8 ms·

Ask HN: CS Degree, felony conviction, need not apply?

77 points by csfelon 13y ago

I am a convicted felon. No "explanation" field here. Explanation: http://pastebin.com/PfLcKyHj I am also a graduate of a 4 year university with a degree in computer science. I have worked gainfully since I graduated (roughly 5 years ago) as a software developer for a variety of start-ups, and as a "contractor" whom was eventually hired full-time at a mid-sized business. Well some of the start-up jobs were less than "highly paid" as my career has advanced, I've easily bested all my friends and most of my family in pay and benefits. In the start-up world it's easy to avoid the question because most small start-ups lack the infrastructure to perform regular background checks on perspective employees, and new-hires often come on a "word of mouth basis" so my attitude has always been: honesty is the best policy, when asked I'm always totally upfront. However, most don't ask. My question is: I've recently been contacted by recruiters at much larger corporations (some of which I would very much like to experience and work for, internet-tech top-fivers like: Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Salesforce, etc.). I also feel that my skills have reached a level where my candidacy is viable. I would like to add a job at these company's to my resume and hopefully while there make connections in the start-up world. That being said, if I submit myself to these rigorous interviews, what should I expect when I ultimately have to disclose my felony conviction and "explain" it to a recruiter / hiring manager? At this time there is a remote possibility that I could apply to have my record sealed in another 2-3 years depending on adjustments in state law. Should I wait to apply to this companies until after I see how the law changes? ##ratelimit from HN will respond when I can

Amadou 13y ago
Getting your record sealed won't hurt, but there are plenty of other data sources that will still list the conviction - so anyone who does even a moderate background check will find out. If I were you, my long term goal would be to get myself set up with my own consulting company. It will help to separate your personal history from your work history. Companies don't have felony convictions.
- f7t7ft7 13y ago
  Criminal record or not, having my own consulting company sounds pretty nice, especially if you can already find employment as a contractor or at startups.
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  > Getting your record sealed won't hurt Actually, it may. If someone runs a background check and sees a sealed record, it tells them that a record exists, but not the nature of the offense. They would probably therefore assume something worse than a marijuana conviction, which is what OP has. This may vary by state based on what information remains available, but sealing the record MAY actually be worse than leaving it open. Obligatory: IANAL. Edited wording to clarify that this is a hypothetical employer, not what I myself would do personally.
  - jsmthrowaway 13y ago
    > I would probably therefore assume something worse than a marijuana conviction, which is what OP has. ...sigh. That just makes it worse for those of us that try to move on past our mistakes.
volume 13y ago
Since it's on your record (until 7 years?) then you seem to have some options limited. In this case, maybe choose one as a litmus test? In the end, a big part of the interview is salesmanship and you'll need it for whatever way you tell your story. How about interview with a few other companies that are not on your big list. In fact, find something like an insurance company or a place you know will freak out. Use those experiences for your final test.
- volume 13y ago
  Also to add - after re-reading your post and this part: " I've easily bested all my friends and most of my family in pay and benefits." ... it sounds like you're doing fine without working at Google/Apple. It's entirely possible you are already a success but don't think so? Maybe you see it as a way to prove something? Personally, I'd like to know what that feels like to introduce who I am based on an instantly recognizable company. But even if I do end up in one of those companies someday, I like what Tyer Durden says: "you are not your job". That said, there's a ton of awesome companies to work for other than them.
  - csfelon 13y ago
    Agreed. And the reason I chose to bring this up today was, I was contacted by a recruiter at a company that is very small and in a space that I was very interested in. However, after a rather positive reception, I was called back by their recruiter and told that they didn't feel that I could be a "viable" candidate because of my background. There was no explanation. I contacted the company's CEO directly for an explanation, going over the 3rd party recruiter. I have not heard back from him, though I don't expect to. I know he doesn't "owe" me an explanation. However, all I can do is work harder to better my skills and make myself an invaluable asset. And yes - it's something of a "selfish" motivation, vanity as well. The same way I proved that I was capable of not only graduating from school after being expelled but getting a technical degree, and being a functional citizen despite of coming from a background that predisposed me to this (physical and mentally abusive childhood household, single parent home, suicide, etc.) It's easy to hold yourself to a "different standard" than the money. Also sometimes I feel like "start-ups" have a tendency to clamor for engineers whom have a Google or a Facebook on their resume as they might not know about hiring, and assume these companies have 'vetted' this person for skills - it makes you stand out.
meritt 13y ago
Unfortunately, you can murder someone, rape a child, blow up a building or sell a plant that won't even be illegal in 10-20 years and they are equally horrible on paper. I'd say you were convicted for selling marijuana and not lead with the term "felony".
jlgaddis 13y ago
Are you in California, by chance? I'm making the assumption that you are ... You made me curious and while googling I came across some information that seems to indicate that companies in California cannot go back further than seven years on a background check and cannot ask about convictions more than seven years ago. You mention that it happened when you were a freshman and that you graduated roughly five years ago so I'm guessing you are past the seven year mark or, at the least, very close to it. If that's the case, it sounds like you might be able to avoid the situation altogether.
