I have long thought that the war on drugs, which targets black and brown citizens, exists to keep them out of the job market and to prevent them from voting.
7
So how do we teach our children now? Break the law and, well, it doesn't mean much. The laws can be broken without much repercussion, so take the chance if you want; we'll help you get a job later. I prefer to teach them early not to break the law and become productive citizens.
5
In our brave new world, "criminal" simply doesn't mean what it used to. What we think of as crimes - murder, assault, rape, robbery and the like - are a relatively minor fraction of those imprisoned. Non-violent drug infractions and relatively minor behavioral offenses may indicate an individual with a problem or not. And, charitably, our legal system is sloppy if not outright corrupt. Street cops and prosecutors have essentially total and unchecked discretion to charge or not charge minor offenses. A misdemeanor or felony conviction is not a reliable indicator or who an applicant really is.
For minor or non-violent offenses, convictions should probably be automatically expunged after a period of good behavior after release. There could be a sliding scale of how long that period should be based on the offense. Obviously repeat offenders would need a longer period crime-free.
If an individual serves the sentence imposed and is released, they have done all that we have demanded of them, and that shold be enough.
For minor or non-violent offenses, convictions should probably be automatically expunged after a period of good behavior after release. There could be a sliding scale of how long that period should be based on the offense. Obviously repeat offenders would need a longer period crime-free.
If an individual serves the sentence imposed and is released, they have done all that we have demanded of them, and that shold be enough.
18
True that. This paper will spin, slant and minimize serious criminals like Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown, and place them in the same category as the people featured in this article. There's a considerable nexus between the opinions expressed in the NYT and in government: Eric Holder is attempting to create a straitjacket for employers so that they will be hit with racism charges if they hire anyone with a record but do not include enough of his favored group.
People are individuals, not statistics. But if you are going to be sued out of business by the DOJ because you or managers you've hired had confidence in a handful of ex-cons you looked over one by one who did not happen to have the same stats as others you did not find reason to make an exception for, then you are pushed toward a blanket no-convicts policy.
People are individuals, not statistics. But if you are going to be sued out of business by the DOJ because you or managers you've hired had confidence in a handful of ex-cons you looked over one by one who did not happen to have the same stats as others you did not find reason to make an exception for, then you are pushed toward a blanket no-convicts policy.
5
The truth of the matter is that if the rules had been/were now evenly applied (fairly) the current American social, economic and legal system would come to a halt. Humility would do all of us a little bit of good...
2
Why don't we do as many European countries do and rehabilitate people? Over there, for many crimes, you get out of prison, and do not reoffend for a few years (3 in many cases) and your record is wiped clean automatically. Over here, people who are convicted years ago cannot ever find a job, and have no choice but to turn to crime.
16
It's one more way for businesses to avoid hiring. The sad thing is that most ex cons are not dangerous and want to work. By denying them jobs and refusing to let the past be the past we force them back into crime or into poverty. Then we complain that they are good for nothing in much the same way we complain about the unemployed who can't find jobs. At some point these men and women need to be readmitted to mainstream America with all that that entails. It's not in our best interests to have a permanently unemployable group of people whether they are ex-cons, people older than the age 45, people who are handicapped, etc.
I am not advocating forgetting here. If a man is a child molester or a rapist I don't think we want him within ten feet of a child or in any position to rape another woman. But if the crime was due to a lack of employment and money, the time has been served, there is no purpose to excluding the person from consideration. There is also no purpose to criminalizing as many "youthful" indiscretions either. People make mistakes. There is a time to forgive them for those mistakes and let them have a life. They do deserve a chance to prove that they can be worthwhile members of society. However, given the attitudes I've seen, I doubt that this will happen. After all, we seem to believe that every person who is unfortunate deserves to suffer. And we believe in vengeance which is why we have cut the social safety net so far back.
I am not advocating forgetting here. If a man is a child molester or a rapist I don't think we want him within ten feet of a child or in any position to rape another woman. But if the crime was due to a lack of employment and money, the time has been served, there is no purpose to excluding the person from consideration. There is also no purpose to criminalizing as many "youthful" indiscretions either. People make mistakes. There is a time to forgive them for those mistakes and let them have a life. They do deserve a chance to prove that they can be worthwhile members of society. However, given the attitudes I've seen, I doubt that this will happen. After all, we seem to believe that every person who is unfortunate deserves to suffer. And we believe in vengeance which is why we have cut the social safety net so far back.
14
You are so right. We are a unforgiving country. Except for those who scam the financial system and crash the economies of several nations. They get bonuses and raises. And White House cuff links.
11
We are wrong when we equate safety (or success) with separating ourselves from large portions of society. What part of "paid his debt" don't we understand?
7
The part where they have to earn trust again.
2
The part where many reoffend like the man that attacked me when I was a child. Talk to victims whose attackers were released only to offend again.
2
Some one who has one conviction for "resisting arrest" or who has done jail time for DWI can't get a job. But having many millions of illegal immigrants anyone of which could be a terrorist or murderer from south of the border hired as the functional equivalent of slaves to make 100's of billions in unearned profits for our business owner nobility ... is OK. Yes! There are always plenty of jobs for illegal submissive immigrants from no human rights countries of origin. Seems like this is all rigged and headed in the same direction, shoving 90-99% of all Americans into a feudal serf underclass that the 1% editors, journalist stable of the NY Times and their corporate advertisers can rule over like a medieval aristocracy.
9
I see both sides here: businesses are reluctant to hire felons due to both liability fears should one commit an illegal act on the job, plus potential "stigma" if their clientele finds out they employ ex-cons. OTOH failure to secure a legal job is one of the main reasons recidivism rates in the U.S. are so astronomical, and with 10% of the adult-male population having a felony record, it's simply not tenable to effectively deny them access to anything but the most menial jobs. Still, there's ample ground for compromise:
1. Limit criminal background checks to a certain number of years. In California, for instance, state law prohibits such checks beyond the previous seven years, and for good reason: if a released felon has remained out of trouble for that length of time, the odds are extremely strong that he or she has indeed been rehabilitated.
2. Restrict such checks to certain types of crimes. Despite the fact that marijuana has now been legalized or decriminalized in 27 states (and D.C.), roughly one-third of America's felons received their convictions for selling or distributing it. I see zero reason why such a conviction, absent any others, should restrict anyone from getting a job circa 2015. With a few exceptions, e.g. a DUI arrest for someone seeking a driving job of some sort, misdemeanor convictions should also be categorically excluded.
3. Incentivize businesses to hire ex-cons. This could come in myriad forms ranging from tax breaks to cash stipends from NGOs.
1. Limit criminal background checks to a certain number of years. In California, for instance, state law prohibits such checks beyond the previous seven years, and for good reason: if a released felon has remained out of trouble for that length of time, the odds are extremely strong that he or she has indeed been rehabilitated.
2. Restrict such checks to certain types of crimes. Despite the fact that marijuana has now been legalized or decriminalized in 27 states (and D.C.), roughly one-third of America's felons received their convictions for selling or distributing it. I see zero reason why such a conviction, absent any others, should restrict anyone from getting a job circa 2015. With a few exceptions, e.g. a DUI arrest for someone seeking a driving job of some sort, misdemeanor convictions should also be categorically excluded.
3. Incentivize businesses to hire ex-cons. This could come in myriad forms ranging from tax breaks to cash stipends from NGOs.
5
Jeff - most companies, particularly larger ones, already have internal time time limits regarding criminal convictions and could care less about minor offenses like possession of marijuana. The EEOC, in 2012, made it very clear
they don't like "blanket" prohibitions of applicants with convictions that are not job relevant and businesses do not "mess with the EEOC". Banning all misdemeanors is a bad idea. What about the serial offender whose crime is domestic assault? They could have 15 arrests with one or no convictions because of the co-dependency of the victim. You want that guy working next to your wife or daughter? There are already tax credit s available to people who hire ex-offenders. Texas has a "get out of jail free" law (HB705) that gives employers who perform the most basic background checks statutory relief from negligent hiring lawsuits. Unfortunately, this law only protects businesses that provide in home service and it's poorly written. My point is: by creating unneeded although well-intended laws, we make it so difficult to protect the people who haven't done anything wrong that business owners won't start businesses or be able to function. Small businesses are the backbone of this country. Everyone is entitiled to equal opportunity but would you risk your livelihood and family's future on someone who's already proven they are violent or dishonest? There are no easy answers here.
they don't like "blanket" prohibitions of applicants with convictions that are not job relevant and businesses do not "mess with the EEOC". Banning all misdemeanors is a bad idea. What about the serial offender whose crime is domestic assault? They could have 15 arrests with one or no convictions because of the co-dependency of the victim. You want that guy working next to your wife or daughter? There are already tax credit s available to people who hire ex-offenders. Texas has a "get out of jail free" law (HB705) that gives employers who perform the most basic background checks statutory relief from negligent hiring lawsuits. Unfortunately, this law only protects businesses that provide in home service and it's poorly written. My point is: by creating unneeded although well-intended laws, we make it so difficult to protect the people who haven't done anything wrong that business owners won't start businesses or be able to function. Small businesses are the backbone of this country. Everyone is entitiled to equal opportunity but would you risk your livelihood and family's future on someone who's already proven they are violent or dishonest? There are no easy answers here.
Ex-cons would be far better off if the EEOC etc were to be disbanded, along with the hyper-litigious tentacles of the blame trial lawyers and the effects of a thin-skinned society.
50 years ago there was no EEOC nor the other alphabet agencies, and in those days it was possible for ex-cons to start over. Minor offenses had minor results, major ones resulted in real prison terms.
Social engineering changed that; instead of these decisions being made by individuals with varying personal outlook and a strong interest in making the right call, they are enforced by distant bureaucracies with an interest in asserting the power of government.
50 years ago there was no EEOC nor the other alphabet agencies, and in those days it was possible for ex-cons to start over. Minor offenses had minor results, major ones resulted in real prison terms.
Social engineering changed that; instead of these decisions being made by individuals with varying personal outlook and a strong interest in making the right call, they are enforced by distant bureaucracies with an interest in asserting the power of government.
Again, the solution to the out of work problem is blindingly apparent, simple. The out of work folks should be working receiving job assignments currently performed by so-called public employees who are hired only to receive a paycheck for doing nothing.
2
77-Million Americans have an arrest record.
Another 77-Million Americans, on one level or another are actively engaged in a criminal-act, or have committed a criminal-act at one time, yet have never been arrested.
(For example, Hillary Clinton, in 1978, when she was both an Attorney and the First-Lady of Arkansas, illegally accepted $99,000 in commodities-trading-profits in 10-months into her account, lying she had good luck in trading despite no previous experience.)
(If it can happen with an Ivy-League educated Attorney raised in the Methodist church married to a United States Governor, it can happen that any of us will commit a crime at some stage in our life.)
Examples: ongoing fraud by global-banks, speeders, grafters, drunk-drivers, suburban-street-drug-buyers, tax-cheats, etc. Many will never be arrested or ever be caught.
A solution would be a graduated-system of yearly-background-checks. For example, certain jobs require the ability to pass a 3-year background-check. Others require 5-years. Others 8-years, etc...Increasing responsibilities, and increasing compensation based on number of years out of trouble. The primary issue for employment shouldn't be whether a person has ever been arrested. The primary issue should be their education, experience, skills, motivation and the results they achieve. Education, work-experience and intelligence doesn't instantly vanish because of an arrest or jail.
I hope it works out for this guy, he got a raw deal.
Another 77-Million Americans, on one level or another are actively engaged in a criminal-act, or have committed a criminal-act at one time, yet have never been arrested.
(For example, Hillary Clinton, in 1978, when she was both an Attorney and the First-Lady of Arkansas, illegally accepted $99,000 in commodities-trading-profits in 10-months into her account, lying she had good luck in trading despite no previous experience.)
