My friend starts her job today, after learning to program in prison(twitter.com)
twitter.com
My friend starts her job today, after learning to program in prison
https://twitter.com/jessicamckellar/status/1311349439479463937
669 comments
How? I read so many felon success stories but I'm a non-violent felon and I can't even get an entry-level interview in IT. I'm multiskilled with a huge focus on security but despite the demand, I've had so much trouble.
In fact, in one very sad case, I showed up to my first day of work as a sys admin and was walked out after 2 hours because the HR department neglected to go over my application and see the felony checkbox until that day, despite having been hired over a month before!
In fact, in one very sad case, I showed up to my first day of work as a sys admin and was walked out after 2 hours because the HR department neglected to go over my application and see the felony checkbox until that day, despite having been hired over a month before!
Move to San Francisco. Employers aren't allowed ask about arrests or conviction on a job application. They aren't allowed to do background checks until they have offered you the job. They can only consider convictions directly related to the job. And if they reject you because of a background check, they must notify you, allow you to respond, and reconsider based on the response.
https://sfgov.org/olse/fair-chance-ordinance-fco
https://sfgov.org/olse/sites/default/files/FCO%20poster2020....
https://sfgov.org/olse/fair-chance-ordinance-fco
https://sfgov.org/olse/sites/default/files/FCO%20poster2020....
edm0nd(1)
Ha - I had a few similar experiences. Shortly after I was released, I went to a temp agency. From the get-go I told them I was a felon. No problem, they said. Within a week I'm placed at a greeting card manufacturing plant.
During lunch, I pop my head in the manager's office, and let them know how thankful I am for the position. I'm excited to have the opportunity. Manager never had someone do that before.
Later on that afternoon I got a called in to that manager's office. Change of plans, no need to come in again. I could collect my things (what things? First day.) and go.
Getting a gig in a security context is going to be hard. While most places can't openly not hire you due only to you being a felon, that's how it's going to be. It's not great, but that's how it is.
During lunch, I pop my head in the manager's office, and let them know how thankful I am for the position. I'm excited to have the opportunity. Manager never had someone do that before.
Later on that afternoon I got a called in to that manager's office. Change of plans, no need to come in again. I could collect my things (what things? First day.) and go.
Getting a gig in a security context is going to be hard. While most places can't openly not hire you due only to you being a felon, that's how it's going to be. It's not great, but that's how it is.
If you have real technical skills in regards to security know that you can generally sell memory corruption exploits completely anonymously, without any presentation of ID much less people asking if you're a felon or your spotty work history.
Most of the real earners in security are making proof of concept code for vulns, and a huge swath of them are felons. Zerodium has generally the best payouts if you don't want to bother networking and building a client list. They do not care about any previous felonies. They only care that your code works. They will pay hundreds of thousands to a million dollars for PoC in some stuff. If you can find two exploits in mid-tier stuff a year, you can earn a six figure living.
There's also the crypto economy.
Another big tip is to move where cost of living in extremely low (Eastern Europe, Cambodia, etc) to make your freelance money last longer while you look for good bugs. I'm a former felon -- my felony conviction was vacated but nobody really seemed to care after I left prison by flipping the false charges on appeal that I wasn't technically a felon anymore. There were no real job opportunities and I had to make my own.
Most of the real earners in security are making proof of concept code for vulns, and a huge swath of them are felons. Zerodium has generally the best payouts if you don't want to bother networking and building a client list. They do not care about any previous felonies. They only care that your code works. They will pay hundreds of thousands to a million dollars for PoC in some stuff. If you can find two exploits in mid-tier stuff a year, you can earn a six figure living.
There's also the crypto economy.
Another big tip is to move where cost of living in extremely low (Eastern Europe, Cambodia, etc) to make your freelance money last longer while you look for good bugs. I'm a former felon -- my felony conviction was vacated but nobody really seemed to care after I left prison by flipping the false charges on appeal that I wasn't technically a felon anymore. There were no real job opportunities and I had to make my own.
> security
That might be your problem. From what I heard it's a more sensitive role so they will take a stricter stance.
That might be your problem. From what I heard it's a more sensitive role so they will take a stricter stance.
So? They may take a stricter stance, but I just fail to see how anything but extortion or treason really applies to working in security.
Hell, even if you committed a murder that doesn’t make you any more likely to steal company secrets.
Hell, even if you committed a murder that doesn’t make you any more likely to steal company secrets.
Statistically, it does.
Ironically if this is true probably part of the reason would be that too many people already believe it.
> Statistically, it does.
If that mattered, all of antidiscrimination law would be struck down.
If that mattered, all of antidiscrimination law would be struck down.
IANAL (and law differs around the globe) but...
discrimination is prohibited towards protected categories. i.e. gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation... on top of it, most of those aren't things that you choose yourself.
With the possible exception of religion (you're born into a certain culture, so "by default" you might feel affiliated to a certain religion, so asking people to renounce that would definitely be oppressive), and veteran status (which is not a protected category around the world, I think... though it is in the US)
If you self-select into a segment of the population that no one is born into[1], yet it's lawfully discriminated against (i.e. felons ITT) I'm afraid that you don't have a good case to protect yourself from such discrimination.
[1] Unfortunately, systemic racism and the plea/prosecutors/bail system make it so that people in certain segments of the population are more likely than others to end up involved in crimes.
discrimination is prohibited towards protected categories. i.e. gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation... on top of it, most of those aren't things that you choose yourself.
With the possible exception of religion (you're born into a certain culture, so "by default" you might feel affiliated to a certain religion, so asking people to renounce that would definitely be oppressive), and veteran status (which is not a protected category around the world, I think... though it is in the US)
If you self-select into a segment of the population that no one is born into[1], yet it's lawfully discriminated against (i.e. felons ITT) I'm afraid that you don't have a good case to protect yourself from such discrimination.
[1] Unfortunately, systemic racism and the plea/prosecutors/bail system make it so that people in certain segments of the population are more likely than others to end up involved in crimes.
In my personal opinion anti-discrimination laws are not born out of precise definition of fair/unfair discrimination but on a value judgement that some particular classes of discriminations are disproportionate and are causing too much harm.
If there never was any racism there would be no need for laws forbidding discrimination on race, conversely if we where deeply elitist based on height there could exist laws about height discrimination.
With regards to felonies the two question I consider focal are:
1) what is the long-term plan for convicted criminals, and
2) how much extra-judicial/social punishment should we tolerate on non-public figures for non-public crimes.
If there never was any racism there would be no need for laws forbidding discrimination on race, conversely if we where deeply elitist based on height there could exist laws about height discrimination.
With regards to felonies the two question I consider focal are:
1) what is the long-term plan for convicted criminals, and
2) how much extra-judicial/social punishment should we tolerate on non-public figures for non-public crimes.
Statistically, it does? You have a citation, then. Would you share it, please?
Found this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/once-a-criminal-always-a-crimin...
1% of 988 murderers were arrested for a new crime (yet not another murder). Is that higher than average? It sounds like it is.
1% of 988 murderers were arrested for a new crime (yet not another murder). Is that higher than average? It sounds like it is.
Let's be clear that being arrested for a new crime is different than being convicted of a new crime. Given that none of the murderers in that overview went back to prison, I'm inclined to think that their conviction rate is low.
Keep in mind also that being an ex-con in a community likely puts you at the top of the PD's suspect list for new crimes, and that reintegration with society is difficult, so imprisonment (regardless of crime) makes recidivism more likely.
Keep in mind also that being an ex-con in a community likely puts you at the top of the PD's suspect list for new crimes, and that reintegration with society is difficult, so imprisonment (regardless of crime) makes recidivism more likely.
Yes, agreed.
Intuitively, it makes sense that "statistically, it does", but if words have meaning, than "statistically" means literally there are statistics demonstrating the assertion, and so far, bupkis
Intuitively, it makes sense that "statistically, it does", but if words have meaning, than "statistically" means literally there are statistics demonstrating the assertion, and so far, bupkis
[deleted]
Only if you work for fortune 500 or a company that has government clients. Lots of boutique security companies probably don't care if you are otherwise qualified.
Don't check the felony checkbox. Seriously.
At best, that can get you fired. Easily. And that makes it even more difficult to find another job in the future.
More so than being a felon in the first place? Most places won't let felons get a foot in the door in the first place. Unless not-checking that box is a criminal offense, lying about your qualifications hasn't stopped some of the highest offices in the US being filled, so while it's easy to say "don't check the box", it's just as easy to say (and just as unrealistic, unless you have a time machine), to say "don't be a felon", to somebody that already has the conviction. Which is to say, it isn't really helpful.
More realistically, the (un)likelyhood of a felony conviction going unnoticed on a background check means that whether or not you check the box, if the employer does a background check it will become known, but some places don't run the check and some don't actually care about the results but they're required to run the check.
More realistically, the (un)likelyhood of a felony conviction going unnoticed on a background check means that whether or not you check the box, if the employer does a background check it will become known, but some places don't run the check and some don't actually care about the results but they're required to run the check.
So a low chances of being fired is better than a zero chance of being hired? If it isn't immediately pertinent to the applicant's ability to do the job, for example if a convicted sex offender were applying for a position as a child caretaker, and the offender has paid their due to society then the employer has no right to ask. Everything but that type of conflict of interest should be treated as personal information. It's the justice system's job to serve justice, not the responsibility of HR.
I almost wonder if this has to do with the fact that you specialize in security. Because of the gray line a lot tech security specialist walk, its the de facto standard to run a background check and turn down an employee for even a sneeze or low credit score. For one, passing a SOC2 audit becomes increasingly difficult if there any type of criminal record on any IT staff.
In what situations do US employers/clients ask about criminal history? Can't you freelance or start as a contractor?
When I was in consulting, it was part of our regular contact language that we had verified backgrounds and that we wouldn't place a felon on site with a client. A surprising number of clients even outside banking, finance, government, etc made a point of enforcing this language, even conducting their own background checks.
Freelancing was the approach I saw some people do successfully, but there were lots of projects we couldn't put them on.
We even saw clients that refused anyone who had even a misdemeanor, at which point I discovered how many of our consultants had misdemeanor DUIs or arrests for various non-violent reasons.
Freelancing was the approach I saw some people do successfully, but there were lots of projects we couldn't put them on.
We even saw clients that refused anyone who had even a misdemeanor, at which point I discovered how many of our consultants had misdemeanor DUIs or arrests for various non-violent reasons.
This is just puritanical, judgemental idiocy at its most pointlessly discriminatory. Even for felony offenses it often veers into the same territory but flatly refusing to hire people for fucking misdemeanors with absolutely no relevance to most of the work involved? What a closed, almost hatefully punitive mentality some employers have. I can't put myself into another's shoes or context of needs, but if I ran a firm that subcontracted employees to other companies, who then refused to accept them for some half-assed DUI from years back, I hope I'd have the decency to fire that client instead.
Generealizing: if a person is dishonest, do you think his inclination to act dishonestly depends on the work they do or on their personality?
That's a loaded and extremely variable question. Furthermore, it has little relevance to the main thing I criticized above: that misdemeanors are usually irrelevant to most work and rejecting people because of them is grossly, punitively biased. I say irrelevant because in the context of your question, the value of some random public disorderliness citation or DUI is next to useless for judging how inherently or professionally honest a person is, and even more absurd for measuring how likely they are to commit outright criminal offenses against an employer.
It's very easy to get slapped with a misdemeanor in the U.S and even many other countries, often for absurd, bullshit reasons that had more to do with the mood of the authorities in a given context than a person being at all an abnormal danger to society.
It's very easy to get slapped with a misdemeanor in the U.S and even many other countries, often for absurd, bullshit reasons that had more to do with the mood of the authorities in a given context than a person being at all an abnormal danger to society.
I don't really disagree with you - but try arguing that with every lawyer in every Fortune 1000 company.
Every Saint has a past.
Every Sinner has a future.
Everyone has a past and a future, but what kind?
Anyone doing work that could be state, federal, finance, healthcare, related to children, etc. Will always have background checks, with many industries requiring them. That said, there aren't rules that say you can't hire someone with a felony, it's more up to the company, the crime, the disposition of the case, and what they'll be doing.
There are always waivers so to speak. I've hired people that have had bad pasts, as long as they've shown they're on the right path. If we're not going to give people opportunities after they've completed what we as a society have deemed as recourse for their actions, what's the point in it all.
You may not be able to get a clearance or work in some finance positions, but there are ways.
There are always waivers so to speak. I've hired people that have had bad pasts, as long as they've shown they're on the right path. If we're not going to give people opportunities after they've completed what we as a society have deemed as recourse for their actions, what's the point in it all.
You may not be able to get a clearance or work in some finance positions, but there are ways.
Honestly they should not be allowed to; you got convicted, you did the time. In the US's stupid penal system, you have paid your debt to society; in others, you (should) have rehabilitated. That's it, you do the time, clean slate, move on.
The stigma with former felons is why there's a lot of repeat offense, why people stay stuck on the social ladder, and of course why the US' attempt at democracy is laughable.
The stigma with former felons is why there's a lot of repeat offense, why people stay stuck on the social ladder, and of course why the US' attempt at democracy is laughable.
Background check process will uncover it. If you're not upfront with it early in the process it will come up in background check and usually disqualify you.
Edit: background checks are standard practice for employees and contractors usually.
Edit: background checks are standard practice for employees and contractors usually.
Why would contractors care, unless it's a high profile customer-facing thing like Uber?
I've done a lot of consulting and small contracts on the side and have never been aware of any background checking. I don't even think most have my SSN, just the info for my bank account. And I have a pretty common name. There's convicts even in my state with the same name I can find on search. Often there's not even a formal contract, just a handshake.
Also you can make money this way all over the world.
I've done a lot of consulting and small contracts on the side and have never been aware of any background checking. I don't even think most have my SSN, just the info for my bank account. And I have a pretty common name. There's convicts even in my state with the same name I can find on search. Often there's not even a formal contract, just a handshake.
Also you can make money this way all over the world.
Every job application I have ever filled out asked whether I had been convicted of a felony. All the way back to my first job bagging groceries.
that literally never happened to me
I've never seen a basic job application without it. Fast food asked. Half the places do a drug test as well, some of them (call centers and commericial foodservice) did drug tests, including random hair follicle tests.
You either haven't worked bottom-of-the-barrel jobs or lived in areas where this sort of thing wasn't allowed.
You either haven't worked bottom-of-the-barrel jobs or lived in areas where this sort of thing wasn't allowed.
Have you ever filled out an actual job application in the US? I'm pretty sure every job application I've filled out until San Francisco passed the Fair Chance Ordinance has asked if I have any convictions, and some have asked about arrests (which is crazy). And every job I can remember has done a background check.
wait what's a "job application"?
As opposed to figuratively...?
Every single job, since my first dish-washing, has asked this question. The forms HR gives me now when I need to hire ask it too even if I disagree with asking it.
My last job application asked not only about felony conviction but also wanted to know if I've ever been arrested before.
Unfortunately I have a very unique name and despite my crime being committed in 2013 my name wasn't publicized widely until 2017.
So I have no ability or desire to try to hide from my past, at this point. I'm just trying to own up to my mistakes and do better.
So I have no ability or desire to try to hide from my past, at this point. I'm just trying to own up to my mistakes and do better.
Indeed, I don't know anyone else named BlueGh0st.
Have you thought about changing your legal name? It's a bit of a chore, but it might allow to permanently shed a lot of baggage if you change to a common name.
Have you thought about changing your legal name? It's a bit of a chore, but it might allow to permanently shed a lot of baggage if you change to a common name.
You still have to list your previous names in many cases and pretty much every background check form asks: Married women who have changed their name must do this all the time.
If you sell to larger customers, soc2 or other type audits require background checks.
For our business, larger customer MSAs often have requirements about criminal convictions.
We additionally require -- per soc2 as well as MSAs -- to background check our contractors.
As the twitter author said, it's a thing that I could potentially work around, but there's only so many hours in the day. And I would probably have to be able to permanently guarantee that eg an employee with a felony conviction never had access to certain data.
For our business, larger customer MSAs often have requirements about criminal convictions.
We additionally require -- per soc2 as well as MSAs -- to background check our contractors.
As the twitter author said, it's a thing that I could potentially work around, but there's only so many hours in the day. And I would probably have to be able to permanently guarantee that eg an employee with a felony conviction never had access to certain data.
Most companies (and every company I've ever worked for) do a background check on hire (the offer is contingent on passing the background check).
If you know you're not going to pass the background check then you're probably better off working at a startup.
If you know you're not going to pass the background check then you're probably better off working at a startup.
It's standard practice for basically all employers.
hey, look at the post from TheLastMile down below. No idea if you are close enough, but the job sounds like it would suit your skills.
Are you white? I think Race has a big part of if you make it or not especially if you have committed a felony.
Interestingly, some well-intentioned “ban the box” policies backfired in terms of racial justice in hiring. These campaigns managed to outlaw the “are you a felon?” question on job applications in an attempt to make it easier for felons, many of whom belong to racial minorities, to get a fair shot at employment based on their skills. Unfortunately this caused employers to hire even fewer members of those minority groups. Apparently without the box, employers see minority hires as an unacceptable risk.
The world is a disappointing place sometimes.
The world is a disappointing place sometimes.
If you forbid direct measurement of something, then people will use proxies, which is generally harmful to everyone involved.
If you want to minimize the extent to which people use demographics as a proxy for qualities they want to select for, then make it as cheap and reliable as possible to measure those qualities directly.
If you want to minimize the extent to which people use demographics as a proxy for qualities they want to select for, then make it as cheap and reliable as possible to measure those qualities directly.
That only ends when you make it easier to figure out whether someone is going to actually harm your business in the future, rather than finding out whether they have ever been a felon.
Smaller companies (5-20 employees) will most likely be a lot more understanding.
Have you tried doing freelancer stuff? When no one will give you a chance, giving yourself one is probably your best bet.
I have no idea how well that would work, but it seems like the only variable you can control.
I have no idea how well that would work, but it seems like the only variable you can control.
I have been able to do just a handful of freelance-gigs outside of my desired field but between bad experiences (payment was 6 months late once) and life kicking me while I'm down, I've just been seeking some stability.
>(payment was 6 months late once)
This never gets enough visibility among freelancers / contractors / consultants - it can be really hard to get paid and for smaller amounts of money it often would take too much in legal fees to actually get paid.
This never gets enough visibility among freelancers / contractors / consultants - it can be really hard to get paid and for smaller amounts of money it often would take too much in legal fees to actually get paid.
Don’t work until payment is made? Offer a discount for early payment? Charge interest on late payments?
>Charge interest on late payments?
This is an important one, as is a clause in your contract that will force them to pay legal fees in the event you have to sue to get them to pay.
>Don’t work until payment is made?
I'm a fan of arrangements where clients pay something up front, then receive work, then pay the rest. No client in their right mind is going to pay the whole amount up front and frankly nor should they. But, if they pay 50% up front, you do work, and then they decide to stiff you for the final payment, you'd better have a good lawyer and a tight contract.
This is an important one, as is a clause in your contract that will force them to pay legal fees in the event you have to sue to get them to pay.
>Don’t work until payment is made?
I'm a fan of arrangements where clients pay something up front, then receive work, then pay the rest. No client in their right mind is going to pay the whole amount up front and frankly nor should they. But, if they pay 50% up front, you do work, and then they decide to stiff you for the final payment, you'd better have a good lawyer and a tight contract.
You can't exactly not work until payment is made, simply because the field is too crowded. So in the starting of a project, you desperately go to a bidding war against the competition where you either compromise on your time or your money or something else of yours. Whether you get paid or not becomes a backseat priority. Offering a discount for early payment is one sort of those things, and let's be honest, most clients value the optionality of not paying at all over paying a discount. Charging an interest on late payments needs to be explicitly mentioned during the bidding process, and that will draw the client away in an already crowded field.
I also have a felony on my record and struggled immensely because of a long wrap sheet of misdemeanor crimes that seemed to cascade from that single mistake. My record has caused me to be fired from and denied several jobs, and at my lowest point I was kicked out of an education program despite succeeding otherwise. "None of my charges are violent or sexual. There's no reason to conclude I'd be a danger to children. Look at them. Failure to appear. Disorderly conduct. Criminal mischief..." "It doesn't matter, look how many there are. Parents will find this, you, the school, and our program will be held accountable."
Bottom line is people are absolutely horrible to each other if they're given even the slightest pretense. It's just a disgusting facet of our psyche, I guess. Those convicted of a crime are condemned to continued punishment by anybody who cares to look at their record, long after they've repaid any debts. I remember asking a police officer when I was in my early 20's why every time I handed my Id to an officer I was searched, arrested, or charged with something. She replied simply, "Because you have a yellow stripe painted down your back."
The fact I had an outstanding warrant for a speeding ticket in another state and doing stupid and illegal things aside, once you have a record it is very hard to escape it. Most are relegated to menial minimum wage jobs. I was lucky, I have a social safety net, confidence, I knew I could get around it. Decided to focus my studies on something so specialized an employer wouldn't try looking for reasons not to hire me. I don't think anybody has actually checked my record since I graduated. The only applications I've been handed were basically a token for HR and I simply mark, "No" under the, "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" question. Because it doesn't matter. It should be illegal for anybody to access resolved criminal records if they don't have a direct reason pertaining to the safety or security of others. It's not your job as an employer or hiring manager to judge someone's mistakes, only their aptitude to perform a job.
Bottom line is people are absolutely horrible to each other if they're given even the slightest pretense. It's just a disgusting facet of our psyche, I guess. Those convicted of a crime are condemned to continued punishment by anybody who cares to look at their record, long after they've repaid any debts. I remember asking a police officer when I was in my early 20's why every time I handed my Id to an officer I was searched, arrested, or charged with something. She replied simply, "Because you have a yellow stripe painted down your back."
The fact I had an outstanding warrant for a speeding ticket in another state and doing stupid and illegal things aside, once you have a record it is very hard to escape it. Most are relegated to menial minimum wage jobs. I was lucky, I have a social safety net, confidence, I knew I could get around it. Decided to focus my studies on something so specialized an employer wouldn't try looking for reasons not to hire me. I don't think anybody has actually checked my record since I graduated. The only applications I've been handed were basically a token for HR and I simply mark, "No" under the, "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" question. Because it doesn't matter. It should be illegal for anybody to access resolved criminal records if they don't have a direct reason pertaining to the safety or security of others. It's not your job as an employer or hiring manager to judge someone's mistakes, only their aptitude to perform a job.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people in this situation decide, at some point, that if society is going to treat them as a criminal forever, then they may as well make a life out of crime.
> It should be illegal for anybody to access resolved criminal records if they don't have a direct reason pertaining to the safety or security of others.
> It's not your job as an employer or hiring manager to judge someone's mistakes, only their aptitude to perform a job.
I have no horse in this race, so my opinion is mostly out of ignorance, but I believe that this formulation isn't entirely correct. In a sense employers should be allowed to make stupid decisions; the problem is when too many employers make correlated decisions leaving out a innocent chunk of the population.
> It's not your job as an employer or hiring manager to judge someone's mistakes, only their aptitude to perform a job.
I have no horse in this race, so my opinion is mostly out of ignorance, but I believe that this formulation isn't entirely correct. In a sense employers should be allowed to make stupid decisions; the problem is when too many employers make correlated decisions leaving out a innocent chunk of the population.
So what is your take? In the same sentence you've both advocated and dissented on the issue of employers discriminating against resolved charges not pertaining to the job. Is that what you mean by, "no horse in this race"? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ so to speak.
My take is that it is not about whether the employers have a right to do background checks or not, rather it is about the effect that practice has on society.
If few employers do background checks that ex-convicts have easy to access alternatives it is not a problem, if enough employers use that a new social class of unemployable people is created it becomes a serious problem.
I like the idea of forbidding discrimination based on unrelated offences, but am not particularly informed on the topic.
If few employers do background checks that ex-convicts have easy to access alternatives it is not a problem, if enough employers use that a new social class of unemployable people is created it becomes a serious problem.
I like the idea of forbidding discrimination based on unrelated offences, but am not particularly informed on the topic.
said another way my claim is that we should have strong anti-discrimination laws for ex-convicts, not for a-priori or theoretical reasons but because they absence is causing a problem.
Congratulations! I'm with a YC company that helps formerly-incarcerated people with jobs, and would love to talk with you about what you're doing. Like you, we believe that coding and tech can be a potential way to help rentry. Work email is [email protected].
70M jobs was just the company I was thinking of. Fantastic positive outlook on life and gives people a second chance.
On paper, I'd be a felon for serious offences on at least 4 episodes. If the law was followed to the letter, and if somebody nosy had enough access and time to inspect the past 15 years of my life, I'd be serving at least two life sentences. The smallest offence is carrying a hunter's knife in my car: that's a 3rd degree felony as I'd discovered recently. In practice, though, if the law was followed to the letter, 90% of males would be serving life right after high school for reasons I probably don't need to explain.
>for reasons I probably don't need to explain.
I'm clueless. What would lead to serving life?
I'm clueless. What would lead to serving life?
I think they mean that smaller things such as carrying a hunter knife may add up to approximately two life sentences.
maybe, but why would that apply to only males?
I think they're implying statutory rape.
Where do you live that it is a felony to have a hunting knife in your car, and also where felony's have degrees?
Not only felonies have degrees here, they have classes and graduate eventually.
Even predicate ones? (I kid)
What programming language / domain did you learn?
I went through the same situation, except I chose to work for myself instead of going into the job market. I shared a small part of my story for the first time on reddit [1] , which led to me being interviewed on the stackoverflow podcast [2] . All I can say is that from my experience, knowing how to code is a skill that has proven to be indispensable. I don’t know what I would be doing if it wasn’t for the fact that I can create things I can sell, with no funding, and nothing but ideas. In the past, my options were few, now they seem limitless.
Much respect for your friend, and congrats on her success! It’s not easy at all to actually self rehabilitate behind those walls.
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/ht5krp/prisons...
https://the-stack-overflow-podcast.simplecast.com/episodes/w...
Much respect for your friend, and congrats on her success! It’s not easy at all to actually self rehabilitate behind those walls.
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/ht5krp/prisons...
https://the-stack-overflow-podcast.simplecast.com/episodes/w...
In the US, more than 60% of people released from prison return, and our program alumni continue to prove that the way to stop the cycle is through career opportunities.
Many TLM grads have returned home after decades in prison and gotten good jobs in tech. The key is making useful resources like coding classes available to those inside seeking opportunity.
By the way - TLM is hiring a Dev Ops & IT Manager, if you want to help us grow our in-prison tech program: https://thelastmile.org/work-with-us/#2321
Many TLM grads have returned home after decades in prison and gotten good jobs in tech. The key is making useful resources like coding classes available to those inside seeking opportunity.
By the way - TLM is hiring a Dev Ops & IT Manager, if you want to help us grow our in-prison tech program: https://thelastmile.org/work-with-us/#2321
ano88888(2)
70millionjobs is a YC (S17) company that helps people with criminal records get jobs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14911467
ano88888(1)
In Germany I was asked to provide my criminal record while working at a payment processing startup that had to obtain certain certificates. They were probably looking for crimes of a fiscal nature however, which is understandable. Second chances are second chances but security is mostly about trust.
Another job at a startup in Germany that worked in less tightly controlled spaces has never asked me to produce my criminal record, nor could they legally. An employer can only ask questions that are reasonably necessary for them to make a fair consideration about me as an applicant. You could ask an accountant about embezzlement convictions, a pharmacist about drug convictions etc., but that is not applicable to software engineers.
This is the only sane way to do things.
Another job at a startup in Germany that worked in less tightly controlled spaces has never asked me to produce my criminal record, nor could they legally. An employer can only ask questions that are reasonably necessary for them to make a fair consideration about me as an applicant. You could ask an accountant about embezzlement convictions, a pharmacist about drug convictions etc., but that is not applicable to software engineers.
This is the only sane way to do things.
Theft, fraud and violence are applicable for all jobs surely.
Surely not, if by "applicable" you mean to suggest that employers would never want to hire such a person for any job.
Should a person convicted of theft, who's served their time, paid the fine, made the victims whole, and learned not to steal, be discarded from consideration as a useful member of society? In case it's not clear, I think they should have the same rights as any other human being.
No one seriously advocates the death penalty or life imprisonment for petty crimes. But depending on the ability of a society to forget (which the information age is rapidly making very difficult) and the ability of a society to forgive (which the climate of fear is also making difficult), a conviction in your record can ruin a life.
Should a person convicted of theft, who's served their time, paid the fine, made the victims whole, and learned not to steal, be discarded from consideration as a useful member of society? In case it's not clear, I think they should have the same rights as any other human being.
No one seriously advocates the death penalty or life imprisonment for petty crimes. But depending on the ability of a society to forget (which the information age is rapidly making very difficult) and the ability of a society to forgive (which the climate of fear is also making difficult), a conviction in your record can ruin a life.
If that is the case their record should be wiped at the end of their sentence. What's the point of a record if it can't be used to warn people of your past?
"Same rights" - no sorry, somebody who stole before will be regarded with higher suspicion than other people, and that's OK.
How do you know they "learned not to steal"? Can you look inside of their heads?
There are jobs with less opportunities to steal, for example. Trust has to be regained, simply "having been in prison" is not really worth much in that respect. You would stay in prison, regardless of your mindset, because you are forced to be there.
How do you know they "learned not to steal"? Can you look inside of their heads?
There are jobs with less opportunities to steal, for example. Trust has to be regained, simply "having been in prison" is not really worth much in that respect. You would stay in prison, regardless of your mindset, because you are forced to be there.
As an Australian, I find that perspective awful. Going to jail is the punishment society has chosen for the crime. Once you've served your time, you rejoin society on an equal footing. Denying jobs to ex-cons makes it much harder for them to integrate back into society, and increases the recidivism rate. (Which you pay for via taxes.)
The equation isn't "bad person -> steals". Its "person maladapted to society / with unhealthy community -> steals". Why would someone be a thief if they have a stable job and community?
And how do you expect someone fresh out of jail, with no connections and community, to make a stable life for themselves if nobody will give them a job?
The equation isn't "bad person -> steals". Its "person maladapted to society / with unhealthy community -> steals". Why would someone be a thief if they have a stable job and community?
And how do you expect someone fresh out of jail, with no connections and community, to make a stable life for themselves if nobody will give them a job?
