Hacker News Reader

Comment by sneak | Hacker News Reader

I think crimes of violence are relevant to any/all roles.

I don’t want to hire or work with anyone who has ever at any point in their life used violence to attempt to solve problems.

I am fine with a percentage of human beings being blacklisted permanently from access to much of society. Violence has no place in our world.

I won’t even hire former cops. It is, unfortunately, illegal in the US to explicitly avoid hiring ex-military.

I don’t really care about whether or not they have “changed their ways” or “grown as a person” - there are lots of people out there to choose from who have never been violent.

View on HN

This is an extremely privileged position.

In many environments violence is a part of life and necessary for survival.

One hypothetical scenario of millions:

You live and grow up in a high-crime area. Someone attacks you, a family member, etc. You defend yourself to protect your own life or that of a loved one. A cellphone video records the end of the encounter where you appear to be the aggressor.

You get an assault charge.

You work your ass off, beat a variety of odds, and make something of yourself. Many years later you’re passed over for a position simply because you came from an environment the person doing the hiring can’t possibly fathom. A person who has clearly never been in the position of “it’s me/my wife/my child or them”.

Same for ex-military. Are you aware that the United States military is often considered to be the “only way out” for a substantial portion of the enlisted? That something like 90% of military roles are non-combat related?

I’m not a violent person either but this is an extremely naive, judgmental, and downright discriminatory position.

It is definitionally judgemental and discriminatory. Hiring is the practice of discriminating against undesirable hires by using one’s judgement.

We can discuss whether or not it’s naive, but it’s served me quite well for decades thus far. The rest of your comment seems like a simple emotional appeal.

All hiring is discriminatory; there are more applicants than there are positions. Discrimination is not a bad thing, it’s just discrimination based on built-in traits (race, sex, national origin, etc) that is bad.

Discriminating in hiring based on the adult decisions of a human being is not only in-bounds, it is literally the whole of hiring. Some people studied software, some didn’t. Some dropped out of high school to start companies, some went to university.

This is one of the reasons I think religious discrimination shouldn’t be prohibited in hiring (choice of religion is not a built in trait, but a choice made as an adult). Same with work history - going to work for the armed forces is an unforced choice.

This sort of categorization and discrimination is a great and useful thing and we should do more of it. People are not interchangeable.

You could make the exact same argument against hiring from the ivys versus community colleges, yet I don’t see anyone arguing for blinding of university names on CVs, or hiding the fact of whether or not someone studied at university.

When hiring our job is to find the best possible candidate. It’s not wrong or bad to use all available data to do that. All else being equal, I’d much rather hire someone without a history of violence or history of work in violent industries.

Freedom of association is one of our most powerful tools for shaping the society in which we wish to live.

Your examples of "choices made as an adult" (religion and joining the military) are quite commonly not choices, nor made as an adult.

Most kids are introduced to being religious because their parents are, and in those scenarios the child doesn't get to make an informed decision about whether or not the religion is something they want to be a part of (I don't think I need to explain why this is).

Similarily, you can join the military at 16 in North America, before you're legally an adult. People are also involuntarily conscripted into the military in some countries (like South Korea and Switzerland).

If you want to argue that it "doesn't count" when you're a kid or something similar, then you'll have to also explain way a child can change to become less violent or "less religious" and why an adult, for some reason, cannot.

So yes, your opinion is naive. It's missing all of the complexities of human society.

> choice of religion is not a built in trait, but a choice made as an adult

The strongest predictor of religios belief, worldwide, is the religion of the parents. If you've believed one thing for the first 18 years of your life, literally all your life up to this point, then it's hard to suddenly snap out of this at 18 and most people don't.

Do you think that all Christians in the US, including almost all of its members of congress, are Christian because it has such a convincing story?

Specifically about violence: people make mistakes, and people change, not everything is black and white.

White collar crime/theft and the indirect killing of people through occupational risks (ex black lung from mining), class traitorism (ex being a cop) is a much greater kind of bad than someone who got in a fight or something.

> ever at any point in their life

Ever? A 50-year old who punched a bully when he was cornered at 20 years old, 30 years ago? Not saying that's great behavior, but perhaps understandable after having been cornered.

Or at 15? 10? 5? Somebody who at 3 years old kicked their older brother of 6 with a bunch of legos? Not going to hire that maniac? Do you yourself have a job?

That's crazy. Cops prevent violence. Remember when a few cities tried having 'police free zones'? I think it was Portland that had murders within a week.

Better re-think that one.

That's not what he means, or maybe he does but I didn't see it that way. A cop or a former field military lives in violence day in and day out. Sometimes they even try to cope with substance abuse. Imagine getting in an argument with somebody like that ; I've been there, thankfully he was family and I don't think could hurt me but still, I've been thinking about that for weeks and lost a decent amount of sleep.

It's unfortunately the case with tough district/city people with criminal record. Once you live in violence for more than a couple weeks, and have to assume physical threat and retaliate, I'm pretty sure it changes you somewhat fundamentally, and unfortunately those people rarely have the proper support to adjust to civil duties.

[citation required]

"Police violence calls for measures beyond de-escalation training": https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/police-violence-c... — "The police department in Camden, N.J., for example, was disbanded and rebuilt with a new vision in 2013."

"What the data say about police brutality and racial bias — and which reforms might work": https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z

"More Than Half of Police Killings Are Mislabeled, New Study Says": https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/us/police-killings-underc... — Researchers comparing information from death certificates with data from organizations that track police killings in the United States identified a startling discrepancy

"17,000 Killings by Police Have Gone Uncounted Since 1980": https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/how-many... — There have been twice as many deaths at the hands of cops than the federal government has reported, top medical journal finds

Search-fu is failing me, but ISTR there are studies with data indicating that when police are called for non-violent situations, there is a high chance (> 50%) of the aggressiveness of the cops making the situation violent, especially if disadvantaged populations (ethnic or gender minorities) are involved. This is especially true for property crimes (there was a rather visible case of someone murdered by a now former police officer — on camera no less — because he was accused of using a counterfeit $20 bill for a pack of cigarettes, perhaps you remember it?)

Remember, the police do not exist to prevent violence. Most of the time, they’re not even intended to fully and properly investigate violence perpetrated against others. No, they are there mostly to (poorly) investigate property crimes against the ownership class. That they occasionally manage to perform good investigations doesn't really help with the times that they make things worse, don't do anything, or make cases up from whole cloth (perhaps you’ve heard of the police misconduct in the Central Park 5 case, or do you just believe the cops all the time).

Cop are violent on average tho. For example, they have much higher domestic violence rates then general population.

It is party result of them being above the law. And partly result of training that does not teach the de-escalation at all, but focuses on taking control, being dominant at all cost.

There are many forms of violence against your fellow human beings. Not all of them are physical.

Those people who lawfully risk violence to serve the public are why you get to have your fantasy that a world without violence is possible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com