[HN Gopher] My friend starts her job today, after learning to pr...
___________________________________________________________________
My friend starts her job today, after learning to program in prison
Author : danso
Score : 658 points
Date : 2020-10-01 15:40 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| b20000 wrote:
| "everyone who gets out needs a job" - I totally agree. So why a
| job in tech, or specifically, a software engineering job, and not
| a job in a different field?
| guenthert wrote:
| 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.
| xorfish wrote:
| 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
| HeavyStorm wrote:
| Congratulations. The world need such examples.
| miguelmota wrote:
| 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.
| batt4good wrote:
| 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?
| nexuist wrote:
| > 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.
| batt4good wrote:
| 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.
| nexuist wrote:
| > 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?
| kazinator wrote:
| 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.
| hnracer wrote:
| This is a tough problem because I believe many (not all)
| criminals can't be fully rehabilitated, in the sense that they
| can be made into normal, functioning adults. Often there is an
| underlying personality disorder which combines with personal
| circumstance that leads to the crime. The most common ones I've
| seen from criminals are borderline personality disorder,
| antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic personality
| disorder.
|
| "Though psychopaths make up roughly 1% of the general male adult
| population, they make up between 15% and 25% of the males
| incarcerated in North American prison systems" -
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4059069
|
| These disorders don't go away on their own, and these disorders
| can be difficult to pick up in an interview, often because the
| person is motivated to thoroughly hide it and present the best
| possible image to the interviewer.
|
| Put simply, if you are hiring a criminal that just came out of
| prison, you are far, far, far more likely to be hiring a
| psychopath or someone with a severe personality disorder than you
| would be if you hired from the non-criminal population.
| ransford wrote:
| 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.
| onion2k wrote:
| 70millionjobs is a YC (S17) company that helps people with
| criminal records get jobs -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14911467
| gotoeleven wrote:
| How long until programming javascript becomes the new making
| license plates?
| farseer wrote:
| I rather think incarcerated people will write excellent
| JavaScript.
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| At least there is no way of making the ecosystem any worse
| than it already is.
| boogies wrote:
| Unrolled:
| https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1311349445787672578.html
| thelean12 wrote:
| 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.
| codingdave wrote:
| 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.
| mohamez wrote:
| >probably
|
| People are well justified in their claims not being
| comfortable, but convicted people getting a second chance is
| a must though.
| [deleted]
| dx87 wrote:
| 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.
| anemoiac wrote:
| > *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.
| Meph504 wrote:
| 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?
| chemeng wrote:
| 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.
| taloft wrote:
| 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.
| Meph504 wrote:
| 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.
| toomanybeersies wrote:
| 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).
| content_sesh wrote:
| 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.
| bengale wrote:
| 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.
| moate wrote:
| 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)?
| [deleted]
| clevergadget wrote:
| 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
| thelean12 wrote:
| 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.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| 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.
| thelean12 wrote:
| 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.
| patmcc wrote:
| 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.
| bhawks wrote:
| 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.
| vkou wrote:
| 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?
| bhawks wrote:
| 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.
| patmcc wrote:
| 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.
| sethammons wrote:
| Queue the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode where
| Wesley breaks a greenhouse window and all crimes are
| punished by immediate lethal injection.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| 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.
| thelean12 wrote:
| > 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.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| yroc92 wrote:
| 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?
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| > 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.
| sethammons wrote:
| 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.
| learc83 wrote:
| > 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.
| cjalmeida wrote:
| 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.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> 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).
| Dahoon wrote:
| >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.
| ansible wrote:
| 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.
| themomaster wrote:
| ^This is why I use Puppet.
| sethammons wrote:
| 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.
| Igelau wrote:
| 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.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| 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.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > 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.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| Putting an ill person in jail for a lifetime sounds
| extremely wrong.
| mindcrime wrote:
| _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.
| jasonjayr wrote:
| 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.
| Meph504 wrote:
| 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.
| jasonjayr wrote:
| 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.
| shawndrost wrote:
| 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.
| vincentmarle wrote:
| 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?
| heyoni wrote:
| 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.
| moate wrote:
| 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..."
| heyoni wrote:
| 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.
| Mvandenbergh wrote:
| >"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".
| myself248 wrote:
| 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.
| aero142 wrote:
| 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.
| reader_mode wrote:
| > 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.
| aero142 wrote:
| 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
| notacoward wrote:
| > 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.
| mazlix wrote:
| 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?
| aero142 wrote:
| 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.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| Not to worry you unduly but how many people are you already
| sitting next to capable of "serious, violent crime"?
| stickfigure wrote:
| > 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?
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| 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.
| Tycho wrote:
| I suppose another possibility is that the market just deals
| with it. Through wages, employee retention, or 'danger money'
| for the non-convict colleagues.
| ivalm wrote:
| 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.
| watwut wrote:
| 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.
| thelean12 wrote:
| 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).
