I have no problem hiring ex-offenders. But they’re being let down | Hacker News Reader

I have no problem hiring ex-offenders. But they’re being let down

theguardian.com

38 pointsLinuxBender18 comments

> In fact, a person’s criminal history has become so trivial that although employers can ask a prospective candidate about it during pre-employment screenings or background checks, many states do not allow that employer to discriminate based on their findings.

Is this really true? As an employer, there are some crimes I'd be happy to give people a second chance on, but others, no way.

For example, I would 100% not hire a rapist or a pedophile. And I would only hire a murderer if there were exceptional mitigating circumstances.

Some crimes tell you a lot about someone's character, even if they have completed their prison sentence.

Why then release people from jail or why not just kill them if after serving the sentence they are shunned from society. I probably think similarly to you but it begs a question why release if they haven't paid their debts to society.

That was basically the original idea of felonies. They were basically hanging offenses because they cannot be rehabilitated and/or the crime is so heinous it can never be forgiven.

Instead felony has devolved into things like "had a roach of weed in the wrong state."

Also, historically, there was a frontier that they could just be shipped off to. Typically the frontier was a much rougher place where there was decent odds they'd succumb to illness or the elements. And if that didn't happen, practitioners of frontier justice were not as hung up on questions of ethics and rehabilitation.

The first written Athenian Constitution was written by the statesman Draco, from whence we get the term "Draconian". In Draco's constitution the penalty for almost all (if not all) offenses was execution. Plutarch writes,

> And Draco himself, they say, being asked why he made death the penalty for most offences, replied that in his opinion the lesser ones deserved it, and for the greater ones no heavier penalty could be found.

It should be noted, however, that one of the reasons that execution was so common only a couple of centuries ago is that prisons are a modern invention. The idea of the state holding people for any amount of time just didn't exist, if only because it was cost prohibitive. It was something that only ever happened to royalty, though even then such prisoners tended to disappear. Slavery was a common punishment, but slaves lived within the community, so that wouldn't work for violence-prone individuals, or even serial thieves.

Depends on the approach to why you jail someone. For some people, it's about keeping them away from society. With that mindset, they probably shouldn't be let out. For others, it's about revenge, to pay back for the harm you've done. Those people are probably fine with others being released, but still won't interact with them afterwards. Then the last section of people, hope jail can be a treatment, to fix people to be better. For those people, the belief is that we can rehabilitate people so after jail, they can re-integrated.

I'm in the latter camp, but the prison system in the US and a lot of the population seem to be of the opinion of the first two "belief systems".

I think most of the time it's up to the employer on who they're willing to give a second chance to, except where there are extra checks on hires mandated by law, like if they'll be working with vulnerable people.

So in practise I believe this would only amount to a partial shunning by society, as at least some employers will be okay with hiring pretty much anyone who can do the job, regardless of their crimes.

It raises an even bigger question to me, which is what are we supposed to do with these people at all then? I can perfectly well understand why no employer will want to take a chance on them, but if nobody employs them, then they're on the street with no choice but to commit crime for money or die as a beggar.

Individually rational decisions add up to failure for society as a whole.

I think exactly the same thing every time I hear about a kid being expelled from a school. Legally, they have to go to school somewhere. What good does it do to make them someone else's problem? It's like those idiot cities that round up all their homeless and bus them to other cities.

Hell, take the homeless. We see calls all the time to push them away, raze all the tent cities, put spikes on benches and arrest people for sleeping on sidewalks. Why? Unless we're going to kill all homeless people, they have to live somewhere, don't they? What are they supposed to do?

Yeah, I think people should be given a second chance. Probably not as a kindergarten teacher, but I don't see why you shouldn't be able to work eg. as a software developer or in customer support after you leave jail.

So they can struggle, go back to their old ways, and end up back in the system for 15 more years. This isn't just the case for these more vile crimes its also the case for even minor felonies. Generally people let out on probation, for example, are more-or-less permanently "imprisoned" and on a very short leash. It is remarkably easy to end up back in prison and it's not even as complicated as failing a drug test or missing counseling.

