Denied a Job Because of Criminal Record: Is It Discrimination?

It is discrimination. He's right, when your time is served, your debt is paid.

It isnt.. They chose to do the crime and they should have thought about consequences beforehand. You can't get discriminated against when you choose a specific (and illegal in this case) path.

Isn't the point of incarceration to rehabilitate people, or to make them pay their debt to society? Unless you're locking people up because they're a danger to the public, when someone is released he or she should be allowed to work. To let people to deny someone a job because they were formerly a felon essentially makes that person a felon for the rest of his or her live. If you can't support yourself legitimately, you may be left with few options but to resort to crime to survive.

I think the way he's going about this is right, it's allowing people to have a chance at a new life while not just saying "you can't look at their criminal record at all." Now if they're applying for a job as an accountant with an armed robbery charge, not hiring them based on that fact makes perfect sense. If a drug charge from when someone was 19 is keeping that person from leading a reasonable life, honest life that's not fair to the individual. They've done their time and as long as they comply with the drug policies of their employers there's no reason to turn them away based on the mere presence of a criminal record. Poverty is a cycle, allowing more ex-prisoners into the workforce may help alleviate that just a bit.

Not that poverty is directly correlated to criminal activities.

So everyone feels fine working with a sex offender. Great.

Shouldn't we worry about the fact that felons can't vote in most states before we start worrying about job discrimination?
Personally, I feel like a criminal conviction shouldn't stop you from getting a job if the crime is completely unrelated, but if I ran a bank, I shouldn't have to hire a person who was convicted of stealing just because it might be considered discrimination.

It's not discrimination (well, it is technically, just not in the common use of the term), but to base your hiring decision solely on a person criminal history is painfully short-sighted.

Employers have a right to look at an applicant's history and make logical decisions based on that person's actions, especially for sensitive jobs, since certain crimes display a fundamental problem in an individual's trustworthiness and personality. The judicial system is (unfortunately) *not* really designed to reform criminals, it is designed to punish criminals. Prison time will not change someone's basic tendencies unless they choose to do so themselves as a result of the experience or self-insight.

At the same time, employers have to be willing to talk to applicants, learn more about them and their past and behavior, and form a deeper impression of that person in order to make a more informed decision. Just like more HR departments are starting to learn that education on paper does not necessarily equate to qualification for a position, the reverse is true about and individual's past mistakes.

Basically stop just trying to label people and use your brain. :)

You have 2 people coming in for a job, one has a perfect resume and one doesn't, who do you hire? Is that discrimination? Some thing with felons 2 applicants 1 has a perfect job history and 1 has a criminal record, who do you hire? not to mention liability do you hire someone with 13 DUI's to be a UPS driver?

By that token, it is also discrimination to deny a pedophile a job with children? Does the mayor also advocate allowing that? The pedophile too will have served his time; does one then have to overlook his criminal past?
If it is considered right to allow a pedophile's record to sway an employer's decision against giving him a job, then why is it not ok with other crimes? The fear is that the pedophile may repeat his crimes, may one not also fear that a thief or someone who committed a violent crime might not also repeat theirs?
Serving time means they have paid by being incarcerated, fined or just given a criminal record and maybe some public service or such, and, although they may now have their freedom back/be less financially well off/done with the given tasks, the criminal record stands forever and for good reason; it is not erased so that it is there to be taken into account by those to whom it matters, such as employers

Wasnt it Martin Luther Kind, Jr. who dreamed that men would one day be judged by the content of their character? isnt this exactly that? judging someone by what they have done?

discrimination is only accurate if its something the individual cant control. and face it, getting a felony isnt all that easy. it takes determination to step beyond social and moral bounds to act irrationally enough to warrant such a criminal brand.

I think it would depend on what the conviction was for. Surely being permanently unable to find a job because of a single mistake would be a cause of further criminal activity. Particularly in cases of the stupid things we do when we're young - it's easy enough to get a conviction but to have your life ruined because you got caught and your friend didn't... just doesn't seem fair.

That said, I'd think any sort of sex crime or violent offence should prevent you from working with children, the disabled or the elderly. Also having offended more than once would have to make you an exemption to the rules. And things like a driving position for people with DUI convictions, stock or financial control positions for people with theft convictions etc should be exemptions to the rules.

It's a pity there weren't programs where people could be employed in real positions where they can get experience and build a career during their incarceration and immediately on their release from jail. That way they could get references, skills and develop a work history that would make them as employable as someone who'd been in the workforce all along.

I've long wondered how exactly someone re-enters life after serving time: renting an apartment must suck, getting a job must suck, finding love must suck... I'm not surprised criminals commit crimes again, even if just for the stability of life on the inside.

Is discrimination wrong?

In a booming economy, convicted felons who are willing to work can find entry-level jobs that don't put them near money or children or security risks of some kind. They often have to settle for menial or manual labor, but it's a start.

In a poor economy, like what we have now, a conviction is a simple way for hiring personnel to eliminate a big percentage of job applications in one fell swoop. The entry-level, menial, manual labor jobs now have tons of eager and overqualified people applying. Those with a record, no matter how old or unrelated to the job, don't have a chance.

Fix the economy, and there will be jobs available, even for those with a conviction on their record.

I have a clean record, and I'm not thrilled about some of the "for instances" that could come out of this, but I do sympathize with some of the convicted that can't seem to start over.

