4 ms·

If two applicants were the same except that candidate A committed a minor crime 20 years ago, it is rational for me to prefer candidate B. If A is better than B

If two applicants were the same except that candidate A committed a minor crime 20 years ago, it is rational for me to prefer candidate B. If A is better than B in some other way, for example having more relevant experience, I may decide that the extra experience outweighs the long-ago crime. But why do politicians assume I cannot make rational decisions and that they must decide for me what criteria for applicants are important? At the margin, removing a penalty for crime will result in more crime.

ddingus 7y ago
People change. Many believe in redemption too. B maybe did a crime, did not get caught. Never paid a debt. Maybe never learned a lesson A did. This is not just politicians. People have feelings about this too. Frankly, I believe in being able to pay ones debt, mistakes having been made, growth, better experience acquired, and move on. If it is minor, there should not be life long implications.
- Bostonian 7y ago
  "B maybe did a crime, did not get caught. Never paid a debt. Maybe never learned a lesson A did." Many crimes are not solved, and the crimes people are convicted of are a tip of the iceberg. Prosecutors commonly reduce the charge to get a guilty plea in a plea bargain. If person A has a criminal record, it's quite possible he has committed more crimes than what he has been convicted of.
  - RightMillennial 7y ago
    If person A has a criminal record, it's quite possible he couldn't afford a good defense lawyer to be acquitted, and was better off taking the plea bargain than risking a worse conviction.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    > Prosecutors commonly reduce the charge to get a guilty plea in a plea bargain. No, commonly, they pile on every charge they can think of and come up with some ridiculous sentence for a small crime, then offer to reduce it to something reasonable in exchange for a guilty plea.
deogeo 7y ago
> If two applicants were the same except that candidate A committed a minor crime 20 years ago, it is rational for me to prefer candidate B. If you lack any instinct to fight the power, yes. Personally, I would feel dirty, like a bootlicking worm, to collaborate with authorities this way. Especially for a minor crime, that they presumably paid for already.
SamReidHughes 7y ago
Because people don’t make rational decisions, they make CYA decisions. And not being able to chaperone a field trip in 20 years isn’t a real deterrent.
angry_octet 7y ago
It would be rational for you to employ the historically felonious candidate. They would be more likely to stick with you, if only because finding a job elsewhere is hard. If lots of people did the same, wages would experience downward pressure, because the pool of possibly successful applicants would be larger. You might also do it because sometimes it pays to give someone a break.
LocalH 7y ago
If you think that committing a minor crime 20 years ago should negatively impact a person today, then you're part of the problem, quite frankly.
loa_in_ 7y ago
> If two applicants were the same except that candidate A committed a minor crime 20 years ago, it is rational for me to prefer candidate B Yes if that crime was defrauding money from employers. No if it was beating up cheating ex wife's lover. You skipped an important step, yet made a firm decision you mistakenly believe is educated. When confronted you'll respond that you don't have resources to look into details of every candidate's crimes. Well, there's the catch-22. > At the margin, removing a penalty for crime will result in more crime. Making penalty inadequately high has the opposite effect of making relatives miserable and angry; affected population growing in dissent.
- baud147258 7y ago
  > No if it was beating up cheating ex wife's lover. Well that one is indicative of a violent person, with maybe some poor impulse control. Not necessarily someone I'd want to work with. (but since I'm in a country where companies can't easily get criminal records, I don't think I'd ever be in position to make such a choice)
  - kickopotomus 7y ago
    Isolated incidents cannot be considered a pattern of behavior. If you judge everyone by the worst day of their lives, I feel sorry for your friends.
m-p-3 7y ago
To play Devil's advocate, applicant B might just be better than A at not getting caught.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- vastoi 7y ago
  This is what I want out of my employees /s

ddingus 7y ago

People change. Many believe in redemption too. B maybe did a crime, did not get caught. Never paid a debt. Maybe never learned a lesson A did. This is not just politicians. People have feelings about this too. Frankly, I believe in being able to pay ones debt, mistakes having been made, growth, better experience acquired, and move on. If it is minor, there should not be life long implications.

Bostonian 7y ago
"B maybe did a crime, did not get caught. Never paid a debt. Maybe never learned a lesson A did." Many crimes are not solved, and the crimes people are convicted of are a tip of the iceberg. Prosecutors commonly reduce the charge to get a guilty plea in a plea bargain. If person A has a criminal record, it's quite possible he has committed more crimes than what he has been convicted of.
- RightMillennial 7y ago
  If person A has a criminal record, it's quite possible he couldn't afford a good defense lawyer to be acquitted, and was better off taking the plea bargain than risking a worse conviction.
- deogeo 7y ago
  > Prosecutors commonly reduce the charge to get a guilty plea in a plea bargain. No, commonly, they pile on every charge they can think of and come up with some ridiculous sentence for a small crime, then offer to reduce it to something reasonable in exchange for a guilty plea.

deogeo 7y ago

> If two applicants were the same except that candidate A committed a minor crime 20 years ago, it is rational for me to prefer candidate B. If you lack any instinct to fight the power, yes. Personally, I would feel dirty, like a bootlicking worm, to collaborate with authorities this way. Especially for a minor crime, that they presumably paid for already.

SamReidHughes 7y ago

Because people don’t make rational decisions, they make CYA decisions. And not being able to chaperone a field trip in 20 years isn’t a real deterrent.

angry_octet 7y ago

It would be rational for you to employ the historically felonious candidate. They would be more likely to stick with you, if only because finding a job elsewhere is hard. If lots of people did the same, wages would experience downward pressure, because the pool of possibly successful applicants would be larger. You might also do it because sometimes it pays to give someone a break.

LocalH 7y ago

If you think that committing a minor crime 20 years ago should negatively impact a person today, then you're part of the problem, quite frankly.

loa_in_ 7y ago

> If two applicants were the same except that candidate A committed a minor crime 20 years ago, it is rational for me to prefer candidate B Yes if that crime was defrauding money from employers. No if it was beating up cheating ex wife's lover. You skipped an important step, yet made a firm decision you mistakenly believe is educated. When confronted you'll respond that you don't have resources to look into details of every candidate's crimes. Well, there's the catch-22. > At the margin, removing a penalty for crime will result in more crime. Making penalty inadequately high has the opposite effect of making relatives miserable and angry; affected population growing in dissent.

baud147258 7y ago
> No if it was beating up cheating ex wife's lover. Well that one is indicative of a violent person, with maybe some poor impulse control. Not necessarily someone I'd want to work with. (but since I'm in a country where companies can't easily get criminal records, I don't think I'd ever be in position to make such a choice)
- kickopotomus 7y ago
  Isolated incidents cannot be considered a pattern of behavior. If you judge everyone by the worst day of their lives, I feel sorry for your friends.

m-p-3 7y ago

To play Devil's advocate, applicant B might just be better than A at not getting caught.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
vastoi 7y ago
This is what I want out of my employees /s