- csfelon 13y ago
  I am not in California, I am aware of the laws there though. I have read extensively about the way these sorts of things are structured around the country and it varies a great deal from state to state. I am closer to the 10-year mark. The state I am has some very poorly worded legislation that seems to indicate (based on the lawyers, DAs, law-makers, and advocates / lobbyists) that I've spoken too seem to think offers "some possibility" of getting it sealed. And yes, I have talked to all of the above, and none will give me a straight answer because the law is new, poorly written, and ambiguous, so at the end of the day I don't put any weight in it until I learn more. I've testified before my states' judiciary about the lack of clarity in the law, and it's been acknowledged by law-makers that it's poorly written, but it's such a limited number of people whom these statues affect, it's not a high priority to reword them. There is also the possibility of a "governors pardon" (another vague and untested opportunity) that is really a discretionary issue and holds a degree of "political motivation".
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- brymaster 13y ago
  > California cannot go back further than seven years on a background check and cannot ask about convictions more than seven years ago. No business is going to reasonably follow this. They use all sorts of background check services so an arbitrary number means nothing to them.
  - 13y ago
blahedo 13y ago
It's also worth noting that there is some movement towards preventing businesses from asking about convictions until after a conditional offer has been extended, and then putting some burden on them to demonstrate relevance before they rescind the offer. (So, under that rule, someone whose felony was embezzlement can be rescinded from a bank job, but a pot conviction shouldn't matter for a programming position.) See http://bantheboxcampaign.org/ http://bantheboxcampaign.org/ and e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/ban-the-box-minnesota_n_3240209.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/ban-the-box-minneso... , among others.
- 001sky 13y ago
  Relevant To California [edit: public sector]: October 10, 2013 Jerry Brown signs bill to ban felony question on public job apps Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill that bans government employers from asking job applicants about their criminal record until later in the hiring process, effectively extending the state's policy to some 6,000-plus local and regional government agencies in California. http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2013/10/jerry-brown-signs-bill-to-ban-felony-question-on-public-job-apps.html http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2013/10/jerry-brown...
  - maaku 13y ago
    Not relevant to the OP: "public job apps" is government work.
    - 001sky 13y ago
      Yes, i think this is correct. That being said though it shows the point that the parent was making that this is a trend/perspective gaining a certain amount of traction or legitimacy intellectually. What is not clear, however, is within the specific firms (big, public, prestigueous) and specific jobs he may be applying to, if there is any such similar trajectory.
- csfelon 13y ago
  I've read about this. Unfortunately, it's just a "movement" at this point. I have volunteered at some organizations that work in this space within my state. However, the primary focus is for a larger contingent of convicts whom are returning to society after being incarcerated. I was never incarcerated, I am not a minority, and come from a middle-class socioeconomic background, and it's extremely difficult to argue discrimination in hiring for a job that very few people are technically capable of performing. Unlike service work for example, being able bodied, not-addicted to drugs, etc. are not the only qualifications, and any employer can easily point to a lack of an abstract qualification as a perfectly legal and acceptable reason for rejection. Long story short, I'm not also of a particular persuasion (politically and personally) that I should be afforded any special treatment. SO I thread a particularly thin line here.
mattmaroon 13y ago
"In the start-up world it's easy to avoid the question because most small start-ups lack the infrastructure to perform regular background checks on perspective employees". Umm no. You Google "Background check" and pay $30.
- sgt 13y ago
  This must be unique to the US though, in other countries you have to go through quite a lot of red tape to be allowed such information, even as an employer.
  - noir_lord 13y ago
    In the UK unless the job is incredibly sensitive (prison officer, position of care etc) or requires a security clearance background checks just don't happen. They ask on your application and if you lie they can fire you for it but since they don't check it's kind of a don't ask/don't tell. I also (think) you can have many crimes expunged after a period of time and those then only show up on enhanced checks.
- mahyarm 13y ago
  You'd be surprised how much non-effort some of these small companies do. In my second software job with a 3 man software place, I asked my boss if he even called my references in my resume. He said nope. I got the job through craigslist although, looking to buy an iPhone and we just had a casual coffee discussion for an hour afterwards. Then I started working part time while in school on iOS apps.
  - VLM 13y ago
    "I asked my boss if he even called my references in my resume. He said nope." I've been thru the training on the other side. Massive legal liability if I say anything to someone on the phone other than dates of employment. Company policy problems if I say anything other than talk to HR because of the legal liability problems listed above. So why even bother calling? In some states its safe to say if they're eligible for rehire but not in other states so big multistate employers just say never say anything to anyone ever. So whats the upside of saying anything? Well, nothing. And whats the downside? OMG legal attack dogs all over. So don't be an idiot, say nothing. And somehow this above paragraph is a one hour formal HR class. When you're a kid you usually have no one worthwhile to list as a reference (maybe your landlord, some prof who can't remember you anyway, maybe your priest or equivalent, I've seen it all). And when you're more experienced and know people, your "references" are not a resume section but being able to rattle off the names of 4 of the 6 ex-coworkers who currently work at the new place. So I usually don't put down references or just pick random coworkers (after telling them first) and they never report back being called. A reference section on a resume is an anachronism, like the old policy of attaching a photograph to your resume to prove you're the right race, stuff like that.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- arasmussen 13y ago
  When's the movie come out?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- michaeldhopkins 13y ago
  That is encouraging. However, you are not entirely free from your past. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UtsSPOdQzw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UtsSPOdQzw
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
b6 13y ago
I apologize for not directly answering your question--I don't have any knowledge or opinion about what to expect from big companies--but I want to say that I consider it a minor miracle that I didn't serve time for various ultimately harmless but very illegal things I did when I was younger. It's the same with my best friend. It's the same way with another close friend. We're all programmers, and we all work together at the same startup. We all did crazy things. We could all have criminal records, but don't, just due to chance. The point is, please be sure you really want to work somewhere where you feel you have to explain yourself more than what you said in the pastebin. That's more than enough.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
leokun 13y ago
Some companies cannot hire felons. Companies that require PCI compliance and companies with secured data centers like Rackspace will often not hire felons as a policy. I'd hire you though. I hope someday after we've had enough of ruining people's lives in our never ending drug war we can get a general amnesty for all drug convictions for non-violent offenders.