The issue is risk. Hiring someone with a criminal record is riskier than hiring someone with a clean record. There is no upside to mitigate that risk either. So it shouldn't be surprising that hiring managers discriminate on anything they can legally get away with.
Not "nobody should give them a job", just not a job with ability to do harm. But that's for every employer to decide for themselves.
If you don't think somebody having done X before makes them more likely to do it again than normal people, I don't know. (More accurately, people who did X are more likely to be people who would do X again). We just have to disagree - but you can not enshrine such beliefs in law.
As I said, trust has to be regained, merely doing something you are forced to do anyways does not prove anything about your real attitudes.
In "How To Change Your Life In 7 Steps", the founder of the homeless magazine "The Big Issue" John Bird describes what he had to do to be able to have homeless people work for him. I have high respect for people like him.
If you don't think somebody having done X before makes them more likely to do it again than normal people, I don't know. (More accurately, people who did X are more likely to be people who would do X again). We just have to disagree - but you can not enshrine such beliefs in law.
As I said, trust has to be regained, merely doing something you are forced to do anyways does not prove anything about your real attitudes.
In "How To Change Your Life In 7 Steps", the founder of the homeless magazine "The Big Issue" John Bird describes what he had to do to be able to have homeless people work for him. I have high respect for people like him.
>and learned not to steal
That's the issue at hand. Serving a prison sentence doesn't mean that you have learned not to steal. It's difficult for the company to verify that you have "learned your lesson".
That's the issue at hand. Serving a prison sentence doesn't mean that you have learned not to steal. It's difficult for the company to verify that you have "learned your lesson".
What will satisfy you then? Should people who come out from prison for stealing sit around jobless since nobody trusts them? That's bound to get them back into prison.
I would be satisfied if there was a proper criminal justice system. Unfortunately, in the US (and most of the world) that is not the case, and former prisoners are more likely to commit crime than people who have never been in prison. I know that is "unfair", but I chose to live in a safe neighborhood and work with safe people. It is not my job to put my safety on the line in order to try to rehabilitate a criminal.
I'm not responsible for strangers. If I'm a hiring manager, I'm responsible for my company and the safety of my employees. I owe nothing to a stranger. Take your problem to someone else.
No they should find jobs where they have less opportunity to cause harm.
How about: an insurance policy such that, if the employee does end up stealing, then the employer is made whole. The former-thief employee could pay for such a policy, and then it would seem the employer would be indifferent between the former thief and the average applicant. The policy could be paid for out of the thief's salary; he would effectively be accepting a lower wage.
If the job is minimum wage, of course, then it's not possible to lower the wage further.
Also, discovering the theft and proving it was that employee might be difficult.
If the job is minimum wage, of course, then it's not possible to lower the wage further.
Also, discovering the theft and proving it was that employee might be difficult.
It’s interesting that the very people that say ‘they haven’t learned their lesson’ perpetuate that exact thing.
There was an article a little while back about a company tracking the employees behavior on the computer, and a lot of people mentioned that ‘if you are not trusted regardless, what incentive do you have to be trustworthy’.
This is the exact same thing.
There was an article a little while back about a company tracking the employees behavior on the computer, and a lot of people mentioned that ‘if you are not trusted regardless, what incentive do you have to be trustworthy’.
This is the exact same thing.
I'm super curious - do you feel that all those crimes you mentioned should have life sentences?
'cause I mean...if not, what was the point of the jail term? Depending on perspective, it might be rehabilitative, or it might be punitive, but either way, time served should equate to a clear record, no? If not, you're either saying they need further punishment, or you don't believe that they've been rehabilitated, in which case why were they let out?
'cause I mean...if not, what was the point of the jail term? Depending on perspective, it might be rehabilitative, or it might be punitive, but either way, time served should equate to a clear record, no? If not, you're either saying they need further punishment, or you don't believe that they've been rehabilitated, in which case why were they let out?
If you beat a man up such that he suffers lifelong injuries, it seems only fair to me that your punishment should also be life long.
I don't think you should necessarily spend all that time in prison, but not having access to trusted jobs is not comparable to being in pain every day for the rest of your life.
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind if more punishments were metered out in the form of community service.
I don't think you should necessarily spend all that time in prison, but not having access to trusted jobs is not comparable to being in pain every day for the rest of your life.
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind if more punishments were metered out in the form of community service.
This points to a cultural difference there that might be at the core the argument. In Europe prison has rehabilitation as one of it's goals. In the US it's almost entirely about punishment.
Your attitude towards someone convicted of a criminal act isn’t uncommon, but it’s short-sighted. If the judicial system determines that the appropriate punishment for a crime is X years, then at the end of that time they should be given a chance at a fresh start. There are limits, of course, perhaps you don’t want to give them a security clearance, or a job that requires carrying a gun. Someone convicted of molesting children should probably never hold a job that gives them contact with children.
In the US at least, having a felony conviction (and the bar for that is not that high) is effectively a lifetime punishment. It’s incredibly difficult for someone with a felony conviction on their record to get a job with potential. That’s a big part of why the recidivism rate for felons is so high. They often don’t have many options to make a living.
In the US at least, having a felony conviction (and the bar for that is not that high) is effectively a lifetime punishment. It’s incredibly difficult for someone with a felony conviction on their record to get a job with potential. That’s a big part of why the recidivism rate for felons is so high. They often don’t have many options to make a living.
> If the judicial system determines that the appropriate punishment for a crime is X years, then at the end of that time they should be given a chance at a fresh start.
This is a poor argument: the judicial system has also determined, by lack of prohibition, that it's appropriate for employers to discriminate based on criminal record.
This is a poor argument: the judicial system has also determined, by lack of prohibition, that it's appropriate for employers to discriminate based on criminal record.
'Determined that it's appropriate' is rather strong language for something the system simply does not universally address. In fact, EEOC guidance, and recent court cases, seem to indicate that were it brought in front of the courts, they would likely rule in favor of the plaintiffs (obviously with recent court packing by GOP that's more in question than it was a few years ago though). It's just that oftentimes, ex-criminals searching for jobs don't have the money to take such cases to court.
That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be changed.
But that wasn't your argument!
> at the end of that time they should be given a chance at a fresh start
It really was.
It really was.
It might have been something you were thinking, but it's pretty much the opposite of what you said.
Often the judicial system is flat out wrong. In Ireland the prisons are so full everyone gets a slap on the wrist and a suspended sentence for even public endangerment crimes.
Where do the occupants of the full prisons come from then? Are the prisons full of life sentence prisoners from back when they weren't full?
That's a good question which I don't have the answer to. Things used to be less lenient so it would stand to reason that spaces are taken by previous longer sentencees. Ireland doesn't have many spaces to begin with. From wikipedia:
> Prisons and prison population
>There are 12 prisons in the Republic of Ireland with a total bed capacity of 4,106 as of 31 December 2009. The daily average number of prisoners in custody in 2009 was 3,881. However, most of these prisons currently operate at or above capacity.[13] On 25 January 2011 the prison population stood at 4,541. There were about 80 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants in October 2015,[11] and in Northern Ireland it was 78 per 100,000 in February 2016.
> Prisons and prison population
>There are 12 prisons in the Republic of Ireland with a total bed capacity of 4,106 as of 31 December 2009. The daily average number of prisoners in custody in 2009 was 3,881. However, most of these prisons currently operate at or above capacity.[13] On 25 January 2011 the prison population stood at 4,541. There were about 80 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants in October 2015,[11] and in Northern Ireland it was 78 per 100,000 in February 2016.
[deleted]
That's the "punitive" side of things. Certainly, it seems "fair" to ensure the punishment is equal to the crime, but fair isn't the same as just. Why don't you go Code of Hammurabi on someone, and inflict the same kind of injury? The logic still holds. Of course, it now requires people willing to commit torture and rape and the like, to equal the crime, but that's the logical conclusion of trying to be "fair".
But even without taking it to its conclusion, I'd contend "fairness" as you define it there isn't necessarily the best outcome for society; an ex-hacker is probably an excellent choice when hiring for electronic security, an ex-robber an excellent choice for hiring for physical security, etc. Even a murderer can go on to great things that benefit society. I mean, hell, Miguel De Cervantes, author of Don Quixote, the first modern novel, wrote his first published work while in prison. The Birdman of Alcatraz (Robert Stroud), a murderer, published major works in ornithology, and found a cure for a bird disease. Rehabilitated criminals can still benefit all of us, as well as redeem themselves in their own eyes by doing good for themselves and their loved ones.
But all that aside, you're saying you believe the additional punishment should be societal scorn carried out by vigilantes (i.e., average citizens deciding the person shouldn't hold a job even though they've paid the price the courts decided on)? That hardly seems just or 'fair'.
But even without taking it to its conclusion, I'd contend "fairness" as you define it there isn't necessarily the best outcome for society; an ex-hacker is probably an excellent choice when hiring for electronic security, an ex-robber an excellent choice for hiring for physical security, etc. Even a murderer can go on to great things that benefit society. I mean, hell, Miguel De Cervantes, author of Don Quixote, the first modern novel, wrote his first published work while in prison. The Birdman of Alcatraz (Robert Stroud), a murderer, published major works in ornithology, and found a cure for a bird disease. Rehabilitated criminals can still benefit all of us, as well as redeem themselves in their own eyes by doing good for themselves and their loved ones.
But all that aside, you're saying you believe the additional punishment should be societal scorn carried out by vigilantes (i.e., average citizens deciding the person shouldn't hold a job even though they've paid the price the courts decided on)? That hardly seems just or 'fair'.
There is a rights-based approach in which (a) yes, someone inflicting a harm on you gives you the right to inflict a proportionate harm on them; (b) you can then go to them and threaten to inflict this harm, and usually get them to agree to pay you a fine instead, thus benefiting both of you. Labor could be used to substitute for a fine if someone can't pay, although I think in today's prisons the prisoners don't necessarily do work.
There are problems. For example, breaking a professional tennis player's arm may be much more career-damaging, and arguably "worse", than breaking a professional chess player's arm; and excessive retaliation is itself a crime. In that case, it may be good to get a judge or some such to evaluate the severity before carrying out the retaliation. That also goes for judging the evidence—obviously, punishing someone for a crime they didn't commit is itself a crime. So one could imagine this turning into something at least vaguely resembling today's court system.
There are problems. For example, breaking a professional tennis player's arm may be much more career-damaging, and arguably "worse", than breaking a professional chess player's arm; and excessive retaliation is itself a crime. In that case, it may be good to get a judge or some such to evaluate the severity before carrying out the retaliation. That also goes for judging the evidence—obviously, punishing someone for a crime they didn't commit is itself a crime. So one could imagine this turning into something at least vaguely resembling today's court system.
This is a jaw-droppingly horrific system you're imagining. Amongst other things you've effectively insulted rich criminals from any repercussions, and basically given them a slave underclass (please, no snarky comments about current justice system). Do you genuinely think this a good idea?
Our current legal system has evolved over many hundreds of years. I merely describe a set of initial conditions and a few possible early developments. The space of things it might evolve into seems pretty wide. I do suspect some of those things would be good. That said, in the meantime:
There have existed societies in which the penalty for murder was to pay a fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild
Also, this doesn't insulate rich criminals from all repercussions. If they have enough money to pay the fines when murdering tens of people... well, you could try killing the criminal directly. You can do that today as well, if you're prepared to pay the price.
A really rich criminal could hire bodyguards, of course, but those would be costly, imperfect, and have some chance of turning against their employer. Ultimately it would become a rich guy in charge of an organized criminal gang, which... is also something that exists today.
There have existed societies in which the penalty for murder was to pay a fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild
Also, this doesn't insulate rich criminals from all repercussions. If they have enough money to pay the fines when murdering tens of people... well, you could try killing the criminal directly. You can do that today as well, if you're prepared to pay the price.
A really rich criminal could hire bodyguards, of course, but those would be costly, imperfect, and have some chance of turning against their employer. Ultimately it would become a rich guy in charge of an organized criminal gang, which... is also something that exists today.
We know how this goes, because forms of it are what the current system evolved into; there are obvious descendents of what you say in the legal system. But that doesn't mean applying it literally, as with your "early developments", wouldn't have awful consequences.
> ...If they have enough money to pay the fines when murdering tens of people...
It's not about "murdering tens of people". It's killing someone whilst drunk driving, or murdering someone in an argument. These situations clearly still happen in the current system. But with what you're saying codifies that, if someonene is rich, as long as their crime is not against someone else rich, they can generally avoid any repercussions. Blood libel is still a thing, can literally see it in action in countries which have legal systems that allow it.
> ...If they have enough money to pay the fines when murdering tens of people...
It's not about "murdering tens of people". It's killing someone whilst drunk driving, or murdering someone in an argument. These situations clearly still happen in the current system. But with what you're saying codifies that, if someonene is rich, as long as their crime is not against someone else rich, they can generally avoid any repercussions. Blood libel is still a thing, can literally see it in action in countries which have legal systems that allow it.
Not really sure what your point here is in relation to my post. That if we didn't have a legal system or governmental authority that we collectively have agreed to allow to arbitrate these matters, it would be left up to individuals to do, and that such a system is ripe (per your later comments) of exploitation by the rich? I mean, sure, but hardly seems relevant to the comment or the current state of most countries.
The state does more injustice in the name of "fairness" than almost any other agent for any ther reason.
I have to say "almost" as there is the very rare criminal who is actually mean and targets people the way the state does.
People denied access. Denied votes. Denied work. Denied the means to live.
I have to say "almost" as there is the very rare criminal who is actually mean and targets people the way the state does.
People denied access. Denied votes. Denied work. Denied the means to live.
Hard disagree on that. As a programmer we have access to more than most accountants. How hard would it be for most programmers to put in a backdoor they could later claim was a bug?
Criminal convictions are perhaps not the best measure of trustability.
Criminal convictions are perhaps not the best measure of trustability.
> As a programmer we have access to more than most accountants
Do we? What does the average programmer working on internal business applications, b2b services or CMSs have access to that is of any risk?
Do we? What does the average programmer working on internal business applications, b2b services or CMSs have access to that is of any risk?
It's always hard to estimate what the average case is for something like this. But I would guess that the average programmer do have access to "production data". What that contain is obviously industry specific, and the most sensitive industries are (hopefully) well regulated and not average, like health care or finance.
But I would guess that programmers at Tinder/Grindr/$datingSite had access to production data in the early days. Probably many SaaS things, perhaps doing stuff in the HR/recruitment/time reporting area. For B2B I'm guessing many programmers have access to business sensitive data, that competitors would like to get their hands on. At the least I would guess that at least the average backend developer have access to all contact info / emails for all users in services they work on.
Obviously all best practices say that random Joe programmer shouldn't have access to these things, but I don't think that match the _average_ reality.
But I would guess that programmers at Tinder/Grindr/$datingSite had access to production data in the early days. Probably many SaaS things, perhaps doing stuff in the HR/recruitment/time reporting area. For B2B I'm guessing many programmers have access to business sensitive data, that competitors would like to get their hands on. At the least I would guess that at least the average backend developer have access to all contact info / emails for all users in services they work on.
Obviously all best practices say that random Joe programmer shouldn't have access to these things, but I don't think that match the _average_ reality.
I think so. Many sites have some sort of sensitive user data that could be exploited. If you work in ecommerce, you likely have access to the payment gateway as well.
> How hard would it be for most programmers to put in a backdoor they could later claim was a bug?
My guess is that is actually pretty fricking hard, as otherwise it'd be happening all the time. I.e. you can maybe make a backdoor to something without monetary consequences (even in a bank most systems don't handle money), but introducing a backdoor to the core system (i.e. a money-dealing one) in such a way that it is not noticed in code reviews or testing AND you can claim plausible deniability seems hard.
My guess is that is actually pretty fricking hard, as otherwise it'd be happening all the time. I.e. you can maybe make a backdoor to something without monetary consequences (even in a bank most systems don't handle money), but introducing a backdoor to the core system (i.e. a money-dealing one) in such a way that it is not noticed in code reviews or testing AND you can claim plausible deniability seems hard.
This is why all non-trivial applications need to have a code review process and a CI/CD pipeline that ensures that no application goes into production except via that pipeline, and that all code is reviewed prior to deployment. It’s not a guarantee, of course, but it’s a start.
How do you hotfix production? Do you have a special "go fast" flag in the pipeline?
In my experience, the pipeline itself is a negligible amount of time. Directly hotfixing something is a high risk thing that no company I've ever worked for would tolerate.
If your pipeline doesn't allow you to deploy quickly, fix the pipeline. Nothing should go to production that doesn't go through the pipeline.
You don't. You build the ability to roll back to a good state.
> Criminal convictions are perhaps not the best measure of trustability.
Unskillful or unlucky criminals are prosecuted by the law, more careful criminals often defy the law.
Unskillful or unlucky criminals are prosecuted by the law, more careful criminals often defy the law.
What crimes are applicable to software engineers, then? I don't think there are any laws punishing you from writing bad code, nor are there laws addressing data theft or security misconfigurations. GDPR applies against companies and not individual people, as far as I can tell.
Would the only valid crimes be related to computer hacking?
Would the only valid crimes be related to computer hacking?
> Would the only valid crimes be related to computer hacking?
Not necessarily. When working for a fintech or a bank, financial crimes can be very relevant. Writing bad code is, lucky me, not directly punishable as a crime.
Not necessarily. When working for a fintech or a bank, financial crimes can be very relevant. Writing bad code is, lucky me, not directly punishable as a crime.
I could assume hacking, fraud, corporate espionage, etc. along with info relevant to the software (i.e. if you make banking software I'd assume fiscal crime would be at least somewhat relevant)
Hacking would probably be a plus for a software enginer. They know how to debug systems.
Espionage, theft, and violent crimes... That's a different situation (I don't want someone coming after me after I liter their PR with comments)
Espionage, theft, and violent crimes... That's a different situation (I don't want someone coming after me after I liter their PR with comments)
[deleted]
Sure, and embezzlement might be a plus for a very specific finance job, namely, searching for evidence that embezzlement has happened.
Point is that it's relevant under those circumstances, and fair play for an employer search. Drunken and disorderly is not.
Point is that it's relevant under those circumstances, and fair play for an employer search. Drunken and disorderly is not.
> Hacking would probably be a plus for a software enginer. They know how to debug systems.
They also apparently have poor judgement and/or security practices, if they got themselves convicted under CFAA or similar. And possibly questionable moral integrity depending on what and how they were hacking.
Background checks are not intended to evaluate skills but to find risks. Having a hacking conviction is generally not a positive signal.
They also apparently have poor judgement and/or security practices, if they got themselves convicted under CFAA or similar. And possibly questionable moral integrity depending on what and how they were hacking.
Background checks are not intended to evaluate skills but to find risks. Having a hacking conviction is generally not a positive signal.
I know a guy who spent a year in federal prison on bogus wire fraud charges for an article published in a hacker magazine. He was afraid it would cripple his career, but the opposite was true. He's now the chief technologist at a major CDN and his prison time translated into a badass semi-legendary hacker image.
Whereas if they're convicted for hacking, they'll only go after your digital assets/devices, so... no worries? After all, hacking convictions are a plus.
A charge of 'hacking' is like a charge of 'breaking and entering'. They could have cracked a bank vault mission-impossible style, or maybe they threw a brick through the window.
For all you know, they could have 'hacked in' via the password on the post-it on their coworkers monitor.
For all you know, they could have 'hacked in' via the password on the post-it on their coworkers monitor.
I threw a brick through a bank vault. Does that qualify?
Writing an entire operating system in an inherently insecure language?
This seems to be a pretty popular crime.
If you write software for banks, than all the crimes a banker could commit are easy for your to hide in code. If you write software for pharmacies then you can probably figure out how to to get any prescription you want to abuse into the system.
>What crimes are applicable to software engineers, then?
Ever see office Space? ;-)
Ever see office Space? ;-)
>Would the only valid crimes be related to computer hacking?
Or willingly install Windows Server facing the internet directly, that would be the other one ;)
Or willingly install Windows Server facing the internet directly, that would be the other one ;)
I would think any crime inflicting bodily harm is relevant, as long as you work near people with bodies.
What you said implies that any person that has committed a violent crime remains a danger to other people, forever - and should also be punished, forever.
This is what the American justice system is like.
In a saner world, (only) people who are a danger to others would be separated from the society, and being set free would be and indication that you are no longer a danger.
In the US, being released from prison signals you are more dangerous than if you got away with your crime.
This is what the American justice system is like.
In a saner world, (only) people who are a danger to others would be separated from the society, and being set free would be and indication that you are no longer a danger.
In the US, being released from prison signals you are more dangerous than if you got away with your crime.
It may be that it's not a criteria for not hiring them, but never-the-less something you want to keep an eye one once you do. And perhaps something you want to ask them about at interview.
I dunno, it takes a lot more than a fistfight to get put in prison for violent offense. Sure people can change but only a solid work history or trusted recommendation can give you any real confidence. You may have to fire this person, or they may have to report to an abusive manage for some period of time. Some offenses are difficult to walk away from untainted.
The summer after I graduated from HS a kid I knew got into a fist fight in the parking lot of a bar. He was punched once and he went down and cracked his skull on the curb and died.
The person who hit him was charged with manslaughter.
The person who hit him was charged with manslaughter.
Wow, that’s tragic
>I dunno, it takes a lot more than a fistfight to get put in prison for violent offense.
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Conversely, someone who was already willing to violently attack another person is probably much more likely to do it again?
They’ve likely also noticed that the time they spent in the funhouse afterwards was not so fun after all. So even if this were true (which I don’t think it is), they might think twice about going at it again.
If someone is more likely to do it again because they are mentally unstable, they shouldn’t be released.
If someone is more likely to do it again because they are mentally unstable, they shouldn’t be released.
Most people will attack another person, if sufficiently provoked.
Crimes of passion are a thing.
Perjury maybe? A lot of compliance relies on truthful reporting by employees.
I don't know of specific cases where a programmer was prosecuted, but I believe that knowingly and negligently leaving holes in compliance-heavy health technology (HIPAA) could result in prosecution.
In the United States "Unauthorized use of a computer" is a felony.
Scrollbar hijacking should be 20 years to life.
We need more of this. A criminal record in the US is a curse for life, leaving former criminals with little chance at success and little to live for. People without much to live for are dangerous. We should help our former criminals rather than condemn them for life--it benefits us all.
leaving former criminals with little chance at success
It's worth noting that it also leaves their children a smaller chance at success as well[0], and then the cycle continues. When you add this to the fact that Black male offenders received sentences on average 19.1 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders [1], this adds up to one aspect of systemic racism in America.
0 - https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2016/captive-lives/
1 - https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-d...
It's worth noting that it also leaves their children a smaller chance at success as well[0], and then the cycle continues. When you add this to the fact that Black male offenders received sentences on average 19.1 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders [1], this adds up to one aspect of systemic racism in America.
0 - https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2016/captive-lives/
1 - https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-d...
It's important to note that [1] seems to refer to federal sentencing, and almost all criminal law in the U.S. is state law. [1] is a small subset of what's going on, and it can't be used to generalize.
Election polls are a tiny subset of the general public, but they do offer very powerful insights into wider trends.
Is there any reason to believe that Federal judges are more racially biased compared to State judges? I'd be shocked if State judges as a group are more color-blind than Federal judges.
Is there any reason to believe that Federal judges are more racially biased compared to State judges? I'd be shocked if State judges as a group are more color-blind than Federal judges.
Election polls are designed to do exactly that, whereas this sample isn't anything even approaching a random subset that could be used for inference about the whole population.
It may be the case that in state courtrooms judges are the same, worse, or better, but making that inference on the basis of federal-level data is probably unjustified.
It may be the case that in state courtrooms judges are the same, worse, or better, but making that inference on the basis of federal-level data is probably unjustified.
Not the OP, but it is interesting that the US criminal law is so state dependent. Out of curiosity: do you have reason to believe that the sentencing disparity is better when considering states?
I have reason to believe that the sentencing disparity is like the gender pay gap: easy to prove, if that helps your political goals, and also easy to disprove, if that suits you better.
Statistics is hard, and the entire reason there's leeway in sentencing is to account for situations which are resistant to statistical regularity.
There is, or was, a pretty obvious source of disparity in US law: freebase cocaine was a felony at much smaller quantities than cocaine salt, and the former was more likely to be used and dealt by black Americans.
Would that show up in such an analysis? They were different convictions, after all. So the only answer can be "yes or no", and so on ad infinitum.
Statistics is hard, and the entire reason there's leeway in sentencing is to account for situations which are resistant to statistical regularity.
There is, or was, a pretty obvious source of disparity in US law: freebase cocaine was a felony at much smaller quantities than cocaine salt, and the former was more likely to be used and dealt by black Americans.
Would that show up in such an analysis? They were different convictions, after all. So the only answer can be "yes or no", and so on ad infinitum.
I'm fairly convinced that the fact that marijuana is illegal (federally) and alcohol/tobacco are legal without a prescription has more to do with the populations who typically used them than with any medical or scientific basis on dangerousness.
https://www.businessinsider.com/racist-origins-marijuana-pro...
https://www.businessinsider.com/racist-origins-marijuana-pro...
Sure, and that's another thing that wouldn't show up in statistics directly.
Although it's important to note that alcohol was illegal, and tobacco is becoming increasingly low-status and accordingly restricted.
The end of Prohibition meant that the enforcement apparatus for it needed something new to do. I believe this was another contributing factor to continuing the broken logic of Prohibition with new substances.
Although it's important to note that alcohol was illegal, and tobacco is becoming increasingly low-status and accordingly restricted.
The end of Prohibition meant that the enforcement apparatus for it needed something new to do. I believe this was another contributing factor to continuing the broken logic of Prohibition with new substances.
That's... actually pretty interesting concept to consider.
Sometimes I do wonder how much better we could all get along if some substances had relaxed or dropped restrictions.
When you think about it, there's the mental toll on users about public disapproval amplified by the legal status. On top of that, the divide on the non user side about someone being a "lawbreaker".
Just seems to cause a lot of division. On top of the illegality of harder drugs leading to the rise of cartels and gangs.
Just thinking out loud. What if the US said 'screw it', try making everything legal for 5-10 years, produce what it can locally, and just see what happens. The hope with this idea is that one could starve out the cartels while perhaps providing a path to rehabilitation.
All of that said, I am still a believer in the Rat Park experiment. If we solved some of our more real problems people perhaps wouldn't need to turn to such substances, as examples by the reports of drug use increasing under lockdown conditions. Reality seems to match the experiment. The thing about that experiment, they found if the rat's other needs were met (food, shelter, socialization) they actually would start to prefer normal water to drugged water again.
Hmmmmm
Sometimes I do wonder how much better we could all get along if some substances had relaxed or dropped restrictions.
When you think about it, there's the mental toll on users about public disapproval amplified by the legal status. On top of that, the divide on the non user side about someone being a "lawbreaker".
Just seems to cause a lot of division. On top of the illegality of harder drugs leading to the rise of cartels and gangs.
Just thinking out loud. What if the US said 'screw it', try making everything legal for 5-10 years, produce what it can locally, and just see what happens. The hope with this idea is that one could starve out the cartels while perhaps providing a path to rehabilitation.
All of that said, I am still a believer in the Rat Park experiment. If we solved some of our more real problems people perhaps wouldn't need to turn to such substances, as examples by the reports of drug use increasing under lockdown conditions. Reality seems to match the experiment. The thing about that experiment, they found if the rat's other needs were met (food, shelter, socialization) they actually would start to prefer normal water to drugged water again.
Hmmmmm
I worry that we have raised a bunch of people in the mindset of "if the government allows it, it's safe" and rather than thinking critically about it may assume that they just figured out it was safe. The more drug-tolerant cultures (such as the Netherlands and Portugal) have "evolved" an understanding of drugs culturally such that you don't see a bunch of locals stoned out of their gourds in the coffeeshops all day. I hate the "war on drugs" and the terrible costs it has imposed, but I think that flipping the switch to anything goes is unlikely to end well.
If it’s just about social issues specific to the US, why is it exactly the same in so many other countries? In fact the US did try to make alcohol illegal but it was a shitshow. In my country they’d NEVER touch alcohol yet weed is illegal. Even though it’s the same ethnic group using both.
Hypothetical reasons why this may be the case:
1. The most egregiously racist judges probably work in districts which they rarely encounter minorities.
2. Regions with large minority populations have to deal with much more crime in general, so may have lighter sentences for equally severe crimes.
3. Minorities are more likely to plead out and never go to trial, skewing sample size.
To be clear, I doubt that state judges are better than federal ones. After all, criminal justice corruption in smaller towns in America is staggering. Not too long ago, a judge was indicted for being bribed by the owners of a jail to hand down severe sentences to minority offenders.
1. The most egregiously racist judges probably work in districts which they rarely encounter minorities.
2. Regions with large minority populations have to deal with much more crime in general, so may have lighter sentences for equally severe crimes.
3. Minorities are more likely to plead out and never go to trial, skewing sample size.
To be clear, I doubt that state judges are better than federal ones. After all, criminal justice corruption in smaller towns in America is staggering. Not too long ago, a judge was indicted for being bribed by the owners of a jail to hand down severe sentences to minority offenders.
[deleted](1)
Is there any evidence that the sentences are longer after controlling for variables such as (1) differences in previous convictions which increase sentence duration, (2) severity of the crime?
If this evidence is provided, I am happy to agree with you that there is systematic racism in the justice system.
If this evidence is provided, I am happy to agree with you that there is systematic racism in the justice system.
Yes. There is abundant evidence of this.
Link?
I found this with literally 30 seconds of googling. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu...
Don't be willfully ignorant and don't expect other people to do your homework.
Don't be willfully ignorant and don't expect other people to do your homework.
Also, here's a lengthy summary of a wide variety of instances of racial bias in the justice system from policing to sentencing and so forth with links to primary sources. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/opinions/system...
Again, don't be willfully ignorant and don't expect other people to do your homework for you.
Again, don't be willfully ignorant and don't expect other people to do your homework for you.
It’s funny watching people come up with all these complicated epicycle-ridden theories for why success is heritable, when the true answer is very obvious - most behaviors related to success are highly genetically heritable. This is the incontrovertible conclusion one draws when they critically observe the results of highly controlled and conditioned twin/sibling studies (on incarceration rate, among other things). Of course, this flies against the western “all men are created equal” soft-religious indoctrination most people get in school, so it’s less difficult for them to come up with these complicated (and relatively very unlikely) models.
