7 ms·

The lack of second chances we give in America to some of our most unfortunate means that even non-violent offenses can have lifelong consequences. It's shamefu

The lack of second chances we give in America to some of our most unfortunate means that even non-violent offenses can have lifelong consequences. It's shameful.

jsnk 12y ago
I think the cost has some influence over employers making a decision to hire an ex-con. If a store can hire someone for minimum wage without any conviction records, why would they hire someone with conviction records when they can't pay any lower than the minimum wage?
- ryanbrunner 12y ago
  You're assuming that a conviction record is the only variable. Chances are, you're not going to have 2 applicants who are otherwise identical save for a felony conviction (the fact that one of them has a felony conviction almost guarantees there's probably a lot of other differences between them as well).
  - spopejoy 12y ago
    felony conviction almost guarantees there's probably a lot of other differences Do you have some statistics you'd like to share? Otherwise this seems like the exact bias that silently justifies relegating felons to sub-citizenship.
    - ryanbrunner 12y ago
      I wasn't implying that the differences were negative, only that it's probably a fair assumption that the life experience of someone incarcerated is going to be different from someone who never has been.
- unethical_ban 12y ago
  You're assuming that someone with a conviction is worse than someone without. One point in the article is that you don't know! The person who has no conviction might not have been caught. Look at the sociopaths and murderers who sometimes have millions or billions, and are in control of thousands of jobs. They're just smarter about getting away with things. Furthermore, you suggest that if only we didn't have those strangling minimum wage laws, businesses would hire convicts for less than minimum wage. But sticking ex-cons into wage slavery is exactly the opposite of what the business described wants! They want to maximize their positive impact on their community, not just get out the most from their employees for the least investment.
- lsc 12y ago
  >why would they hire someone with conviction records when they can't pay any lower than the minimum wage? Even at the lowest level, not all employees are equally productive. And even at the lowest level, there's something to be said for "loyalty" - for the employee genuinely trying to act in the best interest of the company. Money is just one way these sorts of behaviors can be incented. I like to give the example of the choice of hiring a citizen vs. hiring a H1B worker. Even if the company does pay them the same as a citizen, the employer has rather more leverage over the H1B, as if the H1B gets fired, they've got two weeks to find another employer that can sponsor their visa, or to get their shit together and get out of the country. There's the positive side of that, too; If you take a person that has never been given a chance and give them a chance, well, there's a chance they will feel grateful, and attempt to return the favor... whereas if you hire someone who gets five or six phone calls from recruiters every day? You probably aren't going to get as much gratitude from that person.
themartorana 12y ago
That's how I think about a lot of sentencing. Take sex offenders. After they are let out of prison, they have to register as a sex offender, can only live in certain areas, etc., which is equivalent to a life sentence. We can debate the kind of punishment sex offenders deserve (and don't judge too quickly - urinating in public, statutory rape of a minor 6 months younger than yourself, visiting a prostitute, and even sexting if you are a minor all qualify as sex offenses. [0]) But my point is, if we are going to punish someone for life, let's be open and clear about it. Never being able to escape the year you spent in prison 25 years ago is torturous. It's no wonder recidivism is so high in the US. [0] http://www.businessinsider.com/surprising-things-that-could-make-you-a-sex-offender-2013-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/surprising-things-that-could-...
- bequanna 12y ago
  > That's how I think about a lot of sentencing. Take sex offenders. After they are let out of prison, they have to register as a sex offender, can only live in certain areas, etc., which is equivalent to a life sentence. The truth appears to be that the general public is OK with this kind of discrimination. Commit a crime, go to jail, get marked for life. It sucks. Make a dumb mistake when you're 17, and you're screwed. We need to start doing a better job separating the people we're mad at vs. the people we're scared of. Scaling back drug arrests (especially marijuana) is a step in the right direction.
- cubano 12y ago
  > It's no wonder recidivism is so high in the US. To those who make very comfortable livings in the US legal system, that is not a bug, it's a designed feature. Oh, and oddly enough, they happen to be the same people whom make the sentencing laws.
  - spopejoy 12y ago
    I realize it's fun to paint lawyers with the same brush, but let's be clear here: prosecutors are the ones gunning after constant guilty convictions, and the Roberts Supreme Court has stripped even the most basic ways to challenge their abuses.
bequanna 12y ago
This isn't about 'second chances'. Employers are picky because they can afford to be. They will (mostly) always favor Ivy over state school grads, clean record vs. felon, good credit risk vs. applicant that declared bankruptcy ...and so on. As low economic growth continues, this is only going to get worse. How many middle-aged people do you see working at Target/Wal-Mart now vs. 15 years ago? If you're not highly skilled with a clean record, things are going to be awfully tough for you. This isn't 'right' or 'wrong', it's just reality.
- jim_greco 12y ago
  Employers can't afford to be picky anymore. The unemployment number is now 5.5% and we've had a year of 250k+ jobs added per month. If you want to use anecdotes about Walmart, even they have been forced to increase their wages to retain talent recently. The axe against ex-cons is an ingrained bias that hurts competitiveness. It is an unfortunate 'reality' that it is a bias that is tolerated in America today.
  - Varcht 12y ago
    I wouldn't get too excited about that unemployment number. Only ~63% of Americans are even trying to work and a lot of those that are, are under employed. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/628-labor-force-participation-has-hovered-near-37-year-low-11-months http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/628-labor-force-pa... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-06/americans-not-labor-force-rise-record-989-million-participation-rate-declines-again http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-06/americans-not-labor...
    - jim_greco 12y ago
      1) Underemployment is counted in the U-6 measure which has also trended down significantly this year. 2) The workforce participation rate number is meaningless unless you put it into context. How many people would be in the labor force that aren't currently? Is the drop because there was a lot of people retired early after losing their jobs or is it because a lot of young people gave up looking for work? The economic improvement is undeniable. I would find better reading material then right-wing and conspiracy theorist "news" outlets.
Shivetya 12y ago
well it is not like government doesn't have entry level jobs it could apprentice the recently paroled into. From janitorial to grounds maintenance to even becoming a fireman or similar first responder. I do note that this business in the article is not really subject to costly losses from theft. There are likely others of similar nature where this can work. Lastly, back on the government angle. There isn't any reason to not develop programs that start in prison to guide people into jobs with private employers who do not high skilled workers. From wage and transportation assistance there is opportunity there. It won't come free, but is has to be many times cheaper. I wonder how many felons would vanish off the rolls if all marijuana convictions were pardoned?
- cubano 12y ago
  Probably not as many that should, because the vast majority of marijuana convictions are misdemeanors.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Here's an article about someone caught with 4 pounds[1] of cannabis in his car, in Colorado, before cannabis was legal. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/altered_state/2014/09/colorado_marijuana_convictions_now_that_weed_is_legal_what_happens_to_former.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/altered_stat... The system is blatantly racist. It's kind of weird that Americans tolerate the waste of money and the obvious racism. http://nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/high-time-the-injustice-of-marijuana-arrests.html http://nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/high-time-the-injustic... > Only about 6 percent of marijuana cases lead to a felony conviction;

