6 ms·

Yep. It boils down to rehabilitation v. retribution. Rehabilitation is effective at preventing recidivism. Retribution is politically expedient. And this go

Yep. It boils down to rehabilitation v. retribution. Rehabilitation is effective at preventing recidivism. Retribution is politically expedient. And this goes beyond prisons, too. Kinda hard to not turn to crime again if your chances at a career are gated behind criminal background checks that you're destined to fail.

tyingq 6y ago
"if your chances at a career are gated behind criminal background checks that you're destined to fail" That's a great point that I haven't seen discussed in the media. When I was young, only "Fortune 500" type companies could afford background checks, so you had a fighting chance at getting a decent job. Now, anybody can buy a instant background check online, and you can get not just felony data, but misdemeanor data, and even "just arrests, not convictions". And it's dirt cheap to do so. So, job prospects are dim, and even simple stuff like renting an apartment is difficult as well.
- monocasa 6y ago
  It'll also show offenses which have been expunged from your record.
- BrandoElFollito 6y ago
  This concept of background check on the US is strange. In France, once you left prison, it means that you have served what you had to serve and start again. Nobody can check whether you did prison or not. Some specific jobs require a document stating your juridical past but you bring it, this is not some can do on their own. Then you have military and sensitive civil servants jobs where this is checked for you, but it is really specific. I would not be happy if anybody could check my past online...
  - tyingq 6y ago
    I'm sure there's more in play, but the concept of "At Will Employment" we have in the US creates an environment where only very specifically legally defined discrimination counts as such (race, gender, etc). Outside of that you can fire, or not hire, anyone, for any arbitrary reason you want...even for "no reason given".
  - WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
    So in the US there are rules around court data being public so companies scoop up that data and basically package it as a background check. This data is also enriched with voting data which is also public in most states which includes the people living in your home and other info. The company ADP which deals with paychecks also sells your income information to third parties so someone running a basic background check can actually know where you live, who you live with and how much you make. Luckily the french did give us a tool to fight against this bullshit, it is called the guillotine?
    - BrandoElFollito 6y ago
      I think a less radical solution would be a bit more of "socialism" in the good sense (social protection, protection of the job etc.). It has its pros and cons, but the pros IMO win - bringing some peace of mind to people.
      - WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
        Can't have "socialism", that's un-american. Now, guillotines, those are french therefore okay, like pastries.
      - drstewart 6y ago
        >I think a less radical solution would be a bit more of "socialism" in the good sense (social protection, protection of the job etc.). That's not what socialism is. Socialism isn't stuff you like done by the government.
        yellowapple 6y ago
        Neither of those things need to be "done by the government". Unionization covers "protection of the job", and mutual aid covers "social protection". Though yes, if the state is to exist, the least it should be doing is providing for its people - in my opinion via UBI + single-payer healthcare at minimum.
        BrandoElFollito 6y ago
  - SilverRed 6y ago
    It seems to be the same in Australia from what I can see. We have "police checks" where the police certify that you have not been involved in any crime specific to the job you apply for. So if you have committed fraud, you could not get a job at a bank. And if you are a sex offender, you could not get a job with kids. But as far as I know, a fraud can get a job at a school and a sex offender can get a job at a bank and the employer would not know anything.
    - tyingq 6y ago
      That seems quite fair and even practical.
      - spijdar 6y ago
        What makes this potentially complicated in the US is each state being a different jurisdiction. While states aren't really anything like "countries" in the European statehood sense of the word, they keep separate records by design, and there are often no interoperable systems for exchanging data. This is why there is no "USA marriage certificate" in the US, there's simply no nation wide record of marriages. I'd guess the industry built around background checks and the like is partially a response to this. There isn't a national registry of crimes, at least not all kinds, so you could game the Australian system by just crossing state borders. Hence companies selling collections of people's (technically) public record. A solution may be to just create more national registries, but this seems antithetical to the US's idea of statehood. Maybe it'd be for the best, though...
