3 ms·

My understanding is that in Europe a criminal record is hidden from all but LEOs after 7 years as well.

mschuster91 9y ago
Depends on the country and the type of offense(s). I'm fine with justified accesses for employers - e.g. a trucking company might be allowed to ask the state "has XYZ committed a drunk/drugged or other driving offense in the last 3 years", but I see no valid reason to (involuntarily) disclosing to any new employer that someone has been sentenced for public urination or fare dodging. AFAIK, there is no such "filtering" option available anywhere... and especially with fare dodging, people get essentially criminalized for being poor. The state should provide an interface for employers to input the personal data of the candidate and the job the candidate is applying for, and the interface should simply give a "OK", "not OK", "no way OK" (e.g. for pedophiles applying for childcare jobs) and "OK with conditions". That would be a safeguard for privacy while also providing employers with a check that they don't hire someone totally wrong for the job.
- stordoff 9y ago
  > The state should provide an interface for employers to input the personal data of the candidate and the job the candidate is applying for, and the interface should simply give a "OK", "not OK", "no way OK" (e.g. for pedophiles applying for childcare jobs) and "OK with conditions". This sounds vaguely similar to the approach taken in the UK. For most jobs, you can't refuse to employ someone because of spent convictions (and the applicant isn't required to tell the employer of them), and sentences up to 4 years are considered spent after a certain amount of time[1]. The employer cannot request a criminal records check, and if an individual requests their own record it will only show details of unspent convictions. For certain roles (e.g. healthcare or childcare), a employer can request a criminal records search which WILL show spent convictions, as as you indict certain offenses will permanently make someone unsuitable for those jobs. There are three levels: * a standard check shows spent and unspent convictions, cautions, reprimands and final warnings * an enhanced check shows the same as a standard check plus any information held by local police that’s considered relevant to the role * an enhanced check with barred lists shows the same as an enhanced check plus whether the applicant is on the list of people barred from doing the role[2] Which of these an employer is allowed to do depends on the job in question (e.g. becoming a solicitor -> standard check, working in an elderly care home as a cleaner -> enhanced check without the adult's barred list check, working in a school -> enhanced check with the children's barred list check). [1] https://www.gov.uk/exoffenders-and-employment https://www.gov.uk/exoffenders-and-employment [2] https://www.gov.uk/dbs-check-applicant-criminal-record https://www.gov.uk/dbs-check-applicant-criminal-record

Depends on the country and the type of offense(s). I'm fine with justified accesses for employers - e.g. a trucking company might be allowed to ask the state "has XYZ committed a drunk/drugged or other driving offense in the last 3 years", but I see no valid reason to (involuntarily) disclosing to any new employer that someone has been sentenced for public urination or fare dodging. AFAIK, there is no such "filtering" option available anywhere... and especially with fare dodging, people get essentially criminalized for being poor. The state should provide an interface for employers to input the personal data of the candidate and the job the candidate is applying for, and the interface should simply give a "OK", "not OK", "no way OK" (e.g. for pedophiles applying for childcare jobs) and "OK with conditions". That would be a safeguard for privacy while also providing employers with a check that they don't hire someone totally wrong for the job.

stordoff 9y ago
> The state should provide an interface for employers to input the personal data of the candidate and the job the candidate is applying for, and the interface should simply give a "OK", "not OK", "no way OK" (e.g. for pedophiles applying for childcare jobs) and "OK with conditions". This sounds vaguely similar to the approach taken in the UK. For most jobs, you can't refuse to employ someone because of spent convictions (and the applicant isn't required to tell the employer of them), and sentences up to 4 years are considered spent after a certain amount of time[1]. The employer cannot request a criminal records check, and if an individual requests their own record it will only show details of unspent convictions. For certain roles (e.g. healthcare or childcare), a employer can request a criminal records search which WILL show spent convictions, as as you indict certain offenses will permanently make someone unsuitable for those jobs. There are three levels: * a standard check shows spent and unspent convictions, cautions, reprimands and final warnings * an enhanced check shows the same as a standard check plus any information held by local police that’s considered relevant to the role * an enhanced check with barred lists shows the same as an enhanced check plus whether the applicant is on the list of people barred from doing the role[2] Which of these an employer is allowed to do depends on the job in question (e.g. becoming a solicitor -> standard check, working in an elderly care home as a cleaner -> enhanced check without the adult's barred list check, working in a school -> enhanced check with the children's barred list check). [1] https://www.gov.uk/exoffenders-and-employment https://www.gov.uk/exoffenders-and-employment [2] https://www.gov.uk/dbs-check-applicant-criminal-record https://www.gov.uk/dbs-check-applicant-criminal-record