Some examples of felonies:

(1) Drug abuse violations
(2) Driving while Intoxicated (aka Felony DUI)
(3) Property crime (includes burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.)
(4) Larceny-theft
(5) Assault
(6) Disorderly conduct
(7) Liquor laws
(8) Violent crime (including murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault.
(9) Drunkenness
(10) Aggravated assault
(11) Burglary
(12) Vandalism
(13) Fraud
(14) Weapons violations (carrying or possession)
(15) Curfew and loitering
(16) Robbery
(17) Offenses against family and children
(18) Stolen property (buying, receiving, possession)
(19) Motor vehicle theft
(20) Forgery and counterfeiting

(http://felonyguide.com/List-of-felony-crimes.php)

Some of these are crazy, rot-in-jail-forever crimes. Some, not so much.

Obviously, the conditional acceptance of an employee into a new position would be based on the crime vs. the job applied for. I see people bringing up the worst crimes imaginable here, and associating blatantly obvious situations in which the crime directly relates to the job (child molester vs. childcare) - well this is why it says a "CONDITIONAL" job offer - until they've checked these things out. They're not going to hire a child molester to watch kids. Come on, people. Stop being so ridiculous.

The idea here is to allow the people that were convicted of non-violent drug charges, or just out being stupid a long time ago, drunk, or what have you) when they were idiot teenagers, a chance to live a worthwhile life, instead of paying for smoking weed when they were a teenager for the rest of their life. (And those of you who tried it at a friends house in 197-whatever, and didn't get caught, you're not any less guilty)

There are several politicians that are even speaking to changing policies regarding these matters, legalizing marijuana, etc. Others think its ridiculous that alcohol is legal, being statistically (either directly or indirectly) related to far more deaths than marijuana. But that's a whole different debate.

Another avenue to think about: These people who can't get a job cause they got a DUI or a possession charge when they were 21? A lot of them end up at rock bottom. They don't break the bad habits because society has labeled them as such for life. Some actually go out and commit MORE crimes, as a survival tactic. I'm talking about 3 squares and a roof. Some people just get used to jail because it's easier than trying to knock down a brick wall. That's a bunch of tax money out of OUR pockets, and the economy ends up even more desperate to pay these people in food & board, instead of a decent living, out there producing something.

Just some food for thought.

If we don't hire people with a criminal history, they have two choices: become homeless or go back to crime. Why in the world don't we let these people re-enter society? How are they going to remain productive, honest members of society if we don't let them?

I work in a jail. I know the type of people who are going out in to society after having committed a crime. They are repeat offenders who spend half their time in jail and half their time committing crimes that get them arrested again. They grow up in jail and they start their time when they are children. They cannot make a right choice. If they were faced with a decision to tell the truth or suffer. They will choose to suffer. I see it every day. They are not the kind of people you want to work with. You don't want your family or friends working with them either.

They are not rehabilitated, they are only introduced to new methods on how to commit more crimes. There is no such thing as rehabilitation in jail or prison. The idea of rehabilitation is about as real as teaching morals to an alligator.

The few people who have been to jail and never go back are getting along just fine in life. They have a job and are making it just like every other decent human being.

you don't know what made him/her become a criminal. And when you have completed your sentence, you are, once again, kind of reborn. So yes, it is discrimination (but after-all, its not a perfect world)

In the past two decades, the science of criminology has focused considerable attention on the topic of desistance from crime or how and why individuals active in crime “go straight.” This research has been instrumental in the design and assessment of strategies for reducing recidivism through resettlement or reintegration support. Criminologists, however, have had little to say about the issue of “redemption” or what it should require for individuals to be officially forgiven of their crimes and have their “good names” restored. In this talk, I will outline the need for a discussion of secular redemption in society and discuss the implications of criminological research in this regard.

Redeeming Redemption as a Criminological Concept
author: Shadd Maruna, Queen's University Belfast School of Law
published: Oct. 30, 2009, recorded: September 2009, views: 330

http://videolectures.net/esc09_maruna_rrc/

I suspect probably none of you will watch the lecture I just posted. So let me give a quick overview:

The author claims that criminologists can learn from incremental theories of development in developmental psychology. He compares "entity" theories of mind versus "incremental" theories of mind, and argues normatively that taking an "incremental" approach would benefit a society whose approach is largely "entity".

The findings are as such; When a behavior is attributed to a supposed inner character trait that is native to the individual in question, it sets up a social atmosphere in which redemption is not likely. Whereas when a behavior is attributed to a naivite or ignorance and the possibility of learning, improving and redeeming are available to the child (or criminal) then learning, improving and redeeming become more likely.

Though many crime institutions take incremental approaches to crime, the vast majority do not, moreover the society at large provides the main texture of social opinion, and it is here that "entity" theories hold sway. In other words; the public at large (you and me) think like entity theorists and this increases the chance of criminal recidivism.

I know this is hard to take because we like to clearly distinguish ourselves as "The good guys" and the criminal as "The bad guy" but this is wrong and blinds us to our own contributions in the noosphere. Our contributions dramatically affect recidivism rates and the initial incidence of crime.

A thorough understanding of this dynamic is still being researched and will probably not be intuitively obvious to the average arm-chair criminologist with a chip on his shoulder and a hate on for "criminals".