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!

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by 33girl

If every place you went to get a job immediately trashed your application, don't you think that would make you inclined to just say "fuck it" and find food/clothing/$$/shelter by any means necessary?

Oh, but that will NEVER happen to you, so it's a moot point.

If I'm honest, I probably would. I hope I would try my damndest to scrape by legally, but if I spent months/years unable to get a job, have healthcare, feed myself, etc. I can't KNOW I wouldn't find a way, legal or not, to take care of myself.

Originally Posted by als463

I'm half and half on this issue. Would I want to work next to a rapist? No. Do I think "CERTAIN" convictions deserve a second chance? Yes. I work with people (Patients) who may possibly have drug convictions. It's heartbreaking to me to see some young kids/ adults come out of prison for selling marijuana and now they can't find a job. It sucks for them. Sure, they made a mistake but, if we are going to try and help them, let them work. I have a strong belief that we should help rehabilitate people before just turning them away or locking them up...for "CERTAIN" offenses. Sex offenders, now that is a different story.

That's my problem with the issue. If I were an employer I would have a problem hiring someone who had committed murder, been a rapist, or abused (sexually or otherwise) a child. Those crimes aren't just mistakes. But someone who went to prison on possession? That really could just be a mistake. Getting out doesn't mean they'll stay clean, I know that, but what's the point in letting them out if the pickings are slim to none when it comes to legal employment?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I think what happens in some cases is if there are lots of applicants, the hirer just breezes through and sees if that box is checked "yes" or "no." If it's yes - file 13.

*Most* cases.

[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!

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

AND THEY HAVE TO WORK SOMEWHERE!

Or we could put them on public assistance if that works for everyone.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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!

Someone who was in a sketchy possible date rape situation might be ok with me 15 years later. (As in, to work next to...I could probably be convinced that they won't repeat.) Someone who violently raped a woman in an alley, different story...call me judgmental, fine. Or someone who sexually abused a child. IMO they shouldn't come out.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

Someone who was in a sketchy possible date rape situation might be ok with me 15 years later. (As in, to work next to...I could probably be convinced that they won't repeat.) Someone who violently raped a woman in an alley, different story...call me judgmental, fine. Or someone who sexually abused a child. IMO they shouldn't come out.

I don't think you're being judgmental at all because it's a legitimate concern. MAintaining a safe environment for your employees should be a top priority for employers.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

As for Kevin's first post:
That's because the criminal justice system and general public are incapacitation and retribution oriented and not rehabilitation and reintegration oriented. There are pros and cons in the incapacitation and retribution approaches.

I'm well aware of these arguments and have seen decent success, although the cost-justification is questionable with certain drug court programs. The big problem with all of what you said is that especially these days, the state's resources, particularly in the area of corrections are very tight. The startup cost is high for these programs and the retention of the sort of skilled state employees needed for these programs is a highly significant cost. It is very questionable here whether the cost of a straight retributive system is more than a rehabilitative one. What is not questionable is whether the states our the feds have the resources right now to significantly change the corrections system in any meaningful way.

As for Kevins second post:
I believe in free will combined with social factors. Life is too complex to pretend as though it is one or the other. Having free will doesn't mean there aren't contexts more conducive to certain types of offenses. Social factors don't mean that everyone who is poor, for instance, becomes an offender--most poor people aren't offenders.

It's always been as simple as just not committing felonies. No need for naval gazing and contemplating life's complexities. Just don't commit felonies and you are far less likely to go to the pokey.

[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]

Only bad people commit felonies. Bad people do bad time. I sound like a 2nd grader.

[AGDLynn]

Criminal histories can be misleading. If the agency doesn't report it correctly and timely, that may be good or bad for the offender.

There are states that have statutes have allowed crimes to be sealed if the offender meets certain conditions.

In Georgia, there is the First Offender Act which you are SUPPOSED to get only once but if the judge signs, he/she gets more than one. (There is a story on WBS tv right now about an alledged murderer who got it 3 times.)

There is an "expungement" statute that says you can get it as many times as the prosecutor/court approves it. There is a stipulation that there isn't supposed to be a pattern of crimnal activity so I'm wondering why people get it more than 6 times.

HOWEVER, the offenses are not sealed at the court level so don't blame the state if the employer looks on the court's website and/or docket books!

[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...

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by sweetmagnolia

This.

