11 ms·

> "For too many who call Seattle home, a misdemeanour marijuana conviction or charge has created barriers to opportunity - good jobs, housing, loans and educati

by mabbo 8y ago

> "For too many who call Seattle home, a misdemeanour marijuana conviction or charge has created barriers to opportunity - good jobs, housing, loans and education," she said. The problem isn't the marijuana convictions, the problem is a society that believes people with criminal records can and should have their entire lives ruined for it. It's a society that doesn't believe in rehabilitation, just "good people" and "bad people".

onetimemanytime 8y ago
Curious: don't these people still have to report the arrests in some forms /for some jobs even if they're vacated? "Have you ever been arrested or jailed..." I know US immigration specifically asks to mention even if pardoned or expunged.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  not sure what types of jobs would make you answer that question (outside of security maybe), but at least in principle, such questions should be completely illegitimate within the US legal system.
  - teh_klev 8y ago
    In Scotland there's a system called "Disclosure"[0]. There are different types of disclosure[1]: - Basic disclosure - Standard disclosure - Enhanced disclosure - Protecting Vulnerable Groups (PVG) Scheme Depending on the level of disclosure, "spent" convictions may need to be disclosed. You can however apply for spent convictions to be removed from the disclosure process. As an employee for a private consultancy which was carrying out software development work for the Scottish Government I had to get a Basic Disclosure to be able to perform my duties on that contract. It's not that unusual for certain types of work. [0]: https://www.mygov.scot/organisations/disclosure-scotland/ https://www.mygov.scot/organisations/disclosure-scotland/ [1]: https://www.mygov.scot/disclosure-types/ https://www.mygov.scot/disclosure-types/
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    US Visa application: "Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any offense or crime, even though subject of a pardon, amnesty, or other similar action?" https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/78412/what-should-a-uk-citizen-say-when-applying-for-a-us-visa-if-they-were-arrested-a https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/78412/what-should... It asks but doesn't mean you're automatically denied. BUT a just pardoned person in Seattle would have to answer yes if Canada asked the same question (they probably do)
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Isn't asking just if one has been arrested in an interview for nonlaw enforcement positions technically an illegal question without qualifiers to specifically exclude the ones that didn't result in conviction or admission of guilt? Arrest doesn't imply conviction or even the low bar for indictment. For instance SWAT protocol is to cuff literally everybody else possible on the scene for one and then assess and release after the scene is secured. One would have to be completely stupid and paranoid to think you shouldn't hire someone because they were in a bank robbery turned hostage situation as a victim.
  - caseyscottmckay 8y ago
    No that's false. Every single job I've ever applied to has asked about a criminal record. There is, however, a "ban the box" movement in a plurality of states, banning employers from asking potential employees about a criminal record. With the internet documenting all public information, however, it's normally trivial for an employer to do a little research and find the employee's record.
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      Huh strange that it went straight to banning checking without an innocent until proven guilty standard. I know I have seen plenty of websites for career related where asking if you were convicted had yes, no, or resident of certain states as an effective N/A along with either telling you to select N/A regardless of personal status or flat out forbidding answering if from such a state.
      - ubernostrum 8y ago
        "Ban the box" usually isn't an outright ban on all criminal background checks. The thing it's fighting against is a checkbox/question on the initial job application, to prevent use of it as a universal "not even going to talk to you" filter. Typically, an employer can run a criminal background check in a "ban the box" jurisdiction, but only later in the process (for example: after completing interviews and provisionally deciding this is someone you'd like to hire). There may also be other rules in place about how you can use information from the background check, and what you have to do if you decide to revoke the offer of employment based on the result of the check.
- caseyscottmckay 8y ago
  Yes, a criminal record never leaves you even if "expunged" or otherwise deleted from your record. First, you have to admit to it with many jobs/other things anyway (e.g., fbi, military, bar exam etc). And it's usually worse to lie about the charge. Second, everything is documented on the internet. Thus, even if you're eventually proven innocent and never had anything to do with the criminal charge, it will still be associated with you throughout life.