> most behaviors related to success are highly genetically heritable
And the implications of this are what?
See, that's the problem with these claims. They serve no purpose other than to suggest that some people are inherently better or more deserving than others. But we live in a liberal democracy based on equality before the law. It wouldn't matter if some people are more predisposed to crime or smarter or whatever. The law should be blind.
And the implications of this are what?
See, that's the problem with these claims. They serve no purpose other than to suggest that some people are inherently better or more deserving than others. But we live in a liberal democracy based on equality before the law. It wouldn't matter if some people are more predisposed to crime or smarter or whatever. The law should be blind.
The implication is that if one genetic group is getting poorer outcomes than another group, you can't automatically assume it's due to discrimination.
This is an important implication because it completely undercuts many extremely important power structures, which use accusations of discrimination as their legitimizing argument. Which is why the science on this is resisted so hard.
The idea of anyone being inferior to anyone else is completely something you brought into the conversation. Normal people understand that being short does not make one inferior, nor does skin color, nor personality, nor intelligence. It just changes statistical outcomes. Not moral value.
If you think genetic differences between people make some people morally inferior, I would say that's a moral problem with you. Because even on the individual level, if not the group level, genetic differences are obvious and undeniable. Do you really think someone who scores low on an IQ test is morally inferior to you or deserves to suffer? I don't. If not, what's the problem with accepting the science on genetic group difference, especially given that it helps us reduce suffering in the world?
This is an important implication because it completely undercuts many extremely important power structures, which use accusations of discrimination as their legitimizing argument. Which is why the science on this is resisted so hard.
The idea of anyone being inferior to anyone else is completely something you brought into the conversation. Normal people understand that being short does not make one inferior, nor does skin color, nor personality, nor intelligence. It just changes statistical outcomes. Not moral value.
If you think genetic differences between people make some people morally inferior, I would say that's a moral problem with you. Because even on the individual level, if not the group level, genetic differences are obvious and undeniable. Do you really think someone who scores low on an IQ test is morally inferior to you or deserves to suffer? I don't. If not, what's the problem with accepting the science on genetic group difference, especially given that it helps us reduce suffering in the world?
the implications are that a bit of gene pool control may go a long way.
If the law is blind, you expect people with heritable traits associated with criminality to get in trouble with the law more often. I.e. all is as expected.
>A criminal record in the US is a curse for life
The US system probably is overly harsh -- in Ireland it's probaby overly lenient and the pendulum affect is that we've criminals being called in to court with literally hundreds of prior convictions and then they're let off with suspended sentences and then go straight back to what they were doing.
Equally frustrating -- to see the guilty just walk off and laugh as it is to see the redeemed struggle having conceded their mistakes. Justice is very important, hard and complex. I don't doubt that but their clearly is room for improvement on both sides.
The US system probably is overly harsh -- in Ireland it's probaby overly lenient and the pendulum affect is that we've criminals being called in to court with literally hundreds of prior convictions and then they're let off with suspended sentences and then go straight back to what they were doing.
Equally frustrating -- to see the guilty just walk off and laugh as it is to see the redeemed struggle having conceded their mistakes. Justice is very important, hard and complex. I don't doubt that but their clearly is room for improvement on both sides.
> Equally frustrating -- to see the guilty just walk off and laugh as it is to see the redeemed struggle having conceded their mistakes.
That of course depends on your value system. There are many that consider sending an innocent person to jail far worse than letting a guilty person walk free, and I’m sure you can apply a similar worldview here as well.
That of course depends on your value system. There are many that consider sending an innocent person to jail far worse than letting a guilty person walk free, and I’m sure you can apply a similar worldview here as well.
Getting guilt right and what punishment to dispense to the guilty are different questions. For example you could have 100-member juries with unanimous verdicts required, but also execute anyone convicted of any crime.
> Getting guilt right and what punishment to dispense to the guilty are different questions.
I disagree.
If your legal system executes people, they are inseparable questions.
I would generalize to say that the more severe your sentences, the more those two questions are related.
I disagree.
If your legal system executes people, they are inseparable questions.
I would generalize to say that the more severe your sentences, the more those two questions are related.
I think you're arguing a different point. Sure there's a relationship, but these are not the same question:
"Did Joe kill Dave?"
"Given that we've decided that Joe did kill Dave, what should Joe's punishment be?"
"Did Joe kill Dave?"
"Given that we've decided that Joe did kill Dave, what should Joe's punishment be?"
They can become one.
For instance:
For instance:
1) Did Joe steal that apple?
2a)Do we chop off Joe's hand, like law says?
2b)Do we make Joe repay the apple, and get community work?
It sounds like you two are disagreeing over the unmentioned error rate.
If I get a parking ticket unjustly, it may piss me off, but it isn't a big deal. If I am convicted of a serious crime unjustly, it matters far more.
Whereas the grandparent, I think, is asserting the guilt or innocence is (or should be) an objective fact independent of what anyone does about it.
If I get a parking ticket unjustly, it may piss me off, but it isn't a big deal. If I am convicted of a serious crime unjustly, it matters far more.
Whereas the grandparent, I think, is asserting the guilt or innocence is (or should be) an objective fact independent of what anyone does about it.
The difference is that crimes are usually done against other people. I as a citizen can usually defend myself against wrongdoing by other people, but I can only defend myself against state wrongdoing in the state's courts, with the state's rules. Being imbalanced one way is not as equally harmful as being imbalanced the other way.
Giving petty criminals a chance to reform is important since most petty crime is driven by factors other than inherent criminality of the individual but it should not be possible to just keep racking up petty offenses to the detriment of everyone who's victimized by them.
Yes, but the argument of "detriment to everyone" is only used to further lengthen sentences, but never address any of the inputs that lead to such crime. And that's because of the draconian character of the US concerning law and punishment.
I agree that we need to work on the frontend problems that are driving so much crime and that we should prefer to be rehabilitative instead of punitive in our approach to crime; however, it's not obvious to me how being punitive dissuades us from addressing inputs--could you elaborate?
(note that I'm a different 'throwaway' than the OP)
(note that I'm a different 'throwaway' than the OP)
> The US system probably is overly harsh -- in Ireland it's probaby overly lenient
The US system is overly harsh to some groups of people and overly lenient to others, and the imbalance creates its own set of problems.
I would love to see sane prison reform based on data and science.
The US system is overly harsh to some groups of people and overly lenient to others, and the imbalance creates its own set of problems.
I would love to see sane prison reform based on data and science.
As with everything, there is a balance. It requires everlasting vigilance.
Out of interest what proportion of criminals let off with suspended sentences have hundreds of convictions?
I don't have statistics but there are incidents like these that are regularly reported in Irish and International Media:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/woman-most-c...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/woman-most-c...
Sounds like that lady needs care more than she needs more prison time. Particularly after a 16 month sentence and the petty nature of the actual crime.
Incidents like these get in the national press precisely because they are rare and hence interesting. Do you think there are tens of people, hundred of people or thousands of people with >100 criminal convictions?
Incidents like these get in the national press precisely because they are rare and hence interesting. Do you think there are tens of people, hundred of people or thousands of people with >100 criminal convictions?
In Germany, that would Intensivtäter (literally intensive perpetrators). It's not rare to have young men with dozens of convictions for assault, breaking and entering, mugging etc. They typically don't get any jail time and will collect more indictments between being arrested and seeing a judge. For Berlin they're having a list of 500 people, almost all male.
I wonder how much better you could make society if you managed to take the worst 1% of scumbags and remove them.
Western Europe did pretty much that for hundreds of years.
> Through its monopoly on violence, the State tends to pacify social relations. Such pacification proceeded slowly in Western Europe between the 5th and 11th centuries, being hindered by the rudimentary nature of law enforcement, the belief in a man’s right to settle personal disputes as he saw fit, and the Church’s opposition to the death penalty. These hindrances began to dissolve in the 11th century with a consensus by Church and State that the wicked should be punished so that the good may live in peace. Courts imposed the death penalty more and more often and, by the late Middle Ages, were condemning to death between 0.5 and 1.0% of all men of each generation, with perhaps just as many offenders dying at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial. Meanwhile, the homicide rate plummeted from the 14th century to the 20th. The pool of violent men dried up until most murders occurred under conditions of jealousy, intoxication, or extreme stress. The decline in personal violence is usually attributed to harsher punishment and the longer-term effects of cultural conditioning. It may also be, however, that this new cultural environment selected against propensities for violence.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/147470491501300...
> Through its monopoly on violence, the State tends to pacify social relations. Such pacification proceeded slowly in Western Europe between the 5th and 11th centuries, being hindered by the rudimentary nature of law enforcement, the belief in a man’s right to settle personal disputes as he saw fit, and the Church’s opposition to the death penalty. These hindrances began to dissolve in the 11th century with a consensus by Church and State that the wicked should be punished so that the good may live in peace. Courts imposed the death penalty more and more often and, by the late Middle Ages, were condemning to death between 0.5 and 1.0% of all men of each generation, with perhaps just as many offenders dying at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial. Meanwhile, the homicide rate plummeted from the 14th century to the 20th. The pool of violent men dried up until most murders occurred under conditions of jealousy, intoxication, or extreme stress. The decline in personal violence is usually attributed to harsher punishment and the longer-term effects of cultural conditioning. It may also be, however, that this new cultural environment selected against propensities for violence.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/147470491501300...
Significantly worse, I'd say.
The same is true in The Netherlands. Often these individuals share the same backgrounds: (illegal) immigrants from North Africa, mainly Morocco and Algeria. Countries that The Netherlands regard as safe, which means these individuals can’t get a refugee status. In case of Morocco, from my understanding, Morocco isn’t interested in accepting their former subjects [0], so it’s impossible for The Netherlands to send these repeat offenders back.
———
[0]: https://nltimes.nl/2019/11/22/morocco-refusing-speak-nl-taki...
———
[0]: https://nltimes.nl/2019/11/22/morocco-refusing-speak-nl-taki...
> The US system probably is overly harsh -- in Ireland it's probaby overly lenient and the pendulum affect is that we've criminals being called in to court with literally hundreds of prior convictions and then they're let off with suspended sentences and then go straight back to what they were doing.
FWIW, it's not evenly distributed in the US. We have jurisdictions like Chicago where violent offenders are released on probation after a few months or years only to reoffend. Further, these violent crimes aren't evenly distributed across Chicago, but rather they disproportionately affect poor, typically minority communities. It's well-known that crime (esp violent) is driving businesses (and jobs) out of these communities and perpetuating the cycle of poverty. Presumably these light-on-crime policies (and similarly "defund the police") are a misguided attempt to help these communities, since the criminal justice system is biased against the poor and minorities (and men, but that seems to not factor into any calculus); however, they're exacerbating the very problem they purport to solve. Indeed, Chicago appears to be on track for its most violent year since the gang wars of the early nineties, after decades of consistent, remarkable, commendable progress.
For me, this underscores the importance of properly understanding the dynamics of the problem we're trying to solve--it's not sufficient to be well-intentioned or to have the right bumper sticker. It also highlights the importance of free-speech and open inquiry, since we can't collectively understand these dynamics without the kind of robust debate that proponents of political correctness and cancel culture aspire to suppress. And note that their intentions are presumably good--they don't want (at least some) hateful talking points to be espoused; however, the well-being of these communities isn't worth trading in exchange for the suppression of hateful talking points (never mind the more abstract reasons for preserving free speech, such as "what happens when your ideological cohort falls out of power and someone else gets to decide what speech is permissible?") and moreover prior to the mainstreaming of restrictive-speech ideals (let's say circa 2014-2015 but this is all pretty fuzzy), this really wasn't a problem--American society did a pretty good job of marginalizing those who would openly espouse hateful viewpoints (although some will advocate for a meaninglessly broad definition of 'hate' or would argue that any speech from anyone they don't like can fairly be considered a 'racist dogwhistle', but those kinds of bad faith arguments notwithstanding...) and things were gradually improving for everyone.
Anyway, I apologize for going a bit off track. Hopefully this stream-of-consciousness prompts productive discussion and introspection.
FWIW, it's not evenly distributed in the US. We have jurisdictions like Chicago where violent offenders are released on probation after a few months or years only to reoffend. Further, these violent crimes aren't evenly distributed across Chicago, but rather they disproportionately affect poor, typically minority communities. It's well-known that crime (esp violent) is driving businesses (and jobs) out of these communities and perpetuating the cycle of poverty. Presumably these light-on-crime policies (and similarly "defund the police") are a misguided attempt to help these communities, since the criminal justice system is biased against the poor and minorities (and men, but that seems to not factor into any calculus); however, they're exacerbating the very problem they purport to solve. Indeed, Chicago appears to be on track for its most violent year since the gang wars of the early nineties, after decades of consistent, remarkable, commendable progress.
For me, this underscores the importance of properly understanding the dynamics of the problem we're trying to solve--it's not sufficient to be well-intentioned or to have the right bumper sticker. It also highlights the importance of free-speech and open inquiry, since we can't collectively understand these dynamics without the kind of robust debate that proponents of political correctness and cancel culture aspire to suppress. And note that their intentions are presumably good--they don't want (at least some) hateful talking points to be espoused; however, the well-being of these communities isn't worth trading in exchange for the suppression of hateful talking points (never mind the more abstract reasons for preserving free speech, such as "what happens when your ideological cohort falls out of power and someone else gets to decide what speech is permissible?") and moreover prior to the mainstreaming of restrictive-speech ideals (let's say circa 2014-2015 but this is all pretty fuzzy), this really wasn't a problem--American society did a pretty good job of marginalizing those who would openly espouse hateful viewpoints (although some will advocate for a meaninglessly broad definition of 'hate' or would argue that any speech from anyone they don't like can fairly be considered a 'racist dogwhistle', but those kinds of bad faith arguments notwithstanding...) and things were gradually improving for everyone.
Anyway, I apologize for going a bit off track. Hopefully this stream-of-consciousness prompts productive discussion and introspection.
> never mind the more abstract reasons for preserving free speech, such as "what happens when your ideological cohort falls out of power and someone else gets to decide what speech is permissible?"
Most people that I talk to opposed to net neutrality are opposed it solely because this point is deeply concerning to them.
Broadly speaking, people are quick to give the government additional power when it aligns with their interests, but are critical of the government when the additional power is used for things they disagree with.
Most people that I talk to opposed to net neutrality are opposed it solely because this point is deeply concerning to them.
Broadly speaking, people are quick to give the government additional power when it aligns with their interests, but are critical of the government when the additional power is used for things they disagree with.
[deleted]
What's the objective of this comment? It starts off talking about "Chicago = War Zone" and then it devolves into the ground state of HN's favorite whipping children of "cancel culture", "free speech" and how "The well-being of these communities shouldn't be exchanged for free-speech(?)". I'm not even sure what the last point was meant to be about other than showing angst at the idea that racist comments are largely derided and marginalized.
> What's the objective of this comment? It starts off talking about "Chicago = War Zone" and then it devolves into the ground state of HN's favorite whipping children of "cancel culture", "free speech" and how "The well-being of these communities shouldn't be exchanged for free-speech(?)".
Chicago isn't a warzone. Last year I bought my first home here. I wouldn't live here if it were a warzone. But it does have problems and I have a vested interest in their resolution (or more realistically, reducing their impact). I think I explained pretty clearly how I see cancel culture, etc relating to these problems. If you have specific questions, I'm happy to try to answer (I don't claim perfect knowledge, I'm only sharing my perspective).
> "The well-being of these communities shouldn't be exchanged for free-speech(?)". I'm not even sure what the last point was meant to be about other than showing angst at the idea that racist comments are largely derided and marginalized.
I don't know how you got "angst at the idea that racist comments are largely derided and marginalized". I explicitly noted that marginalizing actual racism is a good thing. The problem is that a lot of necessary debate is considered beyond the pale such that we are only allowed to talk about the solutions which (pretty obviously) are only going to exacerbate the problem, such as reducing policing in the communities most in need and letting violent offenders out without the necessary rehabilitation. Your comment (inadvertently, I'm sure) lumps these concerns in with "racist comments", illustrating perfectly my issue with political correctness. I understand the desire for a simple worldview with a group of purely good guys and a group of purely bad guys, but I'm interested in solving real world problems and the real world has a lot of nuance to be explored. We have to be able to talk about that nuance in order to solve these problems. We're not doing these communities any favors by avoiding unpleasant complexities.
Chicago isn't a warzone. Last year I bought my first home here. I wouldn't live here if it were a warzone. But it does have problems and I have a vested interest in their resolution (or more realistically, reducing their impact). I think I explained pretty clearly how I see cancel culture, etc relating to these problems. If you have specific questions, I'm happy to try to answer (I don't claim perfect knowledge, I'm only sharing my perspective).
> "The well-being of these communities shouldn't be exchanged for free-speech(?)". I'm not even sure what the last point was meant to be about other than showing angst at the idea that racist comments are largely derided and marginalized.
I don't know how you got "angst at the idea that racist comments are largely derided and marginalized". I explicitly noted that marginalizing actual racism is a good thing. The problem is that a lot of necessary debate is considered beyond the pale such that we are only allowed to talk about the solutions which (pretty obviously) are only going to exacerbate the problem, such as reducing policing in the communities most in need and letting violent offenders out without the necessary rehabilitation. Your comment (inadvertently, I'm sure) lumps these concerns in with "racist comments", illustrating perfectly my issue with political correctness. I understand the desire for a simple worldview with a group of purely good guys and a group of purely bad guys, but I'm interested in solving real world problems and the real world has a lot of nuance to be explored. We have to be able to talk about that nuance in order to solve these problems. We're not doing these communities any favors by avoiding unpleasant complexities.
Okay, so tell us what these "unpleasant complexities" that we're avoiding are.
As previously discussed, we can't improve neighborhoods plagued by violent crime simply by releasing offenders early or pulling police out of those neighborhoods. Anyway, this conversation seems to be veering toward an unproductive direction. I'll see myself out.
Perhaps things like crime rates amongst different segments of the population.
People are losing their jobs because of offhand tweets completely unrelated to their occupation; how can we expect that a blemish as big as a criminal record will be overlooked?
Unfortunately, I don't think that's it. The same subset of my coworkers who requested that we don't invite Scott Aaronson to our colloquium because he said something vaguely anti-feminist years ago are perfectly happy to praise (literal murderer and talented number theorist) Christopher Havens, and I'm sure would be happy to have him employed by our department.
edit: Of course, universities still don't hire violent offenders, but I don't think the reasons for not employing a Twitter-pariah and not employing a murderer are closely related at all.
edit: Of course, universities still don't hire violent offenders, but I don't think the reasons for not employing a Twitter-pariah and not employing a murderer are closely related at all.
I'd rather hire a criminal (depending on the crime, obviously) than, say, a racist, especially given how many laws I disagree with.
There's a problem though:
- The standard of proof in criminal law is very high. There are very specific definitions of most criminal acts and these must be proven "beyond reasonable doubt"
- The definition of "racist tweet" on the other hand is as fuzzy as it can be. Usually it drills down to "someone whom I don't like said something that I have interpreted in the way I don't like"
If we think that racist tweets should bear harsh consequences, we need a bit better criteria of what "racist" actually means.
- The standard of proof in criminal law is very high. There are very specific definitions of most criminal acts and these must be proven "beyond reasonable doubt"
- The definition of "racist tweet" on the other hand is as fuzzy as it can be. Usually it drills down to "someone whom I don't like said something that I have interpreted in the way I don't like"
If we think that racist tweets should bear harsh consequences, we need a bit better criteria of what "racist" actually means.
Proof of criminal law in the US is notoriously low. Police perjury especially concerning marginalized groups is routine business.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_perjury
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/18/nyregion/testilying-polic...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_perjury
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/18/nyregion/testilying-polic...
Have you ever been on a jury?
The vast majority of those incarcerated in America have taken plea deals. The only source I could find from a government agency is a 1984 report from the BJS but it's fairly staggering - median ratio of 11 guilty pleas for every trial[1].
More recent nongovernmental sources paint a very similar picture [2][3]
So whatever your feeling about the standard of proof in a criminal trial, the vast majority of those incarcerated never actually went through one.
[1] https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=3498 [2] https://www.innocenceproject.org/guilty-pleas-on-the-rise-cr... [3] https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/12/26/plea-bargainin...
More recent nongovernmental sources paint a very similar picture [2][3]
So whatever your feeling about the standard of proof in a criminal trial, the vast majority of those incarcerated never actually went through one.
[1] https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=3498 [2] https://www.innocenceproject.org/guilty-pleas-on-the-rise-cr... [3] https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/12/26/plea-bargainin...
What do you think a good definition of “racist tweet” would be?
It's a tweet that explicitly promotes superiority or inferiority of one race relative to other races.
What if one race really is superior or inferior to another? For example "Tibetans are better at surviving at high altitudes than Han Chinese" Fact but racist according to that definition. Harsh consequences for scientists talking about their work?
High altitudes are a social construct, duh.
Awesome. Now define all of the races such that they are specific enough to create legal interpretations of promote, superiority, and inferiority in such a way that relative comparisons can be made.
I doubt there is one.
Does that mean the concept has no value, or that racist tweets do not exist (since they cannot be easily defined)?
x86_64Ubuntu(1)
There shouldn't be one. Everything bad about a racist tweet is bad when race isn't an issue.
Society has switched what it is racist about many times in the past. Just 100 years ago (WWI was just over) it was worse to be German than black in the US. Someone told me that in the 1870s the KKK had many black members - the group was against Catholics not blacks, but they changed (I do not know if this is true, but even if false it isn't unlikely). It will switch again.
Whatever your law is needs to cover all cases, otherwise it will be worked around quickly.
Society has switched what it is racist about many times in the past. Just 100 years ago (WWI was just over) it was worse to be German than black in the US. Someone told me that in the 1870s the KKK had many black members - the group was against Catholics not blacks, but they changed (I do not know if this is true, but even if false it isn't unlikely). It will switch again.
Whatever your law is needs to cover all cases, otherwise it will be worked around quickly.
That assertion about the KKK is, in fact, a myth. The KKK was founded in 1865, just after the US Civil War, and had as a bedrock principal the re-establishment of white supremacy. It's initial actions were to frustrate Reconstruction-era policies through violent action. Today, they'd be labeled a terrorist organization. Their aims were inherently racist, political and their tactics violent. Through a variety of means, they more or less achieved their goals such that by 1876, the entire south was once again under Democratic control.
It wasn't until the revival of the "second wave" of the KKK during 1910's and 1920's that they even started taking on anti-catholic stances. It was during this era that the burning cross, anti-communist, anti-catholic and anti-jewish stances came into being.
Finally, I have no idea where you got the idea that the KKK had "many black members". As far as I'm aware, no credible evidence for that has ever been put forward.
It wasn't until the revival of the "second wave" of the KKK during 1910's and 1920's that they even started taking on anti-catholic stances. It was during this era that the burning cross, anti-communist, anti-catholic and anti-jewish stances came into being.
Finally, I have no idea where you got the idea that the KKK had "many black members". As far as I'm aware, no credible evidence for that has ever been put forward.
That is why I was clear that it wasn't a source I would trust.
The definition can refer to any innate quality.
The whole idea of these rules is to avoid discriminating people based on something outside of their control: color, gender, height, age, country of origin and so on.
The whole idea of these rules is to avoid discriminating people based on something outside of their control: color, gender, height, age, country of origin and so on.
"[Do bad things] to [racial minority|racial group]!"
The definition of "bad things" is left as an exercise to the reader.
The definition of "bad things" is left as an exercise to the reader.
I wonder, if one could go even farther in your generalization such that it would apply to ~all human activity, might people be able to semi-realize that "The definition of <X> is left as an exercise to the reader", where "an exercise to the reader" actually consists of the reader's conceptualization of reality (much of which is pure imagination, mistaken for fact), and from there perhaps realize that this is what lies at the heart of most human conflict and failures?
It seems like quite the tall order, but then humanity has a very long list of conquered tall orders, because some people were willing to pursue the "impossible", and we also happen to be blessed with some very powerful tools (some of which often work against us).
It seems like quite the tall order, but then humanity has a very long list of conquered tall orders, because some people were willing to pursue the "impossible", and we also happen to be blessed with some very powerful tools (some of which often work against us).
>"The standard of proof in criminal law is very high. There are very specific definitions of most criminal acts and these must be proven "beyond reasonable doubt"
This is nice theory which in practice often comes down to: you can not afford proper defense (unless you want government lawyer who will happily sleep through the whole case), you do not have enough to make bail so here is the deal: plead guilty to this lesser crime or we would f,,k you up royally later on.
This is nice theory which in practice often comes down to: you can not afford proper defense (unless you want government lawyer who will happily sleep through the whole case), you do not have enough to make bail so here is the deal: plead guilty to this lesser crime or we would f,,k you up royally later on.
As with all things there is a judgment to be made, and as the one doing the hiring it is yours to make responsibly.
"Usually it drills down to "someone whom I don't like said something that I have interpreted in the way I don't like""
"Usually" ...
LOL ...
"Usually" ...
LOL ...
You say this, but most prison time is done for extreme crime that everyone agrees with. In addition this, prison time is usually reserved for not just crimes we agree with but crimes we all agree are extreme.
Case in point for this specific case it was violent crime, which I'm sure we can all agree is way worse than a racist tweet.
Case in point for this specific case it was violent crime, which I'm sure we can all agree is way worse than a racist tweet.
I'm not sure your statements about prison time are accurate, at least in the US.
According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 46.2% of inmates are in for drug offenses[1] and there is definitely disagreement about whether that should be a crime, let alone an extreme crime. Additionally, 78.6% of inmates are serving sentences longer than 5 years[2], which by necessity means that a large portion of those are for drug offenses.
[1] https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offen... [2] https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_sente...
According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 46.2% of inmates are in for drug offenses[1] and there is definitely disagreement about whether that should be a crime, let alone an extreme crime. Additionally, 78.6% of inmates are serving sentences longer than 5 years[2], which by necessity means that a large portion of those are for drug offenses.
[1] https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offen... [2] https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_sente...
But only about 10% of prisoners are in Federal custody.
Among those in state prisons, drug possession is about 3% of cases (about equal to DUI plus fraud cases). Other drug charges make up about 10%.
Among those in state prisons, drug possession is about 3% of cases (about equal to DUI plus fraud cases). Other drug charges make up about 10%.
> in state prisons, drug possession is about 3% of cases
You're going to need to source that unbelievably low number.
In my state, drug crimes represent the second largest proportion of prison inmates - a bit fewer than criminal sexual conduct a bit more than homicide: https://mn.gov/doc/assets/Adult%20Prison%20Population%20Summ...
You're going to need to source that unbelievably low number.
In my state, drug crimes represent the second largest proportion of prison inmates - a bit fewer than criminal sexual conduct a bit more than homicide: https://mn.gov/doc/assets/Adult%20Prison%20Population%20Summ...
Source is [1], 45k / 1290k for drug possession (and nothing harder), plus 145k for other drug charges (which I guess is closer to 11% not 10% as I said).
Minnesota's 17% isn't that far off the national number it seems. They don't give a breakdown for simple possession. Violent crimes at 55% are again a majority.
[1] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
Minnesota's 17% isn't that far off the national number it seems. They don't give a breakdown for simple possession. Violent crimes at 55% are again a majority.
[1] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
What percentage of those drug offenses are usage vs distribution?
If I had, let's say, less than $1000 worth of drugs - enough for a few weeks of personal consumption, but on occasion I sell a bit to one of my buddies. Does that make me a "distributor"? It did according to the law.
You're unlikely to find any realistic statistics on usage vs "distribution" due to that.
You're unlikely to find any realistic statistics on usage vs "distribution" due to that.
That's a good point, I'd like to see some research into that question.
> You say this, but most prison time is done for extreme crime that everyone agrees with. In addition this, prison time is usually reserved for not just crimes we agree with but crimes we all agree are extreme.
If only that were accurate. Prison time in the US is not given out in proportion to the seriousness of the crime, and the amount of prison time is highly variable depending on locale, race of offender, race of victim, and many other factors.
If only that were accurate. Prison time in the US is not given out in proportion to the seriousness of the crime, and the amount of prison time is highly variable depending on locale, race of offender, race of victim, and many other factors.
The two are not mutually exclusive. You can have a majority of serious offenders in your prison population that also happen to be from certain locales/race/etc...
Isn't a huge amount of prison time in the US handed out for selling banned substances to other consenting adults?
Drug convictions make up a large portion of federal inmates, but federal inmates are a minority of the prison population.
Yep. Drug laws (and the police/legal system in general) also disproportionately targets people of color.
About 10-20% of prisoners are in for nothing more serious than drugs, and if you try to exclude trafficking, then it's closer to the 10% end.
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
In total, about a half million people are in jail or prison for having, using, or selling drugs. Drug crimes account for about half of Federal prisoners.
But percentage-wise, when you add up federal, state, and local prisons and jails, drugs are not as large a percentage as you'd think. Another half million people in prisons or jails haven't been convicted of any crime at all, either because they can't afford bail or because they're just being processed today. If you had to guess what someone went to jail for, and you only knew they were in a State penitentiary, violent crime would be your best guess.
Here's a bit pie chart: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
But percentage-wise, when you add up federal, state, and local prisons and jails, drugs are not as large a percentage as you'd think. Another half million people in prisons or jails haven't been convicted of any crime at all, either because they can't afford bail or because they're just being processed today. If you had to guess what someone went to jail for, and you only knew they were in a State penitentiary, violent crime would be your best guess.
Here's a bit pie chart: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
What's not captured here is that drugs are a contributing factor to many of the crimes committed. An old and rather tired example is the junky stealing to get his next fix. The crime is robbery, but the cause is drugs.
I would argue (having been in jail myself multiple times, and, by the way, thanks to a lot of factors, now very happily and gainfully employed) that drugs are at the very least a co-factor on the vast majority of crimes in the USA.
I would argue (having been in jail myself multiple times, and, by the way, thanks to a lot of factors, now very happily and gainfully employed) that drugs are at the very least a co-factor on the vast majority of crimes in the USA.
I think most people understand this.
What I'd like to see is the junkie to just get drugs from the government. It's cheaper for society to pay for a $20 fix (That costs $2 to produce), then for $500 dollars in property damage, a stolen $200 item that gets fenced for $20, a cop to show up to do a police report, and then, months down the road, an arrest, prison time, etc, etc.