I don't want to throw a complete monkey wrench in the initial topic of this thread, but I think this is related (tangential, yes, but still related)- do you guys think that ex-felons should be allowed to vote? (Not being able to vote, imo, is holding people back).

From the Washington Post

I think felons should be able to vote after they've served their time.

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

In a previous position, I was responsible for preparing exoffenders for employment reentry. I also worked with employers to convince them to give these folks a chance.

My take is this. Take questions about convictions off applications. They serve no purpose but to facilitate immediate discrimination. After the interview, I don't have a problem with employers doing background checks on people.

I always advise ex-offenders to be open and honest about their past during the interview.

I want to talk to you! My new job is as a case manager with parolees, with the goal of reducing recidivism and getting them employment/housing/etc.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Felons are felons for a reason. They did something bad and are branded as felons--something which is a part of their paying a debt to society.

When does it end or should we just tattoo them with a scarlet F for the rest of their lives?

As for voting, I have no problem discriminating against felons. By committing a felony, they forfeit their right to participate fully in it. They get no sympathy from me. How not being able to vote holds them back as some have suggested is an interesting concept. How does that hold them back? By creating a sub-class which doesn't have to be pandered to by politicians? Do you want your politicians pandering to felons? Not me.

Creating any legalized sub-class creates the ultimate no-taxation-without-representation pitfall. Keeping them a sub-class, after they've done prison time, parole, and/or probation is inhumane. What would you want them to do? Work under the table? Live on public aid? Starve? Sell more drugs for more money? Most of the guys I work with could make more money over lunch than I will all month. Until they get arrested again and then tax payers pay one more time.

Felons are more likely to steal and get an employer sued, so a smart employer absolutely will discriminate here.

Citation needed.

And for every felon who is discriminated against, a non-felon gets that job--someone who hasn't strayed from the straight and narrow, or at least hasn't been caught.

Or who had the money to get out of it. You've just admitted that the "straight" man has no moral superiority, so why make the distinction?

Originally Posted by 33girl

Well, if we're going to start saying who does and doesn't have the right to vote, I say we keep the idiotic women who use abortion as birth control out of the voting booth. They're not smart enough to take a pill or stick a diaphragm in, why on earth should they have the right to vote? (No, I don't mean women who have an abortion because of an unplanned pregnancy, I mean those who get abortions over and over again and NEVER use birth control.)

Abortion is birth control. Not policing women's bodies means not policing their bodies. Shaming someone for having 6 abortions is the same as shaming someone for having one. If it's her body then it's her body.

Originally Posted by Kevin

You think it's society's fault that criminals reoffend? Do they lack free will or something?

You are talking about people who are linear, concrete thinkers and frequently do not connect actions with consequences. My agency provides cognitive behavioral therapy based on this, and having been trained in it this week, it's backed up by evidence based-practices.

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?

I don't like it. We're not good at predicting who will reoffend and who won't. And the lists that basically prohibit offenders from living anywhere in town, and require 18 year old streakers to register for life are very very broken. We need reform here.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'm well aware of these arguments and have seen decent success, although the cost-justification is questionable with certain drug court programs. The big problem with all of what you said is that especially these days, the state's resources, particularly in the area of corrections are very tight. The startup cost is high for these programs and the retention of the sort of skilled state employees needed for these programs is a highly significant cost.

Or private agencies are contracted (mine) and the state does it because it saves money in the end.

It is very questionable here whether the cost of a straight retributive system is more than a rehabilitative one. What is not questionable is whether the states our the feds have the resources right now to significantly change the corrections system in any meaningful way.

The desire to change has to come first.

It's always been as simple as just not committing felonies. No need for naval gazing and contemplating life's complexities. Just don't commit felonies and you are far less likely to go to the pokey.

I'm assuming you speed right? Ever gotten caught speeding? Is your response "oh gee, my bad" or "That cop's an asshole, why wasn't he out catching real criminals." It's the same minimization and justification that felons do, just on a different scale.

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

They're only a criminal class as long as they're kept that way.

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?

What are the statistics on that?

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

McDs doesn't hire felons anymore. At least not around here.

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.