  - Bjartr 8y ago
    > it will still be associated with you throughout life. This is why I feel we should be pushing towards a culture that accepts that people can make mistakes.
faitswulff 8y ago
Why can't they both be problems?
- mabbo 8y ago
  Because they aren't. The first is only a problem because of the second. By solving the first, you continue to allow the second to be a problem. It let's us all continue to ignore it.
  - faitswulff 8y ago
    This is the equivalent of saying "technical debt isn't a problem, the business priorities are a problem." Yes, the business priorities caused the technical debt, but you have to pay down the technical debt as well. Throwing out 15 years of the results of a bad culture is meaningful to hundreds, if not thousands of people whose sentences were lifted. So, too, is changing the culture. They are not mutually exclusive.
JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Yeah! I only judge people on their actions, not their skin or hair or...wait. That's what a criminal record is?
- hvidgaard 8y ago
  I guess your actions as a child and teenager defines who you are?
  - romanovcode 8y ago
    Kind of. Why wouldn't they?
    - iovrthoughtthis 8y ago
      Because people change. Who you were last year is not who you are now.
      - romanovcode 8y ago
        And because of that you should not judge me? This is fucking ridiculous.
        iovrthoughtthis 8y ago
        You make the common mistake of disregarding time during this discussion. This is interesting and part of the reason why I think we as humans are still developing our concepts of time. We still talk about people in absolutes, as if the labels we assign someone today are still relevant tomorrow. Perhaps previous you should have been judged for your poor decisions. I don’t know. Later you does not deserve to be beholden to those judgements though. People change. Labeling someone something for life is a poor heuristic, probably more relevant when we died around 20, not now we live 4 of those short lives in one of our long lives.
    - thebigspacefuck 8y ago
Agustus 8y ago
The problem in hiring criminals is that they have committed a crime. Once they are brought to justice and sentenced, there is no real rehabilitation program, why we have such a high recidivism rate in the states. The best example of this is sexual predator label, if our society honestly believed they had been redeemed they would not need the label. The plan should be how can we get people who have been convicted to find ways to signal that they are rehabilitated. Otherwise, companies will avoid the risk of hiring a criminal and the liability of the lawsuit that might occur if said criminal commits another crime and the company is sued for hiring someone who had committed that crime before.
- sdegutis 8y ago
  > if our society honestly believed they had been redeemed they would not need the label That assumes that "society" is correctly and fully informed on the issue. Sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rate compared to other crimes. Plus it is a diverse category with many different types of situations all lumped into the same connotation in people's minds.
  - vondur 8y ago
    I’ve heard in certain cases that people who’ve been caught urinating in public have been charged as sex offenders. Surely that’s not what these laws were intended to punish.
    - sdegutis 8y ago
      The three main things people seem to think of when they think "sex offender" is (1) an 18 year old slept with his 16 year old girlfriend (2) urinating in public and (3) child molester or rapist. There's a lot more situations, and the research shows that they all need to be handled differently, and that the current laws are much less effective than ones actually geared towards rehabilitation would be, at keeping our neighborhoods safe.
- izzydata 8y ago
  "why we have such a high recidivism rate in the states." Probably for the same reason. We never give them a fair chance afterward.
Shivetya 8y ago
No offense, but many with criminal convictions are bad people. I know it may be nice to think otherwise. However there just are many people out there who are difficult if it not impossible to fully integrate into society. then you run into not society but government issues as well. just some examples my cousins run into all the time, they have to use temporary agencies to filter people and stock crews each week. Why? Drug convictions can ban them from some sites their company does work at. It can also jack their company's vehicle insurance and health insurance cost. Plus, go figure, those with more than one don't turn out to be good employees. They used to do direct hires, they even tried VA recommended people. some just hang on long enough to start collecting benefits again or meet eligibility requirements. they have good jobs to offer as do thousands of small employers do but they cannot afford the cost of that risk. but ignoring their hiring issues, occupational licensing which prevents competition in many fields can include clauses that block those convicted of a crime from entering a field and drug convictions doubly so.
