3 ms·

Put yourself in a companies position, if you hire someone who had a violent past, and they commit a violent crime while at work, or to a coworker or client off

Put yourself in a companies position, if you hire someone who had a violent past, and they commit a violent crime while at work, or to a coworker or client off the clock, the company will be held liable, no two ways about it, it will come back on the company. Additionally, there are countless contracts that require you specifically not have anyone with criminal convictions, and require full background checks to be awarded the contracts, even more so if it was a violent felony. Those are two very serious liabilities to a company, I understand that people deserve a second chance, but do you put your company at risk to give it to them?

taloft 6y ago
If no employer is willing to “put themselves at risk”, what choice do ex-convicts have but to commit more crimes? May as well give them a life sentence in prison for anything that makes them an employment risk.
- Meph504 6y ago
  This is a failure of the state, the purpose for incarceration is retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, is the most important aspect for a person who has been in prison to be able to return to society. Storing people in a hellish place does not fix them, it only punishes them, with out counseling and education, how is a person who is released in anyway more prepared than when they went in? I agree the current system makes it damn near impossible for someone with a conviction to get a second chance. That issue should be address at the corrections level, and the services provided after conviction. But most companies do not have the resources, education, or ability to help rehabilitate someone, so should we blindly hire on hope that this person won't cause harm to the people a company is responsible for, should the company forgo the opportunities that require your staff not have convictions, that is just an unrealistic expectation. Think about it like this, say there was a piece of equipment that had malfunctioned and caused serious injury to someone, and your company then wanted to bring that piece of equipment into your office, knowing that there is a 44% chance that it will malfunction in someway again, and there is a 25% chance that the malfunction would cause serious harm to someone, would you be comfortable with that choice, if that malfunction happened do you think the company would and should be liable for this? There are too many situations, where trying to make this right for someone with a record would have too many of my employees face situations I don't think they should have to in a work place. with 1 in 5 women being the victim of sexual assault or rape, how could I ask any of them to work side by side with someone who was convicted of it, I can't insure their safety, and I don't feel it just to put them in that situation. Same with someone who has been the victim of any violent crime. I think it boils down to person choice I suppose, and for me, I won't put the people I am responsible for at risk, not the company that I helped built. If that makes me a bad person, I think I can live with that.
chemeng 6y ago
This is a really important point. Most attempts to reduce discrimination against felons (e.g. Ban the box) do nothing to address the reason why the discrimination happens in the first place. It also places the burden on the applicant and state to retroactively correct and create chances (which are then already in a strained condition). If states were to specify some rules around when a 'Negligent Hiring' liability suit could be pursued against a business, business owners would be more willing to hire and provide chances. If the state is liable should something happen, the burden on the state then becomes to proactively rehabilitate felons who meet the set of conditions such that their future litigation costs are reduced. To me, that is a much better alignment of incentives though not perfect.

taloft 6y ago

If no employer is willing to “put themselves at risk”, what choice do ex-convicts have but to commit more crimes? May as well give them a life sentence in prison for anything that makes them an employment risk.

Meph504 6y ago
This is a failure of the state, the purpose for incarceration is retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, is the most important aspect for a person who has been in prison to be able to return to society. Storing people in a hellish place does not fix them, it only punishes them, with out counseling and education, how is a person who is released in anyway more prepared than when they went in? I agree the current system makes it damn near impossible for someone with a conviction to get a second chance. That issue should be address at the corrections level, and the services provided after conviction. But most companies do not have the resources, education, or ability to help rehabilitate someone, so should we blindly hire on hope that this person won't cause harm to the people a company is responsible for, should the company forgo the opportunities that require your staff not have convictions, that is just an unrealistic expectation. Think about it like this, say there was a piece of equipment that had malfunctioned and caused serious injury to someone, and your company then wanted to bring that piece of equipment into your office, knowing that there is a 44% chance that it will malfunction in someway again, and there is a 25% chance that the malfunction would cause serious harm to someone, would you be comfortable with that choice, if that malfunction happened do you think the company would and should be liable for this? There are too many situations, where trying to make this right for someone with a record would have too many of my employees face situations I don't think they should have to in a work place. with 1 in 5 women being the victim of sexual assault or rape, how could I ask any of them to work side by side with someone who was convicted of it, I can't insure their safety, and I don't feel it just to put them in that situation. Same with someone who has been the victim of any violent crime. I think it boils down to person choice I suppose, and for me, I won't put the people I am responsible for at risk, not the company that I helped built. If that makes me a bad person, I think I can live with that.

chemeng 6y ago

This is a really important point. Most attempts to reduce discrimination against felons (e.g. Ban the box) do nothing to address the reason why the discrimination happens in the first place. It also places the burden on the applicant and state to retroactively correct and create chances (which are then already in a strained condition). If states were to specify some rules around when a 'Negligent Hiring' liability suit could be pursued against a business, business owners would be more willing to hire and provide chances. If the state is liable should something happen, the burden on the state then becomes to proactively rehabilitate felons who meet the set of conditions such that their future litigation costs are reduced. To me, that is a much better alignment of incentives though not perfect.