It would depend on the person. Particularly if I was in the position to be hiring a receptionist in the first place. Again, citation needed.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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

A pedophile wouldn't be interested in a teenage girl anyway.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I think felons should be able to vote after they've served their time.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Creating any legalized sub-class creates the ultimate no-taxation-without-representation pitfall. Keeping them a sub-class, after they've done prison time, parole, and/or probation is inhumane. What would you want them to do? Work under the table? Live on public aid? Starve? Sell more drugs for more money? Most of the guys I work with could make more money over lunch than I will all month. Until they get arrested again and then tax payers pay one more time.

No, all of those things would be their choice. Most of the former felons I know who are successful own their own businesses. I know some who do very well. Sprinkler system installation and garage door repair are two fairly simple businesses which pay well.

Had a client not too long ago, was a former professional boxer, was convicted and did time for manslaughter, I believe he was driving under the influence, had a wreck and killed his wife. He did his time, etc. Now he has a decently successful garage door repair company. Anecdotal sure, but to pretend that all hope is lost because someone else won't provide someone a job ignores the fact that there are many low overhead trades one only has to invest a little time in learning which can provide a decent living if one can market oneself (which isn't hard).

Citation needed.

You need a citation to tell you that felons are more likely than non-felons to steal from their employers? As for the other stuff, google negligent hiring.

At any rate, I just did Google recidivism rates and as you could probably predict, most felony convicts have prior felony convictions, at least in Washington, in 2007.

http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Recidivis...ivism_FY07.pdf

Or who had the money to get out of it. You've just admitted that the "straight" man has no moral superiority, so why make the distinction?

Because the distinction between ex-felon and clean record is a very real one.

You are talking about people who are linear, concrete thinkers and frequently do not connect actions with consequences. My agency provides cognitive behavioral therapy based on this, and having been trained in it this week, it's backed up by evidence based-practices.

Well, that's a problem--if they don't connect their actions to consequences, that's why society wants to kick them to the curb. Someone who has proven themselves to be a danger to society should be treated as such.

I don't like it. We're not good at predicting who will reoffend and who won't. And the lists that basically prohibit offenders from living anywhere in town, and require 18 year old streakers to register for life are very very broken. We need reform here.

We're pretty good at predicting who will reoffend, the statistics are readily available.

I agree, the sex offender statutes are in a state of disarray. Most politicians are too scared to vote for anything which could be seen as 'pro-sex offender.'

Or private agencies are contracted (mine) and the state does it because it saves money in the end. The desire to change has to come first.

The money is not even there for that in most places. If your state has that sort of funding, good for it. From where I'm from, our Dept. of Corrections is so chronically underfunded as well as our county jails, that at least here in Oklahoma County, the feds have sued the county and are threatening to take over the jail.

Otherwise services are cut to the bone. I've actually been meaning to do some volunteer work prosecuting prisoners' civil rights claims. Just been too busy with cases that pay as of late.

I'm assuming you speed right? Ever gotten caught speeding? Is your response "oh gee, my bad" or "That cop's an asshole, why wasn't he out catching real criminals." It's the same minimization and justification that felons do, just on a different scale.

I see what you did there... comparing going 5MPH over the speed limit to selling crack, raping and killing.

The minimization which goes on, if it does, is not quite on the same level.

I haven't been tagged for speeding since I was 17.[/quote]

It would depend on the person. Particularly if I was in the position to be hiring a receptionist in the first place. Again, citation needed.

I'm in a position to hire receptionists and interns. I don't really have that problem with receptionists because I mostly hire college kids from good families. As for legal interns, they're probably not going to get into law school with any sort of felony on their record, so I'm somewhat insulated there as well.

But, if I was looking at hiring a full time assistant, which I've managed just fine without, I'd definitely be interested in their background checks. I keep very personal information on my clients and other parties, especially in family law cases. I'm not even going to take a chance with someone with a former drug problem, felony charges, etc. There are plenty of folks out there who don't have those issues, and as an employer, that's the talent pool I'm interested in.

It's like buying a house with prior flood damage. Sure, the flood damage has been completely remediated, the owner installed multiple layers of French drains, etc., but just down the street, there's a house that's just as nice with zero flooding history. Which are you going to buy?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You're entitled to your opinion.

Thanks, I feel so blessed to have their permission.

No, all of those things would be their choice. Most of the former felons I know who are successful own their own businesses. I know some who do very well. Sprinkler system installation and garage door repair are two fairly simple businesses which pay well.