- ppeetteerr 8y ago
  Many without convictions are bad people too. Having a record for MJ possession and sale is not the same as having a record for murder or even domestic abuse.
- faitswulff 8y ago
  > many with criminal convictions are bad people What do you do with "bad people?" Are they to be forever a drain on society? I agree that it's a government issue, but we should be rehabilitating our criminals instead of (just) labeling and punishing them: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/why-scandinavian-prisons-are-superior/279949/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/wh...
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >What do you do with "bad people? I think he's usually using it synonymous with "deadbeats you don't want to hire anyway"
    - 8y ago
misiti3780 8y ago
It depends on what kind of a of crime though right, something as innocuous as using pot or other drugs, sure, it's easy to say that should have a second chance --- but if you spent 10 years in prison for a bank robbery, you're probably are not going to get hired at a bank after the background check comes through, and I think that makes sense. I absolutely believe in second chances, but I understand humans have biases also. On a side note, if you ever want to read a great book that will probably give you empathy for all drug addicts (if you dont have that already) I recommend "Chasing the Scream" https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00OZM4ANM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00OZM4ANM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
- Joe-Z 8y ago
  >but if you spent 10 years in prison for a bank robbery, you're probably are not going to get hired at a bank after the background check I kind of find this example hilarious. It‘s not like people rob banks out of passion. They probably were in dire straits at the time and saw no other solution. Now this person uses her time in jail to get the education necessary to work in a bank and you wouldn‘t hire her (providing them a steady income and thus financial security) out of fear they would come and rob their colleagues? EDIT: I agree with you of course, it DOES depend on the crime. Think: pedophile working in ...church
  - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
    >They probably were in dire straits at the time and saw no other solution. So what happens if they get in dire straits while working at the bank with far greater levels of access to all sorts of financial information?
    - Bjartr 8y ago
      What if that happens to any other employee? How many of them have experienced that before to know that they wouldn't have done the same? How many of them have been in those positions and did commit crime, but didn't get convicted? Having someone with criminal experience can also provide value as they would know what what to look for to find others who would do the same. Frank Abagnale Jr. being the extreme example of this.
paulsutter 8y ago
The problem is the low bar to litigation in the US. Employers are afraid hiring a person with a criminal record because if even the slightest problem occurs, they’ll be sued because they “should have known they hired a convict” and a jury will rule against them. I don’t know how this can be solved EDIT: It would not cause a lawsuit directly, but it would harm your defense in any lawsuit, which could increase the chances of one being brought. I've had this discussion with several business owners (with me advocating for ignoring convictions), and this is always the reason given
- reefoctopus 8y ago
  Do you have any evidence to support this? I’ve never heard of anybody being sued for that reason.
  - staticautomatic 8y ago
    As someone who works on lawsuits for a living I join in your question. People make a lot of assumptions about employment lawsuits that I, as something of an insider, don't see IRL. I can at least say that this particular issue has never come up in any employment suit I've ever worked on. It may well be true that employers do certain things because they're afraid of being sued, but I'm not convinced that those fears are well-founded because the things they do to protect themselves ultimately don't seem to do much good when the case goes to trial. For example, people often say that employers put employees on PIPs as a precursor to firing them because they think it will make it harder for the employee to file a lawsuit when he or she is subsequently fired. Does that dissuade some wrongfully terminated people from talking to a lawyer? Probably. But on the other hand, in pretty much every employment case I've seen go to trial involving someone who was fired from a large company, that person was on a PIP. At the very least, the protective effects of these measures seem exaggerated.
    - ergothus 8y ago