(If it can happen with an Ivy-League educated Attorney raised in the Methodist church married to a United States Governor, it can happen that any of us will commit a crime at some stage in our life.)
Examples: ongoing fraud by global-banks, speeders, grafters, drunk-drivers, suburban-street-drug-buyers, tax-cheats, etc. Many will never be arrested or ever be caught.
A solution would be a graduated-system of yearly-background-checks. For example, certain jobs require the ability to pass a 3-year background-check. Others require 5-years. Others 8-years, etc...Increasing responsibilities, and increasing compensation based on number of years out of trouble. The primary issue for employment shouldn't be whether a person has ever been arrested. The primary issue should be their education, experience, skills, motivation and the results they achieve. Education, work-experience and intelligence doesn't instantly vanish because of an arrest or jail.
I hope it works out for this guy, he got a raw deal.
5
"If it can happen with an Ivy-League educated Attorney raised in the Methodist church..."
Let me help you de-rotate that:
"If it can happen to a person of great privilege who makes a decision to abuse that privilege in what seems to be a clever and deniable way..."
Let me help you de-rotate that:
"If it can happen to a person of great privilege who makes a decision to abuse that privilege in what seems to be a clever and deniable way..."
There is so much more to this story than our Author provides. As a small business owner whose business, ironically, is providing background checks to employers, I see this article as another well-intended effort to describe a complex problem with generalities. The "databases" referred to in the story contribute to the problem but the article doesn't describe how they are used and what laws are in place to protect applicants from the incorrect and incomplete information they inherently contain.
Ban the Box is a nice gesture but as long as the potential penalty to employers for negligent hiring is the loss of their business (along with, by the way, every other employee's job), high risk applicants won't get hired.
Where's the story about the employee who was beaten, raped or stolen from while at work because the employer didn't care enough to properly screen his/her applicants for criminal records prior to allowing them into the workplace? And how that employer was pilloried in court and ended up losing everything? Why would anyone risk that?
The fact is, employers do it everyday. For every person in this article, there are another thousand who've been given a second chance by employers who were smart enoough to look at a person, their history (criminal or otherwise) and then give them a job. I see it every day. What I don't see are the stories about them. What we don't need are more laws, like "Ban the Box" that don't do anything but look good on paper.
Ban the Box is a nice gesture but as long as the potential penalty to employers for negligent hiring is the loss of their business (along with, by the way, every other employee's job), high risk applicants won't get hired.
Where's the story about the employee who was beaten, raped or stolen from while at work because the employer didn't care enough to properly screen his/her applicants for criminal records prior to allowing them into the workplace? And how that employer was pilloried in court and ended up losing everything? Why would anyone risk that?
The fact is, employers do it everyday. For every person in this article, there are another thousand who've been given a second chance by employers who were smart enoough to look at a person, their history (criminal or otherwise) and then give them a job. I see it every day. What I don't see are the stories about them. What we don't need are more laws, like "Ban the Box" that don't do anything but look good on paper.
4
The idea that its unfair to be denied a job over having a criminal record applies only for such crimes that are no big deal. In other words they are such things that are not shocking or surprising and not indicative of a person that engages in behavior that ordinary decent people would not.
And since these are actions that are "normal" and also not serious crimes that the police would seek out the perpetrator, this inevitably means that most people who do them are not caught.
So the reason that a person would be caught committing such a crime can be for one of two reasons, either he does it allot more often than others do and so the odds caught up with him, in which case his behavior was such that an ordinary person would not do it. Or he had bad luck and he got caught where most people are not. In this case his difficulty getting a job is simply another consequence of his bad luck in getting caught.
Committing a crime by definition means to risk getting caught and to face the consequences. The consequences of having a criminal record are known at the time the crime was committed and are in fact just as much as deterrent as the penalty prescribed by the penal code So the fact that the consequences of getting caught extend beyond the penalty meted out by the court does not make those additional consequences any more unfair than the standard penalty.
And since these are actions that are "normal" and also not serious crimes that the police would seek out the perpetrator, this inevitably means that most people who do them are not caught.
So the reason that a person would be caught committing such a crime can be for one of two reasons, either he does it allot more often than others do and so the odds caught up with him, in which case his behavior was such that an ordinary person would not do it. Or he had bad luck and he got caught where most people are not. In this case his difficulty getting a job is simply another consequence of his bad luck in getting caught.
Committing a crime by definition means to risk getting caught and to face the consequences. The consequences of having a criminal record are known at the time the crime was committed and are in fact just as much as deterrent as the penalty prescribed by the penal code So the fact that the consequences of getting caught extend beyond the penalty meted out by the court does not make those additional consequences any more unfair than the standard penalty.
3
"[T]he United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission warned in 2012 that the systematic exclusion of people with criminal records was effectively a form of discrimination against black men, who were disproportionately affected."
Shocking, isn't it, that a group that commits a disproportionate share of crimes is "disproportionately affected" by policies that hold them to account for their criminal pasts.
This is the sort of DoubleThink that's now required of us all by our owners in Washington DC. Not to worry, though - some of these former criminals will hit the lottery as did Mr. Payne, who "qualified for federal disability benefits two years ago and said he had no immediate plans to seek work."
Of course he has "no immediate plans to seek work". Why should he? He'll collect benefits for the rest of his life, all at taxpayer expense.
Shocking, isn't it, that a group that commits a disproportionate share of crimes is "disproportionately affected" by policies that hold them to account for their criminal pasts.
This is the sort of DoubleThink that's now required of us all by our owners in Washington DC. Not to worry, though - some of these former criminals will hit the lottery as did Mr. Payne, who "qualified for federal disability benefits two years ago and said he had no immediate plans to seek work."
Of course he has "no immediate plans to seek work". Why should he? He'll collect benefits for the rest of his life, all at taxpayer expense.
5
At least when it comes to drug crimes, blacks are no more likely than whites to commit them; they are just more likely to be arrested and convicted for them. Funny you should refer to "owners" in this context.
3
The group who is disproportionately arrested for minor offenses is the one who is most affected. People who are not African-American use and sell drugs but are much less likely to be caught. White suburban kids running around with a few joints don't end up having to worry about an arrest record for life.
Fights, thefts, drunk driving and resistance during arrest occur among all groups, yet arrests and conviction rates may not reflect the demographics.
Most commenters here are old enough to step back before downing the cool-aid that only blacks or hispanics are criminals.
The decade long multi-billion dollar investment in prisons is paying off, by keeping entire groups from participating in the job market even after they have paid the price.
Fights, thefts, drunk driving and resistance during arrest occur among all groups, yet arrests and conviction rates may not reflect the demographics.
Most commenters here are old enough to step back before downing the cool-aid that only blacks or hispanics are criminals.
The decade long multi-billion dollar investment in prisons is paying off, by keeping entire groups from participating in the job market even after they have paid the price.
3
Maybe they are disproportionately affected because there are a disproportionate number of silly laws that are targeted at that group that are then disproportionately and selectively applied at the discretion of law enforcement and prosecutors to that group. The volumes of laws on the books today that are selectively applied by both prosecutors and law enforcement means you probably are a criminal yourself you just haven't met the officer or prosecutor that wants to selectively apply one or more of the silly statutes. Laws that are on the books governing everyday actions or possession of everyday normal items made criminal not by the inherent criminality of the object or action but by the stroke of a President's or Governor's pen because some constituency group thinks "there ought to be a law" that prohibits, bans, criminalizes or otherwise makes once ordinary items and activities criminal because they offend their elite sensibilities. Case in point: Lyndon B. Johnson routinely urinated in public view - today he would have top billing on a "sex offenders" database for this action should a law enforcement officer choose to selectively charge and a prosecutor chose to use their discretion to selectively prosecute him for taking a pee in the view of the public.
1
With 2.3 million Americans in prison, America has the historical world record with 25% of world's prisoners and only 5% of the Earth's people. The fact that they are disproportionately poor Black and Brown non-violent illegal drug users and those in possession of illegal drugs is the result of politically bipartisan malicious racially colored intent.
See "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in an Age of Colorblindness" Michelle Alexander: "The Political Roots of Racial Tracking in American Criminal Justice" Nina Moore.
That does not include those awaiting trial, sentencing or under post incarceration supervision and control. Nor does it deal with the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow in imprisonment. See "Slavery by Another Name" Doug Blackmon; "The Condemnation of Blackness" Khalil Muhammad.
The XIII (13th) Amendment preserves both "slavery and involuntary servitude" as punishment for a criminal conviction.
See "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in an Age of Colorblindness" Michelle Alexander: "The Political Roots of Racial Tracking in American Criminal Justice" Nina Moore.
That does not include those awaiting trial, sentencing or under post incarceration supervision and control. Nor does it deal with the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow in imprisonment. See "Slavery by Another Name" Doug Blackmon; "The Condemnation of Blackness" Khalil Muhammad.
The XIII (13th) Amendment preserves both "slavery and involuntary servitude" as punishment for a criminal conviction.
2
Maybe their families should teach them not to use or deal drugs and avoid incarceration in the first place.
1
We get it. Finding a job is hard and finding a job with a criminal record is even harder. While Mr. Mirsky’s story is indeed sad the Times reporting is very sanitized and one-sided. There are many unanswered questions that the Times choose not to address. Many people lose jobs due to reduction in workforce and layoffs, but this does not appear to be the case for Mr. Mirsky. While Mr Mirsky deserves our sympathy he has to assume personal responsibility for his predicament. For example, did Mr. Mirsky have gambling or substance abuse issues. Did he have a poor work record regarding attendance - habitual lateness or absenteeism? As Verizon technician, Mr. Mirsky probably was a union member yet we do no hear about any union claiming Mr Mirsky was unfairly terminated. These unanswered issues would certainly provide a lot more perspective and overall balance to the story.
4
This is a really good discussion taking place on the Facebook of NY Healthy Workplace Advocates. Here is one comment and, yes, I am bias:
"What the (NYT) reporter should have considered is that had Mike Mirsky not have encountered an abusive work environment (i.e. workplace bullying) or had a law been passed to adequately address such a situation, he never would had a criminal record to begin with.
Verizon and SUNY are two of the most abusive large employers in New York State when it comes to workplace bullying that we hear about when it comes to the New York State Healthy Workplace Bill and legislative activities to address it. Just look at the costs to society and tax payers in Mike's situation. He is unemployed, cannot pay child support, gets arrested multiple times, cannot find a job because of a criminal record and the downward spiral continues. We need a law to stop these situations before what happened to Mike, happens to others across New York State and the country at-large. Verizon and the bulling employee need to be held accountable for their actions, or lack of it, as it is all of us who pay for it."
"What the (NYT) reporter should have considered is that had Mike Mirsky not have encountered an abusive work environment (i.e. workplace bullying) or had a law been passed to adequately address such a situation, he never would had a criminal record to begin with.
Verizon and SUNY are two of the most abusive large employers in New York State when it comes to workplace bullying that we hear about when it comes to the New York State Healthy Workplace Bill and legislative activities to address it. Just look at the costs to society and tax payers in Mike's situation. He is unemployed, cannot pay child support, gets arrested multiple times, cannot find a job because of a criminal record and the downward spiral continues. We need a law to stop these situations before what happened to Mike, happens to others across New York State and the country at-large. Verizon and the bulling employee need to be held accountable for their actions, or lack of it, as it is all of us who pay for it."
2
Let me tell you about the "justice" system.
One Sunday morning my husband and I got into a minor tiff, and I wanted to go for a drive to cool down. I reached into his pocket to grab the car keys. He didnt want me to take the keys and leave, and accidentally grabbed my arm at a weird angle that inflicted some pain. Absolutely an accident.