- jsmthrowaway 13y ago
  > Companies that require PCI compliance and companies with secured data centers like Rackspace will often not hire felons as a policy. That is their choice and not required by either. I walked into secured data centers as a felon at PCI-compliant Linode. Rackspace does not hire felons due to their terms of service; their lawyers pointed me to the clauses regarding protecting customer information as the reason why.
- csfelon 13y ago
  Yes, this is the sort of information I was interested in. I have a big interest in finance (always want you cant have right?) and so learning more about the specific "rules" even if they're not laws is a window into what doors may be open or closed.
johnymontana 13y ago
I used to work for a large background investigation company. The Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) generally (there are exceptions) limits pre-employment background checks to convictions within the past seven years. Although sentencing can bring this into scope. So for example if you were convicted 10 years ago, but were sentenced to 4 years probation that conviction could still be used against you. State laws can impose further limits on background checks. Depending on how recently this conviction occurred and your state of residence it may not even be an issue.
- csfelon 13y ago
  Yes, the FCRA rules interest me. Though they don't seem to be universally applied - and god knows if it would be at all enforceable without a great deal of litigation that is ultimately not worth-while to undertake. I would be interested in learning more about these laws. Do you have any particular documentation?
kfcm 13y ago
One option is to apply for a pardon to the governor of your state. If you can show the reasons why you were doing what you were doing (in short, repercussions of a parental suicide), show you did receive a degree, have people who can vouch for you now (including the work you have done and the value you have provided their business), you might have a shot. In other words, have you become a valued member of society worth erasing a felony conviction for? If it is erased, would your value to society increase or decrease? What has your character been like since? And most importantly, what potential political ramifications exist if your conviction were to be pardoned?
- csfelon 13y ago
  Yes, I have considered this. Again this is a little known legal avenue that is highly politically motivated- and even less well understood than the laws that are on the books around expungement / sealing in my state. The only indication I have found any of these avenues is a single line statement on the governors website stating that I should "contact the governors office" if I have had at least 10 years since the date the conviction. Though I don't know if this is referring to the day I was arrested or the time of final disposition of court, or sentencing (either imposed or dismissed...due to my early dismissal) As such I have tried to volunteer my time for legislators whom have advocated bills that flesh out these laws in hopes that they can point me in the right direction in the future.
tonywebster 13y ago
Without getting on a soapbox about how the criminal justice system only guarantees repeat customers... I'd definitely retain a lawyer to pursue expungement, but I'd ask them about what new records seeking an expungement can create. For example, ten years ago when you were convicted, the records probably weren't as likely to be digitized and searchable. Now, practically every state uses e-filing, has public access tools, and sells filings to third parties who SEO it up, guaranteeing it to be more public than it is now (just like shady mugshot websites). In reading your other comments, it sounds like you start a conversation with volunteer work, talking about your testimony about it in front of your legislative body... I think that's the right approach. Possibly you could broaden the topic of your legislative involvement to other areas beyond criminal expungement, though.
maaku 13y ago
Can you get your record sealed? Then you can at least legally pretend it didn't happen.
natmaster 13y ago
Drug laws are evil. Any sane person would not care about your felony. However, giant corporations have policies, so I'm not sure what the answer to your question is. I just wrote this for moral support.
fleitz 13y ago
Mitnick and many other hackers have jobs, their crimes are directly related to their job, yours is not related at all to your job. Don't worry at all about it. That said lighten the charge up a bit if asked say something like, yeah I got caught with a joint in college, don't say I have a felony conviction. Talk to your lawyer and he will probably come up with an even better sounding explanation. Maybe something like using a friends prescription drugs, etc.
- byoung2 13y ago
  That said lighten the charge up a bit if asked say something like, yeah I got caught with a joint in college, don't say I have a felony conviction. Talk to your lawyer and he will probably come up with an even better sounding explanation. The fact that he got a felony conviction for a first offense suggests that it was more than just a joint (he says that the quantity in his possession would mean an 8 year minimum sentence). Looking at the federal sentencing guidelines (http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2012_Guidelines/Manual_HTML/2d1_1.htm http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2012_Guidelines/Manual_HTML/2...) and sentencing chart (http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2011_Guidelines/Manual_PDF/Sentencing_Table.pdf http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2011_Guidelines/Manual_PDF/Se...), it seems like he would have to have quite a large quantity of marijuana to get that much time for a first offense (e.g. 1 KG of marijuana on a first offense would only give you 6 months minimum).
