4 ms·

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 a

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.

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.