Because it was Sunday, I could not have my doctor check it out, so I went to urgent care. There they informed me that they could not treat me unless they "notified" the police. Being naive (of course my husband didn't mean to do this), I thought they were just going to call for liability reasons and tell them what had happened.
The next thing I know, the police showed up, arrested my husband on the spot, and detained him for several hours--for liability reasons. They didn't even file the case. Because it was ridiculous.
Well, I had to drain my entire retirement account to pay for bail and legal fees, and now my husband, a brilliant PH.D. electrical engineer who would not hurt a fly, cannot get any kind of defense job. And his detainment is showing up in background checks.
Way to go, America!
One Sunday morning my husband and I got into a minor tiff, and I wanted to go for a drive to cool down. I reached into his pocket to grab the car keys. He didnt want me to take the keys and leave, and accidentally grabbed my arm at a weird angle that inflicted some pain. Absolutely an accident.
Because it was Sunday, I could not have my doctor check it out, so I went to urgent care. There they informed me that they could not treat me unless they "notified" the police. Being naive (of course my husband didn't mean to do this), I thought they were just going to call for liability reasons and tell them what had happened.
The next thing I know, the police showed up, arrested my husband on the spot, and detained him for several hours--for liability reasons. They didn't even file the case. Because it was ridiculous.
Well, I had to drain my entire retirement account to pay for bail and legal fees, and now my husband, a brilliant PH.D. electrical engineer who would not hurt a fly, cannot get any kind of defense job. And his detainment is showing up in background checks.
Way to go, America!
8
My son, a dedicated commercial banker, was in the take out line of a fast food restaurant. He was distracted for a few moments and his car moved forward and bumped the car in front of him. He got out and looked at the car he bumped. Seeing no damage, he got back into his car and picked up his food when he reached the food window. The person in the car that he bumped was not happy that she was bumped and told him so. He asked if there was anything that he could do, but she told him to "get the F out of here". He then drove home. The woman whose car he bumped called 911 and reported him as a hit and run. Police came to his house and confronted him in his car. When he got out of the car, he was thrown on the ground by the policeman, handcuffed and arrested for resisting arrest. His attorney got a $7,000 retainer and after several conferences with the district attorney advised him to plead guilty to Leaving the Scene of an Accident rather than pay another very large sum to go to court and possibly be convicted. He was sentenced to 10 days in jail and probation. He has a criminal record and has not been able to find a job for over a year. Crime does not pay!
4
Yep, and those domestic violence laws were railroaded into place by the NYT set, same one that propped up Walter Duranty.
Having the State nosing about in one's private business to the applause of the feminist set was intended by the core designing it as an attack on marriage and traditional families, while being advertised as social justice etc etc.
If it's destructive to decent people you can be sure that this paper, social activists and the current iteration of the Democratic Party will be fully behind it.
Having the State nosing about in one's private business to the applause of the feminist set was intended by the core designing it as an attack on marriage and traditional families, while being advertised as social justice etc etc.
If it's destructive to decent people you can be sure that this paper, social activists and the current iteration of the Democratic Party will be fully behind it.
Nothing to do with his past, we all know there's still no jobs since the financial crisis.
2
What the reporter should have considered is that had Mike Mirsky not have encountered an abusive work environment (i.e. workplace bullying) or had a law been passed to adequately address such a situation, he never would had a criminal record to begin with. Verizon and SUNY are two of the most abusive large employers in New York State when it comes to workplace bullying that we hear about when it comes to the New York State Healthy Workplace Bill and legislative activities to address it. Just look at the costs to society and tax payers in Mike's situation. He is unemployed, cannot pay child support, gets arrested multiple times, cannot find a job because of a criminal record and the downward spiral continues. We need a law to stop these situations before what happened to Mike, happens to others across New York State and the country at-large. Verizon and the bulling employee need to be held accountable for their actions, or lack of it, as it is all of us who pay for it.
Well a lot needs to change before there is Chang get. No employeer will change without the protection from the incredibly litigious society we live in. If said offender ever relapsed and caused other employees or customers harm, that would be lights out for said firm. So we can start there. Nothing else worth discussing before we discuss that. There are plenty of ex felons working abroad, because the liability of hiring an ex felon is so much lower. The case of relapse is so much higher as once a felon in USA, always a felon. So at this point it becomes political and guess which party won't discuss tort Reform?
Sorry, just has nothing to do with God, forgiveness, etc. It's the byproduct of another major issue in the USA. Take a look at the cost of malpractice and liability in the USA vs any country abroad. 2x-3x-4x! Think of all the people we could employee vs supporting the largest collection of lawyers in the world.
Sorry, just has nothing to do with God, forgiveness, etc. It's the byproduct of another major issue in the USA. Take a look at the cost of malpractice and liability in the USA vs any country abroad. 2x-3x-4x! Think of all the people we could employee vs supporting the largest collection of lawyers in the world.
"He was fired after clashing repeatedly with a supervisor." (Mr. Mirsky's case.) Mr. Menteer's case: 26 years old, completed a six-month prison term for a gun possession. So, it is wrong for these two people to be discriminated against? Was Mr. Mirsky's "repeated clashes" with a supervisor violent? What about Mr. Menteer and his gun conviction? It is crazy to say that such a histories should be ignored.
1
Unfairness starts the minute one gets arrested. The ramifications of crime and punishment are determined by which state you're in when arrested, and in some states, which part of the state. Different areas have different views of the same crime, so the chance of conviction and incarceration differs, also. You can serve your time, finish your schooling and want to move on with a career, but you'll hit a brick wall. How does one prevent becoming discouraged? How many of those prospective employers enjoy feeling that they are "better" than the job applicants without even really knowing the person and how hard they are trying to overcome their past. I'd like to see that list of states that passed the "ban the box" law. They, at least, are on the right track to forgiveness.
1
It's called liability, and businesses pay a lot to cover themselves. Hiring a person with a criminal record potentially opens them up to litigation if they "knowingly " hire them.
In most civilized countries including Canada they understand the fact that people learn from past mistakes, change, grow up, return to university and improve themselves or find God etc.. and such countries encourage and reward self improvement by holding out the prospect that most arrest records, except for the most terrible crimes like murder and child rape, etc..will be automatically be sealed from public view after 10 years of non repeat and clean behavior. For the most serious crimes it is 20 years before the records are sealed from public, except from a judge if some future incident re occurrs. However, like a bad credit report that clears after 7 years, without offering persons the hope of really being able to put the event behind themselves and resume a normal productive life, there is no incentive to improve or change for the better. Thus many end up out of desperation or anger at the current system, which does not care how good they have become, drifting out of desperation and alienation back into crime as the only way to survive. Besides the wasted human potential and loss to national productivity resulting from society's shunning of the truly reformed and gifted who often keep paying for their crime decades after they have completed their sentences, it creates an underclass of resentment towards the unforgiving establishment. In medeval times they branded convicts on the forehead for all to see but today the stigma is done digitally with equal damage. jr
4
HAve people gone that crazy?
The overwhelming majority of the US are not felons.
I have an idea: do not commit a crime. People do not need a second chance. Everyone knows not to pull a gun, or sell drugs, or rob someone. DON'T DO IT and you will live well.
Give a job to a felon over a non-felon? Are you crazy? We have a job shortage, not a surplus. You paid a price, but that doesn't mean that when you leave prison the slate is clean.
The overwhelming majority of the US are not felons.
I have an idea: do not commit a crime. People do not need a second chance. Everyone knows not to pull a gun, or sell drugs, or rob someone. DON'T DO IT and you will live well.
Give a job to a felon over a non-felon? Are you crazy? We have a job shortage, not a surplus. You paid a price, but that doesn't mean that when you leave prison the slate is clean.
3
"People do not need a second chance."
I'm guessing you have no idea how many second chances you've gotten in life: the stupid things you did as a teenager that somehow didn't translate into an arrest record, the corners you cut as an adult that you got away with because no one was looking.
And whether or not people "need" second chances, they need to eat. Do you think people just vanish if they come out of prison and can't find a job? It's one thing to accept that the public may have to support--in one way or another--people who have committed such awful crimes that no one would ever want to hire them. It's quite another to say that I'll have to pay for the rest of my life for food stamps for someone who was convicted for some minor offense because companies are mechanically refusing to hire on that basis.
I'm guessing you have no idea how many second chances you've gotten in life: the stupid things you did as a teenager that somehow didn't translate into an arrest record, the corners you cut as an adult that you got away with because no one was looking.
And whether or not people "need" second chances, they need to eat. Do you think people just vanish if they come out of prison and can't find a job? It's one thing to accept that the public may have to support--in one way or another--people who have committed such awful crimes that no one would ever want to hire them. It's quite another to say that I'll have to pay for the rest of my life for food stamps for someone who was convicted for some minor offense because companies are mechanically refusing to hire on that basis.
7
I have a felony burglary conviction from 24 years ago when I was 18 years old. Now I have a Ph.D. in psychology and still have a hard time because of it. Does that make sense?
8
Well, I'd like to think I'm the most lockemup n lawnorder person posting here and even I think 24 years past a burglary at age 18 is more than long enough. Not to sound snarky, but have you tried selling it as broader experience and understanding criminal minds (assuming there was some prison time involved)?
It would be a good idea to just do away with felony drug charges after some period, say ten years if there has been no further convictions. I personally know a woman who has one conviction, twenty years ago. that seriously hampers her ability to be self supporting
One of the luckiest moments in my career in grocery produce management was being approached by a young man looking for work to give him a route out of a halfway house following his release from prison. I was looking for a clerk with intelligence and motivation and found him in Paul. He worked for me for nearly two years, long enough to re-enter the civilian world and left because he had an opportunity to buy, repair, and sell distressed properties, something he had wanted to do even as he was retailing the drugs that got him convicted and jailed. He's now a successful developer and a good friend I regrettably do not see anywhere often enough.
38
In Canada there is a process of applying for a removal of one's criminal record - depending on the severity of the crime and the references provided from friends, church leaders, employer(s) and co-workers. The penal system is supposed to have a rehabilitation or learning path to ensure that x-prisoners can re-enter the workforce and contribute to their employers as well as lift them and their families from the conveyor belt to systemic poverty or further crime. Two wrongs don't make it right. Forgiveness is a hallmark of christian ethics. It's time to walk the talk and cure the habitual cycle of poverty or crime caused by discrimination of former felons who are otherwise skilled and able to pay-back to their community and family - if given a chance to do so by becoming re-employed.
13
Punishment not rehabilitation is the hallmark of the US "Justice" system regardless of their claims to the contrary.
2
Society's victim, Mr. Payne asks "But people who went up for drugs?" In Mr. Payne's case, he "went up" at least four times for a total of almost a dozen years. He claims the first time was because he needed fast money to care for two kids. Now, he claims he isn't using or dealing, and he has a steady income thanks to federal disability benefits.
Does the NYT employ people with criminal records like Mr. Payne? Would the Times recommend him to an employer looking for an honest, reliable employee?
Does the NYT employ people with criminal records like Mr. Payne? Would the Times recommend him to an employer looking for an honest, reliable employee?
10
I can sympathize to an extent - for non-felony offenses, especially if they happened years ago. Also, I have known of cases where a person commits their first crime on the job (especially larceny), or has somehow escaped arrest, so hiring a person without a record is no guarantee for an employer.
