If you were arrested for robbery when you were younger perhaps because you had a drug addiction then that person should have a right to serve their time and change their ways later in life without the state holding and distributing that to any potential employer, practically ensuring that individual is unemployable for a mistake they made in their youth.
The reason I think this is not a good assumption to assume that someone will be a bad employee simply because they did something criminal in their past. There are terrible employees out there who don't break the law. If we're so concerned about employers hiring bad employees then state should instead build a centralised database of bad employees and their reason for termination at previous places of work. I'd argue this would be more effective if we're concerned an employer might hire a bad employee.
Secondly, making it difficult for those who have committed crimes to get back into the workforce increases their risk of reoffending. Having a good job and a nice life to lose is a great reason to not commit crimes while having nothing to live for is a great excuse to do whatever feels right in the moment.
Best of luck op. If I was an employer I'd consider you if you had the skills and seemed like you could do the job. I have no idea why your past would be relevant to your ability to work outside of select roles.
I don’t want to hire or work with anyone who has ever at any point in their life used violence to attempt to solve problems.
I am fine with a percentage of human beings being blacklisted permanently from access to much of society. Violence has no place in our world.
I won’t even hire former cops. It is, unfortunately, illegal in the US to explicitly avoid hiring ex-military.
I don’t really care about whether or not they have “changed their ways” or “grown as a person” - there are lots of people out there to choose from who have never been violent.
Better re-think that one.
"Police violence calls for measures beyond de-escalation training": https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/police-violence-c... — "The police department in Camden, N.J., for example, was disbanded and rebuilt with a new vision in 2013."
"What the data say about police brutality and racial bias — and which reforms might work": https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z
"More Than Half of Police Killings Are Mislabeled, New Study Says": https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/us/police-killings-underc... — Researchers comparing information from death certificates with data from organizations that track police killings in the United States identified a startling discrepancy
"17,000 Killings by Police Have Gone Uncounted Since 1980": https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/how-many... — There have been twice as many deaths at the hands of cops than the federal government has reported, top medical journal finds
Search-fu is failing me, but ISTR there are studies with data indicating that when police are called for non-violent situations, there is a high chance (> 50%) of the aggressiveness of the cops making the situation violent, especially if disadvantaged populations (ethnic or gender minorities) are involved. This is especially true for property crimes (there was a rather visible case of someone murdered by a now former police officer — on camera no less — because he was accused of using a counterfeit $20 bill for a pack of cigarettes, perhaps you remember it?)
Remember, the police do not exist to prevent violence. Most of the time, they’re not even intended to fully and properly investigate violence perpetrated against others. No, they are there mostly to (poorly) investigate property crimes against the ownership class. That they occasionally manage to perform good investigations doesn't really help with the times that they make things worse, don't do anything, or make cases up from whole cloth (perhaps you’ve heard of the police misconduct in the Central Park 5 case, or do you just believe the cops all the time).