As a non-american, how this does not run afoul of discrimination laws boggles my mind.
Refusing employment on skin colour, religion, sexual orientation or indeed pretty much anything would land you in trouble, doing the same on this is seen as perfectly fine.
Back home in Sweden, records are automatically sealed after two years (if my memory serves me correctly).
America should not be compared to a country like Sweden. It should be compared to other giant multi-ethnic countries like Brazil or India or maybe the UK.
Also in America, states are given the freedom to create (some) of their own laws. So one state might be okay sealing records after 2 years, another state might prefer to wait 10 years. IMO this is superior to a "one size fits all" approach.
Pennsylvania started this trend. They seal records for minor offenses if you stay out of trouble for 10 years. It’s certainly a step in the right direction.
How about we disallow political discrimination as well. The left is so against discrimination when it comes to crime, yet will find every reason to not support or hire people that are against their political beliefs.
Conservatives/republicans/trump supporters face overwhelming discrimination in silicon valley.
It's why I know all of these movements are complete bullshit and just a way to get voting power and push out anyone you dislike.
If two applicants were the same except that candidate A committed a minor crime 20 years ago, it is rational for me to prefer candidate B. If A is better than B in some other way, for example having more relevant experience, I may decide that the extra experience outweighs the long-ago crime. But why do politicians assume I cannot make rational decisions and that they must decide for me what criteria for applicants are important? At the margin, removing a penalty for crime will result in more crime.
It would be rational for you to employ the historically felonious candidate. They would be more likely to stick with you, if only because finding a job elsewhere is hard. If lots of people did the same, wages would experience downward pressure, because the pool of possibly successful applicants would be larger.
You might also do it because sometimes it pays to give someone a break.
> If two applicants were the same except that candidate A committed a minor crime 20 years ago, it is rational for me to prefer candidate B
Yes if that crime was defrauding money from employers.
No if it was beating up cheating ex wife's lover.
You skipped an important step, yet made a firm decision you mistakenly believe is educated. When confronted you'll respond that you don't have resources to look into details of every candidate's crimes.
Well, there's the catch-22.
> At the margin, removing a penalty for crime will result in more crime.
Making penalty inadequately high has the opposite effect of making relatives miserable and angry; affected population growing in dissent.
Because people don’t make rational decisions, they make CYA decisions. And not being able to chaperone a field trip in 20 years isn’t a real deterrent.
> If two applicants were the same except that candidate A committed a minor crime 20 years ago, it is rational for me to prefer candidate B.
If you lack any instinct to fight the power, yes. Personally, I would feel dirty, like a bootlicking worm, to collaborate with authorities this way. Especially for a minor crime, that they presumably paid for already.
[+] [-] SenHeng|6 years ago|reply
I'm sure the author of this name thought it was just a clever pun, but it's just repulsively evil.
[+] [-] herio|6 years ago|reply
Back home in Sweden, records are automatically sealed after two years (if my memory serves me correctly).
[+] [-] Bostonian|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sol_remmy2|6 years ago|reply
Also in America, states are given the freedom to create (some) of their own laws. So one state might be okay sealing records after 2 years, another state might prefer to wait 10 years. IMO this is superior to a "one size fits all" approach.
[+] [-] mmmBacon|6 years ago|reply
https://www.inquirer.com/news/clean-slate-criminal-record-se...
[+] [-] remotecool|6 years ago|reply
Conservatives/republicans/trump supporters face overwhelming discrimination in silicon valley.
It's why I know all of these movements are complete bullshit and just a way to get voting power and push out anyone you dislike.
[+] [-] draw_down|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Bostonian|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LocalH|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angry_octet|6 years ago|reply
You might also do it because sometimes it pays to give someone a break.
[+] [-] m-p-3|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ddingus|6 years ago|reply
B maybe did a crime, did not get caught. Never paid a debt. Maybe never learned a lesson A did.
This is not just politicians. People have feelings about this too.
Frankly, I believe in being able to pay ones debt, mistakes having been made, growth, better experience acquired, and move on.
If it is minor, there should not be life long implications.
[+] [-] loa_in_|6 years ago|reply
Yes if that crime was defrauding money from employers.
No if it was beating up cheating ex wife's lover.
You skipped an important step, yet made a firm decision you mistakenly believe is educated. When confronted you'll respond that you don't have resources to look into details of every candidate's crimes. Well, there's the catch-22.
> At the margin, removing a penalty for crime will result in more crime.
Making penalty inadequately high has the opposite effect of making relatives miserable and angry; affected population growing in dissent.
[+] [-] SamReidHughes|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deogeo|6 years ago|reply
If you lack any instinct to fight the power, yes. Personally, I would feel dirty, like a bootlicking worm, to collaborate with authorities this way. Especially for a minor crime, that they presumably paid for already.