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| 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.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| 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.
| thelean12 wrote:
| 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".
| crispyporkbites wrote:
| 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.
| devthrowawy wrote:
| Sure, just not for murders. They can work outside.
| downandout wrote:
| 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...
| Meph504 wrote:
| Recidivism statistics would disagree with this statement,
| nearly have of all violent offenders when released will
| commit another violent crime. https://www.michigan.gov/docume
| nts/corrections/Pew_Report_St...
| downandout wrote:
| 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.
| Meph504 wrote:
| 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,..."
| downandout wrote:
| 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.
| Meph504 wrote:
| 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.
| downandout wrote:
| 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".
| Meph504 wrote:
| 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?
| hash872 wrote:
| 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?
| beisner wrote:
| 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.
| hash872 wrote:
| 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
| Apocryphon wrote:
| 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.
| dbmikus wrote:
| 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.
| intortus wrote:
| 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.
| hash872 wrote:
| 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?
| intortus wrote:
| 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.
| frostburg wrote:
| 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.
| ibrarmalik wrote:
| Really weird example. So a daycare should hire a pedophile if
| he wasn't ever convicted?
| mohamez wrote:
| Your comment has its share of weirdness as well.
| vharuck wrote:
| Let the child molester work in a bank and the fraudster work in
| a daycare.
| karpierz wrote:
| 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.
| Chernobog wrote:
| 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.
| koiz wrote:
| In the USA, background checks are often just part of the
| process. There's an entire industry built around providing the
| service.
| ticmasta wrote:
| 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
| INTPenis wrote:
| 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.
| microcolonel wrote:
| 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.
| ticmasta wrote:
| 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.
| noobermin wrote:
| Do you have evidence this is true? Also software
| developers can cause loads of damage I think.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| That's why they say "inversely proportional".
| 737maxtw wrote:
| 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.
| djsumdog wrote:
| 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.
| polytely wrote:
| 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.
| abraae wrote:
| 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.
| anttisalmela wrote:
| 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.
| chmod775 wrote:
| > 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
| (Fuhrungszeugnis) - 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.
| Kosirich wrote:
| 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).
| seer wrote:
| 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.
| Justen wrote:
| Just curious how you would typically prove you aren't
| being prosecuted.
| Const-me wrote:
| 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.
| filoleg wrote:
| 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.
| Ichthypresbyter wrote:
| 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.
| voxic11 wrote:
| > 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.
| JackFr wrote:
| > 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.
| sbmthakur wrote:
| In India, it's like the US. There are dedicated firms which
| do that. I am not sure if it's a legal requirement.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| 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.
| ciberado wrote:
| 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.
| noobermin wrote:
| Americans have been completely conditioned into accepting all
| sorts of trouble while maintaining the idea of freedom in
| contradiction to that.
| mywittyname wrote:
| A lot of Americans don't feel like "bad" people are
| deserving of freedoms. Definitions for "bad" vary from
| person to person, which is why this kind of thing is so
| pervasive.
|
| Also some people can be forgiven while other's can't. A
| group of people will scream that rapists should get the
| death penalty, but then go on to elect an admitted rapist
| to represent them.
|
| In short, we Americans are really good at being
| hypocritical when it suits us, and we hold other groups to
| a much higher standard than we hold ourselves.
| gjs278 wrote:
| trump has never admitted to being a rapist. delete your
| comment for spreading lies.
| jorblumesea wrote:
| 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.
| tssva wrote:
| 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.
| bborud wrote:
| Not all exercise of freedoms comes at someone else's
| expense.
| eeZah7Ux wrote:
| > 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.
| keithnz wrote:
| 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.
| adventured wrote:
| 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.
| Dahoon wrote:
| 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.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| ITT corporations are people and have feelings, too.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| > 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'.
| bredren wrote:
| 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.
| K2h wrote:
| 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.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| 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.
| mullen wrote:
| California is the same. Also, if someone runs a credit
| check, you can also request a copy of the report.
| [deleted]
| jbperry wrote:
| As far as background checks in California, I thought they
| were only required to provide a copy if they decide to
| rescind their offer?
| wolco2 wrote:
| Required to vs can request is a huge difference.
| Reedx wrote:
| Maybe their compare function is written in javascript. :)
| vel0city wrote:
| 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/eft
| e/references_background_ch... I'm still unsure about the
| law related to other kinds of employees.
| kazinator wrote:
| Do you find that this industry is staffed with rude people
| with a bad attitude, who treat everyone being screened like a
| criminal?
| __s wrote:
| No
| plazmatic wrote:
| What's the point of your post other than bragging about your
| situation?
|
| Congrats, you live in Norway where they actually care about
| reform and reintegrating.
|
| The U.S. isn't like that...at all. EVERY JOB HAS A BACKGROUND
| CHECK. Even most min-wage jobs. Someone like you would hardly
| have any opportunities here, even if you were a god-tier
| programmer.
|
| God damn. Hacker news top posts are embarrassing 90% of the
| time with nonsensical posts like Chernobogs.
| AlexTWithBeard wrote:
| A part of that may be a legal requirement for the employers to
| provide a "safe working environment".
| liversage wrote:
| 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.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| The U.S. is just so awful.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar.
| It's just what we don't need here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| lioeters wrote:
| 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.
| ta12352356 wrote:
| 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.
| didibus wrote:
| 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...
| base698 wrote:
| 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.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21788650
| yelling_cat wrote:
| 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.