But try being a disabled person, especially if you have any hint of any psychiatric history. You will probably not be hired, as well. And you will be the first to get the ax, especially if you have to see - heaven forbid - doctors who keep the same hours as your job. Any hint of any kind of sickness, even long
past, will put your resume into the round file. People with illnesses are often treated like criminals, just by being sick. Is it illegal? Sure, but employers don't care and society turns a blind eye
But try being a disabled person, especially if you have any hint of any psychiatric history. You will probably not be hired, as well. And you will be the first to get the ax, especially if you have to see - heaven forbid - doctors who keep the same hours as your job. Any hint of any kind of sickness, even long
past, will put your resume into the round file. People with illnesses are often treated like criminals, just by being sick. Is it illegal? Sure, but employers don't care and society turns a blind eye
9
Isn't one of the PRIMARY purposes of incarcerating offenders to REHABILITATE them so that after they serve their sentence, they can return to society and resume living their lives? And we wonder why the recitivism rate is so high, when "checking the box" on job applications and employers running background checks sets them up for FAILURE at this return to normal lives? Are we condemning everyone who was arrested for whatever petty "offense" to a life labeled as an "ex-con"? Ronnie Ray-gun and his embecilic war on drugs is responsible for the derailing of probably millions of Americans' chances at pursuing the American dream, in addition to the frittering away of billions and billions of our tax dollars on his folly over the years! We have got to unite and tell Congress and our state legislatures to reverse this pointless high rate of incarceration, disproportionately of blacks and latinos, that is so unjust and deeply harming society as a whole; we need to find other methods OUTSIDE of jails and prisons for non-violent offenders to be punished without ruining their lives in the process! If for no other reason than the practical one that we cannot afford the high cost of building and staffing these institutions! It is dreadfully clear that for-profit corporations are failing miserably at doing this job, and in Florida, prisoner abuse and deaths have risen to an alarming number. It's easy for us to forget inmates, but they are human beings. . .
20
Much more work needs to go into strengthening the family and promoting responsibility. The subjects of this article chose to break the law pure and simple. If we had a national campaign reminding parents how important they are to their children's future, we would see a turnaround similar to the anti smoking campaign.
Think job security for police, judges, lawyers, probation officers, prosecutors and others that rely on the courts for their livelihood. Where is the incentive to rehabilitate?
1
The issue is simple. Do we want to give people true second chances or not. To believe a convicted person can get a good job is ludicrous. If a person is convicted of anything or has been to jail they might as well go back to their old ways. They CANNOT get decent work with a criminal conviction.
That must change and should be the beginning of the discussion. A TRUE SECOND CHANCE.
That must change and should be the beginning of the discussion. A TRUE SECOND CHANCE.
11
In southern West Virginia there was a rash of heat pumps being stolen from churches. A couple of men were discovered taking them apart and selling the copper for cash -- for very little compared to the value of the units. I figured they were desperate drug addicts. My daughter, who's much more informed about these things said, "It isn't always drugs Mom. So many people have arrest records these days. They'll never be able to work anywhere. They have very few ways to make money." Terrible reality check.
12
The United States has about 5% of the world’s population, yet is holds 25% of the world’s prisoners.
Here are some facts that most Americans may be surprised to learn...
The US has the world’s largest prison population —with a quarter of totalitarian China’s population, US has almost twice as many people in prison.
The US also has the world’s highest per capita incarceration rate —more than five times that of any Western nation and higher than the worst police state.
Total US criminal prosecutions amount to almost fifty percent of all prosecutions worldwide; and at more than 94%, the US has one of the highest conviction rates in the world.
Ironically, nowhere on Earth is a person more likely to go to prison, and stay there longer, than in the Land of the Free.
Either the US is a nation of congenital criminals or there's something drastically wrong with its criminal justice system.
Here are some facts that most Americans may be surprised to learn...
The US has the world’s largest prison population —with a quarter of totalitarian China’s population, US has almost twice as many people in prison.
The US also has the world’s highest per capita incarceration rate —more than five times that of any Western nation and higher than the worst police state.
Total US criminal prosecutions amount to almost fifty percent of all prosecutions worldwide; and at more than 94%, the US has one of the highest conviction rates in the world.
Ironically, nowhere on Earth is a person more likely to go to prison, and stay there longer, than in the Land of the Free.
Either the US is a nation of congenital criminals or there's something drastically wrong with its criminal justice system.
15
The US is not "a nation of congenital criminals", but it contains one.
No other nation suffers the kind of criminal underclass that America endures.
No other nation suffers the kind of criminal underclass that America endures.
As much as I detest criminals ,if you served your time it should be over. But there has to be exceptions to that. Rapist, murderer, attempted murder and crimes like that.
4
You've got to consider the conundrum that the employer's in.
He hires a misdemeanant or a felon. Okay, he now is the good guy. Then something happens; perhaps totally unrelated to the original arrest or conviction - an assault, a rape, a theft, anything - and you're good guy employer is sued by somebody like me (an attorney just doing his job representing an injured client) for putting the public, including my client, in danger from the KNOWN, YET HIRED misdemeanant or felon. Think now, should he EVER hire the misdemeanant or felon? Aren't you asking him to take an unacceptable risk for a possible general public good? Full disclosure: I'm also a teacher in an 80% African-American high school. I beg my students to be aware of the new facts in play. Get convicted for anything and you're not going to even flip burgers in the back of McDonald's, when a non-criminal applies too.
He hires a misdemeanant or a felon. Okay, he now is the good guy. Then something happens; perhaps totally unrelated to the original arrest or conviction - an assault, a rape, a theft, anything - and you're good guy employer is sued by somebody like me (an attorney just doing his job representing an injured client) for putting the public, including my client, in danger from the KNOWN, YET HIRED misdemeanant or felon. Think now, should he EVER hire the misdemeanant or felon? Aren't you asking him to take an unacceptable risk for a possible general public good? Full disclosure: I'm also a teacher in an 80% African-American high school. I beg my students to be aware of the new facts in play. Get convicted for anything and you're not going to even flip burgers in the back of McDonald's, when a non-criminal applies too.
10
You should be applauded for being brutally honest about what you tell your students. So, what do you say when one of them asks something like this: Quotation Marks for Effect: "What about all those white guys who engineered the Wall Street Collapse?"
2
Felony's are a life sentence, In a nation of God loving, Christians that stress Forgiveness, Under a Constitution that reads Cruel and unusual punishment is a violation of rights.. Being old is good.
8
Would you want your mother being cared for by a convicted felon in a rehab facility? How about a convicted felon coming into your house to install internet service? I wouldn't and the fact I happen to be agnostic has nothing to do with it.
4
Forgiveness is essential from the community just as taking responsibility for ones actions and accepting the consequences are for the offender.
1
Well of course things can be improved, but if you can hire a criminal or a non-criminal of equal talent and ability the choice is easy. Now felonies are things that nobody want to hire, you make such a mistake you pay for your entire life.
1
Better check on some of the non-violent offenses that are felonies before you make that statement. Had a friend legally purchased weapon, stock had to be removed for cleaning per instructions, did not put back on, confiscated by law enforcement during search for alcohol would have had a misdemeanor underage drinking charge, officer took the firearm leaving the stock behind, charged with possession of a dangerous ordinance because without the stock this legally purchased and registered firearm now met the length requirement under the statute and misdemeanor became a felony 4.
1
The article should have addressed expungement, which clears a prior conviction from a person's legal record. After expungement, the arrest and conviction do not need to be disclosed to nongovernmental employers and do not appear on one's legal record.
5
Expungement is expensive, complicated, and impossible for some. Here in Pennsylvania it is impossible to have misdemeanor or felony convictions expunged. The law only allows arrests and summary convictions to be expunged.
5
My niece was briefly arrested and held for a few hours before being released when they found the real perpetrator. The arrest is still on her record 17 years later with no disposition listed. We have paid over $3,000 trying to get it off her record or at least get it to say that prosecutors never charged her. We have been unsuccessful. It is really ridiculous that it still interferes with her getting good jobs.
24
Sue the authorities that refused to correct the private record of your niece. There will likely be a lawyer that will take a contingency fee to advanced a civil case. It may appear extreme but unless the record-keepers don't feel the fire at their feet they have no alarm to correct the record of your niece. Get a good lawyer and the case will have a strong possibility for settlement before trial.
7
More anti-business regulation. This action would whittle down businesses ability to choose the best qualified, most reliable and honest workers.
8
I have to agree with you. But If you have served your time I think that needs to count for something in the work world. People have to be given a chance to start over. Would I want a hardened criminal working with me or at my properties? No.
It's a tough call.
It's a tough call.
1
None of us can do more than make the best of what we have at any given time. If circumstances cause a loss, pining or calling "injustice!" do not usually help. I see many offenders work hard to get back on their feet and more employers than I can count willing to give offenders chances. I also see offenders who feel entitled or are unreliable, or have personality or other issues and I would not hire them either.
10
I'm not so sure that Mr. Misky's troubles can be linked only to his criminal offense. If I was considering him for a job, the big red flag would be that he left a good-paying job for no apparent reason. That would tell me that this guy was likely a problem employee, probably somebody who was fired for an offense such as "repeatedly clashing with a supervisor." If my choice was between him and someone with a petty drug conviction, I think I would give the benefit of the doubt to the latter.
6
A person makes what appears to one mistake and based on not particularly thorough information you would hire someone with a petty drug conviction? I think folks with "petty drug convictions" should be given a good shot at drug. Same goes for the Miskys of the world - based on a thorough search of their talent.
4
It could also be that Mirsky was under-going marital problems at the time and didn't know how to handle the stress which eventually took him off the preferred route of counselling (who thinks of getting help once you're in the frying pan?). The benefit of doubt is often automatically given to management. Perhaps there ought to be a second opinion from an industrial psychologist who can probe the issues and make a fair recommendation? But that costs money. And private money often trumps the social good and individual rights to a fair hearing.
3
"White employers seemed to show more sympathy for the white applicants,"
I would imagine that Black employers would show more sympathy for the Black applicants and Asian employers would show more sympathy for the Asian applicants and Hispanic employers would show more sympathy for the Hispanic applicants but only the White employers in our liberal progressive world would be classified as RACISTS.
I would imagine that Black employers would show more sympathy for the Black applicants and Asian employers would show more sympathy for the Asian applicants and Hispanic employers would show more sympathy for the Hispanic applicants but only the White employers in our liberal progressive world would be classified as RACISTS.
13
I worked for four years in Community Corrections, and was able to see first hand what happens once one gets a felony conviction. They are PERMANENTLY barred from all military service, owning firearms, and voting. They are also basically locked out of a lot of potential employment and a lot of not only public but commercial housing. Even after they complete their sentences they are pretty much stuck with a modern day Scarlet Letter. The good news is that there are some employers who are "Felon Friendly."
8
A misdemeanor committed years before will prevent a person from joining the US armed forces.
Is there any rational to that?
Is there any rational to that?
8
Yes, there is a rationale.
3
What is it?
2
I read these stories and think, like Gov. Bradford: "There but for the grace of God go I"
The fact that society sees men as disposable is nothing new. Veterans from every war populate the homeless ranks. As are men with mental or emotional disabilities.
Men are 95% more likely to pay child support than gain custody of there children and are 50X more likely than women to be arrested for non-payment. Divorce and family laws courts effectively exist to punish men. Men are 10x more likely to be convicted of similar crime than that of women. Men receive prison sentences at a rate of 5x that of women for similar crimes.
This isn't just a criminal record issue its a systemic issue of discrimination of men in our culture and legal systems.
Just recently I saw an episode of Downton Abbey where the dowager countess made this poignant observation and comment "he's a man he has no rights." This is where art fiction reflects real world realities.
Men are 95% more likely to pay child support than gain custody of there children and are 50X more likely than women to be arrested for non-payment. Divorce and family laws courts effectively exist to punish men. Men are 10x more likely to be convicted of similar crime than that of women. Men receive prison sentences at a rate of 5x that of women for similar crimes.
This isn't just a criminal record issue its a systemic issue of discrimination of men in our culture and legal systems.
Just recently I saw an episode of Downton Abbey where the dowager countess made this poignant observation and comment "he's a man he has no rights." This is where art fiction reflects real world realities.
