even be considered once it's discovered I went to prison some 20 years ago

Is there any legislative push to seal records of non-violent offenders after N years of non-recividism?

Seven years for most crimes, and fourteen for fraud and corruption would seem fair.

You can in some circumstances depending on the crime and age of offense. What can you convince a judge to do is all I know.

My home town had a deputy that wanted to be a sheriff or had won the position. However, they had a minor record.

Parents filed statutory rape charges because he was 18 and she was 17. They just didn’t like him and they were eventually married later. Still, he carried they charge for 20 years.

The sealing or removal was made public notice and of course everyone talks.

In the grand scheme of things it was his wife and the age difference issue was amended in law. Because people recognize kids don’t magically not socialize on 18.

Is getting records expunged not a option in your case or in many case? My understanding is that at least most non-violent offences could be expunged or sealed after N years of completing your sentence. I'm certainly not an expert so it would be interesting to know how that process can or can not apply.

This seems to be highly variable depending on the locality that holds the records. It does not seem to be standardized in my experience.

Even after expungement where possible, there can be problems with records being inappropriately cached by background check services, and a background check after expungement may still show the conviction. Yes, this can be appealed, but still puts an undue burden on the applicant and may ultimately be a deciding factor between similar candidates even though it should not be used

To echo a sibling comment - an attorney once explained to me that, while it is illegal for background checking services to provide outdated/inaccurate data, there is no strict legal timeline requiring them to update their records. Meaning that, even post-expungement or post-sealing (and associated time + legal fees) there's still a non-insignificant chance that a potential employer might learn of your charge(s), even after taking legal action to clean up your record.

Incidentally, I've also once been told by a Hiring Manager family member of mine that for minor charges it might be best *not* to seal them, since that would leave a potential employer guessing and likely assuming that it was something serious as opposed to something small or common, e.g. a marijuana-related misdemeanor.

IANAL, obviously.

I have zero experience with this issue, but someone I met fundraising a few projects ago launched this, which is aimed at solving your particular issue:

[70 Million Staffing](https://www.70millionstaffing.com/) - focused on hiring people with criminal records and its counterpart: [Commissary Club](https://app.commissary.club/) - a social network for ex-cons.

Also, maybe now with the new emphasis on remote work, people with criminal records have a better chance at getting hired?

What you describe make my blood boil. I cant imaging what is the purpose of punishing people to the end of their days for old crimes however petty they were. Fucking prison planet.

Forget about "hiring", "secure jobs" and "paychecks": you sound like a contractor, not an employee. Either hire on with a consulting firm or open your own.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com