  - csfelon 13y ago
    Yes, it was my understanding that a conviction of more than 112 grams (4 oz) of a schedule 1 controlled substance with intent to distribute comes with a mandatory sentencing requirement. This was roughly 8 years ago, so I'd have to check with my lawyers. However, it was my understanding as well that the DAs office had made me what they considered to be a "reasonable offer" and that I should not attempt to "push back harder" at a risk of having the offer rescinded or declined - and risk a prison sentence. The DAs I have spoken too since than are typically dumbfounded by the severity of my sentence given my lack of criminal history. So I guess I was just unlucky.
    - 13y ago
manulp 13y ago
Some of the companies you named explicitly exclude marijuana related offenses from the thing you have to declare, if they are small and old offenses, basically anything related to personal use more than 2 years ago. This seems to apply to you. That being said, be honest and ask your recruiter if it's a problem, it's better to be upfront than to get screwed because of a background check.
joering2 13y ago
I think (my) common sense tells me those large corporation have some many applications that they will turn down anyone for any reason and in your situation they would want to avoid, if ever asked, answering "yes" if someone ask "do you have felons working for you" [1]. I don't work for HR, but I could see the point where decision-making person is turned down by this, as I am sure they cherry-pick to the extreme (they do not hire on "we extremely need" basis, rather "we hire if someone has amazing skills and we can always use them"). If I were you, I wouldn't disclose until asked for, because this does not affect your work output, or your footprint on society. If you were a rapist or psycho then for society sake yes you should say something before you flip over and machine-gun half of Googleplex (but that's not your case). If asked for, I would be honest and straightforward (your pastebin story seems you were young and stupid, something we all go through (some caught and recorded in the system, most not)). Just be honest and explain them your situation and leave rest to them and God (if you believe in one). [1] I sympathize with your story. The longer I live on US soil (I am sure this is not narrowed down to US), the more I become aware jails and prisons are filled in with innocent people (I'm serious) or otherwise we all should be jailed for this or another reason. Good luck!
rbobby 13y ago
Tighten your explanation a bit: I was arrested for selling marijuana to a roommate in the dorms while a freshman at [Name of School] in 200?. This was an especially difficult period for me; my father/mother had committed suicide the year before and I was having a difficult time coping with his/her death and being on my own at college for the first time. This led to me making a very poor choice, one that I regretted then and continue to regret today. I agreed to plead guilty, and was given N months of probation with no jail time. I successfully completed my probation in 200? without incident. It was a well deserved wake up call, one that helped to set me back on course. I completed my degree at [Name of School] and have been working in IT ever since. You don't need to explain that the roommate was working for the police. You don't need to offer information that you were regularly selling. You don't want to call it narcotics. You don't want to mention that you were facing 8 years in prison. You don't want to use the word habit (if you must "to support my use/consumption"). If they ask if you were selling lots, deflect (who knows what "lots" is... you weren't Scarface you were a troubled kid just trying to get by). If you also got community service you should also mention it (N months of probation and N hours of community service). If you did something special for your community service (eg. worked with disadvantaged kids) you could mention that (if you just picked up trash on the highway I wouldn't). Practice saying the explanation and writing it. You want it to sound natural... especially as it's the truth. It's embarrassing but frankly even for a position requiring trust (eg. handling money) I don't see your conviction as a serious problem. Note that if you still smoke you should consider stopping (or getting a prescription) as some larger companies require drug tests.
- csfelon 13y ago
  Yes, I agree. I think the version I gave was a bit more "theatrical" because I was writing it out for a non-employer. And no I don't use illegal drugs - and am not a heavy drinker. I have coped with depression and anxiety with the help of psychotherapy and anti-depression drugs. Which have worked very well, and helped me lead a balanced and healthy life.
  - aestra 13y ago
    No. Don't mention depression or your treatment for mental illness or use of psychotropic medications. There is still serious stigma against mental illness.
DenisM 13y ago
Seattle makes it harder for companies not to hire felons[1]. Not just for government job, for any job. http://crosscut.com/2013/06/11/seattle-city-hall/114930/city-council-changes-rules-employee-background-che/ http://crosscut.com/2013/06/11/seattle-city-hall/114930/city...
jheriko 13y ago
as someone with no degree and a criminal record for something similar (probably worse in fact - being found in possession with some 250g (9oz) of cannabis - which here at the time counted as supply due to quantity) i can tell you first hand that it shouldn't be a serious problem for you. i would add though that in most of the civilised world this is not an issue. the US law regarding drugs is almost universally viewed from the outside as being massively unjust. (again i find myself saying 'except for the US' when discussing the 'civilised' world - this is tiresome) the truth is that people are quite aware of right and wrong for the most part - but many areas of the law are not - your employer might make their own decision in this regard, even if they are a big company - unless they can afford to reject the best they need to consider drop outs and criminals. a quick look at the 'elite' of todays tech world shows a bunch of drop outs and criminals... i know that here in the UK i was open every time i applied for a job about my conviction - even though it is spent it still comes up and becomes known. it never caused me a problem, and its an interesting conversation at worst... this included some pretty large companies, Virgin Media, Codemasters and J Sainsbury to name a few. it wouldn't surprise me if their official policy on such things is to not care - and I can imagine Google, MS, Amazon etc. will have similar properties - the fact that Bill Gates has a record is quite a popular piece of trivia for example, it would be hypocritical for MS to have employment strategy that would rule out hiring the next Gates... surely?
