4 ms·

I know you had several points in this comment but this stuck out to me > Then more DAs are choosing to prosecute fewer crimes and negotiating down serious crim

by lovich 4y ago

I know you had several points in this comment but this stuck out to me > Then more DAs are choosing to prosecute fewer crimes and negotiating down serious crimes that would trigger alerts (usually felonies) to lesser crimes so the data that is there may not be representative of the situation. Isn’t this representative of the situation? They didn’t get a felony and the background check shows they didn’t get a felony? Are background checks supposed to be extra punishment on top of what the judicial system determines?

voakbasda 4y ago
When the government goes soft on crime, you need to look deeper to find the truth about matters. And make no mistake, it has gone soft in some places. I would pay extra to have a background check turn up everything it can, so I can make my own determination.
- lovich 4y ago
  I still think that’s not something you’d want to have come back from a government background check. As long as they they are dutifully reporting the truth of the matter in terms of how the government ruled on the case then that seems like enough. What your describing sounds like it should stay out of government hands just on an ethical basis
  - ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
    The employer is asking for a background check to minimize losses/insurance payments due to employee theft. If the government background check does not reflect the risk of the individual being involved in theft in the past (for whatever reason), then the employer will find another, perhaps even less ethical provider of information to assess the risk.
tbrownaw 4y ago
It's a case of a measure ceasing to be a good measure because it became a target. The purpose of running a background check is to predict if someone will be a problem. But they work by measuring interactions with the legal system (probably convictions in particular?). And if suddenly most of the behavior you care about stops generating records of interactions, well background checks just got a loss less useful.

by lovich 4y ago

voakbasda 4y ago

When the government goes soft on crime, you need to look deeper to find the truth about matters. And make no mistake, it has gone soft in some places. I would pay extra to have a background check turn up everything it can, so I can make my own determination.

lovich 4y ago
I still think that’s not something you’d want to have come back from a government background check. As long as they they are dutifully reporting the truth of the matter in terms of how the government ruled on the case then that seems like enough. What your describing sounds like it should stay out of government hands just on an ethical basis
- ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
  The employer is asking for a background check to minimize losses/insurance payments due to employee theft. If the government background check does not reflect the risk of the individual being involved in theft in the past (for whatever reason), then the employer will find another, perhaps even less ethical provider of information to assess the risk.

tbrownaw 4y ago

It's a case of a measure ceasing to be a good measure because it became a target. The purpose of running a background check is to predict if someone will be a problem. But they work by measuring interactions with the legal system (probably convictions in particular?). And if suddenly most of the behavior you care about stops generating records of interactions, well background checks just got a loss less useful.