| animanoir wrote:
| Jumping from one prison to another, huh?
| programmarchy wrote:
| 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.
| staticassertion wrote:
| 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.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| 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.
| nicoburns wrote:
| 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.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| 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.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > 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.
| Romanulus wrote:
| How cool would it be if she got hired to work on another update
| for Prison Architect?
| haunter wrote:
| >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...
| tnorthcutt wrote:
| 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?
| dahfizz wrote:
| 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.
| filoleg wrote:
| > "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.
| tnorthcutt wrote:
| Then... don't.
| dahfizz wrote:
| I agree. A lot of people in this comment section are
| arguing that "Then don't" shouldn't be an option.
| sterkekoffie wrote:
| People are acting like you shouldn't be allowed to quit
| your job because you don't like your coworkers?
| sevenf0ur wrote:
| 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.
| tnorthcutt wrote:
| _companies should have the right to decide whether or not
| they want to hire people with a record like that_
|
| They do.
| nexuist wrote:
| 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.
| eplanit wrote:
| I wonder how the victim(s) are doing now -- does he/she/they
| have great tech. jobs now?
| anon55555 wrote:
| Hey, posting anonymously here since this hits close to home; as
| I'm also a felon. I learned to program _after_ all my legal
| troubles started, and my sentence wasn't _nearly_ as long as this
| (6 months, drug crime).
|
| 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.
| weka wrote:
| That is great to hear. I am happy for you. If you don't mind me
| asking, what kind of tech consulting do you do?
| anon55555 wrote:
| Mostly web dev currently but I've worked in a few different
| domains.
| jph wrote:
| 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
| joel@70millionjobs.com.
| ry454 wrote:
| 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.
| BlueGh0st wrote:
| 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!
| 5thaccount wrote:
| 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.
| BlueGh0st wrote:
| 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.
| yreg wrote:
| In what situations do US employers/clients ask about criminal
| history? Can't you freelance or start as a contractor?
| saxonww wrote:
| 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.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| that literally never happened to me
| loeg wrote:
| It's standard practice for basically all employers.
| meddlepal wrote:
| 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.
| ganoushoreilly wrote:
| 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.
| BlueGh0st wrote:
| 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.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| 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.
| x0x0 wrote:
| 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.
| oopsiforgot7 wrote:
| > security
|
| That might be your problem. From what I heard it's a more
| sensitive role so they will take a stricter stance.
| doopy1 wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway_45 wrote:
| Are you white? I think Race has a big part of if you make it
| or not especially if you have committed a felony.
| _jal wrote:
| 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.
| Igelau wrote:
| 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...
| duderific wrote:
| 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.
| hluska wrote:
| 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.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| 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.
| 737maxtw wrote:
| I'm kinda surprised your guy got in trouble. Many banking
| places don't even drug test..
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| 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.
| firmnoodle wrote:
| That's hot.
| kabdib wrote:
| 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.
| cbuchanan wrote:
| 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.
| paxys wrote:
| I encourage everyone to check out https://thelastmile.org/
| cletus wrote:
| 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.
| Abishek_Muthian wrote:
| 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-...
| vincentmarle wrote:
| 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.
| JeremyBanks wrote:
| 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.
| hinkley wrote:
| 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.
| edbob wrote:
| 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.
| alexashka wrote:
| > 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.
|
| What makes you think they _want_ to be a 'productive member of
| society'?
|
| It's not that hard to be a member of free society instead of
| prison society - don't break the law, repeatedly.
|
| There'll always be unlucky exceptions and if your goal is to
| ease the suffering of the unlucky - I'd suggest volunteering at
| a children's hospital.
| padseeker wrote:
| how many ex-felons do you know?
| laughinghan wrote:
| It's apparent that you've found in your life that it's been
| "not that hard" to not break the law.
|
| Have you considered that not every person in the world has
| had the exact same life experiences as you?
| mrlala wrote:
| >It's not that hard to be a member of free society instead of
| prison society - don't break the law, repeatedly.
|
| Wow. It's THAT SIMPLE! Would you like to report this to the
| media or should I?
|
| Most "criminals" are people who are from severely
| disadvantaged socioeconomic and/or family backgrounds. Gee,
| what a coincidence. You mean the people who grew up without
| an opportunity in the world resort to crime to try to stay
| afloat? Shocking I tell you.
|
| >What makes you think they want to be a 'productive member of
| society'?
|
| What a pompous ass statement. What makes you think they DO
| NOT want to be a productive member of society _given the
| proper opportunity_?
| alexashka wrote:
| > You mean the people who grew up without an opportunity in
| the world resort to crime to try to stay afloat?
|
| What opportunities do people who end up criminals lack that
| immigrants or refugees have?
|
| Let's narrow it down to countries without slavery in their
| past to simplify matters.
|
| > What makes you think they DO NOT want to be a productive
| member of society given the proper opportunity?
|
| I didn't make the claim that they do or do not. If you
| claim there is a teapot in outer space, the onus is you to
| prove it, not on me to disprove that there isn't.