What I'd like to see is the junkie to just get drugs from the government. It's cheaper for society to pay for a $20 fix (That costs $2 to produce), then for $500 dollars in property damage, a stolen $200 item that gets fenced for $20, a cop to show up to do a police report, and then, months down the road, an arrest, prison time, etc, etc.
Same thing with prisoners and rehabilitation. Letting prisoners attend colleges for free is a remarkably good government investment.
The same thing is true about the homeless. Homeless services are expensive. It's cheaper to get them apartments, even if you still offer them all of the support services you were offering before.
But whenever you propose these things, social conservatives seem to come out of the woodwork and argue that it's not fair for prisoners or homeless people to get expensive stuff for free. Why should you get something good for doing a bad thing? Why should the homeless guy get an apartment that you'd paying $1000 a month for? Why should your taxes be buying drugs for that junkie? Even if you have to spend more taxes by not giving them these things, your sense of justice demands it be so.
The same thing is true about the homeless. Homeless services are expensive. It's cheaper to get them apartments, even if you still offer them all of the support services you were offering before.
But whenever you propose these things, social conservatives seem to come out of the woodwork and argue that it's not fair for prisoners or homeless people to get expensive stuff for free. Why should you get something good for doing a bad thing? Why should the homeless guy get an apartment that you'd paying $1000 a month for? Why should your taxes be buying drugs for that junkie? Even if you have to spend more taxes by not giving them these things, your sense of justice demands it be so.
> The same thing is true about the homeless. Homeless services are expensive. It's cheaper to get them apartments, even if you still offer them all of the support services you were offering before.
We already do that, though, through things like food stamps and section 8 housing. It's expensive, but it works, because it keeps a lot of poor people fed and sheltered.
The visible homeless that you see are people who tend to have additional problems, on top of being poor (Untreated addiction and mental health problems are two big causes of this.)
We already do that, though, through things like food stamps and section 8 housing. It's expensive, but it works, because it keeps a lot of poor people fed and sheltered.
The visible homeless that you see are people who tend to have additional problems, on top of being poor (Untreated addiction and mental health problems are two big causes of this.)
When you say a co-factor, can you say more about what you have in mind?
For instance it could be a junky who needs to feed his own habit. It could be that the profits available from dealing in some area motivate gangs to take control of it. And it could also be just that people taking drugs have impaired judgement, and do things they would avoid while sober. Would you care to guess how much of each goes on?
For alcohol, I guess it's mainly the 3rd (DUI, and manslaughter, etc.) and a tiny bit of the 1st (shoplifting to buy a drink).
For instance it could be a junky who needs to feed his own habit. It could be that the profits available from dealing in some area motivate gangs to take control of it. And it could also be just that people taking drugs have impaired judgement, and do things they would avoid while sober. Would you care to guess how much of each goes on?
For alcohol, I guess it's mainly the 3rd (DUI, and manslaughter, etc.) and a tiny bit of the 1st (shoplifting to buy a drink).
Let me put it this way: if you were to create a Venn diagram of habitual drug and alcohol users and people who get incarcerated, 90+% of the incarcerated people would also be in the habitual users circle.
I know correlation doesn't imply causation, but that's not the argument I'm making here.
I know correlation doesn't imply causation, but that's not the argument I'm making here.
There's also a lot of people pleading to the drug offence to get off of the property crime.
This is people in prison, not people sent to prison. Given that violent crimes have longer sentences, wouldn't that skew the existing count in prison considerably towards violent offenders, even if many more people are sent to prison for other offenses?
Further, because there would be shorter sentences, you're far more likely to encounter a candidate with a lesser sentence.
Further, because there would be shorter sentences, you're far more likely to encounter a candidate with a lesser sentence.
I'm having a hard time finding data for the state in question (California), but at a federal level this is very much not true. BOP stats show 46% of inmates are in for drug offenses, and 5% are in for property crime[1]
[1] https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offen...
[1] https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offen...
[deleted]
There are nearly half a million people incarcerated in the US for nonviolent drug offenses [0].
Do you think we all agree that these are extreme crimes?
[0] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
Do you think we all agree that these are extreme crimes?
[0] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
I would hope that all agree a violent crime is worse than a racist tweet. However, there is a sentiment of sympathy afforded to murderers (that they're somehow deserving of rehabilitation) which is not always extended to those who have tweeted racist things.
Perhaps this comes because a murder can be seen as a sad result of circumstances. Perhaps the criminal only had to murder because they had a bad upbringing and needed the cash and it was a horrible mistake. On the other hand, people perceived as racist are permanently marked as being ideologically dangerous. Mainly, I think this comes because racist tweeters can be seen as more directly responsible for their actions than a murderer.
Of course, this line of reasoning is nonsense, but it appears to be quite common.
Jon Ronson has a great TED talk about this, titled "How one tweet can ruin your life": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI. I would recommend that the grandparent post watch this.
Perhaps this comes because a murder can be seen as a sad result of circumstances. Perhaps the criminal only had to murder because they had a bad upbringing and needed the cash and it was a horrible mistake. On the other hand, people perceived as racist are permanently marked as being ideologically dangerous. Mainly, I think this comes because racist tweeters can be seen as more directly responsible for their actions than a murderer.
Of course, this line of reasoning is nonsense, but it appears to be quite common.
Jon Ronson has a great TED talk about this, titled "How one tweet can ruin your life": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI. I would recommend that the grandparent post watch this.
> On the other hand, people perceived as racist are permanently marked as being ideologically dangerous.
This is pretty demonstrably untrue. Cenk Uygur comes to mind, off the top of my head - he's lost out on opportunities from things he said in the past that were perceived as racist, but nobody in good faith / nobody who matters considers him to continue to espouse those views. It helps that he quite vocally criticizes those views.
What is probably actually true is that, statistically, many people who were racist in the past are still racist, and many people who murdered in the past and went to prison commit no further violent crimes (for many reasons).
This is pretty demonstrably untrue. Cenk Uygur comes to mind, off the top of my head - he's lost out on opportunities from things he said in the past that were perceived as racist, but nobody in good faith / nobody who matters considers him to continue to espouse those views. It helps that he quite vocally criticizes those views.
What is probably actually true is that, statistically, many people who were racist in the past are still racist, and many people who murdered in the past and went to prison commit no further violent crimes (for many reasons).
Klinky(1)
I'm perfectly willing to:
a) Understand violent criminals have made amends and are rehabilitated
b) Believe that people who were once racist are no longer racist
Both issues are, to me, a 'sad result of circumstances'. So all of that seems fine.
a) Understand violent criminals have made amends and are rehabilitated
b) Believe that people who were once racist are no longer racist
Both issues are, to me, a 'sad result of circumstances'. So all of that seems fine.
As am I.
The point I was trying to make was that there isn't really a "path to rehabilitation" for people who have made very minor missteps online. In the case of the linked TED talk, the persecuted woman made a mistake, and was not a "career-racist". I think even accusing her of racism is a distortion of the word — she made a bad joke in bad taste.
Meanwhile, there is an established, albeit broken path to rehabilitation for ex-convicts. There is also a certain faction of the left which seems to be more willing to accept prison reform than "tweet-reform".
I think it should be far more easy to rehabilitate oneself from a bad tweet than a murder, and that they are entirely different classes of offences.
The point I was trying to make was that there isn't really a "path to rehabilitation" for people who have made very minor missteps online. In the case of the linked TED talk, the persecuted woman made a mistake, and was not a "career-racist". I think even accusing her of racism is a distortion of the word — she made a bad joke in bad taste.
Meanwhile, there is an established, albeit broken path to rehabilitation for ex-convicts. There is also a certain faction of the left which seems to be more willing to accept prison reform than "tweet-reform".
I think it should be far more easy to rehabilitate oneself from a bad tweet than a murder, and that they are entirely different classes of offences.
Oh I agree entirely that we lack paths to rehabilitation for both the (a) and (b) cases, couldn't agree more - it makes the judgment call to hire that much more difficult.
I'm glad we can agree on that.
[deleted]
While that's true, there's no comparison between (a) and (b) in terms of how bad the original offense is. One is murder and the other is a thought crime.
I can compare anything I like, actually. That's my right and my responsibility as the one who determines who comes to work with me and my colleagues.
You can say that all "though crimes" are incomparable to legal indictments, and when you are hiring people that is your right as well.
You can say that all "though crimes" are incomparable to legal indictments, and when you are hiring people that is your right as well.
I didn't mean that there's no way you can make a comparison in a literal sense.
I mean that it takes a particularly screwed up and deranged individual to think that murder and racist thoughts are somehow equivalent on the moral scale. Also, I'm not claiming that this is the position you are taking, only that it would be deranged if it is the one you are in fact taking.
I mean that it takes a particularly screwed up and deranged individual to think that murder and racist thoughts are somehow equivalent on the moral scale. Also, I'm not claiming that this is the position you are taking, only that it would be deranged if it is the one you are in fact taking.
This whole conversation started off with "any crime" vs "a definitively racist tweet", not "murder" vs "thought crime".
Trying to consider any of these things in isolation is worthless and not really something that makes sense to discuss, it's just a sillier version of the trolley problem. Context is going to be everything.
Could someone convicted of murder be worth hiring? Yeah, sure, I'm not willing to say that that's not the case - what if they had an untreated medical condition, just as one potential contextual element? It's not worth discussing because it will end up with a "but what if but what if but what if".
The point I will definitely make is the original point I made - that if I determine someone to be a racist that is important to me, and if I find that someone is a criminal I will need more context before I determine that it is important to me.
Trying to consider any of these things in isolation is worthless and not really something that makes sense to discuss, it's just a sillier version of the trolley problem. Context is going to be everything.
Could someone convicted of murder be worth hiring? Yeah, sure, I'm not willing to say that that's not the case - what if they had an untreated medical condition, just as one potential contextual element? It's not worth discussing because it will end up with a "but what if but what if but what if".
The point I will definitely make is the original point I made - that if I determine someone to be a racist that is important to me, and if I find that someone is a criminal I will need more context before I determine that it is important to me.
Thanks for making this point. This is what I was trying to get at. Racist thoughts, to some, are seen as offences in the same way murder is, while they're not.
Murder is a very clearly defined criminal act, to tweet something racist is an expression of free speech. Racism is inexcusable, but in an entirely different way than murder.
Murder is a very clearly defined criminal act, to tweet something racist is an expression of free speech. Racism is inexcusable, but in an entirely different way than murder.
Would you prefer to be murdered or to recieve a racist remark directed towards you?
Do you think this question is relevant or clever? I would rather a racist remark me directed towards me. I hope that satisfies whatever you're after.
just trying to suss out if you thought there are levels of severity of various crimes / negative behaviors, which I was unsure of based on earlier comments.
> people perceived as racist are permanently marked as being ideologically dangerous.
I don't think this is necessarily true. We just haven't seen many racist people make amends and ask for forgiveness. I believe people can change and if they do, they should be reintegrated into the workplace.
I hadn't given it much thought before, but I asked myself if I would hire or work with a former criminal qualified for the job. It's a touchy subject, but I decided I would if they are rehabilitated: shown remorse, served a sentence, and working to integrate society.
And I realized the same goes for a racist statement (or sexist or anti-LGBTQ). Racism get tried in the court of public opinion, and then there is a sentence of being shunned in the form of unemployability. But if the formerly racist person shows remorse and publicly states they have changed, I would be willing to hire/work with them.
I don't think this is necessarily true. We just haven't seen many racist people make amends and ask for forgiveness. I believe people can change and if they do, they should be reintegrated into the workplace.
I hadn't given it much thought before, but I asked myself if I would hire or work with a former criminal qualified for the job. It's a touchy subject, but I decided I would if they are rehabilitated: shown remorse, served a sentence, and working to integrate society.
And I realized the same goes for a racist statement (or sexist or anti-LGBTQ). Racism get tried in the court of public opinion, and then there is a sentence of being shunned in the form of unemployability. But if the formerly racist person shows remorse and publicly states they have changed, I would be willing to hire/work with them.
My point is mainly that the two "offences" (if we are to class racism as an offence), are vastly different, and in entirely differently classes.
To rehabilitate someone who made a joke in bad taste should be far, far easier than to rehabilitate a murderer. The two just cannot be equivocated. One is a criminal act, the other is expressing an opinion, albeit a very bad one.
To rehabilitate someone who made a joke in bad taste should be far, far easier than to rehabilitate a murderer. The two just cannot be equivocated. One is a criminal act, the other is expressing an opinion, albeit a very bad one.
Obviously, they are different, and the length of sentences reflect that. A murderer is in prison for 10-20 years and a really bad racist joke makes you unemployable for a year or 2.
There's also a problem with the verb "to rehabilitate" because much of the rehabilitation comes from the subject themselves and can't be imposed by society. The murderer who serves time, shows remorse, and studies programming to reintegrate society is different from the racist who doesn't apologize sincerely or believably for the bad joke and complains that nobody will hire them.
Finally, look at the environment that the rehabilitated person gets put into. Someone who got into drugs and gangs as a teen, went to prison, and then turned their life around is not a threat in an office environment. A racist or sexist may still cause disruption in a diverse and gender-equal work environment. The ex-gang member can't go back to the 'hood, but the racist or sexist has made it much more difficult to work in any office--or with people so that's pretty much any job. Though like I said, if they apologize and repent, I think the racist should be given a second chance as well.
There's also a problem with the verb "to rehabilitate" because much of the rehabilitation comes from the subject themselves and can't be imposed by society. The murderer who serves time, shows remorse, and studies programming to reintegrate society is different from the racist who doesn't apologize sincerely or believably for the bad joke and complains that nobody will hire them.
Finally, look at the environment that the rehabilitated person gets put into. Someone who got into drugs and gangs as a teen, went to prison, and then turned their life around is not a threat in an office environment. A racist or sexist may still cause disruption in a diverse and gender-equal work environment. The ex-gang member can't go back to the 'hood, but the racist or sexist has made it much more difficult to work in any office--or with people so that's pretty much any job. Though like I said, if they apologize and repent, I think the racist should be given a second chance as well.
> Racism get tried in the court of public opinion, and then there is a sentence of being
Placed in high government office?
Placed in high government office?
This talk is about Justine Sacco. Within 7-8 months of being fired, she got a new job and has continued to work her way up the corporate ladder ever since [0].
You're right. Your line of reasoning is nonsense.
0 - https://www.linkedin.com/in/justinesacco
You're right. Your line of reasoning is nonsense.
0 - https://www.linkedin.com/in/justinesacco
Yes, a joke in bad taste is richly deserving of mass public humiliation, getting fired, and not having work for 8 months. I love our brave new world!
> depending on the crime, obviously
Well, this is the big part that's missing from the story. 13 years seems like it was a big deal.
Is it even legal to ask someone who was in prison what their crime was during an interview?
Well, this is the big part that's missing from the story. 13 years seems like it was a big deal.
Is it even legal to ask someone who was in prison what their crime was during an interview?
The laws on this vary dramatically by state and sometimes even by city. For some they can't ask or run a background check until after an offer is made. For some jurisdictions they can't discriminate on that basis unless it's highly relevant to the job (i.e. convicted sex offender can't work with children). For some jurisdictions it's totally legal to run the background check upfront and to discriminate at will.
The tweet says that it was a "serious, violent crime", and that they got out early on parole, so the 13 years wasn't even the full sentence. With that amount of jail time, it looks like she murdered someone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_punishments_for_murder...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_punishments_for_murder...
[deleted]
13 years served is pretty short for murder in most states. It's more likely aggravated assault, robbery, or less likely something like negligent homicide (e.g., killing someone in a car wreck while intoxicated). Assaults and robberies are far more common.
Definitely in the UK. You can ask for full criminal records.
Criminal convictions in the UK at least can be considered spent, after that point it doesn't need to be declared.
You can ask.
But UK convictions become 'spent' after a certain amount of time (Depending on the length of the prison sentence served, with 4+ year sentences never becoming spent) after which they leave the person's basic criminal record, and there's no obligation to tell a prospective employer about them.
Only a few jobs (such as teaching) are allowed info on spent convictions.
But UK convictions become 'spent' after a certain amount of time (Depending on the length of the prison sentence served, with 4+ year sentences never becoming spent) after which they leave the person's basic criminal record, and there's no obligation to tell a prospective employer about them.
Only a few jobs (such as teaching) are allowed info on spent convictions.
The original article was a 13 year conviction, so would have shown up.
What percentage of the population do you estimate is made up of these racists?
I don't know? I don't understand what you're getting at.
Many these days have got on a bandwagon of calling people out as racists if they don't fall in line with the Democrat party platform or support the censorship agenda of big tech. As that diminishes the real problem of racism would you be willing to commit to not hiring anyone contributing to that problem as well? (Obviously this is rhetorical)
If it's rhetorical why are you asking me? What do you want from this exchange?
I have no interest in discussing who is or isn't racist, I'm saying that an already defined as racist tweet would be something worth considering in a hiring process.
I have no interest in discussing who is or isn't racist, I'm saying that an already defined as racist tweet would be something worth considering in a hiring process.
[deleted]
So, Thought Crime weighs heavier than statutory crimes? Who decides the guilt or innocence of the thoughts?
you're trying to be clever, but statutory crimes are often either ridiculous (drug offenses) or can be put behind you and forgiven (if they were a product of circumstances or culture at the time.)
whereas what you're calling "thought crime" is more analogous to saying "i intend to commit statutory crimes in the future".
whereas what you're calling "thought crime" is more analogous to saying "i intend to commit statutory crimes in the future".
A thought crime is analogous to saying "I think that imprisoning people for drugs is unfair".
The one hiring gets to decide who works there.
So you are saying it should be the employers choice whether to hire the racist or criminal?
You can tweet racist stuff and still be president of the United States. The law protects him from the emotions of the masses. This law does not extend over to your employment at a commercial company.
The reason why people lose their jobs for racist tweets is because companies are reacting to the emotional sentiment of the masses and pulling a PR maneuver.
In short, for commercial jobs, it doesn't matter your crime, or the degree of your crime or whether you committed a crime at all, it's about business and a negative public emotional mood against you at this current point in time is usually bad for business (or stock prices).
Case in point, Let's say hypothetically that the OP could have mentioned that this woman's violent crime was repeatedly beating a 8 year old child for no reason and the public's emotional reaction would be drastically different. I'm not sure what her crime really was, but there is definitely a reason why it was omitted: The OP likely made a rational judgement about the crime and is likely very aware that the emotional reaction to the crime by the masses would be drastically different than her own rational judgement... thus from this line of reasoning she has chosen not to mention what the crime was.
It's a fine line here. I think if I really got to know a person and I can really understand a person, I feel even a child beater or can be redeemed in my eyes but I can see how in the eyes of the public this can never happen. (Also let's be clear here, I'm not saying the womans crime was beating a child, just using that as an example).
People are rarely rational and when you measure the reactions of people in response to stimuli in aggregate you will find that the bigger the aggregate the more emotional the reaction is.
This is how a criminal who committed a violent crime can get public support for finding a job, and an innocent man who made a mistake and wrote a stupid tweet can lose any prospect at finding a future career.
The reason why people lose their jobs for racist tweets is because companies are reacting to the emotional sentiment of the masses and pulling a PR maneuver.
In short, for commercial jobs, it doesn't matter your crime, or the degree of your crime or whether you committed a crime at all, it's about business and a negative public emotional mood against you at this current point in time is usually bad for business (or stock prices).
Case in point, Let's say hypothetically that the OP could have mentioned that this woman's violent crime was repeatedly beating a 8 year old child for no reason and the public's emotional reaction would be drastically different. I'm not sure what her crime really was, but there is definitely a reason why it was omitted: The OP likely made a rational judgement about the crime and is likely very aware that the emotional reaction to the crime by the masses would be drastically different than her own rational judgement... thus from this line of reasoning she has chosen not to mention what the crime was.
It's a fine line here. I think if I really got to know a person and I can really understand a person, I feel even a child beater or can be redeemed in my eyes but I can see how in the eyes of the public this can never happen. (Also let's be clear here, I'm not saying the womans crime was beating a child, just using that as an example).
People are rarely rational and when you measure the reactions of people in response to stimuli in aggregate you will find that the bigger the aggregate the more emotional the reaction is.
This is how a criminal who committed a violent crime can get public support for finding a job, and an innocent man who made a mistake and wrote a stupid tweet can lose any prospect at finding a future career.
I don't think anyone expects them to be overlooked. You look at the person and you see if they've changed for the better.
I would much rather hire someone who grew up poor and fell in with gangs and felt pressured to join in an armed robbery 10 years ago and understands that it's wrong than someone who had a demonstrated bias against some minority 10 years ago and still does today. This isn't about whether they're a "good person" or anything, this is a mercenary calculation based on business value. I don't expect the former gang member is going to engage in similar violent crimes if I employ them. I do expect the biased person is going to have trouble working productively with people in my company who are part of that minority or is going to negatively impact those folks' productivity.
I'm not in the business of determining the magnitude of your moral transgressions. That stays in the confessional. I'm in the business of hiring folks who will deliver business value.
I would much rather hire someone who grew up poor and fell in with gangs and felt pressured to join in an armed robbery 10 years ago and understands that it's wrong than someone who had a demonstrated bias against some minority 10 years ago and still does today. This isn't about whether they're a "good person" or anything, this is a mercenary calculation based on business value. I don't expect the former gang member is going to engage in similar violent crimes if I employ them. I do expect the biased person is going to have trouble working productively with people in my company who are part of that minority or is going to negatively impact those folks' productivity.
I'm not in the business of determining the magnitude of your moral transgressions. That stays in the confessional. I'm in the business of hiring folks who will deliver business value.
I think there's a wide gulf between "said something that someone on the internet construed as racist" and "demonstrated bias against some minority"...
But past that, the general principle you advocate seems to be "try not to hire people who will not be able to work with others", right? It doesn't matter whether they're biased against minorities or non-minorities, as long as they're biased and will be acting irrationally in ways that piss off those around them.
But past that, the general principle you advocate seems to be "try not to hire people who will not be able to work with others", right? It doesn't matter whether they're biased against minorities or non-minorities, as long as they're biased and will be acting irrationally in ways that piss off those around them.
You don't understand.
One is an accidental mishap due to the extreme cruelty and unfairness of our modern society.
The other one is a sincerely held unacceptable belief which endangers the progress of humanity.
/s
One is an accidental mishap due to the extreme cruelty and unfairness of our modern society.
The other one is a sincerely held unacceptable belief which endangers the progress of humanity.
/s
Cf. "revolutionary conscience": [0]
[0] https://www.history-of-emotions.mpg.de/texts/revolutionary-c...
[0] https://www.history-of-emotions.mpg.de/texts/revolutionary-c...
I guess merely being convicted of a crime isn't that bad compared with being sentenced without trial in the court of public opinion.
pretty sure the people with criminal records have already been punished?
I believe what the person above was referring to is the dichotomy of the people cheering for prisoners getting jobs while cancelling people for a fairly innocuous tweet, however tasteless. While the prisoners may have paid for their crime, there isn't always as clear a path out of the purgatory that is becoming the social pariah of upsetting "the mob" in the Twitterverse (though, past a few professions, I'm unsure how much sway they hold).
I wouldn't say that's a dichotomy. Internet popularity was fleeting before twitter and it probably still will be long afterwards. In general, the path out of unpopularity is to do research before you post something. If you don't want to do it yourself, you can hire a PR firm.
Because two wrongs dont make a right, and expectations are a poor way to calibrate justice.
> People are losing their jobs because of offhand tweets ...
Well, not sitting-in-the-oval-office people, but anyway.
Well, not sitting-in-the-oval-office people, but anyway.
Smoke weed in Kansas - boom, criminal record. Walk across the Colorado border and smoke weed - no problem, it's completely legal. It's also completely legal to spend your free time carting your AR-15 and Nazi flag down to the village square and recruiting supporters for your "Turn America into a white ethnostate" movement. The point I'm making is that not all criminal behavior is even widely considered objectionable and plenty of legal behavior is.
Thus, why would you consider having a criminal record to be "a [big] blemish" that justifies employment discrimination, yet no personal views extreme enough to allow an employer to disassociate from their employee?
When you consider that the ratio of those affected by criminal record-based employment discrimination to those impacted by twitter-based discrimination is on the order of millions to one, it seems strange to be more concerned about the latter than the former.
Thus, why would you consider having a criminal record to be "a [big] blemish" that justifies employment discrimination, yet no personal views extreme enough to allow an employer to disassociate from their employee?
When you consider that the ratio of those affected by criminal record-based employment discrimination to those impacted by twitter-based discrimination is on the order of millions to one, it seems strange to be more concerned about the latter than the former.
I wonder what kind of community reaction there will be if Hans Reiser submits kernel patches after getting released/paroled.
I think as long as he did his time and behaves in the community, he'd be accepted. At least that's what I'd hope.
I, for one, would not mind him doing this while incarcerated, too. Who would be harmed if he would get a pc and internet access in prison?
I don't see why they wouldn't accept his patches even if he somehow manages to submit them from inside prison. You can't murder someone with a patch file.
Who's going to dare rejecting his labor of love?
Once upon a time, an employer of mine was happy to work with people who had criminal records. Provided they were honest and willing to discuss the matter.
It became a problem when we hired someone with a record of fraud... who had not disclosed it. And who would have had access to credit card info. He was promptly fired.
We were willing to work with him, and said as much. He wasn't willing to take the risk. So he took a bigger one, and lost.
It became a problem when we hired someone with a record of fraud... who had not disclosed it. And who would have had access to credit card info. He was promptly fired.
We were willing to work with him, and said as much. He wasn't willing to take the risk. So he took a bigger one, and lost.
> A criminal record in the US
It's worse than that. I've been denied an apartment for having an arrest on my record, even though I wasn't convicted.
It's worse than that. I've been denied an apartment for having an arrest on my record, even though I wasn't convicted.
I agree with you, but it is a really hard problem with huge, diverse, systemic drivers. The OP mentions how much work from how many people this takes - the entire process could fall apart at any of the steps, plus it required personal relationships and favors. There's also the measure of success; it's pretty relative. I've seen programs touted as huge successes when the recidivism rate is "only" 25%. This speaks about how hard it is to break the cycle, but also would your company be happy with 1/4 employees having a serious drug problem, or stealing or committing a violent crime, vs. (number pulled from thin air) 1/50?
We DO need more of this. It's going to take a lot of time and effort, and (sorry growth hackers) it won't scale.
We DO need more of this. It's going to take a lot of time and effort, and (sorry growth hackers) it won't scale.
What's also being implied with background checks, even when they say it's relevant like with checking if a pharmacist has drug charges, is that prison does not work. If it reformed people, it wouldn't matter what your history is, because you went through a reforming process and learned to manage the root cause of why you committed a crime, like poor mental health. Instead we just send people to prison for our own sense of "punishment".
I agree. I think if you went to prison, you served your debt to society and are square with the house. Your punishment should stop. This includes inability to find work etc... with some sensible limits for certain high-trust related positions.
I agree. We should definitely have more of this and trades training for people in lock up, so they can do something productive once they get out.
Instead of hitting the weights every day, they can engage in productive learning. We all benefit.
Instead of hitting the weights every day, they can engage in productive learning. We all benefit.
Except for the privatized prisons who don't actually want to rehabilitate their inmates so that they're more likely to recidivate and end up back in prison. The prison system has to be completely overhauled and freed from capitalism at the expense of human life.
Private prisons make up 8.4% of the total prison population. [0]
Interestingly, that's less than half what it is in Australia and UK.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison#:~:text=Statist....
Interestingly, that's less than half what it is in Australia and UK.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison#:~:text=Statist....
I was convicted for drugs and firearms in Norway. The only time it has ever come up during my many years as a programmer, was when a consulting company I worked for had the police IT service as a candidate for my next project.
Since it was for the police, a background check would be required. I politely told my department head that I would not pass that, and a short summary of my case. At that time I had worked for about 2 years and got a kind "we would never have guessed" and "you will get another project then".
As a side note: In our country, an employer needs a legitimate reason to do a background check, and they won't see crimes that are not relevant, or for some crimes - too long ago.
Since it was for the police, a background check would be required. I politely told my department head that I would not pass that, and a short summary of my case. At that time I had worked for about 2 years and got a kind "we would never have guessed" and "you will get another project then".
As a side note: In our country, an employer needs a legitimate reason to do a background check, and they won't see crimes that are not relevant, or for some crimes - too long ago.
In the USA, background checks are often just part of the process. There's an entire industry built around providing the service.
Americans have been completely conditioned into accepting all sorts of trouble while maintaining the idea of freedom in contradiction to that.
Many Americans talk about "freedom" but their definition is largely narrow and specific to political issues they feel strongly about. The same people who talk about "small government" simultaneously use the federal government to bludgeon states into submissions on issues such as legalized marijuana. It's usually something that's used to justify a specific political position and not an overall sentiment of allowing actual freedom.
On the contrary, many Americans support policies that are against many ideas of freedom such as the disenfranchisement of felons.
For example, someone might use an example of being able to deny a LGBTQ person a service as "having freedoms" but ignore the fact that by denying them that service, that person is also simultaneously less free.
On the contrary, many Americans support policies that are against many ideas of freedom such as the disenfranchisement of felons.
For example, someone might use an example of being able to deny a LGBTQ person a service as "having freedoms" but ignore the fact that by denying them that service, that person is also simultaneously less free.
There is no such thing as actual freedom. You exercising your "freedom" almost always means imposing upon someone else's. In your example wouldn't someone having to provide a service to a LGBTQ person even though it is against their religious beliefs be a violation of their freedom of religion just as much as refusing to provide them service would be a violation of the LGBTQ person's freedom?
"Freedom" is used a lot when politics comes up not because it is a way to justify political positions but because politics is to a great degree the arguing of whose freedoms trumps another's under what circumstances.
"Freedom" is used a lot when politics comes up not because it is a way to justify political positions but because politics is to a great degree the arguing of whose freedoms trumps another's under what circumstances.
that's party of the problem, that view of freedom, that's more about individual choice. It often flys in the face of achieving greater freedoms through rules and social cooperation. People are familiar with the concept but often don't think about it, like driving on the road, if people were allowed individual choice about how they want to drive on roads it would be a nightmare to drive on the roads, but luckily, people aren't "free" to choose which side of the road to drive on ,etc, there are a bunch of rules, and because the vast majority follow these "restrictions" a greater freedom is achieved, you can get from A to B in relatively short time periods in relative safety. Cooperative freedoms tend to give some of the greatest actual freedoms, however, they need to be underpinned and balanced with a set of core individual rights. Working out that balance is... tricky.