The entire system from the bottom up is rigged against a former con. If we are to believe justice systems should be rehabilitative than when the con is released they should be made whole and all record expunged. Otherwise, we may as well kill them. They are dead to society anyway. Supposing you aren't a young offender that gets out while you still have some strength the jobs that will hire you (mostly the more dangerous labor jobs) won't have any use for you.

It's a shame. This recruiter is a perfect example of perpetuating the system by giving two extreme examples. I'm sure they won't hire anyone with a felony. Mostly because in their upper middle class upbringing they never had the threat of prison held over them. Must be nice.

It could be simultaneously true that our justice system punishes people in general too harshly (or any many cases punishes when they should not be punished at all) while simultaneously true the example OP gave of rapist or violent child abuser being deserving of put on a very short leash if they are not to be executed. Honestly I think it's a testament to the mercy and leniency of society that someone who violently rapes another isn't lined up and executed after the conviction and appeals are exhausted.

Personally I'm of the opinion that almost all crimes can be solved without jailtime. The vast majority can be solved with some sort of restitution and/or rehabilitative counseling and service after which they should be given back their horse and their gun and full rights of a citizen. A slight minority just line them up and end the problem (after conviction and appeals). Prison and a life-long record are impediments to rehabilitation and ultimately harm society.

Certain crimes exempt you from UK the Rehabilitation of Offenders act, so would come up in a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. Rape and pedophilia convictions would be in those exemptions as far as I know, although I am no legal expert. You can find details on what employers can do here: https://www.gov.uk/employers-checks-job-applicants

There's another Guardian on the topic that seems to suggest the employer may have the ability to fire without repercussion according to the Sexual Offenses Act: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2003/may/25/workandcareers...

Problem is the law tends to use big words for small crimes. E.g. there was the story of a 17 year old boy sleeping with a 16 year old girl. The girl's dad didn't like it, the police got involved, and the boy is now on the register as both a pedophile and a rapist. I'd have no problem hiring him.

But how do you filter him out from the other people labeled rapist/pedophile? You believe him on his word?

No because that almost never happens, and it's basically the same handful of cases that have been getting mentioned over and over for years every time this comes up on the internet.

Go actually check the registry. First off in many places it's the opposite eg there is no crime of rape it's "aggravated sexual battery" or something similar. Which is heavy if you know any legal jargon but easy to miss if you don't.

And second it is overwhelmingly full of serious violent sex crimes and crimes against minors under 13. Even if you're in there looking for a case like you describe they're hard to find.

The drug war is the cause of almost all exaggerated or unjust convictions, not sex crimes.

Generally agree that the terminology is often different.

I think Cody Wilson got put on the sex offender registry after he had sex with a 16 or 17 year old who presented a fake ID to a sugar daddy website, which was "verified" as being an 18 year old ID. So she verbally and via fake ID lied about being 18, consented, and even was acting in a "professional" capacity seeking out this activity. Cody was still convicted as a registered sex offender despite his best attempts to follow the of-age law and due diligence.

With strict liability, someone can look 18 and even show you an ID+passport and you can do mountains of due diligence but it is not a defense against the conviction. Pretty crazy we have people on the registry because of that IMO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cody_Wilson#Felony_conviction

The main problem I see is it's more work because there's another aspect of an applicant that needs investigating; an extra step with those with records.

I actually had a convicted killer as a helper for a short time and had even worked for his victim's company in the past.

It was a non issue because we all knew the details of the incident and knew the only person he is a danger to was dead. We didn't need to spend time researching him and there was no nagging doubts about our safety.

If you want to see an industry with a huge percentage of people with felonies on their record, look at the industry-standard hiring workflow for tower climbers.

Any risky jobs have a high amount of otherwise "niche" people not accepted everywhere, as they can't be as picky with who works with them, the talent pool isn't as big as "number cruncher" at Ernst & Old.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com