3 ms·

So, I should be required to hire someone at a daycare center even if that person was a child molester (unrepentant)? I'm not trying to lure you in the "think of

So, I should be required to hire someone at a daycare center even if that person was a child molester (unrepentant)? I'm not trying to lure you in the "think of the children" trap, but it's an honest question in light of the potential jobs a person could obtain. If said ex-con child molester was to get a job somewhere else like in meat packing or IT that's different. But if they were to waltz up to a daycare center and apply knowing full well their conviction would show up on the background check, you really think they should get the job? I'm all ears, but don't expect me to accept your conclusion.

dragonwriter 11y ago
That's a particularly bad example to argue from, since that is clearly not an example of extra-legal punishment, since child molesters are generally legally forbidden from working with children even after any prison terms is complete, and legal daycare centers often have a positive legal obligation to conduct background checks and exclude such offenders. So, excluding those offenders from isn't extra-legal punishment, its simply legal punishment. This is, of course, different in critical ways from the general case of excluding convicts from hiring pools.
- norea-armozel 11y ago
  It may not be the best example, but it's an example that highlights the fact that if there's anything in a person's history that could be considered a legitimate risk to the workplace employees, property, and the like then you can't conclude this is a punishment. In the case of Uber, if they did the prescribed background checks in Kansas and they found a percentage of their drivers have been convicted of a DUI and are operating under phony licenses. Would you say it's extra-legal punishment for Uber to kick them off their service? I would think not, but we could narrow the problem to any conviction for a DUI within five years or any conviction for narcotics within the same time span (I think it's actually seven years such convictions still appear on your background check, but I'm not sure either way). Do you think it's extra-legal punishment in that context as well? If so, why should any firm take on the added risk of an ex-con with either of those charges? Can you prove their behaviors at present are consistent with safe driving practices? That's really what's at stake here for Uber. Taking on a risky driver isn't in their best interest, but they off-load that risk onto the driver and the public at large (externalizing the cost of those drivers habits onto the larger public while internalizing all the profits for their shareholders) which means we're the ones who have to pay the cost of the risky drivers that operate under Uber. If they paid for the risk involved, then I'd have no problem with them operating anywhere. But as I see it, if they're going to play around the legal system which has similar requirements for other industries, this seems to me that they should be subjected to the same legal requirements or that the same legal requirements be nullified for every firm in every industry in the United States (I doubt that will ever happen).

dragonwriter 11y ago

That's a particularly bad example to argue from, since that is clearly not an example of extra-legal punishment, since child molesters are generally legally forbidden from working with children even after any prison terms is complete, and legal daycare centers often have a positive legal obligation to conduct background checks and exclude such offenders. So, excluding those offenders from isn't extra-legal punishment, its simply legal punishment. This is, of course, different in critical ways from the general case of excluding convicts from hiring pools.

norea-armozel 11y ago
It may not be the best example, but it's an example that highlights the fact that if there's anything in a person's history that could be considered a legitimate risk to the workplace employees, property, and the like then you can't conclude this is a punishment. In the case of Uber, if they did the prescribed background checks in Kansas and they found a percentage of their drivers have been convicted of a DUI and are operating under phony licenses. Would you say it's extra-legal punishment for Uber to kick them off their service? I would think not, but we could narrow the problem to any conviction for a DUI within five years or any conviction for narcotics within the same time span (I think it's actually seven years such convictions still appear on your background check, but I'm not sure either way). Do you think it's extra-legal punishment in that context as well? If so, why should any firm take on the added risk of an ex-con with either of those charges? Can you prove their behaviors at present are consistent with safe driving practices? That's really what's at stake here for Uber. Taking on a risky driver isn't in their best interest, but they off-load that risk onto the driver and the public at large (externalizing the cost of those drivers habits onto the larger public while internalizing all the profits for their shareholders) which means we're the ones who have to pay the cost of the risky drivers that operate under Uber. If they paid for the risk involved, then I'd have no problem with them operating anywhere. But as I see it, if they're going to play around the legal system which has similar requirements for other industries, this seems to me that they should be subjected to the same legal requirements or that the same legal requirements be nullified for every firm in every industry in the United States (I doubt that will ever happen).