| lopmotr wrote:
| Criminals often have severe psychological problems that
| immigrants don't have. Their mothers didn't love them
| (that's surprisingly important!), their caregivers
| neglected or abused them. They have intellectual
| disabilities or mental illness. They can't just shake off
| the way their brain was programmed since birth.
| Igelau wrote:
| If this account is really going to invoke the celestial
| teapot as a defense against accepting that there are ex-
| cons who want to have a normal life, its handlers should
| shut it down and retrain the algorithm.
| alexashka wrote:
| Celestial teapot is a defense against people making
| claims without providing sufficient evidence to support
| it.
|
| By invoking the celestial teapot, I am not taking the
| opposite position of the one being made, I am taking the
| position of a rationalist who only accepts claims when
| sufficient evidence is presented.
|
| Let me illustrate with an example:
|
| A: Elephants are pink.
|
| B: What makes you say they're pink?
|
| A: How can you claim elephants are not pink?!
|
| B: Huh? See celestial teapot (I never said they are not
| pink)
|
| A: If you're going to use the celestial teapot as a
| defense for elephants not being pink...
|
| B: ...
| tommica wrote:
| > What makes you think they want to be a 'productive
| member of society'?
|
| The same answer as you would have to the question "what
| makes you want to be a 'productive member of a society'?"
| klyrs wrote:
| Only you're claiming that past criminals don't want to be
| productive members of society _on a thread wherein
| multiple people with criminal pasts are demonstrably
| productive members of society, damn the hurdles they
| faced from society in achieving that_. This isn 't a
| teapot situation, this is you ignoring the evidence at
| hand and whinging about the color of elephants.
| Igelau wrote:
| It also needs to learn to parse other threads for facts
| and reply with more than just a keyword definition. This
| is ELIZA-level bot programming.
| mrlala wrote:
| Not responding to a troll account, have a great day.
| lopmotr wrote:
| To help gain perspective, you can read these generic
| opinions about "criminals" by replacing the word with
| "rapists" in your head. Does this feel just as noble?:
|
| ... resort to rape to try to stay afloat
|
| ... resort to killing your son to try to stay afloat
|
| ... resort to beating their wife to try to stay afloat
|
| Yea, it's hard for them to avoid those actions but they
| still destroyed other people's lives and opportunities. I
| think we should be helping troubled people before they
| become so desperately troubled that they resort to violent
| crime. That includes all the people who restrained
| themselves and don't get the sympathy for being an ex-con
| but still have a terrible life and desperately need help.
| watwut wrote:
| It is funny, because neither rapes nor domestic violence
| are why people are actually in prison. Both are actually
| crimes that pretty low successful sentence and
| incarceration rates.
|
| The prisons being full is not about law enforcement
| locking up these. It is more of them ignoring these.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > It's not that hard to be a member of free society instead
| of prison society - don't break the law, repeatedly.
|
| Arguably, that's quite hard.
|
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438.
| ..
|
| Not being in the class of people against whom the law is
| likely to be enforced to it's fullest extent is either very
| easy or very difficult, depending largely on circumstances of
| birth (though some other factors play a role.)
|
| Being born white and not in the lowest economic class helps
| _a lot_ in the US, for instance.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| 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.
| lostlogin wrote:
| 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.
| watwut wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I don't dispute that, but I'm genuinely not sure how that
| fits in with my comment. Could you clarify?
| lostlogin wrote:
| 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.
| hinkley wrote:
| 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.
| nickff wrote:
| The private prison industry is a relatively small portion
| of total incarceration capacity; the real sharks in that
| area are the prison guards' unions.
| oaiey wrote:
| > 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.
| Dahoon wrote:
| >The true measure of any society can be found in how it
| treats its most vulnerable members.
|
| - Ghandi
| vector_spaces wrote:
| Not to disparage this sentiment, but
|
| > Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation
| sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire
| to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir whose
| occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to
| collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and,
| then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.
|
| - Gandhi
|
| (Kaffir was a slur used against black South Africans more
| or less equivalent to the n-word)
| arolihas wrote:
| What was the purpose of sharing that quote then, if not
| to disparage the sentiment? To disparage whoever said it?
| Do you know when that quote was made, as Gandhi's views
| (which were a product of his time and upbringing) evolved
| over the span of his life?
| [deleted]
| pavlov wrote:
| Goes to show that nobody is beyond prejudice. Even Gandhi
| needed to evolve his views to understand his fellow
| humans, so it would be dangerous to assume things like
| "racism in America is past" or "diversity training is
| useless". We all need to work on this stuff.
| dj_mc_merlin wrote:
| 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.
| rorykoehler wrote:
| Theft, fraud and violence are applicable for all jobs surely.
| lostcolony wrote:
| 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?
| tomjen3 wrote:
| 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.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| 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.
| worik wrote:
| 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.
| larrywright wrote:
| 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.
| murderfs wrote:
| > 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.
| larrywright wrote:
| That doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.
| lostcolony wrote:
| 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'.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| 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.
| deathgrips wrote:
| >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".
| dj_mc_merlin wrote:
| 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.
| nexuist wrote:
| 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?
| BurningFrog wrote:
| I would think any crime inflicting bodily harm is relevant,
| as long as you work near people with bodies.