The lack of second chances we give in America to some of our most unfortunate means that even non-violent offenses can have lifelong consequences. It's shameful.

jsnk 12y ago

I think the cost has some influence over employers making a decision to hire an ex-con. If a store can hire someone for minimum wage without any conviction records, why would they hire someone with conviction records when they can't pay any lower than the minimum wage?

ryanbrunner 12y ago
You're assuming that a conviction record is the only variable. Chances are, you're not going to have 2 applicants who are otherwise identical save for a felony conviction (the fact that one of them has a felony conviction almost guarantees there's probably a lot of other differences between them as well).
- spopejoy 12y ago
  felony conviction almost guarantees there's probably a lot of other differences Do you have some statistics you'd like to share? Otherwise this seems like the exact bias that silently justifies relegating felons to sub-citizenship.
  - ryanbrunner 12y ago
    I wasn't implying that the differences were negative, only that it's probably a fair assumption that the life experience of someone incarcerated is going to be different from someone who never has been.
unethical_ban 12y ago
You're assuming that someone with a conviction is worse than someone without. One point in the article is that you don't know! The person who has no conviction might not have been caught. Look at the sociopaths and murderers who sometimes have millions or billions, and are in control of thousands of jobs. They're just smarter about getting away with things. Furthermore, you suggest that if only we didn't have those strangling minimum wage laws, businesses would hire convicts for less than minimum wage. But sticking ex-cons into wage slavery is exactly the opposite of what the business described wants! They want to maximize their positive impact on their community, not just get out the most from their employees for the least investment.
lsc 12y ago
>why would they hire someone with conviction records when they can't pay any lower than the minimum wage? Even at the lowest level, not all employees are equally productive. And even at the lowest level, there's something to be said for "loyalty" - for the employee genuinely trying to act in the best interest of the company. Money is just one way these sorts of behaviors can be incented. I like to give the example of the choice of hiring a citizen vs. hiring a H1B worker. Even if the company does pay them the same as a citizen, the employer has rather more leverage over the H1B, as if the H1B gets fired, they've got two weeks to find another employer that can sponsor their visa, or to get their shit together and get out of the country. There's the positive side of that, too; If you take a person that has never been given a chance and give them a chance, well, there's a chance they will feel grateful, and attempt to return the favor... whereas if you hire someone who gets five or six phone calls from recruiters every day? You probably aren't going to get as much gratitude from that person.