      > People make a lot of assumptions about employment lawsuits that I, as something of an insider, don't see IRL Yet US based HR decisions aren't based on informed awareness, but instead fear. Consider what people "know" about the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit, and what kind of training or legal advice most hr depts get (again, in the US. My understanding is that done other countries actually have standards for hr training)
orasis 8y ago
I’m just commenting on the “bad people” part, but at 40 years old I’ve seen enough people remain completely stuck in their dysfunctional patterns to have very little faith in rehabilitation.
- CodeCube 8y ago
  But then ... we don't really do a great job at even attempting to rehabilitate anyone. When we stick a non-violent offender in a prison, it's "Not A Good Time™️" for them. They become institutionalized, they make criminal connections, they join gangs ... they do these things in order to survive; for protection not only from other violent inmates, but also from abuse by corrections officers. Let's not lose faith in rehabilitation before we've actually tried rehabilitation.
- njharman 8y ago
  Yeah, The problem is so many normal activities are criminalized in our puritanical society. Recreational drugs, recreational sex. So many "criminals" don't need rehabilitation cause they haven't done anything wrong, anything rehabilitable. The actual dysfunctional people are small percentage.
- Bjartr 8y ago
  I see people say things like this, but I don't understand it. Why is the subject so obviously at fault and not the process? At 30 years old it all just sounds more like "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!" than anything more sincere.
  - orasis 8y ago
    If a person can’t be helped by their close friends and family, why would one expect a monolithic system to do any better?
    - Bjartr 8y ago
      > close friends and family First, not everyone has close friends and family. Second, dysfunctional families and bad friends are absolutely a thing and can even be the cause of problems. Friends and family can be an important part of rehabilitation, there's no doubt in that, but I don't see a reason to abandon people just because those have failed them, if they even had them available to rely on at all. > why would one expect a monolithic system to do any better? Because such systems have the resources available to hire and manage trained professionals. What in particular do you think makes a monolithic system unsuitable for solving the problem of effective rehabilitation?
clarkmoody 8y ago
Main problems I see are one step deeper: - Too many equate "legal" with "moral" and defer to the authority of the state when it labels someone officially as a "criminal," no matter the offense. This is a deep cultural problem, and I blame compulsory state schooling for exacerbating the issue of blindly trusting the government. Deference to arbitrary authority is drilled into our young minds over many formative years. Since public school is one of the main religions of America, I don't see this changing any time soon. - The cultural perception that justice means punishing the bad guy. Too many movies end with the villain getting killed, as if that solves the problem. If instead our culture thought of justice as making the victim whole, then entire classes of crimes would not exist, and a criminal who made restitution would be done with it. BIG NOTE HERE: people should still be able to judge whether to hire or not based on a person's history. No matter how much restitution the thief has made to past victims, for instance, a bank will probably not hire him and for good reason. - The state should have no say in whether someone is "rehabilitated." If you think for a minute how this would play out, you will realize that it opens the door to either huge abuses by the state or completely absurd outcomes. On the one hand, if you give discretion over a person's "fitness" to reenter society to a prison warden or state bureaucrat, then you allow for unlimited jail terms for those with politically incorrect views. If you try to encode into some regulation a rubric for whether someone is rehabilitated, it will utterly fail to encapsulate the nuance that is the human mind and will lead to gaming the system almost immediately.
- ergothus 8y ago
  > Too many equate "legal" with "moral" and defer to the authority of the state when it labels someone officially as a "criminal," no matter the offense. This is s huge point, and not just in drug convictions. If someone us poor and gets a warrant on the for unpaid parking fines, that is used in any public debate about them to show they are of low moral character. Reverse the issue and executives that settled charges without admitting fault are without sin, because obviously it was all legal. If the US wants to truly embrace the ideals of free speech, then we must also accept that there will be actions that are immoral but legal.
  - maceurt 8y ago
loeg 8y ago
> The problem isn't the marijuana convictions, the problem is a society that believes people with criminal records can and should have their entire lives ruined for it. Can't it be both? :-)
derefr 8y ago
You say "a society" like you have an example of a time or place that's not like this.