| romwell wrote:
| 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.
| hevelvarik wrote:
| 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.
| Teever wrote:
| 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.
| hevelvarik wrote:
| Wow, that's tragic
| romwell wrote:
| >I dunno, it takes a lot more than a fistfight to get put
| in prison for violent offense.
|
| Citation needed.
| ed312 wrote:
| Conversely, someone who was already willing to violently
| attack another person is probably much more likely to do
| it again?
| nicoburns wrote:
| 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.
| moooo99 wrote:
| > 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.
| voxic11 wrote:
| Perjury maybe? A lot of compliance relies on truthful
| reporting by employees.
| cabaalis wrote:
| 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.
| bluGill wrote:
| 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.
| ScottBurson wrote:
| Writing an entire operating system in an inherently insecure
| language?
| bee_rider wrote:
| This seems to be a pretty popular crime.
| jedimastert wrote:
| 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)
| monksy wrote:
| 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)
| nikitaga wrote:
| > 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.
| gjs278 wrote:
| ok and they might hack a customer. or you after the fact
| if you upset them. it's the violation of where they're
| allowed to debug that is the issue.
| hirundo wrote:
| 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.
| virgilp wrote:
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| 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.
| samatman wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| jacobwilliamroy wrote:
| In the United States "Unauthorized use of a computer" is a
| felony.
| nix23 wrote:
| >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 ;)
| bob1029 wrote:
| "Directly facing the internet" is a legitimate Windows
| Server configuration scenario for some use cases.
| nix23 wrote:
| Yes a Honeypot...but i thinks that's it.
| bob1029 wrote:
| DirectAccess and Web Application Proxy are 2 actual
| examples.
| nix23 wrote:
| Yeah just leave me out of your projects please ;)
| tomjen3 wrote:
| 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.
| larrywright wrote:
| 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.
| dj_mc_merlin wrote:
| How do you hotfix production? Do you have a special "go
| fast" flag in the pipeline?
| dhosek wrote:
| 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.
| Dayshine wrote:
| > 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?
| filleokus wrote:
| 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.
| eeZah7Ux wrote:
| > 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.
| atraktor wrote:
| 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.
| dahfizz wrote:
| > 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.
| atraktor wrote:
| 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.
| hnracer wrote:
| 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...
| l0k3ndr wrote:
| Thank you. You are an awesome person. It's a distant dream to
| have a society where one can restart anytime.
| Jackypot wrote:
| 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.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| 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."
| chickenpotpie wrote:
| 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.
| themacguffinman wrote:
| 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.
| RBBronson123 wrote:
| 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.
| tinyhouse wrote:
| 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.
| caymanjim wrote:
| 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.
| Meph504 wrote:
| 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.
| poorman wrote:
| 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
| dhosek wrote:
| 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.
| ciarannolan wrote:
| tldr: "I reached out to a friend who is Head of Engineering at a
| ~500 person fintech company."
| frakt0x90 wrote:
| 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.
| ciarannolan wrote:
| That's true. I either misread the headline or it was changed
| from "_How_ my friend got a job at...". Probably the former.
| batt4good wrote:
| 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.
| rc-1140 wrote:
| 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.
| ciarannolan wrote:
| I didn't mean for my comment to be pure snark. I think I
| misread the headline or it was changed.
| content_sesh wrote:
| 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]
| jerry1979 wrote:
| 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.
| rwmurrayVT wrote:
| Pay by the minute while a significant number can barely operate
| a keyboard...
| caseyscottmckay wrote:
| 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.
| PascLeRasc wrote:
| 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".
| nickff wrote:
| 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?
| JauntyHatAngle wrote:
| Because two wrongs dont make a right, and expectations are a
| poor way to calibrate justice.
| clevergadget wrote:
| pretty sure the people with criminal records have already
| been punished?
| UnpossibleJim wrote:
| 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).
| cycloptic wrote:
| 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.
| kazinator wrote:
| > _People are losing their jobs because of offhand tweets
| ..._
|
| Well, not sitting-in-the-oval-office people, but anyway.
| staticassertion wrote:
| I'd rather hire a criminal (depending on the crime,
| obviously) than, say, a racist, especially given how many
| laws I disagree with.
| AlexTWithBeard wrote:
| 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.
| TLightful wrote:
| "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 ...
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| 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...
| staticassertion wrote:
| As with all things there is a judgment to be made, and as
| the one doing the hiring it is yours to make responsibly.
| content_sesh wrote:
| 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...
| minitoar wrote:
| What do you think a good definition of "racist tweet"
| would be?
| AlexTWithBeard wrote:
| It's a tweet that explicitly promotes superiority or
| inferiority of one race relative to other races.
| deelowe wrote:
| 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.
| GeoAtreides wrote:
| "[Do bad things] to [racial minority|racial group]!"
|
| The definition of "bad things" is left as an exercise to
| the reader.
| mistermann wrote:
| 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).
| deelowe wrote:
| I doubt there is one.
| minitoar wrote:
| Does that mean the concept has no value, or that racist
| tweets do not exist (since they cannot be easily
| defined)?