felon2 13y ago
Pretty serious conviction here - served six years in prison. Had significant experience before incarceration, which helped me get a telecommute job within a month of release. Crappy pay (1/2 - 1/3 of industry standard). Kept getting additional gigs, all telecommute. Worked my way up to industry standard in short order. 4 1/2 years later I have all the work I can handle, and am limited by my own desire to work. A few times background check concerns have popped up. I was 100% up front. I haven't seen it get in the way as a result - and my situation is far more serious than a drug conviction. However, I have to be smart. I see a lot of juicy gigs that require clearance, or in other ways would be a concern. Just look the other way. I can understand wanting the "high profile" employers, but I think the lower profile, the better. As has been mentioned, some companies simply cannot hire you. (In the same way that some apartment complexes can't offer leases to felons, as their particular liability insurance dictates) tl;dr I have a serious felony and prison experience - I've built up a good development career working from home and laying low.
jsmthrowaway 13y ago
I have direct experience with the companies you have listed, which I don't see elsewhere in this thread; I'll give you a timeline of my career so you can get a feel for what you're up against. In 2007, I was convicted of Interference with or Disruption of an Educational Institution, a class 6 felony in the state of Arizona. Since then I have had a steady career, with its share of bumps, but it is possible. In 2009, I found work at Linode. The founder of Linode is an understanding guy and I was up front about my situation. It was also more unique because my career up to that point had been broadcast television and radio; when I was convicted, I was an on-air technical director at a Phoenix news/talk station. So I had no demonstrable work experience in computing. I was given a unique interview and passed, so I spent the next two years and change working at Linode. My situation was not a secret to anybody at Linode. Once I had that experience on my resume, I translated that to Foursquare, where I worked for a year and a half. Again, same story: I was completely up front with everybody I spoke to about the situation, and my immediate manager only wanted to know the details out of curiosity. I do not keep my conviction a secret, even from my colleagues and those around me. It is a part of me and I am no longer embarrassed by it. After Foursquare is where the tragedy begins, and the salient part of what you're asking about. Earlier this year, I courted and finally accepted an offer to work at Google. I disclosed the conviction to Google right at the beginning of the process. The recruiter assured me it shouldn't be an issue[1], but they do something sneaky: they offer you employment then perform the background check, and write their offer so that the offer hinges upon the results of the background check. Everybody else I've worked at has had this reversed (including my current employer), so this was a first for me. They let you see the Google offer and get excited, then begin the background check. The results of the background check arrived very soon. I want to say by the following Monday. I followed up with another e-mail, and Dan said the results go directly to company leadership. I heard nothing for two months, even after I began work. To reiterate that, I worked for two months at Google while Google had the results of the background check in hand. After two months, Google scheduled a meeting half an hour in the future on my calendar and terminated my employment. Ben Treynor and Ben Lutch, two higher-ups in the SRE organization, fired me having never met me. My immediate manager appealed but Ben Lutch refused to reconsider or even speak with me. Considering I know of some very public felons that work at Google, I can't help but feel shafted, but it taught me a valuable lesson about how to negotiate during the offer process regarding a felony. From Google, I courted three companies: - Facebook was honest and said with a felony it was unlikely. The recruiter did everything possible to basically talk me out of continuing the process once I disclosed it. - LinkedIn suddenly filled the position once I disclosed it, even though the position remains open on the Web site and it is a general position. - Apple resulted in a closed offer. I was up front with Apple as I was Google, and I requested that we put all the horses in order before we move forward. They were understanding of that, given my Google experience, and I am happy to report that I am far better off at Apple than I was Google. I'm not going anywhere; Google is an extraordinarily passive aggressive culture and I could tell I wasn't going to be happy there anyway. Apple also compensates me better than Google did. The side benefit of my long-term goal at Apple is that by the time I'm considering moving elsewhere (if I am at all) the felony will have long passed the seven-year mark. I'll probably have long since set it aside in Arizona (Arizona has no "sealed", just "set aside"). Two other highlights of my career to show you mistreatment of felons by companies: - Rackspace booked a flight for me to San Francisco when I still worked at Linode, then I took time off from work to fly out and they cancelled the flight the evening before with about 12 hours to go once I disclosed the felony conviction. They pointed to their terms of service with their customers. - 1010data, a competitor to the Foursquare offer, called me in for a meeting during my offer process. They were vague as to what the meeting was about. When I was brought into the room I discovered most of the board of the company as well as various senior leadership, and I was grilled about my 'prank' felony for better than a half hour by investment banking types in their upper forties and fifties. I wish I would have known that was coming. To their credit, they did the research and still extended an offer, but that meeting left a bad taste in my mouth. Your best advice, which I received in the thread when I discussed this before[2], is just to be up front and explain it and own your felony. I promise. [1]: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6121606/assurance.pdf https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6121606/assurance.pdf [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6245316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6245316
duncan_bayne 13y ago
Personally speaking, I'd see it as evidence of entrepreneurial spirit and experience ;) I'd also hope that anyone knocking you back on those grounds weren't themselves users, because that would be rank hypocrisy. However you weren't asking about me :) Firstly, lawyer up. Get a lawyer who specializes in this sort of thing and ask him or her what to do. Secondly, try to see this from a risk management perspective, which is most likely how your prospective employers will approach it. From their perspective, it's probably (but see 'lawyer up' above) immaterial to them on a daily basis if you're no longer dealing, and not going to turn up to work stoned or have a shootout with another dealer in the company carpark. But imagine the fallout if you did. Imagine being the guy or girl who signed off on your hiring. That's what's going through their heads when considering your application, & that's what you need to mitigate.