by mabbo 8y ago

onetimemanytime 8y ago

Curious: don't these people still have to report the arrests in some forms /for some jobs even if they're vacated? "Have you ever been arrested or jailed..." I know US immigration specifically asks to mention even if pardoned or expunged.

leetcrew 8y ago
not sure what types of jobs would make you answer that question (outside of security maybe), but at least in principle, such questions should be completely illegitimate within the US legal system.
- teh_klev 8y ago
  In Scotland there's a system called "Disclosure"[0]. There are different types of disclosure[1]: - Basic disclosure - Standard disclosure - Enhanced disclosure - Protecting Vulnerable Groups (PVG) Scheme Depending on the level of disclosure, "spent" convictions may need to be disclosed. You can however apply for spent convictions to be removed from the disclosure process. As an employee for a private consultancy which was carrying out software development work for the Scottish Government I had to get a Basic Disclosure to be able to perform my duties on that contract. It's not that unusual for certain types of work. [0]: https://www.mygov.scot/organisations/disclosure-scotland/ https://www.mygov.scot/organisations/disclosure-scotland/ [1]: https://www.mygov.scot/disclosure-types/ https://www.mygov.scot/disclosure-types/
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  US Visa application: "Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any offense or crime, even though subject of a pardon, amnesty, or other similar action?" https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/78412/what-should-a-uk-citizen-say-when-applying-for-a-us-visa-if-they-were-arrested-a https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/78412/what-should... It asks but doesn't mean you're automatically denied. BUT a just pardoned person in Seattle would have to answer yes if Canada asked the same question (they probably do)
Nasrudith 8y ago
Isn't asking just if one has been arrested in an interview for nonlaw enforcement positions technically an illegal question without qualifiers to specifically exclude the ones that didn't result in conviction or admission of guilt? Arrest doesn't imply conviction or even the low bar for indictment. For instance SWAT protocol is to cuff literally everybody else possible on the scene for one and then assess and release after the scene is secured. One would have to be completely stupid and paranoid to think you shouldn't hire someone because they were in a bank robbery turned hostage situation as a victim.
- caseyscottmckay 8y ago
  No that's false. Every single job I've ever applied to has asked about a criminal record. There is, however, a "ban the box" movement in a plurality of states, banning employers from asking potential employees about a criminal record. With the internet documenting all public information, however, it's normally trivial for an employer to do a little research and find the employee's record.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    Huh strange that it went straight to banning checking without an innocent until proven guilty standard. I know I have seen plenty of websites for career related where asking if you were convicted had yes, no, or resident of certain states as an effective N/A along with either telling you to select N/A regardless of personal status or flat out forbidding answering if from such a state.
    - ubernostrum 8y ago
      "Ban the box" usually isn't an outright ban on all criminal background checks. The thing it's fighting against is a checkbox/question on the initial job application, to prevent use of it as a universal "not even going to talk to you" filter. Typically, an employer can run a criminal background check in a "ban the box" jurisdiction, but only later in the process (for example: after completing interviews and provisionally deciding this is someone you'd like to hire). There may also be other rules in place about how you can use information from the background check, and what you have to do if you decide to revoke the offer of employment based on the result of the check.
caseyscottmckay 8y ago
Yes, a criminal record never leaves you even if "expunged" or otherwise deleted from your record. First, you have to admit to it with many jobs/other things anyway (e.g., fbi, military, bar exam etc). And it's usually worse to lie about the charge. Second, everything is documented on the internet. Thus, even if you're eventually proven innocent and never had anything to do with the criminal charge, it will still be associated with you throughout life.
- Bjartr 8y ago
  > it will still be associated with you throughout life. This is why I feel we should be pushing towards a culture that accepts that people can make mistakes.

faitswulff 8y ago

Why can't they both be problems?

mabbo 8y ago
Because they aren't. The first is only a problem because of the second. By solving the first, you continue to allow the second to be a problem. It let's us all continue to ignore it.
- faitswulff 8y ago
  This is the equivalent of saying "technical debt isn't a problem, the business priorities are a problem." Yes, the business priorities caused the technical debt, but you have to pay down the technical debt as well. Throwing out 15 years of the results of a bad culture is meaningful to hundreds, if not thousands of people whose sentences were lifted. So, too, is changing the culture. They are not mutually exclusive.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

Yeah! I only judge people on their actions, not their skin or hair or...wait. That's what a criminal record is?

hvidgaard 8y ago
I guess your actions as a child and teenager defines who you are?
- romanovcode 8y ago
  Kind of. Why wouldn't they?
  - iovrthoughtthis 8y ago
    Because people change. Who you were last year is not who you are now.
    - romanovcode 8y ago
      And because of that you should not judge me? This is fucking ridiculous.
      - iovrthoughtthis 8y ago
        You make the common mistake of disregarding time during this discussion. This is interesting and part of the reason why I think we as humans are still developing our concepts of time. We still talk about people in absolutes, as if the labels we assign someone today are still relevant tomorrow. Perhaps previous you should have been judged for your poor decisions. I don’t know. Later you does not deserve to be beholden to those judgements though. People change. Labeling someone something for life is a poor heuristic, probably more relevant when we died around 20, not now we live 4 of those short lives in one of our long lives.
  - thebigspacefuck 8y ago

Agustus 8y ago

The problem in hiring criminals is that they have committed a crime. Once they are brought to justice and sentenced, there is no real rehabilitation program, why we have such a high recidivism rate in the states. The best example of this is sexual predator label, if our society honestly believed they had been redeemed they would not need the label. The plan should be how can we get people who have been convicted to find ways to signal that they are rehabilitated. Otherwise, companies will avoid the risk of hiring a criminal and the liability of the lawsuit that might occur if said criminal commits another crime and the company is sued for hiring someone who had committed that crime before.

sdegutis 8y ago
> if our society honestly believed they had been redeemed they would not need the label That assumes that "society" is correctly and fully informed on the issue. Sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rate compared to other crimes. Plus it is a diverse category with many different types of situations all lumped into the same connotation in people's minds.
- vondur 8y ago
  I’ve heard in certain cases that people who’ve been caught urinating in public have been charged as sex offenders. Surely that’s not what these laws were intended to punish.
  - sdegutis 8y ago
    The three main things people seem to think of when they think "sex offender" is (1) an 18 year old slept with his 16 year old girlfriend (2) urinating in public and (3) child molester or rapist. There's a lot more situations, and the research shows that they all need to be handled differently, and that the current laws are much less effective than ones actually geared towards rehabilitation would be, at keeping our neighborhoods safe.
izzydata 8y ago
"why we have such a high recidivism rate in the states." Probably for the same reason. We never give them a fair chance afterward.