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| He means that there is no racist comment that can be
| posted on Twitter that he feels should result in
| affecting one's employment.
| deelowe wrote:
| No. I mean, I doubt we as a society could come up with a
| definition that's sufficiently specific and durable
| enough to apply this level of scrutiny. We can't even
| agree on the proper term for certain races.
| bluGill wrote:
| 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.
| AlexTWithBeard wrote:
| 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.
| rmah wrote:
| 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.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"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.
| hnracer wrote:
| OP would've been talking about falsely maligned people who
| were raked over the coals by a woke mob for a relatively
| innocuous and most likely factually accurate statement. Not
| actual racists.
|
| For example: the letter against Steven Pinker for using
| vernacular such as "urban crime" (he's then called racist),
| or the attacks against JK Rowling for taking a politically
| incorrect stance on trans women in female sports (she's
| then called transphobic). The list goes on.
| pkaye wrote:
| So you are saying it should be the employers choice whether
| to hire the racist or criminal?
| typon wrote:
| Especially considering literally millions of "criminals"
| are in prison for crimes that don't exist anymore in many
| states (war on drugs)
| secondcoming wrote:
| > 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?
| chrisco255 wrote:
| 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.
| dx87 wrote:
| 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_mur
| der...
| edbob wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| richardwhiuk wrote:
| Definitely in the UK. You can ask for full criminal
| records.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| Criminal convictions in the UK at least can be considered
| spent, after that point it doesn't need to be declared.
| michaelt wrote:
| 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.
| richardwhiuk wrote:
| The original article was a 13 year conviction, so would
| have shown up.
| eplanit wrote:
| So, Thought Crime weighs heavier than statutory crimes? Who
| decides the guilt or innocence of the thoughts?
| sixo wrote:
| 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".
| AlexTWithBeard wrote:
| A thought crime is analogous to saying "I _think_ that
| imprisoning people for drugs is unfair ".
| staticassertion wrote:
| The one hiring gets to decide who works there.
| nendroid wrote:
| 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.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| > 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.
| heyoni wrote:
| 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...
| sebmellen wrote:
| 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.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| 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
| sebmellen wrote:
| 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!
| geofft wrote:
| > _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).
| 205guy wrote:
| > 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.
| sebmellen wrote:
| 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.
| 205guy wrote:
| 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.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Racism get tried in the court of public opinion, and
| then there is a sentence of being
|
| Placed in high government office?
| Klinky wrote:
| Ugh, seems you're just trying to come up with ways to
| apologize and gain sympathy for racists. No, it's not
| universal or common that people feel more empathy for
| murderers or criminals. People might feel empathy with
| more context, when remorse is expressed and time has
| passed, this applies to both murderers and racists.
|
| The examples in the TED talk are poor. If you're in
| public relations, don't make an offensive joke about not
| being able to get get AIDS in Africa because you're
| white. If you're in journalism, don't plagiarize and make
| shit up. These people failed at the fundamentals of their
| job description.
|
| Should the world just ignore racist tweets and the damage
| that racists/racism causes? Should racists get the same
| cushy "rehab" murderers do, by putting them in prison?
| sebmellen wrote:
| I never said it was universal to feel more sympathy for
| criminals, nor am I trying to apologize and/or gain
| sympathy for racists. How did what I wrote imply that?
|
| The TED talk, now 5 years old, encapsulated what has now
| grown into "cancel culture" in a poignant anecdote.
| There's nothing generative or useful about this concept
| of prosecution (or persecution?) for making a misstep
| online.
|
| I am fully in favor of implementing the Portugal drug
| model, implementing prison reform, and offering prisoners
| chances at rehabilitation. But to equivocate a racist
| tweet with a crime is ridiculous and, in my opinion,
| dangerous. This line of reasoning is barely different
| from the concept that speech can be violence, which is
| absurd. The foundation of every liberal democracy is the
| separation of free speech from criminality.
|
| That principle assumes that a person's ideas can be
| reformed, which is what we should all hope is possible.
| Half of the time, alienating people for their views will
| only further radicalize and polarize them.
|
| Now, to argue that a rehabilitated ex-convict is a better
| hire than someone actively tweeting racist things is a
| fine argument, but in an entirely different scope than
| the aforementioned comment, unless I misinterpreted it.
| Klinky wrote:
| You said it was common. I said "it was not universal or
| common".
|
| Social media is often used to amplify a message, do not
| act shocked when it amplifies the response as well.
|
| I am not sure what the Portugal drug model has to do with
| this topic or why you're pivoting away from murderers and
| to drug users. You specifically noted
| murderers(effectively the most heinous of crimes), as
| gaining more sympathy than racist tweeters. This
| "sympathy" being provided to these murderers is them
| rotting in a prison for the rest of their lives or being
| executed. Social media and "cancel culture" is not on the
| same level as being stuffed in a prison for the rest of
| your life or getting a lethal injection. That was my
| point, not that racist speech on twitter is an automatic
| crime(though keep in mind that free speech laws do not
| actually cover all forms of speech).
|
| How do you rehabilitate a racist tweeter in a thoughtful
| and caring manner that doesn't alienate their
| sensibilities? For all the talk of toxic "cancel
| culture", ingrained racism is also extremely toxic, and
| should not simply be ignored.