        SilverRed 6y ago
        It seems to be that the US ends up with the worst of both systems. States are not separate countries so they can not deny access like another country would deny a rapist from immigrating but they are also not unified so they can't take any collective action. Seems to be the core of the covid situation too. There is no unified plan and guidance but states doing well can't shut borders to continue doing well.
- tossme1231235 6y ago
  It is discussed in the media pretty often. By now, it is just accepted that it is terrible, so it is less sensational. Searching 'criminal record employment' in Google News yields > 600,000 results. 'Ban the box' gives millions of results 'clean slate law' gives > 80k results
slibhb 6y ago
No it doesn't. It's perfectly fair to be against the lack of uniformity in how prisoners are treated without being against retributive justice. That prisoners' lives should not depend on "the whims of the prison's management" (as another poster put it) is just common sense.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  You're right in theory, but in practice, being in favor of retributive "justice" tends to go hand in hand with an acceptance of arbitrary application of said "justice", for reasons typically along the lines of "if you wanted humane treatment then you should've thought about that before being a hard-bitten criminal scumbag" (exaggerating, obviously, but not by much).
SilasX 6y ago
Well, if you do give them practical job training, another voting segment is going to scream bloody murder at "prison labor".
- tyingq 6y ago
  It's not lack of skills that's being cited here. It's being unemployed because of your criminal background check.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    They're not independent. Sufficient skills can overcome the stigma of a criminal record. But providing prisoners skills usually involves some on-the-job training to be useful.
    - yellowapple 6y ago
      > Sufficient skills can overcome the stigma of a criminal record. Not when there's an HR department in between the applicant and the hiring manager. People with "sufficient skills" get rejected all the time for reasons far more benign than e.g. having killed someone 30 years ago. Like, this ain't about "stigma". This is about Kafkaesque corporate bureaucracy actively driving crime rates.
      - SilasX 6y ago
        So you're saying the problem isn't the prison system.
        yellowapple 6y ago
        I'm saying the problem ain't just the prison system - and neither is the punishment.
- SamBam 6y ago
  That sounds like a straw man. There's a big difference between practical "practical job training" and "breaking rocks." If the labor is entirely volunteer and something that actually requires some training, it's job training. If it's forced (which is legal in many states) and it's entirely grunt work like janitorial duty or highway cleanup, then it's prison labor.
ravenstine 6y ago
I think you can have a level of both. Obviously we don't want crime to be free of consequence, but we also don't want inmates to commit crimes again after their sentence(both for the sake of others and their own). In the US, we mostly care about retribution, even when we say that we want reformation. All the time I hear from people about how we need to focus on rehabilitation, but then hear a lot of the same people shout "lock 'em up!" even for property crimes. I'm not one to be in the "America is bad at everything" camp, but I think one of the most negative aspects of our culture is that we act entitled to everything like the world is Burger King and we should get everything our way(or your money back). Fries too cold? Send 'em back and don't tip the server! Someone backed into our rear fender? Sue 'em for all they've got! Someone stole your TV? Lock 'em up and throw away the key! It all stems from materialism.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  Years ago I read an interview with a prison warden. The interviewer at the end asked him what he would want the public to understand. The warden said, I would like the public to understand that everyone here is going to get out eventually.
- FpUser 6y ago
  I live in Canada although did visit US few times. In my opinion the United States is great. Problem I think is that it is great at too many things. It had accomplished incredibly good things. It had also fucked things up royally. And keeps doing all of this. For the people I think it would be worth paying more attention to the dark side.