Shivetya 8y ago

No offense, but many with criminal convictions are bad people. I know it may be nice to think otherwise. However there just are many people out there who are difficult if it not impossible to fully integrate into society. then you run into not society but government issues as well. just some examples my cousins run into all the time, they have to use temporary agencies to filter people and stock crews each week. Why? Drug convictions can ban them from some sites their company does work at. It can also jack their company's vehicle insurance and health insurance cost. Plus, go figure, those with more than one don't turn out to be good employees. They used to do direct hires, they even tried VA recommended people. some just hang on long enough to start collecting benefits again or meet eligibility requirements. they have good jobs to offer as do thousands of small employers do but they cannot afford the cost of that risk. but ignoring their hiring issues, occupational licensing which prevents competition in many fields can include clauses that block those convicted of a crime from entering a field and drug convictions doubly so.

ppeetteerr 8y ago
Many without convictions are bad people too. Having a record for MJ possession and sale is not the same as having a record for murder or even domestic abuse.
faitswulff 8y ago
> many with criminal convictions are bad people What do you do with "bad people?" Are they to be forever a drain on society? I agree that it's a government issue, but we should be rehabilitating our criminals instead of (just) labeling and punishing them: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/why-scandinavian-prisons-are-superior/279949/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/wh...
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >What do you do with "bad people? I think he's usually using it synonymous with "deadbeats you don't want to hire anyway"
  - 8y ago

misiti3780 8y ago

It depends on what kind of a of crime though right, something as innocuous as using pot or other drugs, sure, it's easy to say that should have a second chance --- but if you spent 10 years in prison for a bank robbery, you're probably are not going to get hired at a bank after the background check comes through, and I think that makes sense. I absolutely believe in second chances, but I understand humans have biases also. On a side note, if you ever want to read a great book that will probably give you empathy for all drug addicts (if you dont have that already) I recommend "Chasing the Scream" https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00OZM4ANM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00OZM4ANM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...

Joe-Z 8y ago
>but if you spent 10 years in prison for a bank robbery, you're probably are not going to get hired at a bank after the background check I kind of find this example hilarious. It‘s not like people rob banks out of passion. They probably were in dire straits at the time and saw no other solution. Now this person uses her time in jail to get the education necessary to work in a bank and you wouldn‘t hire her (providing them a steady income and thus financial security) out of fear they would come and rob their colleagues? EDIT: I agree with you of course, it DOES depend on the crime. Think: pedophile working in ...church
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  >They probably were in dire straits at the time and saw no other solution. So what happens if they get in dire straits while working at the bank with far greater levels of access to all sorts of financial information?
  - Bjartr 8y ago
    What if that happens to any other employee? How many of them have experienced that before to know that they wouldn't have done the same? How many of them have been in those positions and did commit crime, but didn't get convicted? Having someone with criminal experience can also provide value as they would know what what to look for to find others who would do the same. Frank Abagnale Jr. being the extreme example of this.

paulsutter 8y ago

The problem is the low bar to litigation in the US. Employers are afraid hiring a person with a criminal record because if even the slightest problem occurs, they’ll be sued because they “should have known they hired a convict” and a jury will rule against them. I don’t know how this can be solved EDIT: It would not cause a lawsuit directly, but it would harm your defense in any lawsuit, which could increase the chances of one being brought. I've had this discussion with several business owners (with me advocating for ignoring convictions), and this is always the reason given

