3 ms·

As a non-american, how this does not run afoul of discrimination laws boggles my mind. Refusing employment on skin colour, religion, sexual orientation or indee

by herio 7y ago

As a non-american, how this does not run afoul of discrimination laws boggles my mind. Refusing employment on skin colour, religion, sexual orientation or indeed pretty much anything would land you in trouble, doing the same on this is seen as perfectly fine. Back home in Sweden, records are automatically sealed after two years (if my memory serves me correctly).

Bostonian 7y ago
It's very different to discriminate against someone for something they did than on the basis of race, sex, etc.
- candiodari 7y ago
  What they did ? I guess you haven't read many criminal or (even worse) juvenile criminal records. Actual dangerous criminals exist but they're very rare, and yes, also in prison they're very rare. People are in prison or "juvie" because they got caught with drugs, ran away (juvenile, although being perceived to run away from the police can land you in jail as an adult too), were caught outside while a crime happened "nearby", helped another kid run away, ... Violent or fatal crimes are very rare. Not 10%. And even from those, the big category of "violence" is breaking and entering. I feel like while these statistics differ from state to state, everywhere reality is very different from what people think it is.
- washadjeffmad 7y ago
  You might think you're making a distinction within your comparison, but you're not. Blanket no-hire policies for felons are discriminatory because minorities are disproportionally and more harshly sentenced in the US. While you might feel justified in discriminating against a person with a felony record, you have a non-trivial probability of judging them on the racist workings of a corrupt and broken system that preys on vulnerable populations. Fewer than 1% of cases in the US go to trial. Instead, people are forced to plead to charges instead of letting the evidence speak for itself. An innocent person who doesn't think they can afford to fight a felony charge in court might choose to take a prosecutor's plea deal to go to prison for a month instead of the mandatory minimum of 5 years. It's utterly barbaric.
sol_remmy2 7y ago
America should not be compared to a country like Sweden. It should be compared to other giant multi-ethnic countries like Brazil or India or maybe the UK. Also in America, states are given the freedom to create (some) of their own laws. So one state might be okay sealing records after 2 years, another state might prefer to wait 10 years. IMO this is superior to a "one size fits all" approach.
- x86_64Ubuntu 7y ago
  It's not superior to "one size fits all" when you have states whose history is wrapped up in terrorizing The Other with it's judicial system.

by herio 7y ago

Bostonian 7y ago

It's very different to discriminate against someone for something they did than on the basis of race, sex, etc.

candiodari 7y ago
What they did ? I guess you haven't read many criminal or (even worse) juvenile criminal records. Actual dangerous criminals exist but they're very rare, and yes, also in prison they're very rare. People are in prison or "juvie" because they got caught with drugs, ran away (juvenile, although being perceived to run away from the police can land you in jail as an adult too), were caught outside while a crime happened "nearby", helped another kid run away, ... Violent or fatal crimes are very rare. Not 10%. And even from those, the big category of "violence" is breaking and entering. I feel like while these statistics differ from state to state, everywhere reality is very different from what people think it is.
washadjeffmad 7y ago
You might think you're making a distinction within your comparison, but you're not. Blanket no-hire policies for felons are discriminatory because minorities are disproportionally and more harshly sentenced in the US. While you might feel justified in discriminating against a person with a felony record, you have a non-trivial probability of judging them on the racist workings of a corrupt and broken system that preys on vulnerable populations. Fewer than 1% of cases in the US go to trial. Instead, people are forced to plead to charges instead of letting the evidence speak for itself. An innocent person who doesn't think they can afford to fight a felony charge in court might choose to take a prosecutor's plea deal to go to prison for a month instead of the mandatory minimum of 5 years. It's utterly barbaric.

sol_remmy2 7y ago

America should not be compared to a country like Sweden. It should be compared to other giant multi-ethnic countries like Brazil or India or maybe the UK. Also in America, states are given the freedom to create (some) of their own laws. So one state might be okay sealing records after 2 years, another state might prefer to wait 10 years. IMO this is superior to a "one size fits all" approach.

x86_64Ubuntu 7y ago
It's not superior to "one size fits all" when you have states whose history is wrapped up in terrorizing The Other with it's judicial system.