tyingq 6y ago

"if your chances at a career are gated behind criminal background checks that you're destined to fail" That's a great point that I haven't seen discussed in the media. When I was young, only "Fortune 500" type companies could afford background checks, so you had a fighting chance at getting a decent job. Now, anybody can buy a instant background check online, and you can get not just felony data, but misdemeanor data, and even "just arrests, not convictions". And it's dirt cheap to do so. So, job prospects are dim, and even simple stuff like renting an apartment is difficult as well.

monocasa 6y ago
It'll also show offenses which have been expunged from your record.
BrandoElFollito 6y ago
This concept of background check on the US is strange. In France, once you left prison, it means that you have served what you had to serve and start again. Nobody can check whether you did prison or not. Some specific jobs require a document stating your juridical past but you bring it, this is not some can do on their own. Then you have military and sensitive civil servants jobs where this is checked for you, but it is really specific. I would not be happy if anybody could check my past online...
- tyingq 6y ago
  I'm sure there's more in play, but the concept of "At Will Employment" we have in the US creates an environment where only very specifically legally defined discrimination counts as such (race, gender, etc). Outside of that you can fire, or not hire, anyone, for any arbitrary reason you want...even for "no reason given".
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  So in the US there are rules around court data being public so companies scoop up that data and basically package it as a background check. This data is also enriched with voting data which is also public in most states which includes the people living in your home and other info. The company ADP which deals with paychecks also sells your income information to third parties so someone running a basic background check can actually know where you live, who you live with and how much you make. Luckily the french did give us a tool to fight against this bullshit, it is called the guillotine?
  - BrandoElFollito 6y ago
    I think a less radical solution would be a bit more of "socialism" in the good sense (social protection, protection of the job etc.). It has its pros and cons, but the pros IMO win - bringing some peace of mind to people.
    - WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
      Can't have "socialism", that's un-american. Now, guillotines, those are french therefore okay, like pastries.
    - drstewart 6y ago
      >I think a less radical solution would be a bit more of "socialism" in the good sense (social protection, protection of the job etc.). That's not what socialism is. Socialism isn't stuff you like done by the government.
      - yellowapple 6y ago
        Neither of those things need to be "done by the government". Unionization covers "protection of the job", and mutual aid covers "social protection". Though yes, if the state is to exist, the least it should be doing is providing for its people - in my opinion via UBI + single-payer healthcare at minimum.
      - BrandoElFollito 6y ago
- SilverRed 6y ago
  It seems to be the same in Australia from what I can see. We have "police checks" where the police certify that you have not been involved in any crime specific to the job you apply for. So if you have committed fraud, you could not get a job at a bank. And if you are a sex offender, you could not get a job with kids. But as far as I know, a fraud can get a job at a school and a sex offender can get a job at a bank and the employer would not know anything.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    That seems quite fair and even practical.
    - spijdar 6y ago
      What makes this potentially complicated in the US is each state being a different jurisdiction. While states aren't really anything like "countries" in the European statehood sense of the word, they keep separate records by design, and there are often no interoperable systems for exchanging data. This is why there is no "USA marriage certificate" in the US, there's simply no nation wide record of marriages. I'd guess the industry built around background checks and the like is partially a response to this. There isn't a national registry of crimes, at least not all kinds, so you could game the Australian system by just crossing state borders. Hence companies selling collections of people's (technically) public record. A solution may be to just create more national registries, but this seems antithetical to the US's idea of statehood. Maybe it'd be for the best, though...
      - SilverRed 6y ago
        It seems to be that the US ends up with the worst of both systems. States are not separate countries so they can not deny access like another country would deny a rapist from immigrating but they are also not unified so they can't take any collective action. Seems to be the core of the covid situation too. There is no unified plan and guidance but states doing well can't shut borders to continue doing well.
tossme1231235 6y ago
It is discussed in the media pretty often. By now, it is just accepted that it is terrible, so it is less sensational. Searching 'criminal record employment' in Google News yields > 600,000 results. 'Ban the box' gives millions of results 'clean slate law' gives > 80k results

slibhb 6y ago

No it doesn't. It's perfectly fair to be against the lack of uniformity in how prisoners are treated without being against retributive justice. That prisoners' lives should not depend on "the whims of the prison's management" (as another poster put it) is just common sense.

yellowapple 6y ago
You're right in theory, but in practice, being in favor of retributive "justice" tends to go hand in hand with an acceptance of arbitrary application of said "justice", for reasons typically along the lines of "if you wanted humane treatment then you should've thought about that before being a hard-bitten criminal scumbag" (exaggerating, obviously, but not by much).

SilasX 6y ago

Well, if you do give them practical job training, another voting segment is going to scream bloody murder at "prison labor".

tyingq 6y ago
It's not lack of skills that's being cited here. It's being unemployed because of your criminal background check.
- SilasX 6y ago
  They're not independent. Sufficient skills can overcome the stigma of a criminal record. But providing prisoners skills usually involves some on-the-job training to be useful.
  - yellowapple 6y ago
    > Sufficient skills can overcome the stigma of a criminal record. Not when there's an HR department in between the applicant and the hiring manager. People with "sufficient skills" get rejected all the time for reasons far more benign than e.g. having killed someone 30 years ago. Like, this ain't about "stigma". This is about Kafkaesque corporate bureaucracy actively driving crime rates.
    - SilasX 6y ago
      So you're saying the problem isn't the prison system.
      - yellowapple 6y ago
        I'm saying the problem ain't just the prison system - and neither is the punishment.
SamBam 6y ago
That sounds like a straw man. There's a big difference between practical "practical job training" and "breaking rocks." If the labor is entirely volunteer and something that actually requires some training, it's job training. If it's forced (which is legal in many states) and it's entirely grunt work like janitorial duty or highway cleanup, then it's prison labor.

ravenstine 6y ago

I think you can have a level of both. Obviously we don't want crime to be free of consequence, but we also don't want inmates to commit crimes again after their sentence(both for the sake of others and their own). In the US, we mostly care about retribution, even when we say that we want reformation. All the time I hear from people about how we need to focus on rehabilitation, but then hear a lot of the same people shout "lock 'em up!" even for property crimes. I'm not one to be in the "America is bad at everything" camp, but I think one of the most negative aspects of our culture is that we act entitled to everything like the world is Burger King and we should get everything our way(or your money back). Fries too cold? Send 'em back and don't tip the server! Someone backed into our rear fender? Sue 'em for all they've got! Someone stole your TV? Lock 'em up and throw away the key! It all stems from materialism.

Gibbon1 6y ago
Years ago I read an interview with a prison warden. The interviewer at the end asked him what he would want the public to understand. The warden said, I would like the public to understand that everyone here is going to get out eventually.
FpUser 6y ago
I live in Canada although did visit US few times. In my opinion the United States is great. Problem I think is that it is great at too many things. It had accomplished incredibly good things. It had also fucked things up royally. And keeps doing all of this. For the people I think it would be worth paying more attention to the dark side.