| sebmellen wrote:
| The Portugal drug model (or similar scale legalization
| and decriminalization) has a lot to do with it. A lot of
| the people who end up committing murder or are nailed for
| egregious drug offences are only in the position they're
| in because of bad policy. This is something that can be
| directly acted upon and changed.
|
| I am very, very sceptical of the idea of a "conviction"
| for a non-crime. Racism, though deplorable, is not a
| crime, and it shouldn't be. Thought and speech are
| necessarily divorced from action in the "world of atoms".
| These classes of offence are very, very different.
|
| My argument isn't that racism should be ignored, either.
| Rather, I don't think that _any_ of the "cancel culture"
| that seems so prevalent actually does anything positive.
| It doesn't change views, it further polarizes and
| solidifies what you refer to as "ingrained racism".
|
| There is a strain of thought that some murder is
| justified in the name of political liberation (take
| Assata Shakur for example). Many of these same people
| will try to persecute people for perceived racism. This
| is the world-view I'm referring to. If you'd like more
| tangible examples, I could dredge them up, but I don't
| think it would be worth either of our time(s).
|
| Edit: For that matter, how do you rehabilitate someone
| like Dick Costolo, who today tweeted "Me-first
| capitalists who think you can separate society from
| business are going to be the first people lined up
| against the wall and shot in the revolution. I'll happily
| provide video commentary." in response to Brian Armstrong
| of Coinbase choosing an apolitical company approach?
|
| Edit 2: Can't reply to the child comment. I don't have
| the solutions, but I would propose:
|
| 1) Reworking or regulating social media to be less
| polarizing (see The Social Dilemma, a film that just came
| out on this).
|
| 2) Criminal justice reform and drug decriminalization, so
| violent crimes and murder become less commonplace,
| especially such crimes that could be easily prevented by
| better policy. Also, clear the criminal records of those
| convicted for non-violent offences.
|
| 3) Establish "free speech zones" or something similar on
| university campuses, to allow space to refute heinous
| ideas in open discussion (ala Chomsky).
| Klinky wrote:
| Portugal drug model does not excuse murder. Again, no
| clue why you keep bringing this up.
|
| Racist speech and thought is often followed through with
| racist action, and this can be overt, but much of it is
| subversive throughout a society/culture, especially one
| that openly tolerates racist expression.
|
| Ignoring racism also doesn't do anything positive, and in
| some cases encourages it. There's also a view point that
| people speaking up about racism is "cancel culture", and
| there are people who want to cancel that "cancel
| culture". Sorry, but at some point there has to be some
| nuance and middle ground of tolerable/intolerable and
| this is always going to be fuzzy, especially in a dynamic
| environment of social media.
|
| It doesn't really sound like you have a solution, other
| than "ignore it" or continuing the status quo, which
| includes "cancel culture". You cannot prevent someone
| from saying racist crap on twitter, but then you also
| can't ban the blow back that person gets. If nothing
| should be done, then you accept that social media has its
| positives and negatives, and allow the adults to be
| responsible for what they say and be willing to accept
| the blow back for any heinous crap spouted out on it,
| just like Dick Costolo will have to face, which you
| bringing it up seems to kinda be an attempt at cancel
| culture.
| staticassertion wrote:
| 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.
| sebmellen wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| staticassertion wrote:
| 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.
| sebmellen wrote:
| I'm glad we can agree on that.
| hnracer wrote:
| 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.
| staticassertion wrote:
| 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.
| kyleee wrote:
| Would you prefer to be murdered or to recieve a racist
| remark directed towards you?
| staticassertion wrote:
| 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.
| kyleee wrote:
| 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.
| hnracer wrote:
| 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.
| sebmellen wrote:
| 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.
| staticassertion wrote:
| 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.
| rdimartino wrote:
| 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_inmat
| e_offen... [2] https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/stati
| stics_inmate_sente...
| iguy wrote:
| 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%.
| qes wrote:
| > 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/d
| oc/assets/Adult%20Prison%20Population%20Summ...
| hnracer wrote:
| What percentage of those drug offenses are usage vs
| distribution?
| qes wrote:
| 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.
| hnracer wrote:
| That's a good point, I'd like to see some research into
| that question.
| alex_young wrote:
| 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
| content_sesh wrote:
| 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_inmat
| e_offen...
| [deleted]
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| Isn't a huge amount of prison time in the US handed out
| for selling banned substances to other consenting adults?
| nickff wrote:
| Drug convictions make up a large portion of federal
| inmates, but federal inmates are a minority of the prison
| population.
| minikites wrote:
| Yep. Drug laws (and the police/legal system in general)
| also disproportionately targets people of color.
| iguy wrote:
| 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
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| 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
| joncrane wrote:
| 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.
| vkou wrote:
| 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.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| 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.
| vkou wrote:
| > 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.)
| iguy wrote:
| 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).
| ticviking wrote:
| There's also a lot of people pleading to the drug offence
| to get off of the property crime.
| staticassertion wrote:
| 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.
| Nuzzerino wrote:
| What percentage of the population do you estimate is made
| up of these racists?
| staticassertion wrote:
| I don't know? I don't understand what you're getting at.
| Nuzzerino wrote:
| 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)
| staticassertion wrote:
| 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.
| AlexTWithBeard wrote:
| 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
| taneq wrote:
| I guess merely being convicted of a crime isn't that bad
| compared with being sentenced without trial in the court of
| public opinion.
| Joker_vD wrote:
| Cf. "revolutionary conscience": [0]
|
| [0] https://www.history-of-
| emotions.mpg.de/texts/revolutionary-c...
| geofft wrote:
| 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.
| nendroid wrote:
| 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.
| stupidgarbage wrote:
| You racist
| saithound wrote:
| 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.
| anemoiac wrote:
| 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.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| _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...