reefoctopus 8y ago
Do you have any evidence to support this? I’ve never heard of anybody being sued for that reason.
- staticautomatic 8y ago
  As someone who works on lawsuits for a living I join in your question. People make a lot of assumptions about employment lawsuits that I, as something of an insider, don't see IRL. I can at least say that this particular issue has never come up in any employment suit I've ever worked on. It may well be true that employers do certain things because they're afraid of being sued, but I'm not convinced that those fears are well-founded because the things they do to protect themselves ultimately don't seem to do much good when the case goes to trial. For example, people often say that employers put employees on PIPs as a precursor to firing them because they think it will make it harder for the employee to file a lawsuit when he or she is subsequently fired. Does that dissuade some wrongfully terminated people from talking to a lawyer? Probably. But on the other hand, in pretty much every employment case I've seen go to trial involving someone who was fired from a large company, that person was on a PIP. At the very least, the protective effects of these measures seem exaggerated.
  - ergothus 8y ago
    > People make a lot of assumptions about employment lawsuits that I, as something of an insider, don't see IRL Yet US based HR decisions aren't based on informed awareness, but instead fear. Consider what people "know" about the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit, and what kind of training or legal advice most hr depts get (again, in the US. My understanding is that done other countries actually have standards for hr training)

orasis 8y ago

I’m just commenting on the “bad people” part, but at 40 years old I’ve seen enough people remain completely stuck in their dysfunctional patterns to have very little faith in rehabilitation.

CodeCube 8y ago
But then ... we don't really do a great job at even attempting to rehabilitate anyone. When we stick a non-violent offender in a prison, it's "Not A Good Time™️" for them. They become institutionalized, they make criminal connections, they join gangs ... they do these things in order to survive; for protection not only from other violent inmates, but also from abuse by corrections officers. Let's not lose faith in rehabilitation before we've actually tried rehabilitation.
njharman 8y ago
Yeah, The problem is so many normal activities are criminalized in our puritanical society. Recreational drugs, recreational sex. So many "criminals" don't need rehabilitation cause they haven't done anything wrong, anything rehabilitable. The actual dysfunctional people are small percentage.
Bjartr 8y ago
I see people say things like this, but I don't understand it. Why is the subject so obviously at fault and not the process? At 30 years old it all just sounds more like "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!" than anything more sincere.
- orasis 8y ago
  If a person can’t be helped by their close friends and family, why would one expect a monolithic system to do any better?
  - Bjartr 8y ago
    > close friends and family First, not everyone has close friends and family. Second, dysfunctional families and bad friends are absolutely a thing and can even be the cause of problems. Friends and family can be an important part of rehabilitation, there's no doubt in that, but I don't see a reason to abandon people just because those have failed them, if they even had them available to rely on at all. > why would one expect a monolithic system to do any better? Because such systems have the resources available to hire and manage trained professionals. What in particular do you think makes a monolithic system unsuitable for solving the problem of effective rehabilitation?

clarkmoody 8y ago

Main problems I see are one step deeper: - Too many equate "legal" with "moral" and defer to the authority of the state when it labels someone officially as a "criminal," no matter the offense. This is a deep cultural problem, and I blame compulsory state schooling for exacerbating the issue of blindly trusting the government. Deference to arbitrary authority is drilled into our young minds over many formative years. Since public school is one of the main religions of America, I don't see this changing any time soon. - The cultural perception that justice means punishing the bad guy. Too many movies end with the villain getting killed, as if that solves the problem. If instead our culture thought of justice as making the victim whole, then entire classes of crimes would not exist, and a criminal who made restitution would be done with it. BIG NOTE HERE: people should still be able to judge whether to hire or not based on a person's history. No matter how much restitution the thief has made to past victims, for instance, a bank will probably not hire him and for good reason. - The state should have no say in whether someone is "rehabilitated." If you think for a minute how this would play out, you will realize that it opens the door to either huge abuses by the state or completely absurd outcomes. On the one hand, if you give discretion over a person's "fitness" to reenter society to a prison warden or state bureaucrat, then you allow for unlimited jail terms for those with politically incorrect views. If you try to encode into some regulation a rubric for whether someone is rehabilitated, it will utterly fail to encapsulate the nuance that is the human mind and will lead to gaming the system almost immediately.

ergothus 8y ago
> Too many equate "legal" with "moral" and defer to the authority of the state when it labels someone officially as a "criminal," no matter the offense. This is s huge point, and not just in drug convictions. If someone us poor and gets a warrant on the for unpaid parking fines, that is used in any public debate about them to show they are of low moral character. Reverse the issue and executives that settled charges without admitting fault are without sin, because obviously it was all legal. If the US wants to truly embrace the ideals of free speech, then we must also accept that there will be actions that are immoral but legal.
- maceurt 8y ago

loeg 8y ago

> The problem isn't the marijuana convictions, the problem is a society that believes people with criminal records can and should have their entire lives ruined for it. Can't it be both? :-)

derefr 8y ago

You say "a society" like you have an example of a time or place that's not like this.