Should a conviction still be allowed to hold ex-felons back?

[als463]

[QUOTE=PiKA2001;1968126]

Originally Posted by als463

Oh, no...I agree with that. There is a difference between a guy who is a complete pedophile and a kid who got in trouble for dating a 16 year-old girl, when he was 18 years-old because the girl's mom and dad didn't like him very much. If you are a Megan's Offender, which is the harshest of the harsh sex offenders, then in my eyes, you shouldn't leave prison. I have little tolerance for sex offenders.

As far as some young kid who got mixed up with the wrong crowd and sold drugs, I think he (or she, I'm not stereotyping) should get a second chance.[/QUOTE

So if some felony's are weighted more than others, should employers even ask if the candidate have a criminal background? I know there is the felony box, but isn't there an area below it asking if you have a criminal history, please explain?

I don't really think we should leave it up to just someone checking a box. Some people may be afraid of the outcome and check "NO" while the supervisor doesn't even do a background check. I think that a background check should be done, with the person's permission. If the person automatically denies wanting to have a background check done, then that should be a red flag. If you're a Megan's offender, the answer for me hiring you would be NO!

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Problem with sex offenders is this:

To what degree are you talking? You have people that may have some naked pics on their phone and get labeled and lumped in right along with people who are out and out bonafide pedophiles...so how do you make the distinction?

That's why there's a problem with the designation "felons" in general. There are things considered felonies that would give someone pause about their safety, and there are things, like embezzlement, that the person who did them might not be the least bit violent.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by als463

Sex offenders, now that is a different story.

Interesting you bring this up. For those who believe that it's unconstitutional to ask applicants if they've had prior convictions, how do you feel about sex offenders having to register as such?

[als463]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Interesting you bring this up. For those who believe that it's unconstitutional to ask applicants if they've had prior convictions, how do you feel about sex offenders having to register as such?

Sorry, I didn't see this until later. I don't think it is unconstitutional to want to know someone's past. I think that getting a background check on someone should be standard. If you are afraid of what might come up, then maybe you shouldn't be hired. As former military with a Top Secret/ SCI clearance, I have nothing in my past to be afraid to share. I think they should do background checks on people working from McDonald's all the way up the chain to other Corporate careers. I don't have children but, I'd be pretty upset if my teenage daughter was flipping burgers after school, right next to a sex offender. No thanks!

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by als463

Sorry, I didn't see this until later. I don't think it is unconstitutional to want to know someone's past. I think that getting a background check on someone should be standard. If you are afraid of what might come up, then maybe you shouldn't be hired. As former military with a Top Secret/ SCI clearance, I have nothing in my past to be afraid to share. I think they should do background checks on people working from McDonald's all the way up the chain to other Corporate careers. I don't have children but, I'd be pretty upset if my teenage daughter was flipping burgers after school, right next to a sex offender. No thanks!

I think it's this sort of thought thats keeping people with prior convictions down. Just because someone committed a crime in the past doesn't mean he hasn't reformed or is going to rape all his co-workers and steal from his employer. AND THEY HAVE TO WORK SOMEWHERE!

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by als463

Sorry, I didn't see this until later. I don't think it is unconstitutional to want to know someone's past. I think that getting a background check on someone should be standard. If you are afraid of what might come up, then maybe you shouldn't be hired. As former military with a Top Secret/ SCI clearance, I have nothing in my past to be afraid to share. I think they should do background checks on people working from McDonald's all the way up the chain to other Corporate careers. I don't have children but, I'd be pretty upset if my teenage daughter was flipping burgers after school, right next to a PEDOPHILE. No thanks!

You are killing me with this whole sex offender thing...

[Kevin]

As far as what everyone's saying about different tiers of offenders, I suppose I can agree with that to a point.

As for certain sex crimes, let's face it, our legislatures' efforts haven't yet caught up to the times. It's a damn shame really. Lots of lives destroyed.

As for having tiered felonies, I'm in favor of something to that effect. I still agree with political disenfranchisement because I don't want a criminal class as a political constituency. That can't ever be a good thing.

As for not having it on work applications? Why does an employer not have a strong interest in knowing that information? No one has answered me. You do know that if an employer hires an ex-felon and that felon does something to hurt someone that the employer can be sued for negligent hiring, right?

As far as background checks go, does anyone expect McDonald's to perform background checks on every single one of its applicants?

Even "the kid who got mixed up with the wrong crowd" is a lot more likely to steal from his employer than someone who never sold drugs. It's a legitimate concern for employers. Imagine if you were in my shoes, would you hire a receptionist who had a felony drug distribution conviction? Someone who would be taking payments for you, handing confidential and potentially damaging information? Hell no you wouldn't.

[DrPhil]

They aren't mythical but they aren't as prevalent as people claim. This is particularly the case when people talk about poor people and racial and ethnic minorities.