3 ms·

What 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

What 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 ago
That'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 ago
  I 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 ago
I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Your 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 ago
Not 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 ago
  Not 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 ago
    But for that you would need to read the actual case, you couldn't just look at the label "convicted for child rape"
    - lisper 8y ago
      Exactly. 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.

What 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 ago

That'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 ago
I 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 ago

I 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 ago

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Your 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 ago

Not 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 ago
Not 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 ago
  But for that you would need to read the actual case, you couldn't just look at the label "convicted for child rape"
  - lisper 8y ago
    Exactly. 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.