How does one feed their family or themselves while getting into such a business when people don't want to hire them or take them on. How many sprinkler companies can a heavily populated urban area support? Now thankfully there are businesses that hire felons. They don't hire every felon who applies, but they look at the whole applicant, not just the felony.

Had a client not too long ago...

Would you hire him to fix your garage? (Had he not been your client that is.)

You need a citation to tell you that felons are more likely than non-felons to steal from their employers? As for the other stuff, google negligent hiring.

Actually yes, I do and you didn't provide one.

At any rate, I just did Google recidivism rates and as you could probably predict, most felony convicts have prior felony convictions, at least in Washington, in 2007.

Criminal history is a big predictor of reoffending, but it's the only one of about six big ones that the offender cannot change.(And a dozen lessor predictors) However that says nothing about the risks of the employer. And plenty of ex-felons are not in for violent crimes (or sexual harassment), why would an employer fear to hire them for the negligent hiring reasons?

Because the distinction between ex-felon and clean record is a very real one.

"Got caught"

Well, that's a problem--if they don't connect their actions to consequences, that's why society wants to kick them to the curb. Someone who has proven themselves to be a danger to society should be treated as such.

A) you've made an assumption that ex-felons are dangers to society. B) Society doesn't get to kick people to the curb. The Constitution doesn't grant rights, it protects inherent ones. People deserve to have their rights protected.

So you can kick them to the curb and then put them back in prison or you could make an effort to teach them something different.

We're pretty good at predicting who will reoffend, the statistics are readily available.

I agree, the sex offender statutes are in a state of disarray. Most politicians are too scared to vote for anything which could be seen as 'pro-sex offender.'

Not with sex-offenders we're not. We're really bad at predicting which person will reoffend. There are actual tools (supported by research) that can assess the likelihood of reoffending by non-sex offender felons, and then can give areas to work on such as obtaining employment, replacing antisocial thinking with prosocial thinking, etc. But they don't work well with sex offenders.

Mental Health isn't any better at making those predictions.

But I agree about the politicians.

The money is not even there for that in most places. If your state has that sort of funding, good for it. From where I'm from, our Dept. of Corrections is so chronically underfunded as well as our county jails, that at least here in Oklahoma County, the feds have sued the county and are threatening to take over the jail.

Otherwise services are cut to the bone. I've actually been meaning to do some volunteer work prosecuting prisoners' civil rights claims. Just been too busy with cases that pay as of late.

So OK needs to get it's shit in order. here, DOC gets cut, and everyone works mandatory OT. My state's broke as hell too. But either we want prison to be rehabilitative or punishing or both. We claim both but don't do a lot of the rehabilitation that would actually reduce crime and make society safer.

I see what you did there... comparing going 5MPH over the speed limit to selling crack, raping and killing.

The minimization which goes on, if it does, is not quite on the same level.

I haven't been tagged for speeding since I was 17.

It's on a different scale, but it's the same thought process. So, you've kept speeding, but you didn't get caught? (Also mostly here, talking about non-violent offenders. But there's a difference between the 22 year old involved in violent crime and the 30 year old too. And your use of raping and killing is just as dramatic an overstatement. Rapists would be sex offenders, see previous comments. Murderers would not be out after a 10 year bit in any state I'm aware of.

Drug dealers, car thieves? Same logic. "They have insurance. I need the money. Everyone does it, I just got caught. They're out to get me. " They get busted and say "i'll never do that again." And then they do it again.

Just like people who speed get a ticket, swear they'll never do it again and are going 75 again 30 miles down the road. "This time I'll be more careful. What're the odds that I'll get caught this time? Lightning doesn't strike twice!"

I'm in a position to hire receptionists and interns. I don't really have that problem with receptionists because I mostly hire college kids from good families. As for legal interns, they're probably not going to get into law school with any sort of felony on their record, so I'm somewhat insulated there as well.

Felons never come from good families though right? So you're "safe." That's your silver spoon talking.

It's like buying a house with prior flood damage. Sure, the flood damage has been completely remediated, the owner installed multiple layers of French drains, etc., but just down the street, there's a house that's just as nice with zero flooding history. Which are you going to buy?

As long as you think of ex-felons as "damaged people" you're going to keep thinking like this. I'm not saying that the guys who work with me are even qualified to be a receptionist, I'm saying they're qualified to be hired and work fixing your roof, washing your car, or making your stuff in a factory.