7
There lots of hippies arrested in the 60's and 70's for possession of marijuana. Imagine that?! But these days medicinal pot is becoming legal. Wonder if it would erase the misdemeanor arrest records of those hippies?
9
Shame on us!
3
Shame on the men who abandon their children and don't pay child support.
2
Prison in the US is a very lucrative business; the very reason the ignorant public votes for more prisons, corrupt prosecutors, and most of all corrupt judges, who even invest in a hidden prison investment where the profit depends on long sentences; all paid for by the taxpayers. I cannot feel sorry for the taxpayers, who deserve every bit of this expense, until they stop voting corruption into the justice system, including the fanatics appointed to the Supreme Court. If you think this is going to change, you do not have to look any further than the last Presidential election and the number of people voting for Romney. The disastrous years with W Bush did not even sound the alarm on keeping mentally sick people out of government. The country will be paying the price for years to come.
13
And, yet, California, that bastion of progress, is the leading incarcerator in the US. How does that jibe with your rant about republicans?
3
In NJ they arrest you for child support, unlike in NY you can basically get away with it. He should have moved to NY
My Ex owes over 16K in child support NY does nothing to collect. I would vote to have anyone who owes child support immediately arrested, there is a child involved and guess what the other side is doing whatever they can to support the child so there is not reason for the other to do the same.
This person knew very well the consequences of his actions and did what , ignored the letters, ignored the law. He knew exactly what was coming and now you are supposed to feel sorry because of his desire to flaunt the law, he could have gone to court for remedy, he could have done but did nothing and waited until they had to cone and get him. Ridiculous.
My Ex owes over 16K in child support NY does nothing to collect. I would vote to have anyone who owes child support immediately arrested, there is a child involved and guess what the other side is doing whatever they can to support the child so there is not reason for the other to do the same.
This person knew very well the consequences of his actions and did what , ignored the letters, ignored the law. He knew exactly what was coming and now you are supposed to feel sorry because of his desire to flaunt the law, he could have gone to court for remedy, he could have done but did nothing and waited until they had to cone and get him. Ridiculous.
5
So much for debtors prison being illegal or is it now dependent upon the type of debt? Incarcerating someone does not make them more able to pay duh..... in fact in the long run it means the children have an even lesser chance of seeing support from a now convicted parent so who are you hurting really?
1
Whatever happened to the concept of "paying One's debts to society"? It is cruel and unusual punishment for these arrests and convictions to follow a person for life, tantamount to a life sentence for any crime. Thad article raises several points: 1) the background checks are wrong almost half the time, so employers are relying on bad data to vet employees; 2) there is very little correlation between the underlying conviction and employment eligibility, so the background check is a simple exclusion, which, disproportionately impacts African Americans; 3) the definition of "crime" continues to expand, one can be convicted and jailed for hundreds more things than you could 30 years ago - take being jailed for failing to pay child support- really? Is this a " crime" which should preclude future employment? Especially since unemployment is what caused it in the first place? The entire justice system needs reform.
13
You are perfectly free to hire who you choose regarding past crime record. Others should be equally free to decline applicants with criminal records.
2
On the other hand, if one is a wealthy businessperson like Martha Stewart or Steve Madden, no problem getting back to work and being a celebrity.
Or "ex-cons" like Piper Kerman (Orange is the New Black) or Jordan Belfort (Wolf of wall Street) who have made millions following incarceration.
Pretty significant double standard....
Or "ex-cons" like Piper Kerman (Orange is the New Black) or Jordan Belfort (Wolf of wall Street) who have made millions following incarceration.
Pretty significant double standard....
8
Perhaps Congress should pass laws shielding companies that hire job applicants with criminal records from lawsuits based on these employees' on-the-job behavior. For example, a woman raped by a coworker with a previous conviction for sexual assault wouldn't be permitted to sue her employer for hiring the rapist.
2
An absolutely illogical example of irrational legislative proposal that violates the rights of women in "a man's world."
4
The trial lawyers association will be against this..........and the Dems get big bucks from this group. It would never pass!
1
Sweet fire, he's being satyrical, to illustrate the fact that employers do need latitude to consider convictions,
1
My God! Two guys show up having equal eligibility for a position and one says, in essense, "I was a bonger" so the position is offerd to the other. Really!
What government agency paid for those hundreds of men to go door to door, with fake documents, attempting to prove conservative white guys are unfit to make employment decisions?
What government agency paid for those hundreds of men to go door to door, with fake documents, attempting to prove conservative white guys are unfit to make employment decisions?
9
"According to the police report, Mr. Mirksy struggled, and the officers knocked him down, handcuffed him and charged him with resisting arrest."
I wonder how many of these convictions are for actual crimes or whether they are just another notch on a prosecutor's wall based solely on the word of a police officer. Was Eric Garner "resisting arrest"?
It is well known that prosecutors routinely "overcharge" and that innocent people will enter into a plea bargain to avoid a real risk of serious jail time.
Let's fix the justice system first.
Meanwhile, criminal convictions should not routinely be considered as part of an employment application unless they are serious felonies or are directly related to performance of the job.
I wonder how many of these convictions are for actual crimes or whether they are just another notch on a prosecutor's wall based solely on the word of a police officer. Was Eric Garner "resisting arrest"?
It is well known that prosecutors routinely "overcharge" and that innocent people will enter into a plea bargain to avoid a real risk of serious jail time.
Let's fix the justice system first.
Meanwhile, criminal convictions should not routinely be considered as part of an employment application unless they are serious felonies or are directly related to performance of the job.
23
The fact too many times, is that these prosecutors (read Ferguson MO here) work hand in hand with Sheriff's departments and Police depts. to "set up" petty offenders who happen to be poor and unable to pay for lawyers and railroad them through to "guilty" and fines which they cannot pay, so then have to serve jail time in lieu; it is a very lucrative cottage industry at the county level, as I have observed here in FL. Ironically, those same state attorneys/prosecutors block grand juries from being appointed to hear serious charges against law enforcement and their cronies high in government positions, their sometimes CAPITAL crimes are never prosecuted, and they go scot free! Likewise for other serious financial crimes, you cannot get an indictment against any offender in FL in the favored corporate community, developers, builders, bankers--the fact is these people have grown up together and have drawn a tight circle of protection from prosecution around themselves! Ordinary citizens are denied consideration of their criminal complaints and the crooks keep on committing their crimes! It is a culture of corruption where NOBODY dares to challenge these "state attorneys for life" in elections because the unspoken word is -- don't you dare try to unseat them! That's why Florida's government is rated the most corrupt of the 50 states. From the State House to the county courthouse, especially in the Deep South--it's the good ol' boy system!
6
Background checks were difficult to do years ago when I started my business. You pretty much went by the application and and interview and a gut feeling. People occasionally called about job openings and I would talk to them whether I had an opening or not at that time. One man sent me a resume that was missing five years of his life. I called him and asked why? He'd been in prison for manslaughter after killing a man who'd molested his daughter. Hardly what I'd call a career criminal and probably not an anger management case either. It's important to talk to people and not just look at the application. In another case I hired a man who had been working for an ex-coworker. Two weeks later I got a call from a bail bondsman who wanted him for skipping out on trial for drug sales. I gave him up but in the two weeks he was working for me he had sold the company credit card to someone who purchased $6,000 worth of cigarettes, car parts and drug paraphernalia. He skipped bond again but now he was someone else's problem.
9
In Ohio, our Republican governor championed a reform re-classifying many non-violent offenses from felony to misdemeanor status, after a woman was convicted of a felony for falsely claiming residency in her parents' town to gain access to better schools for her kids, a conviction which led to a multi-year prison term (set aside by the judge) and which disqualified her from her profession as a teacher's aid. In addition, the state set up a process by which former felons could be considered "rehabilitated" by a court, legally freeing employers form the liability that would potentially come from hiring a felon. Because ultimately, it's the fear of liability which is keepings these folks from being hired. (Once again, thank the trial lawyers.)
14
A difficult issue. You have to ask yourself: if you had a choice between two otherwise equal candidates, one of whom had a criminal conviction, which one would you choose?
7
I would look at the criminal conviction. If it was for getting caught with some weed when he was a teenager, I would discount it entirely. If it was for a crime of violence, not so much.
9
Never again will I be a nice guy who understands that people get trapped by "the system"
I've been an employer, and for decades I was "open minded' about looking at the entire person, when I hired individuals.
I was in an industry that required background checks. Over a five year period, I hired two employees out of many hires of that era and they were the only individuals who had backgrounds like those in the article. I even applied for and got waivers of "statutory disqualification" for each one of them.
This is because each had lived ten plus years, as upright citizens, since their problems with "the system."
Today I no longer have that business created over two decades, as the two of them eventually became friends, teamed up and, working together, embezzled and looted the company to it's death.
And the upshot was that, after firing them, because they had "employee's rights, they sued the company, and then me and my wife and children (also owners of the company) personally for holding back their last measly paychecks that were generated by their fraud.
The upshot today is that the business was liquidated to pay for massive litigation over their "employee rights," they were eventually charged and eventually convicted and then only served a short time for their fraud, and they are back out on the street now.
20 honest, law abiding employees lost their jobs when I had to shut the company down.
I am a believer in disqualification for ANY Criminal Activity.
I've been an employer, and for decades I was "open minded' about looking at the entire person, when I hired individuals.
I was in an industry that required background checks. Over a five year period, I hired two employees out of many hires of that era and they were the only individuals who had backgrounds like those in the article. I even applied for and got waivers of "statutory disqualification" for each one of them.
This is because each had lived ten plus years, as upright citizens, since their problems with "the system."
Today I no longer have that business created over two decades, as the two of them eventually became friends, teamed up and, working together, embezzled and looted the company to it's death.
And the upshot was that, after firing them, because they had "employee's rights, they sued the company, and then me and my wife and children (also owners of the company) personally for holding back their last measly paychecks that were generated by their fraud.
The upshot today is that the business was liquidated to pay for massive litigation over their "employee rights," they were eventually charged and eventually convicted and then only served a short time for their fraud, and they are back out on the street now.
20 honest, law abiding employees lost their jobs when I had to shut the company down.
I am a believer in disqualification for ANY Criminal Activity.
23
Sounds like a horrific experience that has produced a horrific over reaction. A person who loses his job and is convicted for failing to pay child support, should not be barred from all future employment. Likewise, a criminal conviction for possessing marijuana or jay walking or failing to appear for a traffic summons or any of the literally thousands of non-violent minor offenses that legislatures have criminalized over the last few decades have no bearing on fitness for employment.
I wonder if you really believe that we should bring the irrational unforgiving, mindless vengeance of Les Miserables into being in our society? It sounds like it.
I wonder if you really believe that we should bring the irrational unforgiving, mindless vengeance of Les Miserables into being in our society? It sounds like it.
3
RTB it is you who are hard hearted. This person not only owned a business but in doing so provided the livelihoods for others, or did you forget that?
One important and often overlooked issue about the large number of convictions is the bottom line for our "justice system." Felony charges come with much higher fines and longer probation periods with monthly fees. Not to mention much higher attorney fees. And let's not forget about the policing agencies - no crime, no job.
2
It is very sad that our leaders have still not woken up to the latest advances in the mind sciences. All criminal behavior is emotionally challenged behavior that means it is emotionally challenged brains that commit crimes. What criminals need is healing therapy that cures their emotionally challenged brains. Instead inmates, especially juveniles who have committed minor offences are exposed to experiences that make them become hardened criminals.
Our leaders must introduce a program where inmates are given 'wisdom therapy' that not just heals their emotional instability and makes them come out with emotional health. Also give them job training so they can make a good living.
As their criminal record still bars them from getting a job; those who pass in the above two programs must have their criminal record 'unconsidered' and the jailers must issue to them a graduation degree saying that the graduate has earned the right to have his criminal record annulled and is highly recommended for a job.
