Should employers be allowed to ask prospective employees about their criminal record?

#3
#3
I think so. I'm even a big proponent of employee privacy, but a man's gotta protect his business.
 
#4
#4
Good example of how "rights" often conflict and why it's fallacy to think of expanding civil rights as an absolute. Often as you expand the right of one entity, you constrain the right of another.
 
#5
#5
I think you can protect your business through strong internal controls and checks. I feel that if a person is sentenced and carries that sentence out, then their time is served. Admitting to a prospective employer that you are an ex-felon is pretty much just lengthening your sentence.
 
#6
#6
Even more a deterrent to not commit crime in the first place. If I owned a pharmacy, I don't want a thief or former drug abuser working there. A bank doesn't want someone who was a theif working there. A school doesn't want a person convicted of molesting children there. A habitual speeder doesn't need to drive school buses. Etc. Etc.
 
#7
#7
Just because a sentence has been served does not mean anything necessarily. Many ex-cons are released and then do the same thing all over again. That puts former criminals who have changed their direction in life at jeopardy making it very hard on them down the road. BUT personally, I wouldn't want to hire someone with a criminal past for obvious reasons.
 
#8
#8
CSpindizzy said:
Even more a deterrent to not commit crime in the first place. If I owned a pharmacy, I don't want a thief or former drug abuser working there. A bank doesn't want someone who was a theif working there. A school doesn't want a person convicted of molesting children there. A habitual speeder doesn't need to drive school buses. Etc. Etc.
Click to expand...
What you and BHAM seem to be saying is that there is slim to no hope for rehabilitation of felons. Once a thief, always a thief. Then why even have any sentences less than life for anything?

My argument is this: Upon completion of sentence, and ex con should have the opportunities, as everyone else does, of bettering their lives. Providing ex cons back on to the streets, with basicaly no public record, would give deliberating jurors and parole boards something to think about when it comes to their recommendations.
 
#9
#9
No I am not. I am saying that I have a right to screen who works for me. If there is an obvious risk that could endanger my business, I will not take it unless I see some other reason to think otherwise. I would consider the interview process as the method of verifying that thinking.

My business is my property and my investment. If a risk was staring me right in the face, I would analyze it and decide if the risk is worth taking.

The military screens as does all government and law enforcement. Why is it fine for them and not the private sector?
 
#10
#10
therealUT said:
What you and BHAM seem to be saying is that there is slim to no hope for rehabilitation of felons. Once a thief, always a thief. Then why even have any sentences less than life for anything?

My argument is this: Upon completion of sentence, and ex con should have the opportunities, as everyone else does, of bettering their lives. Providing ex cons back on to the streets, with basicaly no public record, would give deliberating jurors and parole boards something to think about when it comes to their recommendations.
Click to expand...

I think an ex-con does have an opportunity to better his life, it may be more difficult for him considering his past. But the opportunity is there.
 
#11
#11
therealUT said:
Providing ex cons back on to the streets, with basicaly no public record, would give deliberating jurors and parole boards something to think about when it comes to their recommendations.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting point, but I just don't think you can completely ignore recidivism rates. For instance, don't you think it is incumbent on churches, schools and child care facilities to do everything they can to reduce the risk of certain criminal elements having access to children?
 
#12
#12
A prospective employer absolutely has a right to know if there is something in the background of a candidate that would be a detriment to the employer's business. In many cases the HR person is responsible to senior management who are responsible (in a publicly held firm) to the stockholders. IOW, the HR person is responsible for other people's money and has to view prospective employees in the same way.

After that it is a judgement call. If the candidate can convince the employer that he/she has changed and won't do such a thing again, they stand as good a chance as any of landing the job.

Let's say employers ARE prohibited from learning someone's criminal record. What you are setting up is a situation where a convicted sex offender is teaching your second-grader, or a bunko artist is handling your account at a bank. Yeah, that's a REAL good plan.

Most people in the business world understand the difference between a "youthful indescretion" say petty theft or minor vandalism and a firebug or embezzler. However, the embezzler can get a job where he/she does not handle money. These may not be the best positions in the world but they can be a starting place.
 
#13
#13
I disagree. I feel that the whole philospical point of punishment is to serve as a deterrent to the person who is punished to never do such a thing again. Therefore, if our punishments are recommended by our peers (jurors) and we serve the sentence, then, philosophically, there should be no threat to the public of the ex con committing the crime again.
 
#16
#16
I think employers have a right to do background checks for their own security, I just don't think they should look back so far. People make mistakes, plain and simple. If you're now 40 and you did something stupid when you were 18, should that influence the employer into hiring someone else instead?

I think they should only look back 5 or 10 years. If there's nothing that stands out in that period of time, no worries..
 
#17
#17
Are you saying you just don't agree with Employers asking PE's about their criminal record, or are you saying it should be illegal to do so?
 
#21
#21
I'm hardcore on background checks mainly due to the line of work I'm in.

I could show you statistics that would make your head spin; especially pertaining to sex offenders.
 
#22
#22
allvol123 said:
Why? Sure you have talked about it throughout the thread, but can you summarize the reason in a brief statement?
Click to expand...
1. Criminal sentences, philosophically, should be strong enough that prior offenders are sufficiently deterred from repeat offenses.
2. If criminal sentences were strong enough, then the ex con's criminal history would have no bearing on his productivity in a given occupation.
3. Employers, trying to reach optimum efficiency, should hire and maintain those who produce better than others.
4. Therefore, the criminal history should have no bearing on hiring.

I believe that until sentences are stronger, then employers should be able to protect their businesses. However, I believe that every citizen should be working and pressing their congressmen to insist on harsher penalties for crimes (and also get frivolous laws off the books.)
 
#23
#23
GAVol said:
I'm hardcore on background checks mainly due to the line of work I'm in.

I could show you statistics that would make your head spin; especially pertaining to sex offenders.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think sex offenders should spend a minimum of at least 40 years in prison if/when convicted.
 
#24
#24
therealUT said:
1. Criminal sentences, philosophically, should be strong enough that prior offenders are sufficiently deterred from repeat offenses.
2. If criminal sentences were strong enough, then the ex con's criminal history would have no bearing on his productivity in a given occupation.
3. Employers, trying to reach optimum efficiency, should hire and maintain those who produce better than others.
4. Therefore, the criminal history should have no bearing on hiring.

I believe that until sentences are stronger, then employers should be able to protect their businesses. However, I believe that every citizen should be working and pressing their congressmen to insist on harsher penalties for crimes (and also get frivolous laws off the books.)
Click to expand...


I have no problem with your points. But I also think a business owner should have almost carte blanche in his question asking. It is his ass if the business fails, he should be able to use whatever questioning he feels necessary to ascertain if this person is a good fit. No person is owed a job, whether they are an ex-con or not, they are free to succeed in this country as much as the next person.
 
#25
#25
allvol123 said:
I have no problem with your points. But I also think a business owner should have almost carte blanche in his question asking. It is his ass if the business fails, he should be able to use whatever questioning he feels necessary to ascertain if this person is a good fit. No person is owed a job, whether they are an ex-con or not, they are free to succeed in this country as much as the next person.
Click to expand...
So, no questions are off limits coming from a prospective employer?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top