4 ms·
Just as an example: We have that here (Netherlands). You are under no circumstances allowed to not hire someone because of past failures if the statue if limit
by consp 8y ago
Just as an example:
We have that here (Netherlands). You are under no circumstances allowed to not hire someone because of past failures if the statue if limitation has expired or the sentence has been served. There might be restrictions on what you can do after you have served, but it is not up to the company to judge on this. This is one of the reasons the "right to be forgotten" exists.
You can however request a "VOG" (translation something like: "Confirmation of good behavior") in which a company (or volunteer organisation for instance) asks for very specific cases like "Allowed to work with children" or "Can have access to privileged data like personal data or medical". The request is handled by the government. You get a response like "No comment" if there is no problem or "Not granted" if you fail. This avoids the problem of having people judge your exact misdemeanors/behavior in the past and leaves it out of a private companies hands and allows the right to be forgotten to exist.
You can also request it and let the person reject the request on legal grounds, but this usually gets you into more problems than you would like.
There is one "but". For higher security clearances (like for working for the state department equivalent) they are allowed to look further back and are allowed to view data from further back and do proper background checks forcing specific issues to come to the light of day. But that check is way more complex than a simple "VOG".
- tomjen3 8y agoWhat is to stop me from not hiring someone based on his criminal background and just come up with a bogus excuse? Because frankly I wouldn't ever want to work with somebody who had raped a child.
- crankylinuxuser 8y agoThat's a non-sequitor if Ive seen one. Sure theres no argument with someone who aims at pre-pubescent children. But those laws have themselves been perverted so that even a single picture between 2 17 year olds is this horrible felony that ends up ruining 2 lives. So yeah, its time to quit this Scarlet Letter for most "sex crimes" - cause its a gross miscalculation of justice and law.
- tomjen3 8y agoI don't disagree, and obviously if I was taking the time to interview a candidate, I would also take the two minutes to look at what they were charged for.
- JamesBarney 8y agoI think it's the same thing that prevents you from not hiring someone because of the color of their skin. You open yourself up to being sued. And if you paid an investigation company money in order to get a sealed criminal background on an individual and then don't hit them that's pretty good evidence you were using that as a hiring decision.
- pm24601 8y agoI am using 'X' to represent a conviction for a crime. I am using 'X' because I don't want anyone to think that I am condoning or justifying any particular crime. 1. How would someone else know that the person did X? 2. What if that crime had nothing had bearing on the position? 3. What about the concept of a sentence representing the 'complete payment to society'? Denying someone the ability to make a living turns a finite sentence into an indefinite sentence. For me, 1. If someone was guilty of embezzlement, this would be relevant (positive or negative) if the position involving money handling (cashier, or accounting) - but not relevant if the position was social work. 2. If the person was guilty of stalking, a position that would allow access to customers' PII would be problematic.
- tomjen3 8y agoI appreciate your idea to remove any particular crime and consider them all, but to me what you did matter (also why). If somebody was guilty of embezzlement because they owed money to drug gangs I wouldn't be afraid to have them handle money (a majority would take embezzlement over murder). Heck I wouldn't have a problem hiring a murder, if the circumstances of the act was special. But there can be no excuse to rape a five year old.
- pm24601 8y agoYour response is exactly why I phrased my response the way I did. You ignored the part where I said that if a person has served their sentence, this represents the end of the social punishment. If you want to argue for a life long sentence than do so. In order for someone to function, they need a job. A convicted and released child rapist needs to pay rent. How would you propose housing, clothing this person so they are not homeless in front of your office?
- lisper 8y agoNot all child rapists are the same. If an eighteen-year-old has consensual sex with a seventeen-year-old, technically they have "raped a child". And yes, over zealous prosecutors do prosecute cases like this. There are people on the offender registry convicted of distributing child pornography because they sent someone a nude selfie when they were a teenager.
- tomjen3 8y agoNot according to any reasonable interpretation of raped a child. You aren't the only one who assumed I would use the braindead US legal definition, so sorry for for not being clearer. But if somebody rapes a five year old I don't want to work with them, don't want to be near them, etc. There are crimes that are impossible to rehabilitate from.
- 21 8y agoBut for that you would need to read the actual case, you couldn't just look at the label "convicted for child rape"
- lisper 8y agoExactly. Most employers hear that you're on the registry and stop their inquiries at that point. The registry tars everyone on it with the same brush. I'm not saying you would fail to make the distinction. But many people do, and many essentially innocent people suffer, and IMHO society as a whole, suffer as a result.