Our leaders must introduce a program where inmates are given 'wisdom therapy' that not just heals their emotional instability and makes them come out with emotional health. Also give them job training so they can make a good living.
As their criminal record still bars them from getting a job; those who pass in the above two programs must have their criminal record 'unconsidered' and the jailers must issue to them a graduation degree saying that the graduate has earned the right to have his criminal record annulled and is highly recommended for a job.
1
Legislating this will not solve the problem. Employers have any number of ways of researching candidates and rejecting them on pretenses, if they decide they don't want them.
2
A man living in a basement full of animal droppings should not be arrested, twice, because he cannot afford child support. What is wrong with us?! There should be some way for fathers like this to apply formally for temporary relief from payment, or to pay only what is genuinely affordable, until they are back on their feet. All this sanctioned bullying of the destitute Mr. Mirsky has done is driven him deeper into financial crisis. That's no good for his dependents either.
6
I've been here for a misdemeanor, even with no charges filed. It is devastating to my opportunities and self-esteem. I hope we can change this.
4
Let us not be hypocrites. Individuals having a felony is seen by white people as the lowest form of life not fit to associate and breathe the air they use. I have had a felony from 1998 for threatening someone with a gun. its been beautiful for the last 17 years here in America, UK and in Jamaica. Despite my Master Degree in Information Systems Management, My Bachelor of Business Administration in Management Information Systems and My Associates in Applied Science as a Database Specialist I have been out of work for 17 years. No one wants to employ me. Yes Christians you have made a free decision to ignore my existence and refuse to allow me the ability to support myself, Yes racist people I hope when you need my help and assistance when you are under stress and need my help, I have the legal right and responsibility to walk away to refuse to give you any assistance like what you have done to me for the last 17 years. Go help you when my mother dies for your righteous indignation of the security forces and the white power structure will not sway me no way at all. Remember the day of Judgement before the creator, we going have fun together
1
How many of those refusing employment to people with minor offenses have never themselves made a poor decision or broken a law and not gotten caught?
Many of my friends from school were wealthy enough to circumvent the justice system when others, whose "crimes" were similar, but whose parents' income wasn't, ended up with records.
Given the insane zealotry with which we arrest, fine, and jail our poorest citizens, it is amazing anyone but the rich is getting by.
Oh, wait...
Many of my friends from school were wealthy enough to circumvent the justice system when others, whose "crimes" were similar, but whose parents' income wasn't, ended up with records.
Given the insane zealotry with which we arrest, fine, and jail our poorest citizens, it is amazing anyone but the rich is getting by.
Oh, wait...
10
Not only does it not take much to get into trouble these days - especially for anything from drug possession for personal use to totally ridiculous things like being busted for jaywalking and told you're 'resisting arrest' (probably by asking something like "What........?) - but you can end up virtually unemployable - and even unable to rent a place or buy into a condo or HOA - simply for being on the wrong data base. Yes, they've got all sorts of online lists, of everything to people who've complained to or about a landlord to those who carry various diagnoses or take certain medications - and these DON'T have to be psychiatric. (How many fitness-minded bosses will hire someone listed as pre-diabetic or simply overweight?) There are NO limits to private background checks in this country, and this includes things posted ABOUT you - true or not - on social media. (Why do you think victims of cyberbullying commit suicide? It's not because their egos are shattered. It's because their future chances often are.)
If the idea was to create a society in which loads of people will be scared half to death of showing any signs of suspected skepticism or non-conformity, our crazy quilt data non-system has succeeded beyond George Orwell's wildest nightmares. Yes, something CAN be done about it - the European Union's privacy laws protect people over there from this abuse. But in this country with its loads of puritanical control freak bosses? Only if the vast majority of us demand it.
If the idea was to create a society in which loads of people will be scared half to death of showing any signs of suspected skepticism or non-conformity, our crazy quilt data non-system has succeeded beyond George Orwell's wildest nightmares. Yes, something CAN be done about it - the European Union's privacy laws protect people over there from this abuse. But in this country with its loads of puritanical control freak bosses? Only if the vast majority of us demand it.
19
"Employers seemed to use the reported convictions as 'a proxy for reliability and trustworthiness ...." And why shouldn't they? If two applicants have similar skills, but one has a criminal record and the other doesn't, who would you hire? Employers have every right to hire the most trustworthy people they can find.
18
"Employers have every right to hire the most trustworthy people they can find."
Not according to the EEOC. According to the EEOC, you must hire a certain quota of Blacks - whether they have criminal records (that have shown them to be untrustworthy) or not.
Not according to the EEOC. According to the EEOC, you must hire a certain quota of Blacks - whether they have criminal records (that have shown them to be untrustworthy) or not.
This story of Mr. Mirsky, Menteer, Payne, and the millions like them is exceptionally tragic. However, you did not explain the true extent of the problem: America has over 2.2 million people enslaved in jails and over 75 million citizens free but with lifelong convictions, the vast majority of them for Unconstitutional victimless+consensual crimes like "drug" possession. The solution is not a campaign to "ban the box" until later in the job application process, when it will still tank their chances. The solution is to repeal all the unconstitutional victimless crimes on the books (because judges did not do their jobs of invalidating such lunacy) + to pardon (or give clemency to) every one of the approximately 70 million convicted of these victimless/consensual crimes. The main cause of all these arrests, and of all crime in the world (especially violent crime) is the drug prohibition laws. End those evil laws and most crime + violence in the world will end, overnight.
Then, we can take the $ we save and provide people with free housing, food, minimal income, college, internet, etc. to give all Americans the chance to contribute to the world to the best of their abilities.
Pardoning the 70 million convicted of victimless crimes (+ making all immigrants legal) will also greatly increase the wages of ALL Americans, who will not have to compete against illegal workers earning slave wages. We must stand up for human rights. As Pres. Jefferson said, no victim no crime.
Then, we can take the $ we save and provide people with free housing, food, minimal income, college, internet, etc. to give all Americans the chance to contribute to the world to the best of their abilities.
Pardoning the 70 million convicted of victimless crimes (+ making all immigrants legal) will also greatly increase the wages of ALL Americans, who will not have to compete against illegal workers earning slave wages. We must stand up for human rights. As Pres. Jefferson said, no victim no crime.
11
U.S. drug laws may represent poor public policy, but there is no reasonable basis for arguing that they are unconstitutional.
5
Enslaved? Forced labor was abolished years ago.
There is nothing wrong with preferring to hire a person who has managed to avoid being convicted of a felony. Like it or not, it does say something about your character.
18
You would be quite right if convictions were for real crimes but it seems to me that an African-American can get convicted of some crime just by being near a white policeman who is not in a good mood.
4
Sorry, but this is not true. It is much easier for some folks to be convicted of felonies than others. When I was in college, I saw well off white kids sharing out cocaine and pot with literally no fear of the police arresting them. Even when the police showed up to a frat party to tell them to turn down the noise, they didn't search the place for illegal drugs, even when pot was clearly in the air. Contrast that with the police being called to quiet a party at a low income housing project and finding a marijuana joint in the process. How often do you think they would overlook it?
As often as not, felony convictions for non-violent offenses say something about your race or the race and mindset of the police officer who decided to arrest (or not arrest) you. Pretending that racial privilege doesn't play a huge role in determining who gets arrested and who gets a pass is just a lie.
As often as not, felony convictions for non-violent offenses say something about your race or the race and mindset of the police officer who decided to arrest (or not arrest) you. Pretending that racial privilege doesn't play a huge role in determining who gets arrested and who gets a pass is just a lie.
4
Distinguish between arrests and convictions.
One can argue about whether convictions are relevant factors in hiring.
But arrests must not be.
Employers should be forbidden to ask about arrests.
One can argue about whether convictions are relevant factors in hiring.
But arrests must not be.
Employers should be forbidden to ask about arrests.
11
There's an occasional arrest for a horrendous crime that reveal that the person was arrested dozens of times without ever going to court because the charges were dismissed, the arresting officer or witnesses didn't show up in court, etc. Arrest records in some cases do matter.
1
Arrest records and news reports are a huge problem. There should be required followup reporting to clear the names of those who are not convicted, whether they are acquitted or charges are dropped. The names should probably be deleted from online sources, because for some employers, just being accused is enough.
5
These kinds of articles do little to elucidate the issue. You can always find a story of someone who deserves a second chance and slips through the crack. It is also easy to find the case of a child rapist who was hired by a school did not do a background check. Neither moves forward the debate. Without a statistics around issues of recidivism, composition of the felony population, etc, how can one tell whether this is a matter that warrants correction or whether it protects people and companies from criminals who are a threat?
14
My neighbor has a boyfriend from out of state. One night she was insulted by a car of guys and later he punctured the tires of a parked car which he identified as the vehicle they were in.
Don't puncture things in public that don't belong to you, don't get searched with puncture weapons on you and don't date people who puncture things.
If a police officer says, turn around and put your hands behind your back, and you don't, just remember there is a queue that goes around the world waiting for your job.
Don't puncture things in public that don't belong to you, don't get searched with puncture weapons on you and don't date people who puncture things.
If a police officer says, turn around and put your hands behind your back, and you don't, just remember there is a queue that goes around the world waiting for your job.
15
You make it sound so simple and that is because it really is simple. My business is one that deals in a lot of cash transactions, plus employees need some knowledge of my product. We attend shows at large venues across the country and the skill set for employees is simple: good driving record, ability to follow simple instructions, dependability above all else. Of course we do extensive background checks and being arrested for resisting arrest is a BIG problem for me--it means that an applicant can't follow easy rules, is hot-headed, and can't be 100% trusted to be dependable. I want to have the right to check out potential employees and eliminate pot-heads, hot heads, and, of course, I will hire someone with a clean record first--and always.
8
So basically, don't ever, ever make a mistake because if you do, you deserve to have your life ruined forever? That's your answer?
2
After a convicted felon has served his sentence, and "Paid his debt to society", if he can't find a job, can't vote, can't own a firearm, I think it would be fair to say that our society will never really allow him to be considered "Debt free".
41
Ron, He didn't pay his debt to society, regardless of that term being used. He paid a penalty. If someone murders or rapes, how does someone 'pay his debt'? How will he make the victim whole? How will he make society feel secure knowing that someone committed such a heinous crime?
If a child molester serves his sentence, would you hire him to babysit for your children? Would you want a convicted thief to be in your home alone? Would you want someone convicted of DUI 3 (or 15) times driving your children?
Most convicts can not 'repay their debt to society', they just pay the penalty, while leaving the victims and their friends, family, and loved ones to try to pick up the pieces.
Rather than crying for the bad guys, we should remember and cry for the victims and the damage done to society, and do the smart thing--never deliberately put the bad guys in positions where they can easily re-offend.
If a child molester serves his sentence, would you hire him to babysit for your children? Would you want a convicted thief to be in your home alone? Would you want someone convicted of DUI 3 (or 15) times driving your children?
Most convicts can not 'repay their debt to society', they just pay the penalty, while leaving the victims and their friends, family, and loved ones to try to pick up the pieces.
Rather than crying for the bad guys, we should remember and cry for the victims and the damage done to society, and do the smart thing--never deliberately put the bad guys in positions where they can easily re-offend.
4
Conflating everyone with a criminal conviction into the group known as "bad guys" is not helpful or honest. There is a chasm of difference between a rapist and a pothead or even a user of harder drugs (i.e much of Wall Street).
Very few people are rapists, but easily half the adult population has tried pot or some other illegal drug. Is half the population the moral equivalent of criminals? If there is a moral dimension to knowingly using an illegal drug for recreation, surely the moral wrong occurs when a person uses the drug, not when a minority got caught using the drug. I seriously doubt that many people catching their teenager trying pot are call the police because they now see their child as a criminal.
