Should one be denied employment due to criminal record?

[Tambora]

Of course one can always find exceptions, so no need to post them.
(But ya can if ya wanna.)

But in general, should you be denied employment for a job you do very well when you have already done the time for the past infraction?
Isn't that a form of discrimination and a denier of second chances?

What say ye?

 

[WizardofOz]

Two applicants are nearly identical in education and experience in the field. One has a criminal record but the other does not.

I know who would rightfully get the job.

A criminal record is a factor to consider but shouldn't automatically disqualify from consideration unless the conviction could cast doubt on one's ability to do their job; like a thief working in retail.

 

[Rusha]

For me, if I were doing the hiring, it would depend on the offense and how long it's been, as well as the qualifications, experience and professionalism of the person applying. There are some things that can be determined prior and during an interview.

Professional attire, cleanliness, the neatness and completeness of the application. A person who *really* wants the job will present themselves as such.

 

[Tambora]

Two applicants are nearly identical in education and experience in the field. One has a criminal record but the other does not.

I know who would rightfully get the job.

A criminal record is a factor to consider but shouldn't automatically disqualify from consideration unless the conviction could cast doubt on one's ability to do their job; like a thief working in retail.

But isn't that just guessing that the person will absolutely steal again?
Are we supposed to judge folks on what they MIGHT do in the future?
Or are we supposed to view one that does something wrong as one that will ALWAYS be that way?
I mean, if it is "once a thief, always a thief" then why were they not kept locked up if they can't be trusted?

How is one that committed a crime and paid their dues supposed to support themselves?

I was also wondering how that would apply to other situations ....?
Once a cheater (adulterer) always a cheater, and therefore should not be allowed to marry again?
Once a killer of your baby, always a killer, and therefore should not be allowed to have more children?

What this system seems to be teaching is that being "fair" to all alike is not a practical thing to do.

 

[Tambora]

For me, if I were doing the hiring, it would depend on the offense and how long it's been,

"I think you might be bad again, so I don't want ya."

I mean, I understand that it would practical to not want someone around that you feel MIGHT be bad again.
But isn't that all just based on a "maybe"?
How is that considered "fair and equal treatment to all" if there are built in discrimination clauses to use against them?
(Mind you, I'm not arguing against the practicality of it, just the fairness of it.)

 

[ok doser]

who said life is fair?

would you hire a convicted child molester who had served her time to work in a day care?

would you hire a convicted armed robber to work as a brinks security guard?

 

[Tambora]

who said life is fair?

Exactly.
People scream for fairness, but in reality it doesn't sit well, nor does society practice it consistently.
There is always a bias.

 

[Rusha]

Exactly.
People scream for fairness, but in reality it doesn't sit well, nor does society practice it consistently.
There is always a bias.

Of course there is always bias ... that doesn't make preconceived biases right. Nor does it make the expectation for fairness wrong.

 

[Tambora]

Of course there is always bias ... that doesn't make preconceived biases right. Nor does it make the expectation for fairness wrong.

I don't think there is anything wrong with being biased.
I don't know anyone that isn't.
And I don't know anyone that is always fair and equal to everyone.
It is an unrealistic goal of a persona that doesn't exist.

So when folks start yelling for "fairness", they are really just wanting you to cater to their bias.

 

[WizardofOz]

But isn't that just guessing that the person will absolutely steal again?

Nope. I never said that.

Are we supposed to judge folks on what they MIGHT do in the future?

Nope, we would be taking a calculated risk hiring them based on what we know they have done in the past.

Or are we supposed to view one that does something wrong as one that will ALWAYS be that way?

Absolutely not.

I mean, if it is "once a thief, always a thief" then why were they not kept locked up if they can't be trusted?

I don't believe that.

How is one that committed a crime and paid their dues supposed to support themselves?

By getting a job. People with criminal records get hired all the time. I've hired plenty. Again, it's a calculated risk.

I was also wondering how that would apply to other situations ....?
Once a cheater (adulterer) always a cheater, and therefore should not be allowed to marry again?

Who is going to prevent a cheater from marrying? Again, happens all the time.

Once a killer of your baby, always a killer, and therefore should not be allowed to have more children?

Who is going to prevent women who have had abortions from getting pregnant? Happens all the time.

What this system seems to be teaching is that being "fair" to all alike is not a practical thing to do.

I think cheaters realize they are going to have a hard time keeping a mate if they are caught cheating. I think thieves realize they are going to have a hard time keeping a job if they steal at their place of employment. I guess for them, it is also a calculated risk. Some do sincerely learn from their past indiscretions and are therefore unlikely to commit the same act again.

 

[WizardofOz]

I don't know anyone that is always fair and equal to everyone.

Should we strive to be? :think:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Of course one can always find exceptions, so no need to post them.
(But ya can if ya wanna.)

But in general, should you be denied employment for a job you do very well when you have already done the time for the past infraction?
Isn't that a form of discrimination and a denier of second chances?

What say ye?

Since we're talking about what should be...

Criminals should be punished swiftly and painfully, and then released back into the public once punished.

Theft? Restitution.
Assault or physical harm? Corporal punishment.
Murder, rape, adultery? Death.
Perjury/bearing false witness? Whatever punishment is at stake in the trial.

Punish the criminal for his crime and be done with it.

There should be a record, but only the government has the right to punish the criminal.

The only record a criminal that commits a capital crime needs is a gravestone marking what his crime was.

 

[ok doser]

And I don't know anyone that is always fair and equal to everyone.

Should we strive to be? :think:

who gets to decide what is "fair" and "equal"?

for instance, i think it's unfair and unequal that tam, as a woman, has a life expectancy that's 3.6 years longer than mine

in the interests of fairness and equality, i demand that something be done about it

The only record a criminal that commits a capital crime needs is a gravestone marking what his crime was.

:thumb: