Hacker News Reader

Comment by prosqlinjector | Hacker News Reader

The elephant in the room is legal liability. If something happens with a criminal employee then the question is raised "what precautions did you take from letting this dangerous person into your workplace".

View on HN

And the hypothetical employer's answer to that question, in the model proposed by GP commenter, would be "I did all that was permitted by law, which of course did not include my right to access information on fully served criminal sentences", and thus the employer be rightfully exempt from liability.

If, as I understand is the case in the USA, employers are allowed to retrieve the potential criminal record of prospective employees after they have served their sentence, that's where one could argue the employer could be criminally liable for future wrongdoing by their employee.

Does that really cause legal liability, though? The state/federal entity that released them from prison is essentially saying 'okay, we think this person has paid their dues and has a good chance at being a productive member of society.'

You have a lot of faith in public opinion. What would your family and friends think if they found out a teacher at your child’s high school had done 20 years?

I get the sentiment, and there is due diligence such as background checks required for many public trust positions for that reason, but is there really legal liability created immediately at the time of hiring someone because of their record- or does it just satisfy the models more when you hire someone that got convicted versus someone that has not?

Who cares what they think; would a judge consider me liable because I hired the ex felon? If so, aren't they admitting that the criminal system shouldn't be trusted?

You’re talking about the criminal system, I’m talking about civil suits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com