Very few people are rapists, but easily half the adult population has tried pot or some other illegal drug. Is half the population the moral equivalent of criminals? If there is a moral dimension to knowingly using an illegal drug for recreation, surely the moral wrong occurs when a person uses the drug, not when a minority got caught using the drug. I seriously doubt that many people catching their teenager trying pot are call the police because they now see their child as a criminal.
3
27 years ago, in a stupid college prank gone wrong, I was arrested and convicted of a class B misdemeanor for the theft of a bicycle on the campus. Up until last year, this embarrassing mistake I made when I was 18 years old, had been buried in the past, where I believe it belongs. I’ve gone on to be, I think, a pretty decent person. I have a PhD. I teach and mentor young people. My credit score is 786. I was recently denied an apartment and received a simple response from the landlord: ‘We don’t rent to criminals such as yourself.’ I was flabbergasted and hurt, had no idea this information was now available to anyone who wanted to pay $9.99 to run a background check on me. There are probably a good many people just like me who now must helplessly watch their pasts collide with the present in the most damaging ways in the move to digitize.
90
can you get an expungement or pardon?
1
Some states -- like Virginia -- don't allow records to be expunged. Short of a pardon (unlikely), your record will stick with you for life. A true tragedy for people who truly have learned their lessons, paid their dues but can't move forward.
10
How about just tell them the incident and date.
3
I don't know all the details but it sounds like Mirsky's ex is a jerk.
Regarding the resisting arrest charge, it's known to all but the terminally stupid that it's used when police have nothing to charge you with. As a crime it should be removed from the books.
We're only hurting ourselves when we treat convicted people who've served their time this way.
Regarding the resisting arrest charge, it's known to all but the terminally stupid that it's used when police have nothing to charge you with. As a crime it should be removed from the books.
We're only hurting ourselves when we treat convicted people who've served their time this way.
11
Sometimes these arrests for child support payments are triggered by lapse of time in paying and not by exes. The warrant can be for contempt and not for crime or sometimes criminal nonsupport.
5
I have a coworker who lost his job and remained unemployed for a protracted period like many others in the post-2008 downturn, and subsequently fell behind in child support payments. His ex-wife resided in VA and he had to go to court there. He barely escaped being incarcerated for non-payment, and he said the judge was jailing other defendants at the hearing. Fortunately for him, my coworker had been recently hired and was able to work out a payment plan to avoid jail time.
This was all news to me. I was really surprised to find how easily one could be incarcerated for non payment in certain jurisdictions. Seems like a totally counterproductive "remedy" that makes it even more difficult to have the means to make payments.
This was all news to me. I was really surprised to find how easily one could be incarcerated for non payment in certain jurisdictions. Seems like a totally counterproductive "remedy" that makes it even more difficult to have the means to make payments.
9
A side issue raised by this article is the way child support laws are written and applied in a variety of states. My experience with them in New York was, to say the least quite an eye opener, their consequences for the children involved was shockingly destructive. Because NY does not allow for any level of proportionality of resources (if children spend a substantial amount of time in both households) what resulted was a redistribution of resources so extreme that no reasonable person could claim that the interests of the children were served, since substantial time was spent in both households.
Rendering non-custodial parents economically non-viable impacts those involved in ways that can be difficult to overcome. The Child Support Enforcement Unit for NYS has promotional brochures that tout the desire to help children and keep both parents connected, my experience was that the reality of implementation could be far more callous and damaging to both non-custodial parent households and the interests of their children, (who can spend up to half of their time with them and still be considered "non-custodial").
I would encourage a focused examination by the Times of this particular area of law and its widespread impacts on NY families, particularly the children and non-custodial parents. Mr. Mirsky's unfortunate and damaging interactions with Child Support laws are just the tip of this well-meaning (but desperately in need of revision) iceberg.
Rendering non-custodial parents economically non-viable impacts those involved in ways that can be difficult to overcome. The Child Support Enforcement Unit for NYS has promotional brochures that tout the desire to help children and keep both parents connected, my experience was that the reality of implementation could be far more callous and damaging to both non-custodial parent households and the interests of their children, (who can spend up to half of their time with them and still be considered "non-custodial").
I would encourage a focused examination by the Times of this particular area of law and its widespread impacts on NY families, particularly the children and non-custodial parents. Mr. Mirsky's unfortunate and damaging interactions with Child Support laws are just the tip of this well-meaning (but desperately in need of revision) iceberg.
27
And, forget about consistency from county to county, judge to judge and even depending on the lawyers involved. It's a crapshoot and the children and usually the noncustodial parents suffer, usually the fathers, but not always.
3
I think the recent trend of "banning the box" is a good one; there is clear evidence from Dr. Pager and others that criminal records are excluding people from having a serious opportunity for the job. That is wrong. The problem is determining which party, the government or the employer, has the right to say what is a "disqualifying offense" and what is not. The former will likely lean to a more exclusive standard than the latter, for legal reasons detailed in other comments in this thread. As Mr. Applebaum writes, however, the real and much harder problem to solve is breaking the vicious cycle or the prison-unemployment revolving door that ensnares far too many people. "Banning the box" is insufficient for these people; they don't need new government laws as much as new government programs willing to invest in them and their futures.
3
It is part of the great American power play. Those who have the power want those who do not have power to be prevented from threatening their job. And the Wall Street criminal finance million/billionaires do not get arrested or (Heavens no) put in jail. Poor and think the odds are against you? You are right but you could move to Canada and have a better life.
2
Unlike the United States, Canada has actual rules for getting in:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/eligibility.asp
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/eligibility.asp
9
Joe, I'm pretty sure you know that the United States also has actual rules for getting in but if you really don't you can read this:
http://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/study-exchange/req-visas
BTW, Canada has an illegal immigrant problem, too, as does almost every desirable country on earth. I'm not sure why you think the USA is the only country that does.
http://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/study-exchange/req-visas
BTW, Canada has an illegal immigrant problem, too, as does almost every desirable country on earth. I'm not sure why you think the USA is the only country that does.
So does every other country including the US. But the US doesn't enforce it's immigration laws.
2
Exactly what did his ex-wife expect from Mirsky when she had him arrested for non-support? You can't pay when you're not working or in jail. Surely, there was another way to address this issue. Very foolish woman.
4
State laws often set periods of time that trigger charges for nonpayment, the ex doesn't have them arrested.
5
It's not the exes who decide. Payments are made to state agencies which track when they are missed. Not only can you be arrested, but even if you are not arrested, they can take away your driver's license. How do they expect you to get to work?
6
It's not always the ex-wife/ex-girl friend who has man arrested for non-support. Other scenarios:
Assume the man is non-custodial, child support paying parent is the man, as most often the ex-husband (or child's father if the parents were never married) and the custodial parent is the woman. Here's how the non-payment bit works:
A) The man (who has a job) pays directly to the woman (who most often has a job): if he does not pay, she has him arrested.
(B) The man doesn't pay child support to the woman, and she goes to the State agency which then collects child support from his paycheck. If he doesn't pay, the State has him arrested.
(C) The woman and children are supported by the State; the State files for the employer to deduct child support and/or mandatory covering of the child(children) by medical insurance. Mandatory deductions from gross pay reimburses the taxpayers for part of support for the woman/children.
Here's what can happen with C: Man quits job to avoid paying. State runs his SS # and files with next employer. Man quits job, moves, works for cash with no reporting of income. State catches up with him, puts him in jail.
The HR dept for my employer has multiples of scenario C. Worst case is employee who has mandatory deductions for 4 children in 3 states. He lives with his mother; can't afford his own place. But he was 50% of making the 4 babies.....so he pays for each child for 18 years!
Scenario C is all too common.
Assume the man is non-custodial, child support paying parent is the man, as most often the ex-husband (or child's father if the parents were never married) and the custodial parent is the woman. Here's how the non-payment bit works:
A) The man (who has a job) pays directly to the woman (who most often has a job): if he does not pay, she has him arrested.
(B) The man doesn't pay child support to the woman, and she goes to the State agency which then collects child support from his paycheck. If he doesn't pay, the State has him arrested.
(C) The woman and children are supported by the State; the State files for the employer to deduct child support and/or mandatory covering of the child(children) by medical insurance. Mandatory deductions from gross pay reimburses the taxpayers for part of support for the woman/children.
Here's what can happen with C: Man quits job to avoid paying. State runs his SS # and files with next employer. Man quits job, moves, works for cash with no reporting of income. State catches up with him, puts him in jail.
The HR dept for my employer has multiples of scenario C. Worst case is employee who has mandatory deductions for 4 children in 3 states. He lives with his mother; can't afford his own place. But he was 50% of making the 4 babies.....so he pays for each child for 18 years!
Scenario C is all too common.
'...Gregory Payne...served 16 months, then three years, then another three years and a final four years on top of that...I wouldn’t hire you myself. But people who went up for drugs?”...'
Not for *using* drugs, for *selling* drugs.
Why would anyone want to hire these men? Mr Payne has served almost 12 years in prison, has three children with no indication he has supported any of them, which means the taxpayers have, so he has spent his life on the dole, one way or another.
And now that he scammed himself into disability payments, he is content with the taxpayers supporting him for the rest of his life.
None of these men takes any responsibility for the way their lives have turned out. They see themselves as perpetual victims with a litany of excuses, when it is the rest of society who has been victimized by them.
The medical profession diagnoses these types of people as having 'antisocial personality disorder', a much more appealing name for what they really are, which is garden variety sociopaths.
Not for *using* drugs, for *selling* drugs.
Why would anyone want to hire these men? Mr Payne has served almost 12 years in prison, has three children with no indication he has supported any of them, which means the taxpayers have, so he has spent his life on the dole, one way or another.
And now that he scammed himself into disability payments, he is content with the taxpayers supporting him for the rest of his life.
None of these men takes any responsibility for the way their lives have turned out. They see themselves as perpetual victims with a litany of excuses, when it is the rest of society who has been victimized by them.
The medical profession diagnoses these types of people as having 'antisocial personality disorder', a much more appealing name for what they really are, which is garden variety sociopaths.
36
Commenters such as NM declare that people who have served time in prison should never be permitted to work again, anywhere. To them, that seems the logical result of making bad choices.
I wonder how they expect people to find food and shelter once released from prison, if they cannot find work. They usually don't qualify for disability benefits, many states have chosen to make sure they can't get any kind of health insurance, they may well have a spouse and children...
Is one's debt to society paid off by a jail term of a specific length, or do we intend it to be ineradicable except by death? If the latter, perhaps all crime, from smoking pot to stealing a bike to burglary on up should result in the death penalty. That's starting to sound like a swifter and more merciful end than the current system!
I wonder how they expect people to find food and shelter once released from prison, if they cannot find work. They usually don't qualify for disability benefits, many states have chosen to make sure they can't get any kind of health insurance, they may well have a spouse and children...
Is one's debt to society paid off by a jail term of a specific length, or do we intend it to be ineradicable except by death? If the latter, perhaps all crime, from smoking pot to stealing a bike to burglary on up should result in the death penalty. That's starting to sound like a swifter and more merciful end than the current system!
1
Can't the NYT find better victims for these grievance stories? Forget the criminal record, just being fired (from a six figure job no less) for continual arguing with a supervisor would be enough for many employers not to hire him.
51
People get fired - you should still be able to work again. I imagine everyone thinks it will never happen to them or they are the perfect employee. It shouldn't automatically disqualify someone from future work.
8
But we've all had bad bosses. How did he get to a six-figure job if he was that much of a problem? Or did he have mental health issues? It's more complex that it seems.
6
Ever think it was the supervisor that should have been fired?
8
Looking at Mr. Mirsky's predicament, there appear to be poor choices, yes, but he also exemplifies how losing a job can snowball on people. Even apparently "middle-class" people. And the criminal justice system is set up to really stick it to people who lose their jobs or don't have money to fall back on. I wish the article had made that clearer.
