zlacker

I'm curious about "changing attitudes".

Why should I give an opportunity to someone who has gone out of their way to hurt other people over a similarly qualified person who doesn't view other human beings as objects to take advantage of for their own personal gain?

Not sure I have all the answers but your concept of "the right thing to do" seems fairly unexamined.

>>shawn-+(OP)
So do we then assume that people who commit crimes can never be rehabilitated? If committing a crime makes you effectively unemployable except for the lowest common denominator jobs, then once you're convicted of a felony you will be punished for the rest of your life. You're at least implicitly asserting that that is "the right thing to do."

Are you sure you've deeply examined that concept?

>>shawn-+(OP)
My personal feeling is that "the right thing to do" is to evaluate applicants without any regard to their criminal history. There should be no box to check on applications and background checks should be prohibited from returning an applicant's criminal record. A person's debt to society is supposed to be their prison sentence and that sentence shouldn't extend beyond their time in prison. If we're giving second chances, we should be giving full chances, not half chances.

I'm not advocating for preferred treatment, just a lack of discrimination against ex-cons. The person who never went to prison should still have the advantage of work experience gained during the period that the felon was in prison. Anything beyond that is, in my view, unfair. I personally believe that the current system is designed, largely by lobbying on behalf of the for-profit prison system, to make it difficult for ex-cons to re-integrate into society and encourages recidivism. Society should want these people to be successful, if only so that they are no longer a financial burden.

I also believe that once people have finished serving their time, their right to vote should be restored. If you're expected to pay taxes and follow the laws of society, you should have your say in how public policy is made.

I recognize that my views are predicated on the idea that our justice and prison systems should aim for reform over punishment. Others will have a more vindictive goal for those institutions. I think the "changing attitudes" that I mentioned are people who are being converted from the vindictive camp to what I see as a pragmatic camp that believes a more compassionate approach will reduce crime and reduce the amount of money the state spends imprisoning people.

>>shawn-+(OP)
It's not about what they did, it's about what they will do. Of course their past is a factor in their future, but you could also view it in a different light: they are perhaps more motivated to succeed, or the automatically closed doors they get from other employers might mean you get better qualified people at a lower price if you take them into consideration.

Besides, I've met enough terrible people who were smart or lucky enough not to get convicted. Being a felon or not is (almost) no indication as to someone's character, just how adept they are at dodging the law.

>>shawn-+(OP)
At least in the US, their crime may well be something that doesn't obviously harm others (like possessing a small amount of marijuana for personal use, or consensual "sexting" among teens).

It might also make a difference if the crime was committed when they were very young, and they now clearly recognize that it was wrong and something they would not do again. I've never committed a crime or seriously harmed anyone, but there are things I did in my teens/early 20s that it find mortifying at 40.

>>curun1+X4
I completely agree that this bias is unfair, and that a sentence served, is supposed to be payback to society and therefore your standing should be reset. However, in the real world, once you have "shi* on your shoe", it is not that simple to remove, because humanity is not fair, and therefore society is not fair. This relates to peoples self-generated image of other people.

>>curun1+X4
Excellent points and well argued. If the United States' solution to the lack of living wage employment is to just dump African Americans, Latinos and Native Americans into private prisons and the rest of the unemployed or underemployed into our military, the United States should not get to deprive these people of their vote, even while they serve time in prison. I think the US should have to live with the voting decisions of its prisoners. (we might then think twice about incarcerating whole swaths of people because we can't find a way around offering our people social services for a chunk of the money without turning a profit) I definitely think the eagerness with which we dump people in prison with "intent to sell" and ridiculous mandatory minimums has a lot to do with who we actually want to get a vote in the first place, just right out of the gate. So to me, it makes perfect sense that we harshly stigmatize a person after they have paid "their debt" to society by depriving them (or continuing to deprive them) of the vote, of a voice, of a say in places where they are the minority, and by keeping them unemployed.

(It's crystal clear that we don't want these people voting, not ever!, because it might shift power centers and it might allocate funds to the needy, etc.)

But we prefer the poor to always feel that they are non-people with a "debt" to society; and automatic debt they pay from the day they are born. The thing is, it starts out that way, and we know it to be true. So, we will always see these incarceration measures as punitive; this validates the current power structure and those who benefit from it. And of course that doesn't "work" (if by work we mean "rehabilitate folks), and of course people end up right back in jail -- our society has figured out a great system to keep these people marginalized forever. Other countries who approach incarceration like rehab (Norway?) see actual positive results from its incarcerated populations---but we clearly aren't aiming for positive results for the poor. We are definitely not interested in this data or we would be doing something about it. Heck, it's cheaper for taxpayers! But we don't want it to be cheaper for taxpayers; we (when I say we, I mean those who voices are heard loudly- the wealthy) want profit to those in power while at the same time, ensureing their power endures because they really don't want to deal with the bees escaping from that jar they have shaken for centuries. "We" hate the downtrodden in this country, "we" certainly don't want them to have a first chance, let alone a second chance. When "we" realize this, those of us who care about this and who definitely don't want to be a part of this kind of a "we" will need to speak out and unify. But too many are unable to see the machinery at work making this kind of awareness more difficult, too many buy into a meritocracy that awards them accolades when it does. I would think engineers and scientists, many of them would have an urge to be skeptical of the criminalization of poverty.