In the same way that federal money can't be spent on abortions because of "religious freedom" but we still go to war with taxes collected from Quakers, we had to fight for decades over the "definition of marriage" because a certain religion's liberties are more equal than others.
Not all exercise of freedoms comes at someone else's expense.
Can you give an example to support this statement?
The freedom to disagree with others. The freedom to marry who you want. The freedom to move about freely in nature without having to worry about property lines.
In some places that are less free, these things are frowned upon.
Edit: you can read about the freedom to move about in nature in certain countries here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
In some places that are less free, these things are frowned upon.
Edit: you can read about the freedom to move about in nature in certain countries here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
"In some places that are less free, these things are frowned upon." They are frowned upon by some because they affect what those people believe their freedoms should entail. None of these are examples of exercising of freedoms that don't affect the freedom of others.
Take for example the freedom to move about freely in nature without having to worry about property lines. This most definitely affects the property rights of others and their freedom to do as they wish with their property. I'm not saying that your freedom of movement shouldn't out rank their property rights and the freedom to do as they will with their own property but it certainly impacts their freedoms.
Take for example the freedom to move about freely in nature without having to worry about property lines. This most definitely affects the property rights of others and their freedom to do as they wish with their property. I'm not saying that your freedom of movement shouldn't out rank their property rights and the freedom to do as they will with their own property but it certainly impacts their freedoms.
I think most scandinavians would disagree with you.
In my opinion, someone having a problem with people taking a walk in their forest need help.
(And yes, I grew up on a property that has a forest, and yes, when encountering people going for a walk or gathering mushrooms, one says «hello» and smiles)
In my opinion, someone having a problem with people taking a walk in their forest need help.
(And yes, I grew up on a property that has a forest, and yes, when encountering people going for a walk or gathering mushrooms, one says «hello» and smiles)
> In your example wouldn't ... be a violation of their freedom of religion
Not at all, that's not what freedom of religion is.
I can practice a Mayan or Inca religion by myself - that's freedom of religion - but I cannot allow it to affect other people's life e.g. by organizing human sacrifices.
Not at all, that's not what freedom of religion is.
I can practice a Mayan or Inca religion by myself - that's freedom of religion - but I cannot allow it to affect other people's life e.g. by organizing human sacrifices.
How is an individual refusing to provide a service which is readily available from others significantly impacting other people's life?
Also not being able to practice ritual sacrifice if it is part of your faith is a violation of your religious freedom. We as society have made the decision that the right to life is a greater right than your right to freely practice your religion but it is still a violation of your right. It is just another example of how in a functioning society decisions have to be constantly be made regarding whose rights are greater than someone else's under what circumstances.
Also not being able to practice ritual sacrifice if it is part of your faith is a violation of your religious freedom. We as society have made the decision that the right to life is a greater right than your right to freely practice your religion but it is still a violation of your right. It is just another example of how in a functioning society decisions have to be constantly be made regarding whose rights are greater than someone else's under what circumstances.
> How is an individual refusing to provide a service which is readily available from others significantly impacting other people's life?
That's a strawman.
> Also not being able to practice ritual sacrifice if it is part of your faith is a violation of your religious freedom.
No, it's not. The ritual is not illegal in its religious aspect. Harming the other person is illegal.
By the same logic I could claim that running someone over is freedom of movement. It's not.
That's a strawman.
> Also not being able to practice ritual sacrifice if it is part of your faith is a violation of your religious freedom.
No, it's not. The ritual is not illegal in its religious aspect. Harming the other person is illegal.
By the same logic I could claim that running someone over is freedom of movement. It's not.
I think freedom and access to power are entangled.
People with access to power or money either don't need to interview for jobs, or don't have criminal records that complicate that process.
So, they are more free by default. Not only do these checks not affect them directly, they create a nerf on a whole set of other people, which creates a contrast of freedom.
I do not think many would go out in public and say they like seeing the poor unfairly burdened. However, I believe in many cases groups in the United States have chosen "power over principals."
This is where the choice to protect power supersedes choosing to act principals or professed beliefs.
I do not think this is a new thing, though I think it has never been so public and given today's politics the contrast is particularly stark.
People with access to power or money either don't need to interview for jobs, or don't have criminal records that complicate that process.
So, they are more free by default. Not only do these checks not affect them directly, they create a nerf on a whole set of other people, which creates a contrast of freedom.
I do not think many would go out in public and say they like seeing the poor unfairly burdened. However, I believe in many cases groups in the United States have chosen "power over principals."
This is where the choice to protect power supersedes choosing to act principals or professed beliefs.
I do not think this is a new thing, though I think it has never been so public and given today's politics the contrast is particularly stark.
There are some that only care about "freedom from sin".
mywittyname(1)
Being free to background check someone you're going to work with, work for, or hire is in fact an entirely correct aspect of being free broadly. The US position on that is correct, not contradictory.
Restriction on action which does not involve using violence against others is restricting freedom in any proper liberal model of the word. That goes for everything from prostitution to drug use, and it absolutely includes being able to research information about other people you're going to work with.
It's hilarious that a place like Norway, which eg thinks publishing open salaries is to be touted, is then magically closed on checking other information about a person. So which is it, open information or not culturally? It's contradictory, arbitrary horseshit is what it is.
The position is philosophically identical to claiming that speech must be heavily restricted to be truly free (ie free of "hate" etc.). It's nothing more than intellectual infantilism, part of the mental immaturing and weakening of the West. It's Orwell-think, inverting everything; more restriction on personal action is freedom, more restriction on speech is free speech.
Restriction on action which does not involve using violence against others is restricting freedom in any proper liberal model of the word. That goes for everything from prostitution to drug use, and it absolutely includes being able to research information about other people you're going to work with.
It's hilarious that a place like Norway, which eg thinks publishing open salaries is to be touted, is then magically closed on checking other information about a person. So which is it, open information or not culturally? It's contradictory, arbitrary horseshit is what it is.
The position is philosophically identical to claiming that speech must be heavily restricted to be truly free (ie free of "hate" etc.). It's nothing more than intellectual infantilism, part of the mental immaturing and weakening of the West. It's Orwell-think, inverting everything; more restriction on personal action is freedom, more restriction on speech is free speech.
ITT corporations are people and have feelings, too.
> It's nothing more than intellectual infantilism
No, infantilism is being unable to contextualise freedom and see it in its proper communal and social context. Handing private entities the ability to engage in surveillance against their fellow citizens isn't freedom, it's eroding the very basis of freedom. It's creating a private panopticon in which everyone is constantly conditioned to behave and comply. That is actually what modern American society is by the way, literally infantilized. Students are being policed by their universities, children by theire hyper-religious parents, minorities by their neighbours ring doorbells, and workers by their companies, no state required.
The proper way to understand the liberal tradition and apply it today is to understand that the liberal tradition is concerned with threats to individual freedom, period. 200 years ago, in early capitalist times, citizens were equal and the state was powerful. Today private power and surveillance is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than anything the American government can come up with.
The liberal tradition applied today, by the spirit rather than the letter of the law and its proper intent, must be concerned with stopping citizens and private firms from controlling each others lives, rather than be obsessed with some 18th century homesteading logic or 'voluntary contracts'.
No, infantilism is being unable to contextualise freedom and see it in its proper communal and social context. Handing private entities the ability to engage in surveillance against their fellow citizens isn't freedom, it's eroding the very basis of freedom. It's creating a private panopticon in which everyone is constantly conditioned to behave and comply. That is actually what modern American society is by the way, literally infantilized. Students are being policed by their universities, children by theire hyper-religious parents, minorities by their neighbours ring doorbells, and workers by their companies, no state required.
The proper way to understand the liberal tradition and apply it today is to understand that the liberal tradition is concerned with threats to individual freedom, period. 200 years ago, in early capitalist times, citizens were equal and the state was powerful. Today private power and surveillance is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than anything the American government can come up with.
The liberal tradition applied today, by the spirit rather than the letter of the law and its proper intent, must be concerned with stopping citizens and private firms from controlling each others lives, rather than be obsessed with some 18th century homesteading logic or 'voluntary contracts'.
So TLDR; your opinion is the way it should be done and anyone who thinks otherwise are wrong. How free of you.
> It's Orwell-think
Hilarious in a comment stating the US position is the correct one. I'd like to know of an example of another nation that is more or even on the same level of Orwellian as the US? I can't even think of one historically, far from it today. Of course the US way of thinking would require you to yell CHINAMAN or RED RUSSIAN now as loud as you can, but in reality neither have near as Orwellian a state as the U.S. of NSA.
> It's Orwell-think
Hilarious in a comment stating the US position is the correct one. I'd like to know of an example of another nation that is more or even on the same level of Orwellian as the US? I can't even think of one historically, far from it today. Of course the US way of thinking would require you to yell CHINAMAN or RED RUSSIAN now as loud as you can, but in reality neither have near as Orwellian a state as the U.S. of NSA.
In Texas, if you pull a background check on someone you're required to provide a copy to them which I always felt was a good minimal standard - at least then you know that someone pulled the check and what they found.
That's interesting because I've filed many things in Texas related to background checks in Texas and have never received a response. I'll edit this comment with more research about this, as this is personally a very interesting topic.
EDIT 1: A quick look shows a guidebook for employers which references this, but the link to the Texas state code talks about in-home employees. https://www.twc.texas.gov/news/efte/references_background_ch... I'm still unsure about the law related to other kinds of employees.
EDIT 1: A quick look shows a guidebook for employers which references this, but the link to the Texas state code talks about in-home employees. https://www.twc.texas.gov/news/efte/references_background_ch... I'm still unsure about the law related to other kinds of employees.
California is the same. Also, if someone runs a credit check, you can also request a copy of the report.
Readers from other countries, what is it like there?
I remember when I lived in Australia, my friends told me that many crimes do not show up on background checks after 5 years. Also in Australia, the sex offender registry is confidential, and can only be checked for very specific things (jobs involving children, certain types of housing, etc.)
In the US, there are ways of getting records expunged for some crimes, but due to freedom of speech laws/1st amendment, typically background check companies are free to hold on to older records if they were at one time public.
I know in the EU, many countries have right to be forgotten laws, but the EFF has historically stood against them due to the fact they've often been used by wealthy individuals to hide their crimes.
I remember when I lived in Australia, my friends told me that many crimes do not show up on background checks after 5 years. Also in Australia, the sex offender registry is confidential, and can only be checked for very specific things (jobs involving children, certain types of housing, etc.)
In the US, there are ways of getting records expunged for some crimes, but due to freedom of speech laws/1st amendment, typically background check companies are free to hold on to older records if they were at one time public.
I know in the EU, many countries have right to be forgotten laws, but the EFF has historically stood against them due to the fact they've often been used by wealthy individuals to hide their crimes.
> I know in the EU, many countries have right to be forgotten laws
These are not even really relevant, since in most places it's considered unethical or even illegal for journalists (or anyone really) to publish names of suspects or convicted common* criminals. You will generally read "Man/Woman convicted for X" and sometimes just their first name.
This is a consequence of systems that mostly focus on rehabilitation and reintegration. Having your name show up in newspaper articles would seriously hinder that.
If your main focus was punishment instead, then publishing the names of criminals just goes well with that.
And finally you can't just ask to see the criminal history of X, and it would be illegal to discriminate based on such knowledge if it is not relevant to the job. In Germany only yourself can obtain your own criminal record (Führungszeugnis) - your employer can't obtain it directly. It's generally thought to be illegal for an employer to ask you for this (it was never tested in court though, because nobody was stupid enough to try). The only exception are if you will be working with minors or if it's specifically relevant to your job (compliance officers, financial stuff...).
*If you are a high-profile individual you are fair game. For instance the Wirecard CEO and COO.
These are not even really relevant, since in most places it's considered unethical or even illegal for journalists (or anyone really) to publish names of suspects or convicted common* criminals. You will generally read "Man/Woman convicted for X" and sometimes just their first name.
This is a consequence of systems that mostly focus on rehabilitation and reintegration. Having your name show up in newspaper articles would seriously hinder that.
If your main focus was punishment instead, then publishing the names of criminals just goes well with that.
And finally you can't just ask to see the criminal history of X, and it would be illegal to discriminate based on such knowledge if it is not relevant to the job. In Germany only yourself can obtain your own criminal record (Führungszeugnis) - your employer can't obtain it directly. It's generally thought to be illegal for an employer to ask you for this (it was never tested in court though, because nobody was stupid enough to try). The only exception are if you will be working with minors or if it's specifically relevant to your job (compliance officers, financial stuff...).
*If you are a high-profile individual you are fair game. For instance the Wirecard CEO and COO.
Here in .fi employers are not permitted to do any background checks - all they can legally use is the information provided by the applicant. They can ask permission to request security clearance from the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (Supo), which would then do the background checks, but this is allowed for only some jobs.
Working with children may require that you provide extract from the criminal record, but only certain crimes (violence, child abuse, sex offences, drug offences, human trafficking etc.) are considered.
Working with children may require that you provide extract from the criminal record, but only certain crimes (violence, child abuse, sex offences, drug offences, human trafficking etc.) are considered.
Here in the Netherlands some jobs require you to submit a Certificate of Conduct. It's a document you can request from the Ministry of Justice and Security that declares that you have not been convicted for any crime relevant to the job you request the declaration for.
I have never really thought about it that deeply but it seems like a decent way of doing things. I really like that your employer can't just look it up.
I have never really thought about it that deeply but it seems like a decent way of doing things. I really like that your employer can't just look it up.
In New Zealand, your criminal record consists of solely those crimes you have been convicted of in court, and is automatically clean slated if you have gone >7 years without an offence (unless you have been convicted of a serious crime in which case it's on your record for life). In fact it is an offence for most employers to ask for your full (non-clean-slated record.
We also have a system known as police vetting, which is a far more intrusive background check, and includes not just actual convictions but also mere encounters with the police, warnings, etc. Police vetting can only be requested for roles that involve working with vulnerable adults or children.
In all cases the candidate must (a) consent, and (b) be supplied with a copy of the results. Overall I think this is a good system though there are some areas for improvement.
We also have a system known as police vetting, which is a far more intrusive background check, and includes not just actual convictions but also mere encounters with the police, warnings, etc. Police vetting can only be requested for roles that involve working with vulnerable adults or children.
In all cases the candidate must (a) consent, and (b) be supplied with a copy of the results. Overall I think this is a good system though there are some areas for improvement.
It depends on the job, for some jobs employers are required to ask you for a clean police report; if you don't have criminal records you can get it, if you have something then you either don't apply or they will have to disqualify you for missing that clean record proof from the police.
Some examples that I know personally: sports club gun trainer (precision shooting is an Olympic game); policeman; any job as security guard, driver on armored cars that carry money from banks etc.
I think for cashiers there is a similar requirement, not 100% sure. It was ~ 20 years ago, but laws change from time to time.
Not so funny is when I had to go to the police section, take such a "clean bill of criminal record" from one office and give it to another policemen at the next office 5 meters away. It was the third time that month because I needed some certificate that had cascaded requirements to have other certificates that also depended on this bills and each required a separate bill in the list of documents.
Some examples that I know personally: sports club gun trainer (precision shooting is an Olympic game); policeman; any job as security guard, driver on armored cars that carry money from banks etc.
I think for cashiers there is a similar requirement, not 100% sure. It was ~ 20 years ago, but laws change from time to time.
Not so funny is when I had to go to the police section, take such a "clean bill of criminal record" from one office and give it to another policemen at the next office 5 meters away. It was the third time that month because I needed some certificate that had cascaded requirements to have other certificates that also depended on this bills and each required a separate bill in the list of documents.
Croatia - it's common to ask a person applying for a position a proof issued my Ministry of Justice that they don't have an active criminal case against them but some will ask for an equivalen of background check from the Ministry of Internal Affairs ("police")
Denmark - I have a friend who was asked to provide something like a proof of not being prosecuted for a an engineering position, while another colleague who applied and for the same position wasn't asked for one. The difference between the two was the country they were from with, I'm guessing, appearance of the former one playing a role. The guy looks like a bouncer with his 1.90 height, 100 kg of muscle and a crooked nose from being an ex amateur boxer (under the appearance he is a teddy bear).
Denmark - I have a friend who was asked to provide something like a proof of not being prosecuted for a an engineering position, while another colleague who applied and for the same position wasn't asked for one. The difference between the two was the country they were from with, I'm guessing, appearance of the former one playing a role. The guy looks like a bouncer with his 1.90 height, 100 kg of muscle and a crooked nose from being an ex amateur boxer (under the appearance he is a teddy bear).
In the UK, it's changed recently because of a Supreme Court ruling, but AFAIK there are various levels of check depending on the specific job. In most cases a conviction for which the person was sentenced to less than 4 years in prison will eventually become 'spent' and won't show up on background checks apart from for specific jobs (such as working with children). Even for those jobs, some minor convictions are 'filtered' and removed from the record.
> typically background check companies are free to hold on to older records if they were at one time public.
That is true, but it is however often illegal for employers to base a hiring or firing decision on expunged records. So background check companies do generally try to comply with record expungement as it protects their customers from liability. However due to the complexity and variety of laws on expungement and lack of direct consequences for them they frequently fail at it.
That is true, but it is however often illegal for employers to base a hiring or firing decision on expunged records. So background check companies do generally try to comply with record expungement as it protects their customers from liability. However due to the complexity and variety of laws on expungement and lack of direct consequences for them they frequently fail at it.
In Bulgaria (EU) they often ask you to provide proof that you are currently not being prosecuted, but apart from that, the only time I’ve been asked to get a criminal record was when applying for a citizenship. And having one is not something that would stop the process, but can be grounds for denial.
Programmers can get a free pass for a lot of things here though.
Programmers can get a free pass for a lot of things here though.
[deleted]
Just curious how you would typically prove you aren't being prosecuted.
Go to the police station and ask them to give you a “note”
Fun fact is that you need this note even if your dealing with another government agency.
When applying for Bulgarian citizenship, I was required to obtain such note. I would have guessed that they have more reliable ways of telling if someone actually is in an active police case, but no, they want that “note”. No web service to actually do this. I mean they could have just called the police department or something... I had to spend a good part of a day waiting there just to get it... </rant>
Fun fact is that you need this note even if your dealing with another government agency.
When applying for Bulgarian citizenship, I was required to obtain such note. I would have guessed that they have more reliable ways of telling if someone actually is in an active police case, but no, they want that “note”. No web service to actually do this. I mean they could have just called the police department or something... I had to spend a good part of a day waiting there just to get it... </rant>
Just a guess on my end: probably fill out some form at a local police station or court, submit it, and then they you receive the results later that list what you are being prosecuted for or a lack thereof.
Not from BG, but my guess is you go to a police station where you live, show your ID and ask them to print and sign a paper that says so.
I worked in the finantial industry 20 years ago in Andorra, a small independent country between France and Spain. You needed to present what in Spanish is called a "certificado de penales" (criminal certificate, I think is the expression in English).
Ironically, the country itself was at that time well-known for its opaque finantial practices.
Ironically, the country itself was at that time well-known for its opaque finantial practices.
In India, it's like the US. There are dedicated firms which do that. I am not sure if it's a legal requirement.
my (aussie) hobbies include sabotage (mostly trespass and refuse to obey, but also a bit of criminal damage) - never been an issue finding the kind of (software) work I prefer. Corporate employers say they do a check: maybe they don't. I assume they google, so I guess they don't care.
obviously I don't pursue jobs that require a clearance level. I once got in an exchange with a recruiter:
"do you have [clearance]?"
"I wouldn't want to work anywhere that requires it"
"Oh, you wouldn't be able to work here without it"
"No, I wouldn't want to work with you if you require it"
"No, you wouldn't be able to work here without it"
...
- I guess we were both rite.
obviously I don't pursue jobs that require a clearance level. I once got in an exchange with a recruiter:
"do you have [clearance]?"
"I wouldn't want to work anywhere that requires it"
"Oh, you wouldn't be able to work here without it"
"No, I wouldn't want to work with you if you require it"
"No, you wouldn't be able to work here without it"
...
- I guess we were both rite.
> due to the fact they've often been used by wealthy individuals to hide their crimes.
due to the fact they've often been used by [anyone who commits a crime] to hide their crimes.
due to the fact they've often been used by [anyone who commits a crime] to hide their crimes.
including a YC-backed firm that does this explicitly. I find it sad/humorous that they have copy about "connecting companies with a more diverse set of candidates" while essentially selling a service for streamlined filtering out this pool of people. I get the need in certain circumstances, just get tired of companies trying to have it both ways.
https://checkr.com/company
https://checkr.com/company
No kidding. My sister went off to the states almost 20 years ago. Got a job as a teacher, she was trained for it here in Sweden.
At the time I worked at a small web hosting company, we had her personal homepage for free since she was my sis.
Suddenly she calls me from the states telling me I need to go into her website and edit out some links.
Apparently lawyers working for the school where she was applying to work had found her homepage (which she made under an alias and afaik had no references to her person) and didn't like some of the links on it.
I'm still blown away by this. The links were about certain sexual fetishes, but again, her website was under a pseudonym. I have no idea how they connected it to her. Could have been something dead simple like her using an e-mail address on the same domain, or using her pseudonym in her e-mail address on hotmail. She wasn't that careful about remaining anonymous, it was just a thing back then that people would have alter-egos online.
At the time I worked at a small web hosting company, we had her personal homepage for free since she was my sis.
Suddenly she calls me from the states telling me I need to go into her website and edit out some links.
Apparently lawyers working for the school where she was applying to work had found her homepage (which she made under an alias and afaik had no references to her person) and didn't like some of the links on it.
I'm still blown away by this. The links were about certain sexual fetishes, but again, her website was under a pseudonym. I have no idea how they connected it to her. Could have been something dead simple like her using an e-mail address on the same domain, or using her pseudonym in her e-mail address on hotmail. She wasn't that careful about remaining anonymous, it was just a thing back then that people would have alter-egos online.
I've found a mix with background checks in the U.S; a lot of rental landlords want background checks for the obvious reasons (e.g. housing a convicted rapist with a young woman), employers can go either way, and in my experience it has tended to be reasonable (but I've always worked as a professional, and for people I know through colleagues or acquaintances).
A background check is, in my experience, unusal for renters in Canada, but that might just be my bias, having mostly rented from slumlords and acquaintances.
A background check is, in my experience, unusal for renters in Canada, but that might just be my bias, having mostly rented from slumlords and acquaintances.
The demands for background checks tends to be inversely proportional to the ability of the employee/applicant to do criminal or civil harm. You'll need a clean criminal record to work a random retail job but could have numerous convictions and be a software developer. A crummy rental will require it but fancy executive rental will not.
I know some of this has historical/data underpinnings on experience, but fear most of it is based on biased expectations.
I know some of this has historical/data underpinnings on experience, but fear most of it is based on biased expectations.
Do you have evidence this is true? Also software developers can cause loads of damage I think.
Personal/anecectotal, but totally.
In my experience you will more likely see it if you are in a shop that is paying below market. I.e. Devs there make 10k less than other local shops.
We wound up with some interesting folks. Got to see what someone going through methadone withdrawals looks like. On the other hand, a few people got some really meaningful second chances at a career there.
In my experience you will more likely see it if you are in a shop that is paying below market. I.e. Devs there make 10k less than other local shops.
We wound up with some interesting folks. Got to see what someone going through methadone withdrawals looks like. On the other hand, a few people got some really meaningful second chances at a career there.
That's why they say "inversely proportional".
in US - Most employers don't have super deep pockets to do the background checks, and they pay to do a check in each of your previous addresses listed and decide how far back to go to pull the records. [...If I had a reason to...] To give a higher chance of passing a background at a small employer I may list only my current address. It depends how complex the the HR team is.
It's mostly the same in Denmark. However, there is one situation where background checks are mandatory and that is when you work with children below the age of 15. You have to pass this check not only for a proper job but also if you are doing volunteer work with children (e.g. sports association, scouts etc.)
The check is only for crimes against children so you can be convicted for violent crimes and pass this check.
Any entries in your criminal record will no longer appear in background checks after some time (depending on the severity of your offense). However, any offense against a child will always appear on this special background check no matter how long ago it was committed.
You have to approve that this background check is performed but if you can't produce a clean "child certificate" then you are prohibited from working with children by law.
The check is only for crimes against children so you can be convicted for violent crimes and pass this check.
Any entries in your criminal record will no longer appear in background checks after some time (depending on the severity of your offense). However, any offense against a child will always appear on this special background check no matter how long ago it was committed.
You have to approve that this background check is performed but if you can't produce a clean "child certificate" then you are prohibited from working with children by law.
A part of that may be a legal requirement for the employers to provide a "safe working environment".
The U.S. is just so awful.
Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar. It's just what we don't need here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
As an expatriate American, I just hope people recognize that "America the beautiful" does exist, there's a lot to love about the country, its people, land and culture.
It's sad how that's overshadowed by their corporations, politicians, and somewhat intentionally broken system - but I choose to believe that good sense will prevail eventually, when enough people care and do something about it - as they've done time and again through history.
It's sad how that's overshadowed by their corporations, politicians, and somewhat intentionally broken system - but I choose to believe that good sense will prevail eventually, when enough people care and do something about it - as they've done time and again through history.
My brother did jail time for federal larceny, he makes six figures in the US. In fact over half my family have criminal records, and they're mostly employed, including active drug dealers.
It matters to some degree for sure but it's really overblown.
It matters to some degree for sure but it's really overblown.
>13 years for a serious, violent crime
That can be a manslaughter or second/first degree murder in some states
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_punishments_for_murder...
That can be a manslaughter or second/first degree murder in some states
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_punishments_for_murder...
What's your point? Do you feel that after serving a sentence for such a crime, the perpetrator should not have a chance at a "normal" life? Should they live the rest of their days continually punished by society for what they did?
If so, should we instead increase the length of the sentence for such a crime? To how long?
If so, should we instead increase the length of the sentence for such a crime? To how long?
We had someone who worked at my company that was convicted for second degree manslaughter for bludgeoning someone to death with a hammer. He was always chill around me but I think companies should have the right to decide whether or not they want to hire people with a record like that.
How do you get manslaughter for that? You can't unintentionally bludgeon someone to death, can you?
I will however say that there is opportunity for multiple interpretations with the little information provided; for example I think bludgeoning someone to death is perfectly acceptable if that person is trying to harm you or your family and a hammer is the nearest available weapon. Your coworker could have been in a similar situation in which self defense was warranted, and that may be why he did not get a murder charge instead.
This sort of nuance is why this issue matters a lot; you could do the right thing and still end up with a charge that severely impacts your ability to get a job, even though you're not actually some kind of violent murderer.
I will however say that there is opportunity for multiple interpretations with the little information provided; for example I think bludgeoning someone to death is perfectly acceptable if that person is trying to harm you or your family and a hammer is the nearest available weapon. Your coworker could have been in a similar situation in which self defense was warranted, and that may be why he did not get a murder charge instead.
This sort of nuance is why this issue matters a lot; you could do the right thing and still end up with a charge that severely impacts your ability to get a job, even though you're not actually some kind of violent murderer.
Manslaughter can absolutely be intentional; hence "voluntary manslaughter". It generally needs to be unpremeditated and without active malicious intent, but can be self-defence, "in the heat of passion", etc that cause what would otherwise be a murder charge to be reduced to manslaughter.
companies should have the right to decide whether or not they want to hire people with a record like that
They do.
They do.
There is a big difference between "This person should be imprisoned and completely seperated from society" and "I should have the right to not work with violent people". I have no problem with a convicted murderer being released from prison, but I'm not going to invite them over for dinner.
> "I should have the right to not work with violent people"
You do have that right, because you can switch jobs at will (unlike that person), in case you don't want to work with someone purely due to their past and not something they are doing at your workplace.
I don't think we should be blocking people (who have already paid their dues for the crimes they have committed in the past) from getting a job solely for their past, just because you might be uncomfortable with that.
It isn't like you are trapped, you always have an option to leave. The person who paid their dues to the prison system doesn't have any options if they become unhireable solely due to people's prejudices about their past. And at that point, what other option do they have other than turn their head towards crime again? Rent and bills aren't gonna pay themselves.
Not the best solution, but I don't think that denying someone a job based on your discomfort about their distant past is reasonable at all. Of course, as long as they weren't in-and-out of jail multiple times for the same crimes, because that's an indication that they are likely to re-commit.
You do have that right, because you can switch jobs at will (unlike that person), in case you don't want to work with someone purely due to their past and not something they are doing at your workplace.
I don't think we should be blocking people (who have already paid their dues for the crimes they have committed in the past) from getting a job solely for their past, just because you might be uncomfortable with that.
It isn't like you are trapped, you always have an option to leave. The person who paid their dues to the prison system doesn't have any options if they become unhireable solely due to people's prejudices about their past. And at that point, what other option do they have other than turn their head towards crime again? Rent and bills aren't gonna pay themselves.
Not the best solution, but I don't think that denying someone a job based on your discomfort about their distant past is reasonable at all. Of course, as long as they weren't in-and-out of jail multiple times for the same crimes, because that's an indication that they are likely to re-commit.
[deleted]
The other alternative is UBI. So the ex-convicts can be spared from hunger and poverty.
Then... don't.
I agree. A lot of people in this comment section are arguing that "Then don't" shouldn't be an option.
People are acting like you shouldn't be allowed to quit your job because you don't like your coworkers?
I wonder how the victim(s) are doing now -- does he/she/they have great tech. jobs now?
That's awesome, and depressing, when you think of how rare that is.
But kudos to Jessica for giving a shit and the person in question for keeping at it.
But kudos to Jessica for giving a shit and the person in question for keeping at it.
You definitely made me think with this comment. I came here ready to say “this is amazing” but read your comment and it dawned on me how incredibly depressing it is when you think how rare this sort of thing is.
Great comment and thanks for sharing that perspective.
Great comment and thanks for sharing that perspective.
It's a common thing that "uplifting news" has an undercurrent of something systemically wrong.
More: https://fair.org/home/media-just-cant-stop-presenting-horrif...
More: https://fair.org/home/media-just-cant-stop-presenting-horrif...
Thank you for sharing that link, I never looked at these stories through the lense of "what's actually wrong with this situation." I learned something today.