- csfelon 13y ago
  I do regularly consult with friends whom are law enforcement lawyers (DAs) and personal my personal representatives. And I don't have any illusions about the concerns a perspective employer might have about the "worst case", so better not to take the risk. I'm not at all at odds with reality, the frustration emanates mostly for me from a personal sense of vanity, and the situations where I've been declined and not offered an explanation if it was a technical deficiency or personal preference against a perceived "risk"

yetanotherphd 13y ago

I don't see why this is a good thing. One of the consequences of committing a crime is that your conviction becomes part of the public record. I am all for trying to convince employers that certain past crimes are not relevant for employment, if that is really the case. But I don't see why the government should be forcing employers to ignore past convictions, or why employers should have to prove that the information is relevant. Of all the categories we might seek to protect, be it race, gender, religion, etc., past convictions strike me as the least worthy of protection.

bennyg 13y ago
I'm 50/50 on this. A pot conviction doesn't matter - a murder conviction might (depending on circumstances, I guess). Why should someone be shamed for life for something that isn't a big deal, and has no bearing on professional accomplishment/ambitions. If you think a pot conviction hinders someone from doing their job, then I think it's up to you to explain why. If Person A has an engineering degree from Stanford and passes in-interview personality tests, and person B has the exact same degree and is just as likable/desirable as an employee, but person B has a one-time pot conviction record - then both people are still equally hirable in my mind. I just don't see the disconnect where that needs to be weighed at all in the hiring process.
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  You might have your own opinion on what information is relevant to an employer. However as a society, right now we only protect certain categories, like race and religion. An employer does not have to prove that all information they use is relevant. My question is why are we seeking to protect a category of people who have been placed in that category by a particularly fair and rigorous process? And if a particular crime is not a big deal, then it shouldn't be a felony in the first place! As a moral principle, I don't see why, if you are allowed to judge a person based on their personality or character, you cannot judge them based on acts which by their nature reveal a lot about that person's character.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    There are numerous moral reasons why such information should be protected. Firstly, the whole idea of completing a sentence is that he or she has paid their debt to society. If they are released and are looking for a job, they should be able to get that job on their own merits. We as a society should not allow discrimination based on crimes that in principle are already paid for. A job is a necessary part of being a member of society, we should not allow employers to filter candidates for arbitrary reasons, whatever they may be. From the perspective of society, it is against societies interest to hinder a convicted person from obtaining meaningful employment. Having legitimate access to income is one of the mains ways that a person can become and stay a productive member of society rather than a drain as a criminal. Society should do everything in its power to encourage this. Eliminating this barrier to reintegration is an obvious choice. Lastly, the assumption that the process is fair and impartial has been shown repeatedly to be false. At least one can argue that an unfair or disproportionate conviction is not permanent, but it becomes that when people are subsequently barred from full reintegration in society through extra-judicial processes.
    - yetanotherphd 13y ago
      I think one difference between us is that you see jobs as a resource that the government should regulate in order to maximize the social good, while I see employment as a private contractual agreement between the employer and employee, where the government should respect the freedom of the employer. Hence the high bar I set for government intervention. The current very limited protections against discrimination that the law provides, are closer to my view than to yours. While the government should not punish a person who has served their sentence, convictions to become part of the public record. Since this is the case now, it is implicit that the consequences of this public record are also part of the "punishment". On the social benefit of reintegration, there is also a social cost to giving people who have committed crimes special rights or privileges. Doing so removes some of the social stigma of crime that is part of the justice system. On discrimination in the justices system, it would be good to provide some quantitative information on how much of the increased Black conviction rate is estimated to be a result of direct discrimination, and how much is a result of Black people committing more crime.
      - hackinthebochs 13y ago
        >The current very limited protections against discrimination that the law provides, are closer to my view than to yours. What is your argument for government intervention in the current class of protected groups? How would it not also apply to convicts?
        yetanotherphd 13y ago
        Personally I don't support current anti-discrimination laws but I think they have more justification than what you are proposing. Race, gender, religion etc. are categories that one the one hand don't have an inherent relationship to a person's ability to do their job, and on the other hand, are things that are either beyond a person's control, or we value a person being able to choose freely. In comparison, convictions are within a person's control (except false convictions), and we certainly don't value protecting this "choice". There is the issue of discrimination in the justice system, I don't see how this could be addressed except for reforming the justice system especially in relation to drugs. And there is a clear relationship between past convictions and whether a person is suitable for a job. It relates directly to that person's moral character and attitudes towards crime that could directly impact their behavior as an employee.
