3 ms·

I'm wondering, isn't asking for your criminal history during job interviews the same as discriminating based on age or race? I mean, even if you were convicted,

I'm wondering, isn't asking for your criminal history during job interviews the same as discriminating based on age or race? I mean, even if you were convicted, you've paid the price by doing your time and after that you should have equal opportunities at a job like anyone else, right? Maybe I'm just too idealistic but I never understood why we hardly give these people a second chance. And then people wonder why recidivism rates are so high.

rrreese 14y ago
If I'm hiring an accountant I probably want to know if they have a history of dishonesty charges. You are free to give such a person a second chance, I'm less keen. I probably don't care if they had some drug charge 20 years ago though. Not sure how that's racist or ageist?
- barrkel 14y ago
  Because the US justice system disproportionately punishes black crime, and older people are more likely to have had an encounter with the law.
nitrogen 14y ago
If you've got nothing on your record, you'll probably be pereived as a good person. If you have any negative history at all, suddenly you become a fundamentally bad person who's just being good right now. At least, you've proven that you are "capable" of doing something "wrong", even if it was just being at school on the day of a protest. What nobody wants to admit is that, in the right circumstances, most people are "capable" of anything.
mcherm 14y ago
In the US, the law says that employers ARE allowed to discriminate. They can, for instance, only hire left-handed people. Or refuse to hire people because of their eye color. Or because of their criminal background. The exception is a small number of specific traits on which one is NOT permitted to discriminate. Race is one. You MAY discriminate on the basis of age, as long as you're giving a bad deal to a young person... it is illegal to discriminate negatively against someone for being old. There are a few other protected classes (pregnancy, etc), and some states add extra protections above-and-beyond the federal law (in some states it's illegal to fire people for being gay... but in others that is perfectly legal). The one place it gets a bit odd is when they claim that your criteria for discrimination is just a "cover" or has the "same effect" as discriminating on the basis of a protected class. For instance, refusing to hire people because they live in a certain neighborhood is legal, but in court they would try to show that the neighborhood was predominately non-whites and so you were REALLY discriminating on the basis of race. The good news is that ALMOST ALL employers go well above and beyond what the law requires. Both to protect themselves from ambiguous cases AND because they are basically decent human beings, they go out of their way not to discriminate on anything other than basic ability to perform the job. But even so, some areas like criminal background get considered.
danielweber 14y ago
Employers can be held legally responsible for the actions of their employees in certain circumstances, and hiring a ex-felon (when you knew, or could have known) doesn't look good to a jury. I think this sucks. Since graduation I've never been asked if I'm a felon or been arrested, so it wouldn't matter to me, but for lots of the working class, "no felons" is a common screening technique for employers, and it makes it really hard for people who have done their time to society to re-integrate.

rrreese 14y ago

If I'm hiring an accountant I probably want to know if they have a history of dishonesty charges. You are free to give such a person a second chance, I'm less keen. I probably don't care if they had some drug charge 20 years ago though. Not sure how that's racist or ageist?

barrkel 14y ago
Because the US justice system disproportionately punishes black crime, and older people are more likely to have had an encounter with the law.

nitrogen 14y ago

If you've got nothing on your record, you'll probably be pereived as a good person. If you have any negative history at all, suddenly you become a fundamentally bad person who's just being good right now. At least, you've proven that you are "capable" of doing something "wrong", even if it was just being at school on the day of a protest. What nobody wants to admit is that, in the right circumstances, most people are "capable" of anything.

mcherm 14y ago

In the US, the law says that employers ARE allowed to discriminate. They can, for instance, only hire left-handed people. Or refuse to hire people because of their eye color. Or because of their criminal background. The exception is a small number of specific traits on which one is NOT permitted to discriminate. Race is one. You MAY discriminate on the basis of age, as long as you're giving a bad deal to a young person... it is illegal to discriminate negatively against someone for being old. There are a few other protected classes (pregnancy, etc), and some states add extra protections above-and-beyond the federal law (in some states it's illegal to fire people for being gay... but in others that is perfectly legal). The one place it gets a bit odd is when they claim that your criteria for discrimination is just a "cover" or has the "same effect" as discriminating on the basis of a protected class. For instance, refusing to hire people because they live in a certain neighborhood is legal, but in court they would try to show that the neighborhood was predominately non-whites and so you were REALLY discriminating on the basis of race. The good news is that ALMOST ALL employers go well above and beyond what the law requires. Both to protect themselves from ambiguous cases AND because they are basically decent human beings, they go out of their way not to discriminate on anything other than basic ability to perform the job. But even so, some areas like criminal background get considered.

danielweber 14y ago

Employers can be held legally responsible for the actions of their employees in certain circumstances, and hiring a ex-felon (when you knew, or could have known) doesn't look good to a jury. I think this sucks. Since graduation I've never been asked if I'm a felon or been arrested, so it wouldn't matter to me, but for lots of the working class, "no felons" is a common screening technique for employers, and it makes it really hard for people who have done their time to society to re-integrate.