themartorana 12y ago

That's how I think about a lot of sentencing. Take sex offenders. After they are let out of prison, they have to register as a sex offender, can only live in certain areas, etc., which is equivalent to a life sentence. We can debate the kind of punishment sex offenders deserve (and don't judge too quickly - urinating in public, statutory rape of a minor 6 months younger than yourself, visiting a prostitute, and even sexting if you are a minor all qualify as sex offenses. [0]) But my point is, if we are going to punish someone for life, let's be open and clear about it. Never being able to escape the year you spent in prison 25 years ago is torturous. It's no wonder recidivism is so high in the US. [0] http://www.businessinsider.com/surprising-things-that-could-make-you-a-sex-offender-2013-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/surprising-things-that-could-...

bequanna 12y ago
> That's how I think about a lot of sentencing. Take sex offenders. After they are let out of prison, they have to register as a sex offender, can only live in certain areas, etc., which is equivalent to a life sentence. The truth appears to be that the general public is OK with this kind of discrimination. Commit a crime, go to jail, get marked for life. It sucks. Make a dumb mistake when you're 17, and you're screwed. We need to start doing a better job separating the people we're mad at vs. the people we're scared of. Scaling back drug arrests (especially marijuana) is a step in the right direction.
cubano 12y ago
> It's no wonder recidivism is so high in the US. To those who make very comfortable livings in the US legal system, that is not a bug, it's a designed feature. Oh, and oddly enough, they happen to be the same people whom make the sentencing laws.
- spopejoy 12y ago
  I realize it's fun to paint lawyers with the same brush, but let's be clear here: prosecutors are the ones gunning after constant guilty convictions, and the Roberts Supreme Court has stripped even the most basic ways to challenge their abuses.

bequanna 12y ago

This isn't about 'second chances'. Employers are picky because they can afford to be. They will (mostly) always favor Ivy over state school grads, clean record vs. felon, good credit risk vs. applicant that declared bankruptcy ...and so on. As low economic growth continues, this is only going to get worse. How many middle-aged people do you see working at Target/Wal-Mart now vs. 15 years ago? If you're not highly skilled with a clean record, things are going to be awfully tough for you. This isn't 'right' or 'wrong', it's just reality.

jim_greco 12y ago
Employers can't afford to be picky anymore. The unemployment number is now 5.5% and we've had a year of 250k+ jobs added per month. If you want to use anecdotes about Walmart, even they have been forced to increase their wages to retain talent recently. The axe against ex-cons is an ingrained bias that hurts competitiveness. It is an unfortunate 'reality' that it is a bias that is tolerated in America today.
- Varcht 12y ago
  I wouldn't get too excited about that unemployment number. Only ~63% of Americans are even trying to work and a lot of those that are, are under employed. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/628-labor-force-participation-has-hovered-near-37-year-low-11-months http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/628-labor-force-pa... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-06/americans-not-labor-force-rise-record-989-million-participation-rate-declines-again http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-06/americans-not-labor...
  - jim_greco 12y ago
    1) Underemployment is counted in the U-6 measure which has also trended down significantly this year. 2) The workforce participation rate number is meaningless unless you put it into context. How many people would be in the labor force that aren't currently? Is the drop because there was a lot of people retired early after losing their jobs or is it because a lot of young people gave up looking for work? The economic improvement is undeniable. I would find better reading material then right-wing and conspiracy theorist "news" outlets.

Shivetya 12y ago

well it is not like government doesn't have entry level jobs it could apprentice the recently paroled into. From janitorial to grounds maintenance to even becoming a fireman or similar first responder. I do note that this business in the article is not really subject to costly losses from theft. There are likely others of similar nature where this can work. Lastly, back on the government angle. There isn't any reason to not develop programs that start in prison to guide people into jobs with private employers who do not high skilled workers. From wage and transportation assistance there is opportunity there. It won't come free, but is has to be many times cheaper. I wonder how many felons would vanish off the rolls if all marijuana convictions were pardoned?

cubano 12y ago
Probably not as many that should, because the vast majority of marijuana convictions are misdemeanors.
DanBC 12y ago
Here's an article about someone caught with 4 pounds[1] of cannabis in his car, in Colorado, before cannabis was legal. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/altered_state/2014/09/colorado_marijuana_convictions_now_that_weed_is_legal_what_happens_to_former.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/altered_stat... The system is blatantly racist. It's kind of weird that Americans tolerate the waste of money and the obvious racism. http://nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/high-time-the-injustice-of-marijuana-arrests.html http://nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/high-time-the-injustic... > Only about 6 percent of marijuana cases lead to a felony conviction;