zlacker

[return to "Ask HN: Any felons successfully found IT work post-release?"]
1. kypro+rK[view] [source] 2024-01-03 22:55:39
>>public+(OP)
I know this is a controversial view, but I think employers should not be allowed to run background checks unless important for the role (government work, access to children, etc) and where it is important for the role it should only return the criminal convictions that might be relevant to the role.

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.

◧◩
2. 300bps+IW[view] [source] 2024-01-04 00:39:49
>>kypro+rK
An assault charge is likely relevant for most positions.

If I hire a convicted felon with a track record of assault and they end up assaulting another employee or customer, I’d feel responsible.

The victim would probably hold me legally responsible.

I’d feel more comfortable hiring someone with a 100% track record of never having been convicted of assault.

If you disagree, is there any number of assault convictions that would change your mind? Or do you mentally wipe the slate clean no matter what?

◧◩◪
3. phpist+r61[view] [source] 2024-01-04 02:20:22
>>300bps+IW
Based on your response you most likely are not using Assault in the legal sense but in the Common Sense, but given the topic is legal in nature we should be using legal definitions.

Assault act of causing someone to reasonably fear imminent harm, what most people think of Assault they actually mean what the law calls battery which is actually causing physical harm.

Further I am not sure why we are focusing on Assault or battery, the OP said that was not the charge they were convicted of, and a Felony by definition is any crime punishable by more than 1 year of imprisonment which given the "Tough on crime" provision starting in the 90 makes a HUGE number if non-violent offenses felonies, as something a simple a playing your music too loud could be in some circumstances classified as a felony (often charged as " Nuisances" which is many states is a low level felony)

Most people have "felon" associated with violent crime, or serious crime, but unfortunately in our over criminalized society most people commit as many as 3 felonies a day not even knowing it.

◧◩◪◨
4. grinfi+sv1[view] [source] 2024-01-04 06:42:53
>>phpist+r61
> Further I am not sure why we are focusing on Assault or battery, the OP said that was not the charge they were convicted of

The OP is inconsistent with their information as they write that they were literally released on assault charges:

> I have been looking for work since I was released for an assault charge in November 2022.

[go to top]