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| 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.
| whack wrote:
| 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.
| shadowfox wrote:
| 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?
| samatman wrote:
| 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.
| sokoloff wrote:
| 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...
| samatman wrote:
| 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.
| 737maxtw wrote:
| 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
| sokoloff wrote:
| 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.
| mywittyname wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| centimeter wrote:
| 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.
| charlesu wrote:
| > 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.
| julianapostate wrote:
| the implications are that a bit of gene pool control may
| go a long way.
| jlawson wrote:
| 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?
| centimeter wrote:
| 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.
| tclancy wrote:
| Tell us more. How are people created and how amazing were
| your bootstraps. Just found them laying around the cavern
| where you exited Zeus' skull did you?
| asdfghjkl87 wrote:
| Not to mention the systemic misandry:
|
| _Female offenders of all races received shorter sentences
| than White male offenders during the Post-Report period, as
| they had for the prior four periods._
| hnracer wrote:
| 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.
| dhosek wrote:
| Yes. There is abundant evidence of this.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| > 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.
| Kalium wrote:
| 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.
| schoolornot wrote:
| I wonder what kind of community reaction there will be if Hans
| Reiser submits kernel patches after getting released/paroled.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| 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?
| jonny_eh wrote:
| 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.
| guenthert wrote:
| Who's going to dare rejecting his labor of love?
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| 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.
| ticmasta wrote:
| 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.
| s_dev wrote:
| >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.
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| 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.
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| 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)
| SquishyPanda23 wrote:
| > 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.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > 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.
| infamouscow wrote:
| > 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.
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > 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.
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| Okay, so tell us what these "unpleasant complexities"
| that we're avoiding are.
| cik2e wrote:
| Perhaps things like crime rates amongst different
| segments of the population.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| jonny_eh wrote:
| As with everything, there is a balance. It requires
| everlasting vigilance.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| Out of interest what proportion of criminals let off with
| suspended sentences have hundreds of convictions?
| s_dev wrote:
| 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...
| meheleventyone wrote:
| 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?
| luckylion wrote:
| In Germany, that would Intensivtater (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.
| ponker wrote:
| I wonder how much better you could make society if you
| managed to take the worst 1% of scumbags and remove them.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Significantly worse, I'd say.
| justincredible wrote:
| The power vacuum would soon be filled by the ambitious
| among the remaining 99%.
| wsc981 wrote:
| 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...
| saagarjha wrote:
| > 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.
| ponker wrote:
| 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.
| avisser wrote:
| > 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.
| _jal wrote:
| 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.
| bjt wrote:
| 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?"
| stupidgarbage wrote:
| After all the law abiding have their jobs then sure, let them
| have the leftovers.
| ehsankia wrote:
| What's the point of serving time if you still have to keep
| getting punished afterwards. According to you, every person
| who's committed a crime should have a life sentence?
| anoonmoose wrote:
| [FARMER] You'll have to go/ I'll pay you off for the day/
| Collect your bits and pieces there/ And be on your way
|
| [VALJEAN] You have given me half/ What the other men get/
| This handful of tin/ Wouldn't buy my sweat
|
| [LABORER] You broke the law/ It's there for people to see/
| Why should you get the same/ As honest men like me
| mmmBacon wrote:
| 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.
| mc32 wrote:
| 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.
| Master_Odin wrote:
| 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.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| 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=St
| atist....
| tmsh wrote:
| On this subject, I was blown away by this a week ago:
| https://mkorostoff.github.io/incarceration-in-real-numbers/
| ExcavateGrandMa wrote:
| krrkrkrk prisoners :D
|
| It's not a clever turn to end in prison... more like stupid...
|
| Be conservativ with your ascencion... it's not a glory for
| everybody :D
| jnwatson wrote:
| Unfortunately, the worst offender of this is the federal
| government. Essentially any federal position, regardless of
| actual job position, requires a background check.
| gtsteve wrote:
| 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.
| ciarannolan wrote:
| > 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.
| [deleted]
| bityard wrote:
| 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.)
| AliCollins wrote:
| 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.
| carrolldunham wrote:
| >here's how she got the job....I reached out to a friend
|
| ok. close tab
| dang wrote:
| Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait
| comments to HN? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly,
| and we're hoping for a different sort of conversation here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| TheLastMile wrote:
| 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
| NewOrderNow wrote:
| Meanwhile, I can't get a job because I don't have the typical
| cult mentality
| metadatabad wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-10-01 23:00 UTC)