Glad this person had a computer program in their prison. I think most prisons have basically no real computer access except for a horrible "email" service called corrlinks. Very embarrassing for the US.
Pay by the minute while a significant number can barely operate a keyboard...
On this subject, I was blown away by this a week ago: https://mkorostoff.github.io/incarceration-in-real-numbers/
Great site.
Wow:
- "The United States holds more people in jails and prisons than any other country by far, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of population."
The numbers are stunning. Around a quarter of all Americans have a criminal record.
- "Almost no one gets a trial"
- "The blue icons are the portion of incarcerated people who got trials, around 2%"
My mind boggles at this. Conviction is without trial in 98% of cases? People avoid trial when they don't think they'll get a fair one or they can't afford a decent lawyer? No wonder it's a hotbed of racism.
No, wait, I was assuming conviction:
- "Unconvicted Americans are the 4th largest incarcerated population in the world"
Now my mind boggles even more. There are more unconvicted Americans incarcerated than convicted people incarcerated in almost all other countries.
- "What if you've spent your whole life believing that you live in the freest country on earth, when the reality is precisely the opposite?"
Good question...
Wow:
- "The United States holds more people in jails and prisons than any other country by far, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of population."
The numbers are stunning. Around a quarter of all Americans have a criminal record.
- "Almost no one gets a trial"
- "The blue icons are the portion of incarcerated people who got trials, around 2%"
My mind boggles at this. Conviction is without trial in 98% of cases? People avoid trial when they don't think they'll get a fair one or they can't afford a decent lawyer? No wonder it's a hotbed of racism.
No, wait, I was assuming conviction:
- "Unconvicted Americans are the 4th largest incarcerated population in the world"
Now my mind boggles even more. There are more unconvicted Americans incarcerated than convicted people incarcerated in almost all other countries.
- "What if you've spent your whole life believing that you live in the freest country on earth, when the reality is precisely the opposite?"
Good question...
Careful with the trick statistics. If you're ranking the size of groups, the result heavily depends on how you define the groups. That "4th largest" makes no sense because the 3 above it aren't broken down the same way and should really be split into 5 groups for consistency. Then there's the fact that the USA is the 3rd largest country by population so it should be weighted by population. It's a complete fail of a statistic obviously designed to shock without informing.
> Then there's the fact that the USA is the 3rd largest country by population so it should be weighted by population
Most of the statistics I cited are already weighted by population; they are per-capita and percentages: "as a percentage of the population"; "a quarter of all Americans"; "almost no one gets a trial"; "2%".
Those population-weighted values are astonishing.
I agree the 4th largest thing is not weighted, but the astonishing part of that is that USA unconvicted incarcerations rank significantly at all, when compared with convicted in other countries. USA population size is not sufficient to explain this.
It's the opposite of what I'd hope and expect, for a country where people talk of "land of the free" and "rule of law".
Most of the statistics I cited are already weighted by population; they are per-capita and percentages: "as a percentage of the population"; "a quarter of all Americans"; "almost no one gets a trial"; "2%".
Those population-weighted values are astonishing.
I agree the 4th largest thing is not weighted, but the astonishing part of that is that USA unconvicted incarcerations rank significantly at all, when compared with convicted in other countries. USA population size is not sufficient to explain this.
It's the opposite of what I'd hope and expect, for a country where people talk of "land of the free" and "rule of law".
The American cultural penchant for cruelty and predilection for fear is something I find really off-putting about living here (as an expat).
And make no mistake, the ubiquity of "are you a convicted felon?" on every application form is cruelty. Bear in mind that can (depending on the state) include, for example, possession of even small amounts of cannabis.
Mark Wahlberg is a convicted felon for what seems to be a pretty vicious race-based assault 30 years ago. Even as someone who is famous and extremely rich this actually causes him a lot of problems, so much so that for awhile he petitioned the Massachusetts governor for a pardon.
Personally I was (and am) against a pardon for him. There was enough of a backlash that the request was dropped. The problem with him getting a pardon is that's (yet another) exemption for the rich and famous. Kind of like how only people with 100K Twitter followers can be customer support on anything these days.
What about all those people who are convicted felons for minor drug offenses including drugs that can now be legal for recreational use? They don't have the wealth and fame to bypass this scarlet letter.
Even worse, this can be triggered by more cruel measures like three-strikes laws that disempower judges from making informed decisions.
The problem here is the permanent scarlet letter and there shouldn't be exemptions for wealth, fame or power.
The level of incarceration in the United States should be a huge source of shame. It's an institutional failure and yet more cruelty, especially given the prevalence of prison rape.
It's good this woman learned a new skill and (even better) is allowed to use it. It's just sad that this is such an exception it's newsworthy.
And make no mistake, the ubiquity of "are you a convicted felon?" on every application form is cruelty. Bear in mind that can (depending on the state) include, for example, possession of even small amounts of cannabis.
Mark Wahlberg is a convicted felon for what seems to be a pretty vicious race-based assault 30 years ago. Even as someone who is famous and extremely rich this actually causes him a lot of problems, so much so that for awhile he petitioned the Massachusetts governor for a pardon.
Personally I was (and am) against a pardon for him. There was enough of a backlash that the request was dropped. The problem with him getting a pardon is that's (yet another) exemption for the rich and famous. Kind of like how only people with 100K Twitter followers can be customer support on anything these days.
What about all those people who are convicted felons for minor drug offenses including drugs that can now be legal for recreational use? They don't have the wealth and fame to bypass this scarlet letter.
Even worse, this can be triggered by more cruel measures like three-strikes laws that disempower judges from making informed decisions.
The problem here is the permanent scarlet letter and there shouldn't be exemptions for wealth, fame or power.
The level of incarceration in the United States should be a huge source of shame. It's an institutional failure and yet more cruelty, especially given the prevalence of prison rape.
It's good this woman learned a new skill and (even better) is allowed to use it. It's just sad that this is such an exception it's newsworthy.
In college I worked as a phone dispatcher for a company that had a slick homegrown system for managing accounts, billing and dispatching. It was faster, fuller-featured and more intuitive than the commercial systems I'd seen at the time.
When the dev swung by the office one day I chatted with him and was surprised to learnt that he'd gotten his start coding in prison as well. He hadn't used computers at all before being incarcerated, but got hooked in his first class when he typed something at the command line and got an error in response. He muttered something like "I'll show you, stupid machine" and committed then and there to getting the device to do what he wanted it to. Ten years later he had a successful business building and maintaining systems like the one I was using for small businesses all over the area.
When the dev swung by the office one day I chatted with him and was surprised to learnt that he'd gotten his start coding in prison as well. He hadn't used computers at all before being incarcerated, but got hooked in his first class when he typed something at the command line and got an error in response. He muttered something like "I'll show you, stupid machine" and committed then and there to getting the device to do what he wanted it to. Ten years later he had a successful business building and maintaining systems like the one I was using for small businesses all over the area.
In the US every job I had required a criminal background check. Also when I volunteered to coach my kids team and also for other volunteering I did in their school.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea. For example, you don't want let a sex offender coach a kids team. And I don't care if that person already paid their dues. But you cannot ruin the life of someone who has a minor offense from years ago. People should be able to rehabilitate and improve their life. I don't know what employers do when a background check is not clean. If they actually consider the severity of it or immediately reject the candidate.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea. For example, you don't want let a sex offender coach a kids team. And I don't care if that person already paid their dues. But you cannot ruin the life of someone who has a minor offense from years ago. People should be able to rehabilitate and improve their life. I don't know what employers do when a background check is not clean. If they actually consider the severity of it or immediately reject the candidate.
It's impossible to know for sure what employers actually check for when you're hired, but anecdotally I've only been given a background check consent form at three of about a dozen jobs over the past three decades, and two of those also required DoD security clearances. I suspect larger employers do it as a matter of course, and smaller ones don't.
How many of your applications had a box requesting if you were ever convicted in those 30 years? Until fairly recently that was standard practice on any application. With the ban the box gaining traction, most companies now just farm it out, you don't have the check the box, they will do the background check. And here is the kicker, you don't have to give your consent in most cases as they are having a third party do the check on publicly available information. companies like goodhire, and many like it make the whole process cheap and easy.
Unfortunately, the worst offender of this is the federal government. Essentially any federal position, regardless of actual job position, requires a background check.
Most government jobs in the UK require this too. However,
they don't require a spotless record but there would be some types of offences (serious fraud, affiliation with organised crime, etc) that would make it impossible. It's assessed based on the job, the offence, and how long ago it was.
Does a background check in the US imply that they'd never consider anyone with any blemish on their record whatsoever? Surely it just means they have to make an informed decision.
Does a background check in the US imply that they'd never consider anyone with any blemish on their record whatsoever? Surely it just means they have to make an informed decision.
> Does a background check in the US imply that they'd never consider anyone with any blemish on their record whatsoever?
No, but federal jobs usually get dozens or hundreds of applicants. Removing felons is usually one of the first filters they use to narrow the field.
No, but federal jobs usually get dozens or hundreds of applicants. Removing felons is usually one of the first filters they use to narrow the field.
[deleted]
Which is a good thing. A background check looks for past, present, and future issues that could indicate a pattern of unethical or illegal behavior, or conflicts of interest. Every employee, regardless of actual job position, is given some level of inherent trust over the country's money, data, or physical assets. A background check is a minimal defense against misplacing that trust.
(Insert snide remark about elected/appointed politicians here.)
(Insert snide remark about elected/appointed politicians here.)
How long until programming javascript becomes the new making license plates?
I rather think incarcerated people will write excellent JavaScript.
At least there is no way of making the ecosystem any worse than it already is.
There are a lot of people saying they're in favor of this type of thing. And for non-violent offenses I'd probably also be on board.
But this person committed a "serious, violent crime" that sent them to prison for 13 years. Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? Are there certain crimes that cross the line for you? Would you expect your employer to inform you of their record?
Edit: Just want to remind people, 13 years could very well mean that they murdered someone. Context around the charge is key, and no one seems to be acknowledging that.
But this person committed a "serious, violent crime" that sent them to prison for 13 years. Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? Are there certain crimes that cross the line for you? Would you expect your employer to inform you of their record?
Edit: Just want to remind people, 13 years could very well mean that they murdered someone. Context around the charge is key, and no one seems to be acknowledging that.
I was a co-creator of The Last Mile's coding program, and taught many classes in San Quentin prison. The students were generally there for a decade plus, for violent crimes.
I would sit next to any of them for any length of time. They pose zero threat to anyone.
This is for two reasons: 1. Generally, violent crimes are done by very young and poor people. By the time they get out of prison, they aren't very young any more. If they have a good job, they aren't poor either. 2. If a prison lets someone in an educational program, you know the system considers them safe. The system buckets inmates; behavioral offenses are harshly penalized; everyone in a classroom is an angel, and they won't stop being an angel on the outside.
I would sit next to any of them for any length of time. They pose zero threat to anyone.
This is for two reasons: 1. Generally, violent crimes are done by very young and poor people. By the time they get out of prison, they aren't very young any more. If they have a good job, they aren't poor either. 2. If a prison lets someone in an educational program, you know the system considers them safe. The system buckets inmates; behavioral offenses are harshly penalized; everyone in a classroom is an angel, and they won't stop being an angel on the outside.
Let's break this down. Someone commits murder, and gets sent to prison for 13 years. They are out now. How do we deal with them?
1. If everyone says that they will no longer want to work with such a person, especially rich people, who can enforce that want, that person will end up working with poor people. The rich people are making a classist argument.
2. Worse, if that person, cannot even get bad jobs, they will be forced to commit more crimes in order to live. Now, the first crime might have been because they were a bad person, but the second crime is on the people who refuse to work with them.
3. What are other possibilities?
You get out of this conundrum by making prison about rehabilitation. Ensuring that people who come out are changed people who are not inclined to commit more crimes. Then you treat them like normal people. And hopefully, that world, while not perfect, will be better than this world.
1. If everyone says that they will no longer want to work with such a person, especially rich people, who can enforce that want, that person will end up working with poor people. The rich people are making a classist argument.
2. Worse, if that person, cannot even get bad jobs, they will be forced to commit more crimes in order to live. Now, the first crime might have been because they were a bad person, but the second crime is on the people who refuse to work with them.
3. What are other possibilities?
You get out of this conundrum by making prison about rehabilitation. Ensuring that people who come out are changed people who are not inclined to commit more crimes. Then you treat them like normal people. And hopefully, that world, while not perfect, will be better than this world.
After reading everyone's responses and responding myself, I've realized that I'm really caught up on the murder aspect.
I think my revised opinion is that if you intentionally murder someone without a damn good reason, you should spend life in prison. This can include second degree murder, which is often not life in prison in the US (And also happens to line up with the OP scenario).
I think my revised opinion is that if you intentionally murder someone without a damn good reason, you should spend life in prison. This can include second degree murder, which is often not life in prison in the US (And also happens to line up with the OP scenario).
Happy that someone changed their mind. You asked a very good question. I don't think there are any easy answers to it. Crime hurts people and creates lots of strong emotions, so our instincts on what is best for society regarding crime are not very reliable.
A lot of conversation needs to happen on this, and we need to constantly reevaluate our positions.
A lot of conversation needs to happen on this, and we need to constantly reevaluate our positions.
Suppose the person didn't commit murder, but had intentionally and violently raped a ten year old?
We can't make the punishment the same, or he would just murder her, yet I don't think such a person should every be let out.
We can't make the punishment the same, or he would just murder her, yet I don't think such a person should every be let out.
I didn't want to dive down away from murder, because then I'll have to pick my "line". I'm not prepared to do that for various reasons. For example, I don't know the punishments for the crime you mentioned.
Murder is the "easiest" crime to use to make my arguments. And even then I have to specify stuff like "intentional without a damn good reason".
Murder is the "easiest" crime to use to make my arguments. And even then I have to specify stuff like "intentional without a damn good reason".
Every case is nuanced. You can’t say murder == life without screwing something up in the system. It’s not simple or trivial to solve.
Luckily many places around the world solve it differently so we can look at those systems and observe.
Luckily many places around the world solve it differently so we can look at those systems and observe.
> We can't make the punishment the same, or he would just murder her, yet I don't think such a person should every be let out.
Do you believe people can change? Or perhaps more generally, what do you think the purpose of a prison should be when considering rehabilitation vs punishment?
Do you believe people can change? Or perhaps more generally, what do you think the purpose of a prison should be when considering rehabilitation vs punishment?
I very honestly have less problem with murder then something like past harassment. Like, unless it was not random burst of violence, that must won't happen to me or someone I know. So that person generally working is lowering chance of recidivism for little cost to me.
Sure, just not for murders. They can work outside.
I suppose another possibility is that the market just deals with it. Through wages, employee retention, or 'danger money' for the non-convict colleagues.
Market "dealing" with it means high recidivism. It's the tragedy of the commons. It might be in everyone's individual interest to not hire an ex-felon, but it leads to a worse outcome for everyone.
Personal story, fwiw. Wheelchair Tom was a neighbor growing up. Nice guy. Little quirky, but nice. Tom gave out quarters for Halloween, and paid small amounts to neighborhood kids to help out around his property.
Why was Tom in a wheelchair? Tom killed his wife years earlier in a crime of passion after catching her with another man in their bed. He grabbed a gun, shot both people. She died. Tom walked out and the lover came behind him and shot him in the back.
Tom went to prison for a very violent crime. I raked leafs for him as a kid, and so did my kids. I wouldn't have had second thoughts of asking him to keep an eye on the kids for a while if needed. Tom was a member of our community who had a very violent past that all the adults knew about and were accepting of.
Alternatively, there are folks who have sterling records that I would not let my kids do chores for.
Why was Tom in a wheelchair? Tom killed his wife years earlier in a crime of passion after catching her with another man in their bed. He grabbed a gun, shot both people. She died. Tom walked out and the lover came behind him and shot him in the back.
Tom went to prison for a very violent crime. I raked leafs for him as a kid, and so did my kids. I wouldn't have had second thoughts of asking him to keep an eye on the kids for a while if needed. Tom was a member of our community who had a very violent past that all the adults knew about and were accepting of.
Alternatively, there are folks who have sterling records that I would not let my kids do chores for.
> Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"?
I'd guess pretty much everyone you sit next to currently is capable of committing a serious, violent crime under the right (wrong) circumstances.
I'd guess pretty much everyone you sit next to currently is capable of committing a serious, violent crime under the right (wrong) circumstances.
I agree. Given some circumstance or set of them, the overwhelming vast majority of people are capable of extreme violence.
What is scary is those who enjoy violence and causing harm. My grandma worked in the next cube over from a guy for years. "Nicest guy ever." He spent his weekends cutting people into parts and mailing the the parts around.
What is scary is those who enjoy violence and causing harm. My grandma worked in the next cube over from a guy for years. "Nicest guy ever." He spent his weekends cutting people into parts and mailing the the parts around.
> Given some circumstance or set of them, the overwhelming vast majority of people are capable of extreme violence.
If you consider circumstances where society would generally consider violence justified then maybe.
Historically even in combat only a small percentage of people would intentionally shoot to kill.
If you consider circumstances where society would generally consider violence justified then maybe.
Historically even in combat only a small percentage of people would intentionally shoot to kill.
>"But this person committed a "serious, violent crime" that sent them to prison for 13 years. Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? Are there certain crimes that cross the line for you? Would you expect your employer to inform you of their record?"
I would not feel comfortable sitting next to someone who was substantially more capable of committing a serious, violent crime (which might indeed have been murder if she did 13 years) than an average member of the population and I would expect an employer to take my welfare and safety into account.
The question is whether someone who did do that and went to prison for it is so much more likely to commit such a crime than average. I don't know the answer to that but I don't think it's outrageous to think the answer is "no".
I would not feel comfortable sitting next to someone who was substantially more capable of committing a serious, violent crime (which might indeed have been murder if she did 13 years) than an average member of the population and I would expect an employer to take my welfare and safety into account.
The question is whether someone who did do that and went to prison for it is so much more likely to commit such a crime than average. I don't know the answer to that but I don't think it's outrageous to think the answer is "no".
Some friends and I just happened to watch Trading Places (1983, Eddie Murphy, Dan Aykroyd) last night, and it deals directly with this question, and got us talking about it.
I work with a guy who did some time, but I'm not sure what for. Probably drug-related, if I had to guess, but I've never asked. He's a model employee, as long as you include a snarky wit in your model. And I feel perfectly comfortable around him.
There are people around who DO creep me out, but that's not even slightly correlated, in my little sample, with the people who've been to prison.
I work with a guy who did some time, but I'm not sure what for. Probably drug-related, if I had to guess, but I've never asked. He's a model employee, as long as you include a snarky wit in your model. And I feel perfectly comfortable around him.
There are people around who DO creep me out, but that's not even slightly correlated, in my little sample, with the people who've been to prison.
We're all capable of it. Humans are hairless apes with neither claws nor tusks who spend more time in helpless, bawling infancy than any other animal. Yet somehow we survived among literal monsters in prehistory. If we are not prey...?
Have you never been violent, not even once? With anyone? Were you old enough to be tried as an adult under the right circumstances? Even the slightest physical conflict is only a dice roll away from turning into a horrific accident that does lasting damage.
And what is your alternative? Keep offenders in the system forever? Do we believe in the "Correction" of "Correctional Facilities" or not? Forgiveness? Rehabilitation? Redemption?
At some point you have to stop passing the buck to someone else to let people back into society, otherwise you're just being a predestinationalist by your deeds.
> Would you expect your employer to inform you of their record?
No, I would find that offensive. Similarly I wouldn't want to know about their military record, substance habits, childhood, credit score, or the last mean thing their spouse said to them. That's all personal.
Have you never been violent, not even once? With anyone? Were you old enough to be tried as an adult under the right circumstances? Even the slightest physical conflict is only a dice roll away from turning into a horrific accident that does lasting damage.
And what is your alternative? Keep offenders in the system forever? Do we believe in the "Correction" of "Correctional Facilities" or not? Forgiveness? Rehabilitation? Redemption?
At some point you have to stop passing the buck to someone else to let people back into society, otherwise you're just being a predestinationalist by your deeds.
> Would you expect your employer to inform you of their record?
No, I would find that offensive. Similarly I wouldn't want to know about their military record, substance habits, childhood, credit score, or the last mean thing their spouse said to them. That's all personal.
Most of us here had an easy life. But for some born on the wrong neighborhood, gang violence and drug trafficking is part of daily life.
A couple of bad decisions made as a teen and you’ll see yourself involved in violent events at a young age.
A couple of bad decisions made as a teen and you’ll see yourself involved in violent events at a young age.
Are you comfortable being judged on the worst thing you've ever done in your life?
Sure, a violent crime is worse than some bone-headed mistake made at a college party, or whatever your worst moment is. But how much have you grown up since then? Would you do it again? Or are you older and wiser? Well, they are probably older and wiser, too.
Sure, a violent crime is worse than some bone-headed mistake made at a college party, or whatever your worst moment is. But how much have you grown up since then? Would you do it again? Or are you older and wiser? Well, they are probably older and wiser, too.
I'd be willing to be that the worst thing most people have done isn't murder or manslaughter. You don't have to be "older and wiser" to know that you aren't supposed to murder people.
> *You don't have to be "older and wiser" to know that you aren't supposed to murder people.
I mean, I'm not sure how relevant "knowing" anything is, but age is an incredibly strong predictor of criminality. Gender is another one. The majority of crime, and the overwhelming majority violent crime, is committed by young men. One factor that likely contributes to this reliable statistical phenomenon is that the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for decision-making, self-control, emotional self-regulation, and other aspects of executive function, doesn't fully develop until around 25 years of age. For one example of how executive function relates to criminal behavior, look into the connection between ADHD (a disorder linked to deficiencies in the prefrontal cortex) and crime.
I agree that most people haven't killed anyone, but I also don't think that there's any reason for any of us to assume that 'we' would have behaved any differently when placed in the circumstances of those who have.
I mean, I'm not sure how relevant "knowing" anything is, but age is an incredibly strong predictor of criminality. Gender is another one. The majority of crime, and the overwhelming majority violent crime, is committed by young men. One factor that likely contributes to this reliable statistical phenomenon is that the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for decision-making, self-control, emotional self-regulation, and other aspects of executive function, doesn't fully develop until around 25 years of age. For one example of how executive function relates to criminal behavior, look into the connection between ADHD (a disorder linked to deficiencies in the prefrontal cortex) and crime.
I agree that most people haven't killed anyone, but I also don't think that there's any reason for any of us to assume that 'we' would have behaved any differently when placed in the circumstances of those who have.
>probably
People are well justified in their claims not being comfortable, but convicted people getting a second chance is a must though.
People are well justified in their claims not being comfortable, but convicted people getting a second chance is a must though.
Put yourself in a companies position, if you hire someone who had a violent past, and they commit a violent crime while at work, or to a coworker or client off the clock, the company will be held liable, no two ways about it, it will come back on the company.
Additionally, there are countless contracts that require you specifically not have anyone with criminal convictions, and require full background checks to be awarded the contracts, even more so if it was a violent felony.
Those are two very serious liabilities to a company, I understand that people deserve a second chance, but do you put your company at risk to give it to them?
Additionally, there are countless contracts that require you specifically not have anyone with criminal convictions, and require full background checks to be awarded the contracts, even more so if it was a violent felony.
Those are two very serious liabilities to a company, I understand that people deserve a second chance, but do you put your company at risk to give it to them?
This is a really important point. Most attempts to reduce discrimination against felons (e.g. Ban the box) do nothing to address the reason why the discrimination happens in the first place. It also places the burden on the applicant and state to retroactively correct and create chances (which are then already in a strained condition).
If states were to specify some rules around when a 'Negligent Hiring' liability suit could be pursued against a business, business owners would be more willing to hire and provide chances. If the state is liable should something happen, the burden on the state then becomes to proactively rehabilitate felons who meet the set of conditions such that their future litigation costs are reduced.
To me, that is a much better alignment of incentives though not perfect.
If states were to specify some rules around when a 'Negligent Hiring' liability suit could be pursued against a business, business owners would be more willing to hire and provide chances. If the state is liable should something happen, the burden on the state then becomes to proactively rehabilitate felons who meet the set of conditions such that their future litigation costs are reduced.
To me, that is a much better alignment of incentives though not perfect.
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.
This is a failure of the state, the purpose for incarceration is retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation, is the most important aspect for a person who has been in prison to be able to return to society. Storing people in a hellish place does not fix them, it only punishes them, with out counseling and education, how is a person who is released in anyway more prepared than when they went in?
I agree the current system makes it damn near impossible for someone with a conviction to get a second chance. That issue should be address at the corrections level, and the services provided after conviction.
But most companies do not have the resources, education, or ability to help rehabilitate someone, so should we blindly hire on hope that this person won't cause harm to the people a company is responsible for, should the company forgo the opportunities that require your staff not have convictions, that is just an unrealistic expectation.
Think about it like this, say there was a piece of equipment that had malfunctioned and caused serious injury to someone, and your company then wanted to bring that piece of equipment into your office, knowing that there is a 44% chance that it will malfunction in someway again, and there is a 25% chance that the malfunction would cause serious harm to someone, would you be comfortable with that choice, if that malfunction happened do you think the company would and should be liable for this?
There are too many situations, where trying to make this right for someone with a record would have too many of my employees face situations I don't think they should have to in a work place. with 1 in 5 women being the victim of sexual assault or rape, how could I ask any of them to work side by side with someone who was convicted of it, I can't insure their safety, and I don't feel it just to put them in that situation. Same with someone who has been the victim of any violent crime.
I think it boils down to person choice I suppose, and for me, I won't put the people I am responsible for at risk, not the company that I helped built. If that makes me a bad person, I think I can live with that.
Rehabilitation, is the most important aspect for a person who has been in prison to be able to return to society. Storing people in a hellish place does not fix them, it only punishes them, with out counseling and education, how is a person who is released in anyway more prepared than when they went in?
I agree the current system makes it damn near impossible for someone with a conviction to get a second chance. That issue should be address at the corrections level, and the services provided after conviction.
But most companies do not have the resources, education, or ability to help rehabilitate someone, so should we blindly hire on hope that this person won't cause harm to the people a company is responsible for, should the company forgo the opportunities that require your staff not have convictions, that is just an unrealistic expectation.
Think about it like this, say there was a piece of equipment that had malfunctioned and caused serious injury to someone, and your company then wanted to bring that piece of equipment into your office, knowing that there is a 44% chance that it will malfunction in someway again, and there is a 25% chance that the malfunction would cause serious harm to someone, would you be comfortable with that choice, if that malfunction happened do you think the company would and should be liable for this?
There are too many situations, where trying to make this right for someone with a record would have too many of my employees face situations I don't think they should have to in a work place. with 1 in 5 women being the victim of sexual assault or rape, how could I ask any of them to work side by side with someone who was convicted of it, I can't insure their safety, and I don't feel it just to put them in that situation. Same with someone who has been the victim of any violent crime.
I think it boils down to person choice I suppose, and for me, I won't put the people I am responsible for at risk, not the company that I helped built. If that makes me a bad person, I think I can live with that.
[deleted]
> Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"?
As long as it wasn't "murdered coworker over TABS vs SPACES argument".
Although, I guess it would depend on their stance?
As long as it wasn't "murdered coworker over TABS vs SPACES argument".
Although, I guess it would depend on their stance?
People change, especially after being punished for the mistake they made for 13 years. Chances are she would be less likely to engage in violence than the people you currently sit next to, because she has a personal understanding of the harsh punishment it would involve.
Edit: The downvotes that this comment is currently receiving actually illustrate the problems outlined in this thread. If you disagree with the idea that people can change, you will never hire someone with a criminal record, and you will perpetuate the problem. The unemployment rate among felons in the US less than 2 years after release is 31.6% [1]. The unemployment rate at the peak of the Great Depression was 24.9% [2]. It is always the Great Depression for the felon population, because of the incorrect belief that people can’t change. Among any population with unemployment this high, there will be a drastically higher crime rate.
[1] https://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/2018/07/16/report-finds-o...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/05/19/3-reasons...
Edit: The downvotes that this comment is currently receiving actually illustrate the problems outlined in this thread. If you disagree with the idea that people can change, you will never hire someone with a criminal record, and you will perpetuate the problem. The unemployment rate among felons in the US less than 2 years after release is 31.6% [1]. The unemployment rate at the peak of the Great Depression was 24.9% [2]. It is always the Great Depression for the felon population, because of the incorrect belief that people can’t change. Among any population with unemployment this high, there will be a drastically higher crime rate.
[1] https://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/2018/07/16/report-finds-o...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/05/19/3-reasons...
Recidivism statistics would disagree with this statement, nearly have of all violent offenders when released will commit another violent crime. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/corrections/Pew_Report_St...
First, you did not point out the specific page where it says that “nearly all” violent offenders will commit another violent crime. This is a 42 page report. Second, I could not find any statistic in that report that comes even remotely close to describing that “most” violent offenders will commit another violent crime. Some states have recidivism rates approaching 50% (for ALL offenders, violent and nonviolent) but those numbers include technical parole violations and new non-violent crime.
Please indicate the page where the data supports your statement.
Please indicate the page where the data supports your statement.
sorry, it's a typo the "nearly have" was supposed to be " nearly half." I don't believe even with the typo someone would likely see "nearly all."
If you want a more summarized article you can find one here https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/recidivism-am...
I originally posted the pew one as I feel the chance of biased against offenders is lower from their research, but this article does a better job of summarizing, as well as offering their full report.
After looking over the data again, it seems that nearly half will commit another crime but only 28.4% will be a violent one.
with these adjusted numbers, it still is inaccurate to say "...Chances are she would be less likely to engage in violence than the people you currently sit next to,..."
If you want a more summarized article you can find one here https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/recidivism-am...
I originally posted the pew one as I feel the chance of biased against offenders is lower from their research, but this article does a better job of summarizing, as well as offering their full report.
After looking over the data again, it seems that nearly half will commit another crime but only 28.4% will be a violent one.
with these adjusted numbers, it still is inaccurate to say "...Chances are she would be less likely to engage in violence than the people you currently sit next to,..."
It would be interesting to see what the recidivism data on longer sentences is. There is a big difference between someone that served a 90 day sentence for something, then goes and commits a serious crime, and someone that serves 13 years for something. There is a much more significant lesson in the 13 years. Also, crime rates decrease among populations as they age. The mere fact that people who serve longer sentences are older when they get out would have a further push down on crime rates among that population.
