I get that, but in this specific case it kinda sucks for you. We shouldn’t be making a system that penalizes offenders for life without explicit sentencing for such. Whether that information is useful to your business is relatively irrelevant to me because denying people proper employment does a lot more harm to them than the harm done to the people in businesses like yours by not penalizing them.
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.
So are you of the opinion that people who commit major crimes should just be unemployed for life, and no effort should be made to cater to their job search? You don't realize that's a recipe for virtually guaranteed repeat offenders?
No I wouldn’t, but some would. I should’ve mentioned that where they’re allowed to work should be dependent on what their crime was. A robber can’t work at a bank, etc.
Whoah buddy, I wasn't attacking you maybe you don't need to be so aggressive with me?
> First of all, they don't know when setting the initial salary who is a former convict and who isn't.
They don't have to know which individuals are. They put out there that they are willing/happy to hire ex-cons for these jobs and they will get them applying, and accepting lower salaries, lack of benefits, worse working conditions, no union, etc.
The whole "We don't ask people if they were convicted of a felony" is a total charade meant to seem like they are benevolent but in reality they know they are hiring convicts. Which people should do, but they take advantage of it.
> And secondly, what exactly are you proposing would be better for the former convicts than this?
First off, the idea that I'm under some onus to offer a better solution when I call something out as terrible is ridiculous. I don't have to make you a three michelin star meal to tell you Applebee's isn't very good.
Secondly, it's simple and obvious what I'm advocating in my original comment; paying people fair wages and providing them good working conditions and benefits and not taking advantage of their circumstance. Seems reasonable to me?
The hardships aren't self-imposed, our justice system is specifically and intentionally retributive, imposing punishment for its own sake rather than imposing consequences with the goal of rehabilitation. And we're talking here of additional ad-hoc social punishments beyond the terms of the sentence that make finding a job harder.
The level of personal discipline it takes to get released and stay "good" on probation is far beyond what we expect from workers in general and almost certainly stricter than either of us requires for ourselves. The level of humility and, frankly, debasement it takes to find a willing employer with a felony conviction is if not heroic at least saintly.
If no employer is willing to “put themselves at risk”, what choice do ex-convicts have but to commit more crimes? May as well give them a life sentence in prison for anything that makes them an employment risk.
Unless they went to prison for something job related like fraud i don't see how this policy would help ex inmates.
You serve your time and you are released to find out that you will be punished the rest of your life by not having access to the profession you've been doing all your life.
And then everybody wonders why people like that fall back to a life of crime. The system is pushing them that way they actually have to fight it to get out.
Let’s be clear where the blame sits. The “prison industrial complex” isn’t creating this. Private enterprise is set up to profit from incarceration rates and thus recidivism, but the reason that people can’t get jobs after they finish their sentence is the fault of all of us. Every company that refuses to hire somebody with a record is contributing to the problem, as is every person who looks down on somebody for having been incarcerated.
All right. Well I wish you the best, but be careful. If someone has served their time in prison then that should be the end of the punishment. Common sense restrictions are fine, but they should be eligible for most jobs. It's utterly cruel to pretend someone's punishment is over, then throw them onto the streets with no assistance and near-zero chance of having a life again. By all means keep people locked up if a crime is truly bad enough, but if they've served their time then they've served their time.
Blocking access to a former convicts records isn't enough. In a world of social media and google, a black hole in your resume of time while you were inside stands out.
An alternate solution might to give prisoners the ability to open access to their records. Yes, you committed crime X, but the records at the prison show that you kept your head down and did X qualifications.
The reason people don't hire prisoners is that it comes with risk. If we open up information, you can lower that risk.
I feel for these victims but... yeah, never hire someone that was convicted of anything and make sure that they remain criminals... that makes lot of sense. /s
There's a program helping people prepare for getting jobs after release - you said "Should the assaulted be happy with the fact that the inmate will get a job?" it seems at least some part of you is arguing maybe this program should be done away with. I mean maybe this is not what you are arguing, but it is sort of reasonable that a lot of people seem to be taking that as what you are arguing based on what you wrote.
Using the logic of some people in this thread, the day after a convinced child molester gets out of prison, he should be able to start working at a day care. Why not? He served his time- you don't want to punish him indefinitely, right?
Also a convicted fraudster can start working again immediately in a bank, or as a financial advisor for your parents- after all, he served his time, right? And a convicted Mafioso or gang member can become a cop. Etc. etc.
I agree society should help reintegrate prisoners, and find them work. That work might just be as in construction or retail sadly. Unfortunately, if you did something absolutely horrific, the consequences of that may last your entire life. As an employer I am not 'society'- I'm not obligated to hire a violent felon because society in general owes him or her something. As an employer I'm free to make my own decisions, and I personally wouldn't hire someone who did 13 years in prison, likely for homicide. If you disagree, that's fine- it's a free country, you can hire them or even let them into your home, up to you.
If you really disagree, tell me how about how daycares should hire pedophiles after they get out of prison. They did their time, right?
You were complaining that inmates would deign to find work after being incarcerated.
> Should the assaulted be happy with the fact that the inmate will get a job?
YES, everyone should be happy if ex-felons are able to find work after leaving prison. Otherwise, they just go back their previous behaviors (eg ~80% recidivism). If they can't get work, that's effectively a "life sentence".
As a business owner and former SV software engineer that regularly hires former convicts, I can speak to this a bit.
Hiring ex-cons will make your life harder. At least it has made mine. Many times, ex-cons aren't given the practical skills to get by as an adult. They may not have a bank account, understand taxes, have a driver's license and so many other practical skills.
They're also more likely to steal from you, hurt or harass other employees and more. So why hire ex-cons? Well I don't on purpose, I just don't do background checks. I have everyone on a paid trial their first week. We make the decision based on work. I only find out later.
Why do I do this? Because I want to live in this type of world and it's good for my business. My business only cares about the work being done, not the personal history of the employees. Hiring ex-cons will create more work for you but it's led to me finding some of my best employees.
I think it's easy to say we should hire felons but it's not easy for businesses to do this. Prison should be adult school instead of gang summer camp.
reply