- chrismcb 13y ago
  Do you think a murder conviction might hinder someone from doing their job? Supposedly they have paid their debt to society, so I don't understand why ANY past conviction matters.
  - bennyg 13y ago
    Depends. If it was because someone in the office told them they were doing subpar work, then yeah, that matters.
byoung2 13y ago
Of all the categories we might seek to protect, be it race, gender, religion, etc., past convictions strike me as the least worthy of protection. Certain types of convictions (especially drug-related) are more likely to affect Blacks and Hispanics[1], so at least in theory overlooking prior convictions would also eliminate a racial bias in hiring. 1. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/11351/the-top-10-most-startling-facts-about-people-of-color-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/ http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/...
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  Last time I checked it was almost every class of conviction that Blacks and Hispanics were more likely to be "affected" by. But if the effect is only via the conviction, I don't see how this qualifies as racial bias, any more than requiring a high school diploma would qualify as racial bias.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    It's been shown that while blacks have similar rates of drug use, blacks have a much higher rate of arrest, conviction, and higher sentencing. I think this is the point that was being made: the criminal justice system itself is racially biased, thus eliminating past convictions as a factor is in the spirit of eliminating racial bias.
    - byoung2 13y ago
      There is some evidence that Whites have higher rates of marijuana use than Blacks or Hispanics, which makes their lower rate of arrest and conviction more surprising. http://marijuana-arrests.com/graph5.html http://marijuana-arrests.com/graph5.html
  - byoung2 13y ago
    Last time I checked it was almost every class of conviction that Blacks and Hispanics were more likely to be "affected" by. Probably not embezzlement, insider trading, fraud, computer hacking, or other white collar crimes. I don't see how this qualifies as racial bias, any more than requiring a high school diploma would qualify as racial bias Because racial profiling means you judge people based on appearance before checking their educational background, it stands to reason that even Blacks or Hispanics with the same educational background as their White peers would still have higher conviction rates. Therefore a bias based on convictions would still favor Whites.
jdietrich 13y ago
Here in the UK, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act means you only have to declare a criminal conviction for a specified period (three to ten years, depending on your sentence). Exemptions exist for certain professions, mainly those involving vulnerable people such as medicine and teaching. IMHO this approach strikes a very good compromise - it allows for reformed criminals to re-integrate into society, without allowing recidivists to hide their criminal past.
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  I think that in the context of the US, this would correspond to removing certain crimes from a person's record after a given amount of time. This seems reasonable to me too, since it allows a uniform way to control the public information on a person's background. A conviction, even a violent one, that happened 30 years ago, is not necessarily something that should be part of the public record.
  - mhurron 13y ago
    If I remember correctly, the last job I applied for (my current position) asked about felony convictions in the past 7 years. This is in the US.
  - seszett 13y ago
    As far as I understand it, in France there are something like three "levels" of convictions, the lowest ones are not kept on record, the middle level convictions are kept for a short time (three years?) and the highest level ones are kept forever. I think the judge has some leeway to decide the level of his decision. Also, only some government organisations and such have access to the middle level records, but a regular employer can't get them. Or they can't after a number of years, or something like that. It's been a while since I haven't checked the details of the procedure. Also, nobody can get them behind your back, the process is they ask you for them, give you a certificate that they are allowed to if they are asking for the higher level records, and you ask for the records yourself providing the certificate and some id, etc. It's a bit heavy and lengthy, but it means you always know who has access to your records, you also know exactly what they see, and the administration knows who asks for it so they can check if there's too much abuse. I'm not sure about the details, but basically there are both different access levels and different keeping duration. I think it's a good system.
crygin 13y ago
Because people behave irrationally as regards convictions, and this produces an undesirable class of essentially unemployable people who are thus incentivized to commit more crimes because they are unable to work. It's entirely appropriate for government to regulate to prevent the perpetuation of this socially undesirable phenomenon.
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  I would expect a stronger argument than a generic appeal to irrationality, before introducing a law that would force an employer to hire someone convicted of a violent crime. How do you know that people's decisions are highly irrational, and that forcing people to behave another way would be more rational? And it seems like the bar for government intervention is pretty high in this case as the government intervention may not only cost people money, but interferes with people's ability to protect themselves from harm.
  - fphhotchips 13y ago
    I guess the important part of your comment is the "violent" part. To my mind, an employer could very easily justify not hiring someone with a background of violent crime (for the reason you state - their own safety). A crime like this one however, not so much.
SwellJoe 13y ago
"But I don't see why the government should be forcing employers to ignore past convictions, or why employers should have to prove that the information is relevant." You're framing this as a laissez faire, libertarian, sort of view. "Keep your government off my hiring decisions!" But, in this case, it was the state that created that problem for this candidate in the first place. A significant percentage of felony convictions are for nonviolent drug offenses. In a world where the government stays out of free trade of goods between people, those convictions wouldn't have happened, at all. And, as others have mentioned, selecting for criminal background is effectively racial profiling, when implemented on a large scale. Blacks are convicted at a rate several times that of whites for the same crimes; not because they commit more of those crimes, but because they are arrested more often, they are convicted more often, and they are imprisoned more often. Time in American prisons virtually guarantees re-offending (which is a whole discussion unto itself). So, white kids who get caught and don't end up being run through the prison system (getting off with community service or similar), get to escape the system before it escalates to felony charges, in a lot of cases.
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  Whether my reasoning, if applied consistently, would have implications for drug laws is not really relevant to this debate. The question to me is, given that we have decided to make certain things illegal, should we restrict employer's ability to make use of the public information about which laws people have broken. If particular laws are unjust that should be dealt with by changing those laws. The arguments that convictions can be used as a proxy for race is weak for two reasons. First, the crimes that are most prone to racial bias are also the least serious crimes and therefore the least likely to appear on a background test. Second, not much quantitative evidence has been given on how much the conviction rates for Blacks is distorted, relative to the true ratio of rates of crime.
  - SwellJoe 13y ago
    "Second, not much quantitative evidence has been given on how much the conviction rates for Blacks is distorted, relative to the true ratio of rates of crime." I'm not sure what this means, but it sounds kinda like you're saying, "I've seen the research, but I think it's probably wrong, and black people are actually being treated fairly by the criminal justice system despite the huge swaths of evidence of dramatic imbalance in arrests and convictions and imprisonment...because of...um, distortions." It's trivial to google examples of blacks being arrested at a much higher rate than whites, including for crimes that whites commit at similar or higher rates, for example, the first thing I found when googling for something relevant to this particular case. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/04/race-marijuana/2389677/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/04/race-ma...

SwellJoe 13y ago

I've noticed a common trend among several convicted felons in my friend circle (I lead an interesting life) that, in a lot of cases, they're still punishing themselves, sometimes decades later. It's a self-reinforcing cycle...don't get a job because of the conviction, beat yourself up and tell yourself you're worthless because of the conviction, don't get the next job because you interviewed horribly while worrying about and wanting to explain away the conviction. One friend, however, has had a lot of years to deal with it (he was convicted of drug trafficking and spent several years incarcerated), and has started to come out the other side. When asked about his conviction, he's not cagey about it, or apologetic about it, but he also doesn't go overboard with explanations. He simply says what happened and that he hasn't had any trouble with the law, or with drugs, since. Besides, this is for pot. Nobody in California cares about pot, so most of the companies he wants to work for aren't going to care that much about a pot conviction. Apple might (because I feel like they might be hypocritical enough to judge someone for being involved with a drug that one of the founders of the company was known to be very fond of), but I doubt Google would (but, maybe I'm wrong, I don't have any insight into the Google hiring process these days and don't have any inside people to ask). But, I would definitely trim down the sad sack tale. Just state the facts of what the conviction was for (like "I sold a gram of pot to my roommate in college" or whatever), and that you've had no run-ins with the law since. And, I'd probably mention it if/when the company says they're going to do a background check. If I were in a hiring position (and I have been in the past, and likely will in the future), I wouldn't consider this relevant, at all, to the decision. And, I'd probably even accept a lot "worse" kinds of felony than this. That may be because of my current experience with friends who have a felony in their past and with my level of knowledge of how the system works, and who the system targets (for example, white folks are far less likely to be convicted on felony charges than black folks for the same crimes, so black folks are far more likely to have a criminal record, even if they just did the same sorts of things me and all my white friends did growing up).

hackinthebochs 13y ago
I remember reading this story on here before, and I'm glad to see everything worked out for you! Personally I think its terrible the treatment we give convicted felons, they're supposed to have paid their debt to society, right? So why are we denying them the very means to keep themselves on the right course and productive? It's absurd. Society should not be in the business of handing out life sentences outside of the judicial process.
- jsmthrowaway 13y ago
  The day I was sentenced and began probation was the same day Mike Tyson began his probation for the cocaine charges in 2007. I sat across from him in the probation office. While his lawyers talked to the probation people, I made eye contact with him and realized that while we both were convicted of felonies, I was going to have a much harder time going forward than he was. (Granted, he has a pretty tough life with addiction.) If you're famous, felonies are just an inconvenience. If you're middle or upper class, felonies are a big roadblock to a career that require great perseverance and stress. If you're lower class, a felony is a death sentence unless you turn to crime. 83% of offenders who violate probation or parole were unemployed at the time, and only 13% of companies surveyed in one study said they'd even consider applications from felons. I'd wager if our attitudes about felony convictions changed, a lot of crime in the inner city would disappear in the long term. What a lot of companies don't know is that under certain circumstances, employment of felons can be a tax benefit. UPS famously uses this.
  - csfelon 13y ago
    jsmthrowaway - I'd be very interested in corresponding with you on a personal basis because of your experience - given I can't verify your identity from this - post your source address here if you'd like, and I'll get back to you. Otherwise thanks a million for taking the time. Bitmessage: BM-NBeSoXNvHgqXKXVNykt51LayfXEJz1Yz
    - jsmthrowaway 13y ago
      You didn't look very carefully at an attachment, then, which includes my name and e-mail address. I only created a throwaway because my (very) old HN account is set to be usable again in 2055.
      - csfelon 13y ago
        emailed.
csfelon 13y ago
Thank you for your specific story and examples. I am creating a repo of this. And hope to eventually make it a source of some authority for others in this situation. https://anonimos.piratenpad.de/21995 https://anonimos.piratenpad.de/21995