You don't get 90 days for a felony, something that short is usually served in local lockup (city/County) and aren't typically included in these sort of stats.
But there is data on people doing under 5 years, and if you compared to that you would likely be right, but don't have the data to prove it.
But there is data on people doing under 5 years, and if you compared to that you would likely be right, but don't have the data to prove it.
Many, many people get 90, 60, 30 days or even probation for felonies as part of a plea agreement. Felony simply means that the maximum sentence is over 1 year. There is even a term for it..”felony probation”.
That is a really gross oversimplification of the term, a felony is a serious crime that can result in long term punishment or capital punishment and no less than one year (minimum not maximum) sentence (which can be less due to plea agreements, and time served before conviction) the distinction between felony and misdemeanor is the servity of the crimes classification not just the length of sentence.
There is also a further sub division of felony based on a class code which determines sentencing.
Regardless, it is very rare for someone doing that little time to do so in a state of federal prison, and most studies on this data are based on the department of prisons data, which is why it's not typically included.
Many felons get probation after serving time, this is the only term I've heard felony probation applied to, what are you referencing to mean?
There is also a further sub division of felony based on a class code which determines sentencing.
Regardless, it is very rare for someone doing that little time to do so in a state of federal prison, and most studies on this data are based on the department of prisons data, which is why it's not typically included.
Many felons get probation after serving time, this is the only term I've heard felony probation applied to, what are you referencing to mean?
Actually, that is not a gross oversimplification. According to [1], whether a crime has maximum sentence of over 1 year is precisely how the US government determines what crimes are and are not felonies:
In the United States, where the felony/misdemeanor distinction is still widely applied, the federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. If punishable by exactly one year or less, it is classified as a misdemeanor. The classification is based upon a crime's potential sentence, so a crime remains classified as a felony even if a defendant receives a sentence of less than a year of incarceration.
Also, no, I wasn’t referring to post-release supervision (which is usually referred to as parole or supervised release). Many hundreds of thousands of people every year receive a sentence of probation for felonies, primarily because countless “tough on crime” measures have increased maximum sentences for minor crimes, which automatically turned them into felonies where they used to be misdemeanors.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony
In the United States, where the felony/misdemeanor distinction is still widely applied, the federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. If punishable by exactly one year or less, it is classified as a misdemeanor. The classification is based upon a crime's potential sentence, so a crime remains classified as a felony even if a defendant receives a sentence of less than a year of incarceration.
Also, no, I wasn’t referring to post-release supervision (which is usually referred to as parole or supervised release). Many hundreds of thousands of people every year receive a sentence of probation for felonies, primarily because countless “tough on crime” measures have increased maximum sentences for minor crimes, which automatically turned them into felonies where they used to be misdemeanors.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony
Honestly, I'm more worried about what 13 years in prison did to the person than the original crime. We don't know what the original crime was so it is hard to say in this case. Perhaps they have some deep, anti-social personality flaw and I wouldn't want to sit next to them. I would be concerned about sitting next to an innocent person who spent 13 years in prison, though. For me, that is a root issue. How many criminals are flawed people vs people who made a mistake or reacted badly to an isolated situation or just didn't have the skills or maturity to handle a difficult situation. I'm reminded of a quote I heard once. "Crime is committed by the young but prison is full of old men." People aren't the same their whole lives.
> I'm more worried about what 13 years in prison did to the person than the original crime.
100% this. Going to prison is a traumatic experience, and would be even in a country that had a real commitment to safe rehabilitation. In the US, it's all too often multiple traumatic experiences one after the other. Nonetheless, I think former felons absolutely deserve every chance to reintegrate. I just worry about their psychological safety when things get tense and others get combative. This is just one more reason why more people in tech need to grow the hell up and treat people around them with basic respect.
100% this. Going to prison is a traumatic experience, and would be even in a country that had a real commitment to safe rehabilitation. In the US, it's all too often multiple traumatic experiences one after the other. Nonetheless, I think former felons absolutely deserve every chance to reintegrate. I just worry about their psychological safety when things get tense and others get combative. This is just one more reason why more people in tech need to grow the hell up and treat people around them with basic respect.
> Perhaps they have some deep, anti-social personality flaw
Like a lot of people in IT ? Not necessarily anti-social but you need to be asocial to some degree to want to spend 8+ hours in front of a screen talking to a computer. It's usually easy to pick out programmers from general population.
Like a lot of people in IT ? Not necessarily anti-social but you need to be asocial to some degree to want to spend 8+ hours in front of a screen talking to a computer. It's usually easy to pick out programmers from general population.
You replace my word, "anti-social" with your word, "asocial" which doesn't mean the same thing. Anti-social behavior is a clinical diagnosis. I mean to describe people who react with a lot of violence or anger at situations that might happen at an office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour
Just trying to clarify here: you’re saying if someone was exonerated of a violent crime due to newer, overwhelming forensic evidence but had already spent 13years.
You’d feel more comfortable working with the actual criminal than the innocent person who spent 13 years in prison?
You’d feel more comfortable working with the actual criminal than the innocent person who spent 13 years in prison?
I'm not saying I would be more concerned. I'm saying that 13 years in prison might cause problems by itself. This is a criticism of prison, not the person.
I spent most of my career working in restaurants. We had a server who literally lit someone on fire. I had drug addicts who didn't show up for work, causing a panicked chain reaction among all the other people from their halfway house. Half the cooks were violating some sort of immigration or labor law.
It's fine. Most criminals are fine most the time.
What's your alternative? If you go to jail it's just for life because creampuffs can't handle sitting near someone who did something bad? Why is society comfortable with white colar criminals working when they cause more damage (both to the companies and to society as a whole)?
It's fine. Most criminals are fine most the time.
What's your alternative? If you go to jail it's just for life because creampuffs can't handle sitting near someone who did something bad? Why is society comfortable with white colar criminals working when they cause more damage (both to the companies and to society as a whole)?
So what would be a fitting punishment if sitting for 13 years in prison is not enough, when will she be done with paying her debt to society?
I think the real issue is that we don’t rehabilitate, so under our current system of justice, I would argue that it’s normal for someone to feel something in proximity of such a convict. The reason being, they were probably treated like an animal for over a decade. Give them hope and some courses to get their shit together and suddenly I’m less worried about the whole situation.
So a whole lot of "not in my neighborhood".
It has to start somewhere. Like...giving them a good paying job in a thriving industry. You're contradicting yourself and you only wrote 3 sentences. You've being shown the proof of how we can rehabilitate and then going "but IDK, doesn't seem good enough..."
It has to start somewhere. Like...giving them a good paying job in a thriving industry. You're contradicting yourself and you only wrote 3 sentences. You've being shown the proof of how we can rehabilitate and then going "but IDK, doesn't seem good enough..."
I’m not being clear. I am sympathizing with OP. Because we know recidivism is higher when you don’t rehabilitate, sitting next to a violate offender carries some risk.
However, when you do rehabilitate, even violent offenders can lead mostly normal lives as is the case here.
I agree, it has to start somewhere, but because our current system acts as a self fulfilling prophecy, it’s going to be very hard to enact change, though I’m all for it.
However, when you do rehabilitate, even violent offenders can lead mostly normal lives as is the case here.
I agree, it has to start somewhere, but because our current system acts as a self fulfilling prophecy, it’s going to be very hard to enact change, though I’m all for it.
But this person committed a "serious, violent crime" that sent them to prison for 13 years. Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? Are there certain crimes that cross the line for you? Would you expect your employer to inform you of their record?
TBH, my answer to that is "I don't know." It has never come up, so I haven't given it a lot of thought.
But it is a legitimate question, IMO, and I don't see why you're being downvoted for simply raising the question. I gave you an upvote to help offset that, FWIW.
TBH, my answer to that is "I don't know." It has never come up, so I haven't given it a lot of thought.
But it is a legitimate question, IMO, and I don't see why you're being downvoted for simply raising the question. I gave you an upvote to help offset that, FWIW.
If you agree to the conceit that a system of justice is about rehabilitation, then someone needs to sit next to, work next to, live next to a person who committed a "serious, violent crime" that sent them to prison for 13 years.
An argument could be made that the justice system should be about rehabilitation but in its current state can't be expected to provide that. I'm not sure I'd make it, but I could see that perspective.
I'm capable of committing a "serious, violent crime", so are you, so are any of your colleagues. Yet I never have, and I assume neither you nor your colleagues have either (based on probability).
>someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"
That would be 100% of people who isn't either a baby or has somehow no way to move arms and legs enough to wield a knife, gun, poison, etc. It is not a question of capability but the situations you are put in and live through. Otherwise you are saying criminality is in the genes.
That would be 100% of people who isn't either a baby or has somehow no way to move arms and legs enough to wield a knife, gun, poison, etc. It is not a question of capability but the situations you are put in and live through. Otherwise you are saying criminality is in the genes.
> Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"?
I do it several times a week (pre-covid, now it's just a couple).
I do it several times a week (pre-covid, now it's just a couple).
Not to worry you unduly but how many people are you already sitting next to capable of "serious, violent crime"?
[deleted]
I am quite capable of "serious, violent crime". Have I ever done so? No.
I've had a relatively easy life, all things considered. I've never been truly desperate. I've never wondered where my next meal will come from. I never made any major mistakes, like messing around with drugs or alcohol.
I'm not planning on committing any violent crimes, ever. But I could. You should beware.
I've had a relatively easy life, all things considered. I've never been truly desperate. I've never wondered where my next meal will come from. I never made any major mistakes, like messing around with drugs or alcohol.
I'm not planning on committing any violent crimes, ever. But I could. You should beware.
If you think the people around you haven't done terrible things over the last 13 years they haven't been caught for I've got some bad news for you about humanity
13 years for a "serious, violent crime" could very well be referring to second degree murder in many states. No, I don't think my coworkers or friends have committed second degree murder.
Context is of course key, but a blanket statement of "hiring someone who spent 13 years in prison for a serious, violent crime is a good thing" seems wild to me, which is the vibe on this thread.
Context is of course key, but a blanket statement of "hiring someone who spent 13 years in prison for a serious, violent crime is a good thing" seems wild to me, which is the vibe on this thread.
So it becomes either a law enforcement issue- does our system properly rehabilitate offenders? or a psychological issue- is someone who commits a violent crime inevitably going to repeat it?- or maybe a moral philosophy question- are people inherently evil and dangerous?
Because you’re asking a safety/comfort question, but it’s dependent on the answers to the above.
Because you’re asking a safety/comfort question, but it’s dependent on the answers to the above.
I think those questions are distracting to my very simple point: I don't want to work with a person who has murdered someone without a damn good reason (self-defense).
I truly can't believe that HN thinks this is some offensive opinion.
I truly can't believe that HN thinks this is some offensive opinion.
They're not distracting, because those underlying questions shape your reaction.
Murder is considered one of the worst offenses in any society. But this person was already punished by society, and seen fit by the law to return to it. So what could explain your continue (and very understandable) discomfort? Is it because you believe that the penal system did not properly make this person safe to return to society? Is it because that once someone has committed such a terrible crime that they are inevitably going to be able to do so again, because they have the psychological profile to do it? Such a person is more likely to slip into violence? Finally, does it mean that such a person is forever marked as fundamentally dangerous and unworthy of reintegration?
After the visceral recoil that is an instinct that preserves safety, you have to examine why you are so opposed to working with someone who has committed such a crime. Because we claim to live in a free society that gives people the liberty to pull themselves up from the bootstraps no matter their circumstances, yet discriminates against those who have done the time. Because we claim this society is built upon Christian and post-Christian Enlightenment principles, yet we reject the power of redemption and modern methods of recovery. It's fine to have such an opinion, but you have to justify it, because it's an example of how our society operates.
Murder is considered one of the worst offenses in any society. But this person was already punished by society, and seen fit by the law to return to it. So what could explain your continue (and very understandable) discomfort? Is it because you believe that the penal system did not properly make this person safe to return to society? Is it because that once someone has committed such a terrible crime that they are inevitably going to be able to do so again, because they have the psychological profile to do it? Such a person is more likely to slip into violence? Finally, does it mean that such a person is forever marked as fundamentally dangerous and unworthy of reintegration?
After the visceral recoil that is an instinct that preserves safety, you have to examine why you are so opposed to working with someone who has committed such a crime. Because we claim to live in a free society that gives people the liberty to pull themselves up from the bootstraps no matter their circumstances, yet discriminates against those who have done the time. Because we claim this society is built upon Christian and post-Christian Enlightenment principles, yet we reject the power of redemption and modern methods of recovery. It's fine to have such an opinion, but you have to justify it, because it's an example of how our society operates.
> Is it because you believe that the penal system did not properly make this person safe to return to society?
I absolutely don't believe the penal system makes people safe after they serve their time.
> Is it because that once someone has committed such a terrible crime that they are inevitably going to be able to do so again, because they have the psychological profile to do it?
If a person killed someone without a damn good reason, why would I think they wouldn't do it again?
> Finally, does it mean that such a person is forever marked as fundamentally dangerous and unworthy of reintegration?
Correct. And maybe I'm caught up on the murder aspect. Murder isn't a small little crime. It takes a certain type of person to be able to intentionally murder someone. And maybe most of this thread can be summarized by: I think if you intentionally murder someone without a damn good reason you should spend life in prison. Right now, second degree murder can include that and often is not life in prison.
I absolutely don't believe the penal system makes people safe after they serve their time.
> Is it because that once someone has committed such a terrible crime that they are inevitably going to be able to do so again, because they have the psychological profile to do it?
If a person killed someone without a damn good reason, why would I think they wouldn't do it again?
> Finally, does it mean that such a person is forever marked as fundamentally dangerous and unworthy of reintegration?
Correct. And maybe I'm caught up on the murder aspect. Murder isn't a small little crime. It takes a certain type of person to be able to intentionally murder someone. And maybe most of this thread can be summarized by: I think if you intentionally murder someone without a damn good reason you should spend life in prison. Right now, second degree murder can include that and often is not life in prison.
Thank you for giving your honest answers. It's good to examine one's beliefs.
> I absolutely don't believe the penal system makes people safe after they serve their time.
Fair, and understandable.
> If a person killed someone without a damn good reason, why would I think they wouldn't do it again?
Why would you think they would do it again? Given that someone spent over a decade in prison, shouldn't it have deterred them from killing again?
You'd have to actually look into recidivism rates to see how this works out in reality, unless you believe that for psychological and moral philosophical reasons that such a person who's committed murder is both willing and likely to do so again.
> I think if you intentionally murder someone without a damn good reason you should spend life in prison. Right now, second degree murder can include that and often is not life in prison.
Okay, so your personal standard is that murder does not have to be premeditated to deserve life in prison. That's fair. But I think that goes beyond discomfort with working with such a person who has been through the prison system; that's believing that such a person shouldn't be out of the prison system at all.
> I absolutely don't believe the penal system makes people safe after they serve their time.
Fair, and understandable.
> If a person killed someone without a damn good reason, why would I think they wouldn't do it again?
Why would you think they would do it again? Given that someone spent over a decade in prison, shouldn't it have deterred them from killing again?
You'd have to actually look into recidivism rates to see how this works out in reality, unless you believe that for psychological and moral philosophical reasons that such a person who's committed murder is both willing and likely to do so again.
> I think if you intentionally murder someone without a damn good reason you should spend life in prison. Right now, second degree murder can include that and often is not life in prison.
Okay, so your personal standard is that murder does not have to be premeditated to deserve life in prison. That's fair. But I think that goes beyond discomfort with working with such a person who has been through the prison system; that's believing that such a person shouldn't be out of the prison system at all.
[deleted]
So what should happen to that person, exactly? Should they be in prison forever? Should they be released but not allowed to work? Should they only be allowed to work by themselves?
I understand your reluctance, but the alternatives to "let the released felon work" are not great.
I understand your reluctance, but the alternatives to "let the released felon work" are not great.
Actions have consequences and after breaking major societal taboos like murder or rape it is very difficult or impossible to repair the damage a person has done to society. I have trouble judging people negatively if they don't want to associate with a person who has murdered or raped someone.
I have the same visceral reaction - if I was seated next to a murderer at work I'd probably be wary. But visceral reactions tend not to make good social policy, and that's really my concern. We have some number of people who commit violent crimes. We either have to imprison them forever or let them out sometime. If we let them out we either need to support them or allow them to work. If we allow them to work do we relegate them to some low class of work, or allow them into white collar/privileged professions?
We should be concerned about creating the best society for everyone. That means sometimes we need to suppress our immediate/unconscious reactions.
We should be concerned about creating the best society for everyone. That means sometimes we need to suppress our immediate/unconscious reactions.
You're not answering the question that was asked.
Are you going to keep them in prison forever? Are you going to let them out, to be jobless?
Are you going to keep them in prison forever? Are you going to let them out, to be jobless?
It seems like you are viewing prison sentences as a 'price' for commiting murder, rape or some other violent crime. As long as you pay the price society must welcome you back with open arms. People will choose who to associate with based on their past behaviors and if you commit violent crime it is likely that most people will no longer want to associate with you.
Queue the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode where Wesley breaks a greenhouse window and all crimes are punished by immediate lethal injection.
So by that logic, you’d be as comfortable being entirely surrounded by former violent criminals at your work as you would be seated exclusively by citizens with spotless records?
Did they complete a sentence that was decided to be appropriate for the crime they committed? Then I don't mind at all. They can't change their past, but they can control their future.
If they are still dangerous after serving their time, then they should be held in prison longer.
If they are still dangerous after serving their time, then they should be held in prison longer.
The problem with this line of thinking is that some how people think that serving time in prison does anything to make someone less likely to commit crime. Our prison system doesn't positively reform people, in fact it almost certainly will make things worse. If you make someone spend 13 years in a prison, whose social rules are defined by violent criminals the persons cultural norms change.
The person doesn't leave prison ready to productively reenter society, they leave prison indoctrinated into prison culture.
If you made a programming error at work, and instead of someone spending time to teach you how you ended up making that mistake, and working to give you the knowledge and tools to not make it again. But instead made you stand in a corner for a fixed duration of time, it would be illogical to assume you would be a better programmer after standing in the corner, its the same with the US prison system.
The person doesn't leave prison ready to productively reenter society, they leave prison indoctrinated into prison culture.
If you made a programming error at work, and instead of someone spending time to teach you how you ended up making that mistake, and working to give you the knowledge and tools to not make it again. But instead made you stand in a corner for a fixed duration of time, it would be illogical to assume you would be a better programmer after standing in the corner, its the same with the US prison system.
I don't disagree with you, but I cannot fault the individual for the failings of the system. I also support efforts to reform and improve the prison system to focus on reform and improvement, rather than punishment.
Society decides that their crimes earns them X years of punishment. After they've done their X years, there should be no need to punish them more. I sympathize with the victims of the convict's crimes which depending on the crime, no value of X would suffice. But we are all human, and sometimes showing a shred of compassion is what motivates the real reform.
Society decides that their crimes earns them X years of punishment. After they've done their X years, there should be no need to punish them more. I sympathize with the victims of the convict's crimes which depending on the crime, no value of X would suffice. But we are all human, and sometimes showing a shred of compassion is what motivates the real reform.
Anyone could be a potential murderer. I had a coworker who committed murder-suicide, and I nobody saw it coming.
In the same vein, anyone could be rehabilitated.
In the same vein, anyone could be rehabilitated.
> anyone could be rehabilitated
Many systems disagree with this and have sentencing systems which allow a true life sentence. Sometimes this is due to a mental health aspect.
Many systems disagree with this and have sentencing systems which allow a true life sentence. Sometimes this is due to a mental health aspect.
Putting an ill person in jail for a lifetime sounds extremely wrong.
I agree. But letting someone who is dangerous live free in the community isn’t ideal either. The line is thin and blurry and has a ton of examples of being managed poorly.
Reading these stories always stirs emotions. It's great that she landed a job. At the same time, it's hard to not think about how many other folks won't have the same happy chance of circumstances.
When I was 19 I went to federal prison for computer-related crimes. After I was released I tried getting "normal" jobs - Dominos, McDonalds, etc, but had less than stellar luck on that front. I started my own thing doing affiliate marketing and made enough to pay bill. Thankfully this was before I had a family.
Now I've been in the consulting and contracting space for years, worked with/at Fortune 10 companies, HIPAA and PCI regulated shops too. Recently, after a failed start up, I needed to get a "real" job. After the first two offers were pulled back, I changed my interview tactics.
Now, on the very first phone call with a human, I bring up my nearly 20 year old conviction. It's never come up on a background check due to how the vast majority of commercial background checks work. My name, however, is quite unique and news articles are still some top ranking sites about me.
One of my pie-in-the-sky goals is to try my hand at another start up, and in the process build out a program to train other felons with how to program. With all the folks I've been around throughout my career, some of the smartest of them were people I met in prison. There's so much wasted talent there.
When I was 19 I went to federal prison for computer-related crimes. After I was released I tried getting "normal" jobs - Dominos, McDonalds, etc, but had less than stellar luck on that front. I started my own thing doing affiliate marketing and made enough to pay bill. Thankfully this was before I had a family.
Now I've been in the consulting and contracting space for years, worked with/at Fortune 10 companies, HIPAA and PCI regulated shops too. Recently, after a failed start up, I needed to get a "real" job. After the first two offers were pulled back, I changed my interview tactics.
Now, on the very first phone call with a human, I bring up my nearly 20 year old conviction. It's never come up on a background check due to how the vast majority of commercial background checks work. My name, however, is quite unique and news articles are still some top ranking sites about me.
One of my pie-in-the-sky goals is to try my hand at another start up, and in the process build out a program to train other felons with how to program. With all the folks I've been around throughout my career, some of the smartest of them were people I met in prison. There's so much wasted talent there.
I don't have a record, but, through the extracurricular volunteer work I've done for the last 40 years, I've had a lot of interaction with people who have spent some quality time, getting free room and board; from Minimum Security Federal pens, to supermax and 23-hour solitary.
One thing that I can tell you, is that there's no way to apply "one size fits all" templates to them all. Some will shine like you wouldn't believe, if given the chance, and some would, at best, be crappy employees. I doubt there would be a problem with workplace violence, with most, but it's entirely possible that you could end up with a "dud."
In short, each case needs to be handled on an individual basis, with careful, extensive human interaction. Lots of "tell me a story" interviews. Coding tests are likely to be useless.
Since that kind of employee search seems to be a thing of the past, in our industry, it can be tough for these folks to get in the door. This woman went to bat for her friend. There's not a whole lot of folks willing to do that.
BTW: The US is horrible for that kind of thing. Even a small misdemeanor can be a scarlet letter for life. I knew a guy that was busted in [an Ivy-League] college for pot (a misdemeanor), and pursued a career in banking. Even a quarter-century later, that bust followed him, and stunted his chances (he was real good).
One of the most intelligent people I ever met (and I have met a lot of really smart people) was a violent felon that went away at 17, and was profoundly twisted by the experience. He was never able to readjust properly. That marvelous intellect was never able to benefit us.
One thing that I can tell you, is that there's no way to apply "one size fits all" templates to them all. Some will shine like you wouldn't believe, if given the chance, and some would, at best, be crappy employees. I doubt there would be a problem with workplace violence, with most, but it's entirely possible that you could end up with a "dud."
In short, each case needs to be handled on an individual basis, with careful, extensive human interaction. Lots of "tell me a story" interviews. Coding tests are likely to be useless.
Since that kind of employee search seems to be a thing of the past, in our industry, it can be tough for these folks to get in the door. This woman went to bat for her friend. There's not a whole lot of folks willing to do that.
BTW: The US is horrible for that kind of thing. Even a small misdemeanor can be a scarlet letter for life. I knew a guy that was busted in [an Ivy-League] college for pot (a misdemeanor), and pursued a career in banking. Even a quarter-century later, that bust followed him, and stunted his chances (he was real good).
One of the most intelligent people I ever met (and I have met a lot of really smart people) was a violent felon that went away at 17, and was profoundly twisted by the experience. He was never able to readjust properly. That marvelous intellect was never able to benefit us.
I'm kinda surprised your guy got in trouble. Many banking places don't even drug test..
It was a school thing. I never heard the story. He was uncomfortable talking about it, so I never pressed.
Once it's on the record, though, HR will always find it.
I've known folks from the finance industry for thirty years. They are...interesting characters. The Wolf of Wall Street kinda made them look like choirboys.
Once it's on the record, though, HR will always find it.
I've known folks from the finance industry for thirty years. They are...interesting characters. The Wolf of Wall Street kinda made them look like choirboys.
I've heard of similar situations and I'm glad people with the power to help lift others up are taking the initiative.
George Taylor (previously President of Untappd) has been working with active gang members to start a brewery called TruColors. Turns out a lot of gang violence can be attributed to the economic situation of a community and providing employment opportunities to people who have been previously incarcerated can improve the economic situation of these communities. https://trucolors.co/
"In Your Shoes" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GdT_4gFuuw
George Taylor (previously President of Untappd) has been working with active gang members to start a brewery called TruColors. Turns out a lot of gang violence can be attributed to the economic situation of a community and providing employment opportunities to people who have been previously incarcerated can improve the economic situation of these communities. https://trucolors.co/
"In Your Shoes" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GdT_4gFuuw
Indeed. In Los Angeles, there's Homeboy Industries, started by Jesuit priest Greg Boyle. https://homeboyindustries.org If I were to win the lottery I would spend a month with Greg to understand how things work and can be replicated then build something similar on the west side of Chicago.
Anyone has the right to feel uneasy by the thought of a an ex-con working with them and all that. But you need to ask yourself what the alternatives are?
I remember seeing some general statistics, most crime are committed by men of a certain age range, and rarely after 30 do people commit more crimes. Some of it can be explained by hormones and life pressures.
Now there's exceptions, but you need to trust the prison system (I know that sounds hard) to figure out who is still a likely deranged individual needing to be kept locked up some more, and who is rehabilitated.
A rehabilitated person that has served its time, if not given a chance to equal opportunity afterwards, is more likely to again be put under life pressures that doesn't set them up to be law abiding. Even if they're law abiding, we still lose on good work they could do, by not giving them opportunities.
This is the things I try and remind myself of when I feel the unease. But rationally speaking, I don't see any better alternatives. The problem doesn't go away by just ignoring it so...
I remember seeing some general statistics, most crime are committed by men of a certain age range, and rarely after 30 do people commit more crimes. Some of it can be explained by hormones and life pressures.
Now there's exceptions, but you need to trust the prison system (I know that sounds hard) to figure out who is still a likely deranged individual needing to be kept locked up some more, and who is rehabilitated.
A rehabilitated person that has served its time, if not given a chance to equal opportunity afterwards, is more likely to again be put under life pressures that doesn't set them up to be law abiding. Even if they're law abiding, we still lose on good work they could do, by not giving them opportunities.
This is the things I try and remind myself of when I feel the unease. But rationally speaking, I don't see any better alternatives. The problem doesn't go away by just ignoring it so...
I had a roommate just after college that was a civil engineer and had a decent job. Upon getting to know him and his other friends I found out he'd done time for robbery and trafficking.
He had come from a really poor back lground. His first year in college he saw all these kids with BMWs with rich parents. He decided he wanted one too so he made it happen.
Being given a second chance worked for him.
He had come from a really poor back lground. His first year in college he saw all these kids with BMWs with rich parents. He decided he wanted one too so he made it happen.
Being given a second chance worked for him.
A relevant need gap was posted on my problem validation platform recently for "Offline programming course for prisoners"[1].
The OP was trying to find materials to teach programming to a friend in prison and couldn't find satisfactory results.
[1]https://needgap.com/problems/152-offline-programming-course-...
The OP was trying to find materials to teach programming to a friend in prison and couldn't find satisfactory results.
[1]https://needgap.com/problems/152-offline-programming-course-...
The way that ex-felons are treated in society is despicable, no wonder there's a 55% recidivism rate if you get blocked at every attempt to becoming a productive member of society.
The Last Mile seems like a great program to share our tech skills and knowledge with people who really need a leg up. I will be signing up as a volunteer today.
The Last Mile seems like a great program to share our tech skills and knowledge with people who really need a leg up. I will be signing up as a volunteer today.
> A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
There is nothing more to say, than this also applies to ex-felons.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
There is nothing more to say, than this also applies to ex-felons.
>The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.
- Ghandi
- Ghandi
I would be very interested in understanding how much of that recidivism rate is attributable to "ex-felon discrimination" or whatever we might call it as opposed to other variables.
It gets very philosophical fast. Prison is for punishment, rehabilitation, protection of society and is there to serve as a deterrent.
Over emphasis on the need to punish seems to cause a lot of long term harm.
One arm of the 'defund the police' camp wants to take rehabilitation and mental health issues away from the criminal justice system.
Although practically, the sharks in the private prison industry have already tasted blood. They are smart enough to pivot, leaving us with the same perverse incentives, or worse. Way more people can forgive a drug conviction than an involuntary commitment to a mental health institution, and abuse is harder report.
Although practically, the sharks in the private prison industry have already tasted blood. They are smart enough to pivot, leaving us with the same perverse incentives, or worse. Way more people can forgive a drug conviction than an involuntary commitment to a mental health institution, and abuse is harder report.
The private prison industry is a relatively small portion of total incarceration capacity; the real sharks in that area are the prison guards' unions.
Afaik, obstacles are not just prison. It is how ex prisoners have much limited housing options, employment options. And how those living with them (like family) have them limited housing options too.
I don't dispute that, but I'm genuinely not sure how that fits in with my comment. Could you clarify?
Too obtuse, sorry.
US prisons are heavy on the punishment aspect of imprisonment relative to the system where I am, NZ.
If you emphasis punishment rather than rehabilitation, you are setting the scene for discrimination post release. It’s a sort of chicken and egg situation.
I appreciate the irony in claiming this in a thread on someone’s hard earned achievement post release.
If you emphasis punishment rather than rehabilitation, you are setting the scene for discrimination post release. It’s a sort of chicken and egg situation.
I appreciate the irony in claiming this in a thread on someone’s hard earned achievement post release.
Felon disenfranchisement is also disgustingly anti-democratic and further segregates them from society at large.
If you have enough felons for them to affect the outcome, your problem isn't that they have the right to vote, it's that you're arresting too many people.
If you have enough felons for them to affect the outcome, your problem isn't that they have the right to vote, it's that you're arresting too many people.
In Texas, voting rights are restored automatically upon completion of the sentence. It seems very fair to me. I don't consider it a hardship. I actually feel like it's a benefit to not have to worry about voting in this election.
As someone with a civics background once explained to me, what you don't want are laws that inspire contempt. Contempt for one law tends to blur into contempt for The Law, and then you've got anarchy.
This is a pretty good argument in favor of technical challenge styled interviews i.e. what can you do instead of what have you done.
Clearly a controversial point, but I actually sort of agree. I hate technical challenge interviews because I think they measure the wrong thing, but then we have a problem of only wanting to hire senior people with big portfolios, because someone else has essentially done the vetting - this makes it harder and harder for those without experience, for whatever reason, to get a job.
Clearly we need some way to evaluate entry level employees who wouldn't have had time to build a portfolio, it just remains an open question as to what an effective method would be.
Clearly we need some way to evaluate entry level employees who wouldn't have had time to build a portfolio, it just remains an open question as to what an effective method would be.
While that works for entry level jobs where direct algorithmic knowledge is the most important, it's hard to test if someone can lead a team of 6 to finish a quarter of a million dollar project on time and on schedule through a 2 hour whiteboard conversation.
Algorithmic tests aren't great for any level. You want to ask someone to solve practical technical tasks that are relevant to the job they are applying for. For an entry level job this may be a programming task (build this one screen). For a more senior position you'd want to ask about things like architecture and practical trade-offs. You could use a whiteboard for this: I don't think it's whiteboards people object to. It's the irrelevant algorithmic questions.
Very true. I didn't use the right term there for what an entry level dev does. But I still think that, even if a senior tech can do a decent job elucidating a architecture, that's not proof they can lead, which is similarly important, and the only way to prove that you have the ability is to look at past accomplishments.
> the only way to prove that you have the ability is to look at past accomplishments
I'd argue that past accomplishments don't prove anything either. Or rather, it's impossible to tell whether they were actually responsible for those accomplishments. It's not just architecture you want to ask about. It's the practicalities of choosing libraries, making engineering trade-offs, running a team (if that's part of the job they're applying for). The trick is to ask them questions that they'd only know the answer to if they've actually been there and done that ("What want wrong" and "what problems did you face" are good ones). And to follow up with asking them why they'd make that choice.
I'd argue that past accomplishments don't prove anything either. Or rather, it's impossible to tell whether they were actually responsible for those accomplishments. It's not just architecture you want to ask about. It's the practicalities of choosing libraries, making engineering trade-offs, running a team (if that's part of the job they're applying for). The trick is to ask them questions that they'd only know the answer to if they've actually been there and done that ("What want wrong" and "what problems did you face" are good ones). And to follow up with asking them why they'd make that choice.
In the US even if you get _accused_ of a felony and aren't guilty, it will still haunt you for life because it's in your permanent record forever and if employers had to choose between two equal candidates they'll most likely choose the one with the "clean" record.
I guarantee that if you give every prisoner or delinquent to do what he likes or a normal job, he will be like the rest of us, a completely normal person. Bad government and lack of smart strategy and vision makes criminals, nothing more.
> I guarantee that if you give every prisoner or delinquent to do what he likes or a normal job, he will be like the rest of us, a completely normal person. Bad government and lack of smart strategy and vision makes criminals, nothing more.
That's a very strong statement.
Certainly there are a lot of people that fall into gangs, etc because they have no other alternatives. But rapists don't rape because their day job is boring. Serial killers aren't in it for the money, either. Don't be naive.
That's a very strong statement.
Certainly there are a lot of people that fall into gangs, etc because they have no other alternatives. But rapists don't rape because their day job is boring. Serial killers aren't in it for the money, either. Don't be naive.
Of course, I think every disease should be treated at the root. Maybe the father of the serial killer had a boring or inhumane job or they didn’t have enough money to send him to fancy college and projected all his frustrations on the children and the family and that child has the potential to become very dangerous to society. I agree not everyone would recover but a good percentage.
In some cases yes, in many cases no. As someone who grew up with a small handful of delinquents (in and out of prison etc), they are not the types to be able to hold a regular job like a normal person. Often there is a personality disorder (borderline disorder, antisocial disorder, often a few disorders together) which doesn't magically go away with maturity and opportunity. If they can find a way to treat the underlying disorder (many don't) then maybe...
The real tragedy is, that this story isn't the norm.
Here is a comparison to a maximum security prison in Norway:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNpehw-Yjvs
Here is a comparison to a maximum security prison in Norway:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNpehw-Yjvs
Everyone deserves a chance to be better. I hope more people convicted of crimes are able to get the opportunity to build a better life for themselves. And I hope more employers are inclined to give those opportunities.
If you're in Seattle, consider supporting Unloop, https://www.un-loop.org/, with donations of time or money. [EDIT to add detail:] They help people re-entering society establish tech skills and find work.
I've been volunteering with Unloop for a few months, as both a guest speaker and 1:1 coach. I feel myself becoming less cynical about tech with every interaction.
I've been volunteering with Unloop for a few months, as both a guest speaker and 1:1 coach. I feel myself becoming less cynical about tech with every interaction.
I believe that PCI compliance in the US requires that background checks be run on employees with access to the protected environment. I also believe that that is the only requirement: Run a background check. They don't say you have to do anything with it, or even read the thing when it comes back.
A old cow-orker of mine had a bullshit felony for "computer hacking" from quite a while ago. Trust was never an issue with this person.
A old cow-orker of mine had a bullshit felony for "computer hacking" from quite a while ago. Trust was never an issue with this person.
I encourage everyone to check out https://thelastmile.org/
Having read this today, went home and watched https://skidrowmarathon.com/ tonight. Each of these are a way of showing the power of giving people dignity.
Any public or government job will require a background check, most private jobs don't. That doesn't mean you can't get a government job. I will say that the doors are there, you just have to have the courage to knock.
I don't think it's fair or wise to tell people this, do you any data to support this claim?
I don't know any career track companies that don't do background checks, there are too many services now that make them insanely easy to do, that it's basically uploading a resume and/or filling out the form and you can get results back the same day.
I don't know any career track companies that don't do background checks, there are too many services now that make them insanely easy to do, that it's basically uploading a resume and/or filling out the form and you can get results back the same day.
yes i do cause i've worked in both the government and private sectors. all government jobs required a background check and some even security clearance. quite a few private did also, but most of them don't cause they don't want to spend the money on them or down right don't care about your past cause they have a past themselves. i will say that just because you have a criminal record doesn't mean that you are automatically disqualified. you just have to be upfront and tell before they do the background check. the whole thing is that everyone hates wasting their time. if you tell them up front that you have a history most will thank you and tell you not to worry about it. that is why i'm saying that you have to courage to knock on the door. lots of people see that the job requires a background check and immediately move on disqualifying themselves.
Firstly, I'm not saying not to try, certainly you should, hard to get a job without applying.
But I do not think its a fair expectation to say "most of them don't cause they don't want to spend the money on them or down right don't care about your past."
I've never seen anything that what would lead me to believe that "most" is accurate, and at best "some" would be closer to accurate.
Basic background checks aren't expensive, and take almost no time to complete, goodhire is an example where even small companies can get a background check done for $30-$50 per applicant.
Again, I'm not saying don't apply, but I don't think its a good idea to tell people "most don't care" because they are going to likely face an uphill battle, and that many people are going to hold a criminal history against them.
I do agree that being upfront about it, is the best choice, and if I was to make a recommendation, it would be to seek expungement where possible, and stack your training, certifications, and references as much as possible to attempt to overcome the issue.
But I do not think its a fair expectation to say "most of them don't cause they don't want to spend the money on them or down right don't care about your past."
I've never seen anything that what would lead me to believe that "most" is accurate, and at best "some" would be closer to accurate.
Basic background checks aren't expensive, and take almost no time to complete, goodhire is an example where even small companies can get a background check done for $30-$50 per applicant.
Again, I'm not saying don't apply, but I don't think its a good idea to tell people "most don't care" because they are going to likely face an uphill battle, and that many people are going to hold a criminal history against them.
I do agree that being upfront about it, is the best choice, and if I was to make a recommendation, it would be to seek expungement where possible, and stack your training, certifications, and references as much as possible to attempt to overcome the issue.
This is the more noteworthy as it is currently not exactly easy to find a job as software engineer, even if you have one or two decades of experience in the field and no criminal record.
I think it's really cool that we're teaching people in prison how to code, sincerely.
I hope soon we can start teaching kids in Idaho where I grew up how to code as well....
I hope soon we can start teaching kids in Idaho where I grew up how to code as well....
Credit goes to this woman and the companies who give felons a second chance. This kind of news makes me a little less cynical.
Well, Java programming can definitely be felt like punishment. I hope they don't torture prisoners with /that/.
This is an interesting story, but if I had the choice to hire a felon (yes, once you commit a felony, even after serving time you are still a felon) or a scrappy coding bootcamp grad I'd take the bootcamp grad every time.
Especially if I'm a founder with significant skin in the game, why would I risk my money, time and hard work on someone with a recorded record of making poor choices when there are hoards of others who haven't broken the law?
Especially if I'm a founder with significant skin in the game, why would I risk my money, time and hard work on someone with a recorded record of making poor choices when there are hoards of others who haven't broken the law?
> why would I risk my money, time and hard work on someone with a recorded record of making poor choices when there are hoards of others who haven't broken the law?
This assumes that your scrappy bootcamp grad hasn't broken the law. In fact the more likely scenario is that they have broken the law multiple times, they just were never caught and charged for it. Unless we are suddenly going to believe that young adults and teenagers don't have an affinity for recreational marijuana or underage drinking or doing any of the various stupid things young people do.
Your mentality applies to yourself as well: why would any investor or employee risk their money, time, and hard work on someone with no proven track record, when they could throw it at the hoards of other CEOs who have demonstrated the ability to profit? You wouldn't want someone to look over you just because you never got the chance to demonstrate your potential; it would be equally unfair to look over someone else who served their time and is now looking for opportunities to demonstrate themselves.
> (yes, once you commit a felony, even after serving time you are still a felon)
Then what is the point of imprisoning felons? Why don't we just kill them all? If there is no way to recover from being a felon, why let them live or let them out?
Sounds harsh, of course. The answer should be that once you have gone to prison and gotten out, your crime is behind you, and unless you are actively committing crimes again you should be judged equally with someone with no record.
This assumes that your scrappy bootcamp grad hasn't broken the law. In fact the more likely scenario is that they have broken the law multiple times, they just were never caught and charged for it. Unless we are suddenly going to believe that young adults and teenagers don't have an affinity for recreational marijuana or underage drinking or doing any of the various stupid things young people do.
Your mentality applies to yourself as well: why would any investor or employee risk their money, time, and hard work on someone with no proven track record, when they could throw it at the hoards of other CEOs who have demonstrated the ability to profit? You wouldn't want someone to look over you just because you never got the chance to demonstrate your potential; it would be equally unfair to look over someone else who served their time and is now looking for opportunities to demonstrate themselves.
> (yes, once you commit a felony, even after serving time you are still a felon)
Then what is the point of imprisoning felons? Why don't we just kill them all? If there is no way to recover from being a felon, why let them live or let them out?
Sounds harsh, of course. The answer should be that once you have gone to prison and gotten out, your crime is behind you, and unless you are actively committing crimes again you should be judged equally with someone with no record.
Even if you've "reformed your past ways of crime" after serving jail time and "learned your lessons":
non-felon > felon
Especially in terms of potential risks to my staff or property. Basically, would you hire a babysitter with a criminal record or one without a criminal record and good references?
Maybe my employees break the law when they're not at work, but that's none of my business. If one of my employees is indicted or cited for rioting / DUI, welp I'll fire them on the spot.
Also, re "all crimes are behind you once you leave prison" - how would you explain repeat offenders? At this point I'm trusting my business against statistics of a felon committing a crime again lmao.
non-felon > felon
Especially in terms of potential risks to my staff or property. Basically, would you hire a babysitter with a criminal record or one without a criminal record and good references?
Maybe my employees break the law when they're not at work, but that's none of my business. If one of my employees is indicted or cited for rioting / DUI, welp I'll fire them on the spot.
Also, re "all crimes are behind you once you leave prison" - how would you explain repeat offenders? At this point I'm trusting my business against statistics of a felon committing a crime again lmao.
> would you hire a babysitter with a criminal record or one without a criminal record and good references?
I wouldn't hire a babysitter at all because I wouldn't trust strangers around my children. It doesn't matter what their record is.
But for my business? Property can be insured, code can be copyrighted, lawsuits can be filed. I have recourse if one of my employees does something stupid. And on the other side, my employee can quit or sue me if I do something wrong.
> how would you explain repeat offenders?
People choosing to hire everyone else over felons, leaving them no choice but to go back to the same bad people or the same bad crimes. Why would a felon go back to risking their life on a daily basis against other murderers and muggers when they could have a comfy $12-20/hr job in an actual workplace with civilized coworkers?
I wouldn't hire a babysitter at all because I wouldn't trust strangers around my children. It doesn't matter what their record is.
But for my business? Property can be insured, code can be copyrighted, lawsuits can be filed. I have recourse if one of my employees does something stupid. And on the other side, my employee can quit or sue me if I do something wrong.
> how would you explain repeat offenders?
People choosing to hire everyone else over felons, leaving them no choice but to go back to the same bad people or the same bad crimes. Why would a felon go back to risking their life on a daily basis against other murderers and muggers when they could have a comfy $12-20/hr job in an actual workplace with civilized coworkers?
It's interesting seeing people get upset at this. I'm a felon - and this makes sense to me. It's your business, you should choose who works for you.
While it's illegal in the US for most places to outright not hire you solely because you're a felon, you'll have a hard time actually proving that.
If you go by the numbers, felons are more likely to break the law again than folks that aren't felons. You can argue up and down the _why_ around this, but that's the numbers.
I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's your right to hold your opinion and run your business in a way you see fit.
While it's illegal in the US for most places to outright not hire you solely because you're a felon, you'll have a hard time actually proving that.
If you go by the numbers, felons are more likely to break the law again than folks that aren't felons. You can argue up and down the _why_ around this, but that's the numbers.
I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's your right to hold your opinion and run your business in a way you see fit.
Thank you. You are an awesome person. It's a distant dream to have a society where one can restart anytime.
How cool would it be if she got hired to work on another update for Prison Architect?
Congratulations. The world need such examples.
tldr: "I reached out to a friend who is Head of Engineering at a ~500 person fintech company."
I get why this is being downvoted but it's still a very good point: an ex-con needed a previously-established connection with someone who just so happens to be CTO of a reasonably successful startup who knows another engineering lead at a fintech company who took mercy on the ex-con's predicament to get a job.
It's brazen, I admit, but the ex-con part can be substituted for other more fortunate people, like those with little experience, non-traditional backgrounds, those who never got advanced degrees (undergraduates mostly). The oh-so-different software industry isn't that different from any other industry these days in that it's more about who you know rather than what you know to find employment, but the added bonus for software types is that often enough it's both! Maybe I'll look back at this comment and feel it's overly pessimistic, but I hope that's because things changed for the better.
It's brazen, I admit, but the ex-con part can be substituted for other more fortunate people, like those with little experience, non-traditional backgrounds, those who never got advanced degrees (undergraduates mostly). The oh-so-different software industry isn't that different from any other industry these days in that it's more about who you know rather than what you know to find employment, but the added bonus for software types is that often enough it's both! Maybe I'll look back at this comment and feel it's overly pessimistic, but I hope that's because things changed for the better.
I didn't mean for my comment to be pure snark. I think I misread the headline or it was changed.
I mean yeah in this particular case, but the broader point still stands that prison needs to be less of a career death sentence and employers should open up to the idea of hiring former prisoners. And that there needs to be substantial reform for the prison system and that you should join a support group similar to hers to help these people out.
That's true. I either misread the headline or it was changed from "_How_ my friend got a job at...". Probably the former.
Yes, this bolsters the author's point that it is essential to create more opportunities because what she had to do to help her friend was only possible because of her extraordinary connections. The author herself points out that most parolees will not be released to the Bay Area with a tech exec friend willing to spend many hours to stick their neck out for them.
[deleted]
Comes to show, you still need connections to make it. Connections are everything, skill and intellect is largely secondary when removed from how well you network and gain friends in the industry or otherwise.
I'm very heartened by the quantity--and quality of responses addressing the original post. When I launched my new company, 70 Million Jobs, on Hacker News, it emerged as one of the platform's most commented-upon posts.
In the intervening three years since, my team and I have served on the front lines of the efforts to help the 70 million Americans--1 in 3 adults--with a record land a job.
First, the facts: there's a ~75% chance that after release from jail or prison, an individual will be rearrested. Nearly all of these people will be unemployed at time of arrest.
Contrariwise, those that do manage to land a job almost never recidivate, and in fact, go on to lead satisfying, productive lives.
Perhaps counter-intuitively, these folks do incredibly well on the job: a SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management) report found that 80% of hiring managers believe that when hiring someone with a record, "the quality of hire is as good as if not better than when hiring someone with no record."
While many companies hang on to age-old myths relating to on-the-job behavior of this population (they'll be trouble makers, they'll commit crimes on the job, they'll be violent, they'll disrupt our workforce), the data suggest the very opposite. In fact, because they generally have so few opportunities, they tend to work harder with a better attitude than co-workers, because they know another job is not necessarily available.
I continue to find it shocking that companies that pride themselves on making data-driven decisions have in place hiring matrices that hearken back to another time when attitudes--and crimes--were very different. Most HR professionals have no idea why existing parameters are what they are.
It behooves us as a society to rethink our approach to criminal justice in general and reentry, specifically:
1. Almost everyone incarcerated will be released eventually. If they can't find a reasonable job, they can't buy food, care for their families and put a roof over their heads. What would you do under such circumstances. 2. The economic cost of reincarceration is estimated at more that $100 billion annually. 3. The social cost of recidivism is inestimable: lives are ruined, families are torn apart, communities are decimated, new victims are created, cops are shot, etc. 4. An intelligent plan to get folks working would directly correlate to reduced recidivism. The net cost would drop dramatically enough so as to fund the homeless crisis.
People with sophisticated skills--live programmers--have it much easier than the rank-in-file incarcerated population, who often have little education and less job experience.
Rarely are important social issues so cut and dry: Get people jobs and things get much better. Rarer still are issues that Republicans and Democrats can agree upon.
This is an imminently fixable problem.
In the intervening three years since, my team and I have served on the front lines of the efforts to help the 70 million Americans--1 in 3 adults--with a record land a job.
First, the facts: there's a ~75% chance that after release from jail or prison, an individual will be rearrested. Nearly all of these people will be unemployed at time of arrest.
Contrariwise, those that do manage to land a job almost never recidivate, and in fact, go on to lead satisfying, productive lives.
Perhaps counter-intuitively, these folks do incredibly well on the job: a SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management) report found that 80% of hiring managers believe that when hiring someone with a record, "the quality of hire is as good as if not better than when hiring someone with no record."
While many companies hang on to age-old myths relating to on-the-job behavior of this population (they'll be trouble makers, they'll commit crimes on the job, they'll be violent, they'll disrupt our workforce), the data suggest the very opposite. In fact, because they generally have so few opportunities, they tend to work harder with a better attitude than co-workers, because they know another job is not necessarily available.
I continue to find it shocking that companies that pride themselves on making data-driven decisions have in place hiring matrices that hearken back to another time when attitudes--and crimes--were very different. Most HR professionals have no idea why existing parameters are what they are.
It behooves us as a society to rethink our approach to criminal justice in general and reentry, specifically:
1. Almost everyone incarcerated will be released eventually. If they can't find a reasonable job, they can't buy food, care for their families and put a roof over their heads. What would you do under such circumstances. 2. The economic cost of reincarceration is estimated at more that $100 billion annually. 3. The social cost of recidivism is inestimable: lives are ruined, families are torn apart, communities are decimated, new victims are created, cops are shot, etc. 4. An intelligent plan to get folks working would directly correlate to reduced recidivism. The net cost would drop dramatically enough so as to fund the homeless crisis.
People with sophisticated skills--live programmers--have it much easier than the rank-in-file incarcerated population, who often have little education and less job experience.
Rarely are important social issues so cut and dry: Get people jobs and things get much better. Rarer still are issues that Republicans and Democrats can agree upon.
This is an imminently fixable problem.
[deleted]
"Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism" --Hubert Horatio Humphrey Jr. (b. 1911)
Meanwhile, I can't get a job because I don't have the typical cult mentality
alexashka(5)
That is wonderful news to read. In America, the legal systems convictions really carry no valid meaning. The common person gets punished with a felony for taking a crap, while the "elite" get away with literal murder.
I'm sorry; if I'm aware of a violent crime history, I'm tossing that application into the recycle bin.
Do you want to be exposing co-workers to someone like that?
Isn't an organization exposing themselves to liability? Suppose you knowingly hire someone with a violent history and they cause a violent incident.
Do you want to be exposing co-workers to someone like that?
Isn't an organization exposing themselves to liability? Suppose you knowingly hire someone with a violent history and they cause a violent incident.
I do wonder why people are so motivated to help the perpetrators of violent crimes. You could take that same energy and help the victims instead. I doubt whoever suffered whatever violence it was that merited 13 years has forgotten the whole thing by now. I doubt they're stoked to see their attacker off to start a cushy new job. You don't get 13 years for something trivial.* If after that time you find it to get a job, well, you kinda have to wear that.
*for non-violent stuff, like drugs, obviously you can. I'm referring to this specific example, which is described as violent. Non-violence shouldn't impact your future in the same way.
*for non-violent stuff, like drugs, obviously you can. I'm referring to this specific example, which is described as violent. Non-violence shouldn't impact your future in the same way.
We Americans are bad at forgiving. If someone commits a crime we think they should get whatever comes their way, but people make mistakes and I want to live in a society where someone can screw up, but work hard to improve themselves and become a productive member of society. If you have two children and one is constantly bullying the other, you dont take the bullied child out for icecream everytime because that doesn’t improve the situation in the long term. You put the time and energy into the misbehaving one to correct the situation forever.
If we don't then there are only two end states for people sentenced for a crime: permanent incarceration or the death penalty. People who can't get jobs, can't rent a place to live, and have no hope of improving their situation have much higher rates of re-offending. Duh. Why wouldn't they?
Do you imagine the victim of a violent crime wants to see the offender crushed by society to such an extent that they offend again? Do you imagine the victim wants the offender's children to suffer as well? How many generations of pain and suffering should be imposed? How many more victims will that spawn? How much misery should we be willing to impose and on how many people?
Do you imagine the victim of a violent crime wants to see the offender crushed by society to such an extent that they offend again? Do you imagine the victim wants the offender's children to suffer as well? How many generations of pain and suffering should be imposed? How many more victims will that spawn? How much misery should we be willing to impose and on how many people?
There's no shortage of jobs for both groups. It's never been one-or-the-other.
We can either admit that prison sentences aren't actually meant to rehabilitate criminals and they exist solely as a way of inflicting punishment (as you imply), or we can take the folks coming out the back end of that system and give them opportunities to rejoin society as a productive citizen. The attitude of "you made a bad choice, therefore you're no longer worthy of opportunity" is exactly why the United States has the highest imprisonment rates in the world: when folks come out of prison and have every door to rebuilding their life shut, what do you expect is going to happen? That they move away to become a monk in a cave somewhere?
It's funny to me to see HN comments so strongly opposed to "cancel culture" but then as soon as someone talks about folks being released from prison, it's "If after that time you find it to get a job, well, you kinda have to wear that."
We can either admit that prison sentences aren't actually meant to rehabilitate criminals and they exist solely as a way of inflicting punishment (as you imply), or we can take the folks coming out the back end of that system and give them opportunities to rejoin society as a productive citizen. The attitude of "you made a bad choice, therefore you're no longer worthy of opportunity" is exactly why the United States has the highest imprisonment rates in the world: when folks come out of prison and have every door to rebuilding their life shut, what do you expect is going to happen? That they move away to become a monk in a cave somewhere?
It's funny to me to see HN comments so strongly opposed to "cancel culture" but then as soon as someone talks about folks being released from prison, it's "If after that time you find it to get a job, well, you kinda have to wear that."
Prison in the U.S. is traumatic and life-ruining by design and people who are imprisoned become victims themselves. Not only that, but a huge number of offenders have previously been the victim of a crime, or will be after they're released. The world is not made up of attackers and sufferers, it's made up of people. You can waste your time allocating empathy based on your own flawed moral calculus or you can just try to see people as individuals and treat them accordingly. Note that this could also mean treating people worse than the justice system did.
If the empathy-allocating thing appeals to you, you can think about it in terms of externalities. If you can prevent recidivism, you can proactively "help the victims" by preventing their victimization in the first place. What drives recidivism? Primarily, poverty, unemployment, social marginalization, untreated mental health issues. People with no options will act as if they don't have options.
If the empathy-allocating thing appeals to you, you can think about it in terms of externalities. If you can prevent recidivism, you can proactively "help the victims" by preventing their victimization in the first place. What drives recidivism? Primarily, poverty, unemployment, social marginalization, untreated mental health issues. People with no options will act as if they don't have options.
Because there's already endless energy and motivation for helping the victims, but many like you openly question whether former criminals should even be able to get a job. It's no surprise that some find the energy to focus on problems like this that are overlooked by most and often ignored.
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?
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?
I don't think that someone who commits homicide should be allowed into a job that enables the employee to be violent, like policing. The same way I don't think a pedophile should work at a day care, and someone convicted of insider trading shouldn't be working at an investment firm.
But that doesn't mean they should be excluded from professions that don't put them in an escalated position to recommit.
But that doesn't mean they should be excluded from professions that don't put them in an escalated position to recommit.
Let the child molester work in a bank and the fraudster work in a daycare.
You're not making a good argument for your position. In this context, being a pedophile (distinct from the act of abusing children) is closer to being a racist (distinct from the act of abusing people of a different race) than to being a bank robber.
Also, why construction and retail? A remote-work programming position seems less dangerous for the public, even following your reasoning.
Also, why construction and retail? A remote-work programming position seems less dangerous for the public, even following your reasoning.
I think there’s a reasonable middle ground, which is: employers can discriminate based on record only if that crime has a direct relationship to the nature of the employment and the position provides a clear opportunity for abuse in the same fashion as the original crime. Ie people who commit fraud can’t work in financial services, people who hurt children can’t work in education/childcare, people convicted of corruption can’t become cops, etc. But there should be a process, over time, to cleanse even these records (although perhaps in practice there would be carve-outs for particularly heinous offenses...). This doesn’t seem particularly limiting, from my perspective, but protects against the extremes you outlined.
Sure, I kind agree. But- as an employer, am I mandated to hire a pedophile for my software developer job? I just object morally, and the company is my private property. Is this really a good use of state power, to compel me to hire an evil person?
Anyways, it'd be impossible to enforce, because I could just say the pedophile failed my coding test. Even if he sued me, it'd be very unlikely to prove his case, and he's probably starting at a deficit with a court.
The issue is that people here are confusing levels of analysis- 'society' should help ex-offenders find gainful employment, but I am not 'society', I am just one company. Society should also clean up pollution, but that doesn't mean that I'm personally obligated to scrub a Superfund site myself
Anyways, it'd be impossible to enforce, because I could just say the pedophile failed my coding test. Even if he sued me, it'd be very unlikely to prove his case, and he's probably starting at a deficit with a court.
The issue is that people here are confusing levels of analysis- 'society' should help ex-offenders find gainful employment, but I am not 'society', I am just one company. Society should also clean up pollution, but that doesn't mean that I'm personally obligated to scrub a Superfund site myself
No one's calling for any mandate, given that the system is currently so stacked against former felons that this worst-case scenario you've posited would require a complete 180 swing into the opposite direction. We're talking about any action that would nudge the status quo, not flip it on its head and introduce dramatic new problems.
> but that doesn't mean that I'm personally obligated to scrub a Superfund site myself
No, but you should probably pay your taxes that go into such efforts, and corporate philanthropy does become a (socially) obligatory activity for companies that reach a certain size and success.
> but that doesn't mean that I'm personally obligated to scrub a Superfund site myself
No, but you should probably pay your taxes that go into such efforts, and corporate philanthropy does become a (socially) obligatory activity for companies that reach a certain size and success.
Really weird example. So a daycare should hire a pedophile if he wasn't ever convicted?
Your comment has its share of weirdness as well.
Much of crime is driven by poverty. If the consequence of poverty-driven crime is more poverty, then this negative feedback loop turns society into an incarceral state.
This is the US in a nutshell.
This is the US in a nutshell.
Being a pedophile is driven by poverty?
Anyways, most social science research has not found a poverty-crime correlation. Would you mind answering some of my specific examples, rather than trafficking in generalities? Should a daycare hire a convicted pedophile? Should a bank hire a fraudster? Law enforcement, an ex-gang member?
Anyways, most social science research has not found a poverty-crime correlation. Would you mind answering some of my specific examples, rather than trafficking in generalities? Should a daycare hire a convicted pedophile? Should a bank hire a fraudster? Law enforcement, an ex-gang member?
I'm not sure you're arguing in good faith. I suggested no such thing about pedophilia, and numerous articles about research into the cycle of poverty and crime are trivial to look up (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7234816/).
Should you hire someone with a criminal record? Hiring decisions are extremely contextual. Your examples are nowhere near specific enough to address without generalization. But consider that people who have committed white-collar crimes sometimes are hired for their security expertise (e.g. Kevin Mitnick), and I see nothing wrong with that.
Should you hire someone with a criminal record? Hiring decisions are extremely contextual. Your examples are nowhere near specific enough to address without generalization. But consider that people who have committed white-collar crimes sometimes are hired for their security expertise (e.g. Kevin Mitnick), and I see nothing wrong with that.
If someone committed a violent crime and we were worried about them behaving violently again, I would NOT hire them for retail. You have to deal with some real assholes as a retail employee. Sitting at a computer programming is much less infuriating than someone yelling at you about their food order being late.
I 100% honestly feel like tech saved my life. My first job immediately gave me hope that I'm not defined by my past. Went from working in a factory making $7/hr (about 10 yrs ago), to now grossing well over 6 figures (currently making west coast type wages).
Run a small consultancy now and can even subcontract out work to a few friends. I know there's alot of talk on how to make the industry more inclusive (which I agree we need to do better at). But I can't think of any industry as meritocratic as tech.