Consider: if he wasn't unemployed, he could presumably have kept up with child support payments. But he's criminalized for falling behind. Now there are cops headed to his house. Any encounter with police is an invitation for them to cause you trouble -- they can charge you with pretty much whatever they want, and then you have to prove yourself innocent, at significant expense to yourself. And I find it hard to imagine that if he had been able to hire a halfway decent lawyer, he'd have been able to plead down the resisting arrest charge. So now he's got a felony rap and can't find employment.
Consider: if he wasn't unemployed, he could presumably have kept up with child support payments. But he's criminalized for falling behind. Now there are cops headed to his house. Any encounter with police is an invitation for them to cause you trouble -- they can charge you with pretty much whatever they want, and then you have to prove yourself innocent, at significant expense to yourself. And I find it hard to imagine that if he had been able to hire a halfway decent lawyer, he'd have been able to plead down the resisting arrest charge. So now he's got a felony rap and can't find employment.
78
Just to be fair. Police can arrest you for almost anything. Only the prosecutor's office can charge you and make that arrest an official charge in court.
6
An industrial union should hire the guy as an organizer. Be nice to have someone who's not afraid of an employer or their police minions.
2
New Jersey probably suspended Mr. MIrsky's drivers license without notice over the child support which leads to many arrests and vehicles getting towed. I would hire him as someone with good technical skills a child support related arrest is not important to my business.
As for Mr. Payne, the " “You keep doing the things that get you the money" attitude from a guy with four felony convictions is not someone I want working in my warehouse or visiting my customers. Because you can "get money" easy by stealing products from the company or the customers and getting arrested does not seem to concern him much.
Nice illegal immigrants in NJ are taking the entry level hard work blue collar jobs formerly taken by high school only educated white and black guys with or without criminal records. If you do not believe it go to any construction site in NJ.
As for Mr. Payne, the " “You keep doing the things that get you the money" attitude from a guy with four felony convictions is not someone I want working in my warehouse or visiting my customers. Because you can "get money" easy by stealing products from the company or the customers and getting arrested does not seem to concern him much.
Nice illegal immigrants in NJ are taking the entry level hard work blue collar jobs formerly taken by high school only educated white and black guys with or without criminal records. If you do not believe it go to any construction site in NJ.
34
Easy for you to say when you aren't in his shoes with all the legit doors slammed in your face and kids to feed.
Are these really the "same jobs?" Or, are they low paying, no benefit, under the table jobs that unscrupulous employers have propped up in their place to save a buck and make a buck? Yes! I see a lot of immigrants doing the hard work, and rather than grouse about them taking jobs away from people, wake up, and realize that this is all well gamed. Do you really believe the beef about Obama and executive privilege is over deporting immigrants? If business really wanted the illegal immigrant slaves deported, legislation to that effect would have passed a long time ago. This is a business, and although there may be some Americans out there who still want to do hard work, they do not want to work for next to nothing, nor should they. It is unclear why people repeatedly see Obama as the culprit, when it is so obvious that he is just used as a smoke screen, an all too often smoke screen, for the ill behavior of others. I guess it must be because he doesn't love America, like everyone else does. Well, maybe he isn't involved in living a fantasy and wanted to change things.
The construction jobs pay well $100-$150 per day cash no taxes. Often the contractor is a now legal immigrant with license and insurance along with one or two on the books employees. The rest of the crew is hired as needed, people here illegally; brothers, cousins and friends. These jobs used to go to local inner city high school grads or dropouts many with minor legal problems. You may like or dislike the policys but denying US citizens are loosing jobs is not true.
Part of the problem is the easy access to information as pointed out. In the recent past you could just move to the next town or state and generally noone would know who you were. But its also the lack of jobs particularly lower skill jobs that allow employers to be very picky about who they hire.
6
I have three engineering degrees and an MBA. Because I spent 8 months in jail for a non violent offence I lost my clearance. Luckily I am self employed and much happier.
7
An interesting article. I know a number of people, of many colors, who have straightened their lives out with serious convictions in their past. It is very difficult to climb out of that hole. Getting out of the hole seems to begin with admitting who dug the hole in the first place. I'm not at all sure why the NYTimes decided to bring race into this story. And of course, not all races, just Black and white. How does this issue effect Asians? Hispanics? First Peoples?
During the Crack Epidemic, tougher drug laws were passed with the complete backing of Black churches and Black politicians. The streets looked ugly. Lives were being destroyed by the trainload. The crisis is over, we've changed the laws.
When Mr. Mirsky, a white guy, was arrested for resisting arrest, in his own home - did the president get involved? Does Professor Gates have a comment? Oops, there's that nasty business of money and status getting in the way again.
In my state, there is no majority race. Asians make up a bigger slice of the population than Blacks, as do Hispanics. The day is past when you can bring race into the equation and pretend that there are only two in this country.
The challenges of turning a life around are many. The year is 2015, not 1960.
During the Crack Epidemic, tougher drug laws were passed with the complete backing of Black churches and Black politicians. The streets looked ugly. Lives were being destroyed by the trainload. The crisis is over, we've changed the laws.
When Mr. Mirsky, a white guy, was arrested for resisting arrest, in his own home - did the president get involved? Does Professor Gates have a comment? Oops, there's that nasty business of money and status getting in the way again.
In my state, there is no majority race. Asians make up a bigger slice of the population than Blacks, as do Hispanics. The day is past when you can bring race into the equation and pretend that there are only two in this country.
The challenges of turning a life around are many. The year is 2015, not 1960.
23
This has been going on for a very long time and the World Privacy Forum wrote a report on this cited everywhere, called "The Secret Scoring of America" and I started writing ab out it three years ago when the Occupy movement began, as it's the use of algorithmic scoring and analytics that is sometimes very flawed to make decisions. I have the issue myself as way back in my early years of marriage, I had a step son that was involved in dealing drugs and to this day when someone does a check on me, and mind you I'm over 25 years divorced here, a red flashing light still shows up next to me with my name saying "there's a potential criminal connected to me" and it goes way back to the arrest the kid had 30 years ago and I can't shake it and am forever attached to that issue, even though it had nothing to do with me at all.
http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2014/04/world-privacy-forum-report-scorin...
In addition due to sloppy data broker work, I have had two alias names connected to me on people that live in states where I have never even visited and had to remove those, so again when using algorithms for hiring decisions as such, people get left out as they don't look at the "real word" and do the "stat rat fever" number only.
http://ducknetweb.blogspot.fr/2014/03/virtual-worlds-real-world-we-have....
People do not know how how to work with and evaluate flawed data at all.
http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2014/04/world-privacy-forum-report-scorin...
In addition due to sloppy data broker work, I have had two alias names connected to me on people that live in states where I have never even visited and had to remove those, so again when using algorithms for hiring decisions as such, people get left out as they don't look at the "real word" and do the "stat rat fever" number only.
http://ducknetweb.blogspot.fr/2014/03/virtual-worlds-real-world-we-have....
People do not know how how to work with and evaluate flawed data at all.
9
What is the role of the news media in stigmatizing? Reports of absurd lawsuits and outlandish civil judgments create the popular and false impression that they are common when most of the former are handily dismissed and the latter sharply reduced on appeal. Likewise, news stories of particularly onerous crimes, such as the Weaver murder described here, create the illusion of "once a criminal, always a criminal." Studies and surveys reveal time and again that most people, employers included, do not know how to evaluate risk and fear statistically improbable dangers. Sensational news coverage only amplifies this, and the "information age" that was supposed to bring us together seems only to be driving us apart.
6
While I agree in theory, in real life it costs an enormous amount of money and time to obtain a court dismal and the costs for overturning a ruling are even higher. A settlement out of court can leave doubts in other peoples minds and your insurance carrier will raise your rates as well. One has to understand that a low probability is less important than the potential harm one can sustain. If it can happen and the consequence is severe, you would be foolish to proceed.
3
A lot of these guys deserve second chances and should get the opportunity to rebuild their lives and become productive members of society.
If they don't, society as a whole will pay the price. It's possible to get frustrated and act out - the I've got nothing to lose thought. That option is not valid but when cornered our rational thinking goes out the window.
Give them a chance, we'll be better for it!
If they don't, society as a whole will pay the price. It's possible to get frustrated and act out - the I've got nothing to lose thought. That option is not valid but when cornered our rational thinking goes out the window.
Give them a chance, we'll be better for it!
43
Fine, then you hire them instead of forcing other business owners (who have to carry enough liability insurance as it is now) to take that questionable chance. Let each business decide for itself.
I usually ask guys who are going to do odd-jobs for me whether they have ever had any run-ins with the law, and I've never had any problem getting what I think is a straight answer. I always think this kinda clears the air for both
parties.
Somebody also ought to experiment with giving guys with criminal records who are looking for work short printouts of their records that they could present to prospective employers. I have a hunch the results might turn out to be surprisingly good.
parties.
Somebody also ought to experiment with giving guys with criminal records who are looking for work short printouts of their records that they could present to prospective employers. I have a hunch the results might turn out to be surprisingly good.
23
I have a hunch they would not be good. Liability is a very serious issue, one that any reasonable business man/woman would be wise to not ignore.
5
An employer who hires a convict exposes the firm to enormous litigation risks. You would be stupid to take a chance on someone with a conviction (any kind) because a jury of your peers who find you negligent. Jurys don't think convicts should be given another chance and they would be very quick to punish the employer who chose to hire convicts most severely.
28
A brilliant idea--a virtual life sentence for everyone convicted of anything, followed by a purge of useless words like "rehabilitation" and "redemption."
14
Just keep this in mind Clare , over 2 percent of of the adult population is incarcerated at any time in this country. Keeping in mind that the average sentence is less than two years and you have a severe assembly line of US Citizens in the system.Many of these offenders made a bad choice ,they are not career felons.I hardy think we have millions of dedicated criminals in our country.
Your line of reasoning is quite harsh and given the statistics ,make no mistake, it could be you or a loved one some day.Life is a lot more than "litigation risk".
Your line of reasoning is quite harsh and given the statistics ,make no mistake, it could be you or a loved one some day.Life is a lot more than "litigation risk".
1
You have some evidence to support your contention? Not sure why the NYT chose your response as a "NYT Pick". There are laws on the book that hold employers or potential employers accountable in civil actions for discriminating against individuals with criminal records. Not to mention that Title VII protects minorities who are disproprtionately impacted by arrests and convictions.
Try a simple google search of the EEOC guidelines and criminal records.
Most employers also have attorneys in their employ who know to steer clear of disqualifying applicants based solely upon past convictions.
Do a little research.
Try a simple google search of the EEOC guidelines and criminal records.
Most employers also have attorneys in their employ who know to steer clear of disqualifying applicants based solely upon past convictions.
Do a little research.
2
Yep, I'm more likely than a white person to get in trouble, more likely to get arrested for it, less likely to get good legal advice or representaion, more likely to be charged after the arrest, less likely to get off, and more likely to be convicted, and less likely to have employers overlook any arrest or conviction
To make things worse, the police surveillance state makes it impossible to get away with things teens and young men have done for years: drinking with buds in a park, brawling, speeding, etc. Not that any of these are okay, just that we are forcing men down and possibly into worse crime by keeping them from employment.
And by the way, this doesn't happen to just men. Women also have their life choices reduced disproportionately for crimes they've served time for.
To make things worse, the police surveillance state makes it impossible to get away with things teens and young men have done for years: drinking with buds in a park, brawling, speeding, etc. Not that any of these are okay, just that we are forcing men down and possibly into worse crime by keeping them from employment.
And by the way, this doesn't happen to just men. Women also have their life choices reduced disproportionately for crimes they've served time for.
12
Another fantastic example of why this "publication's" editorial board's lunatic position on illegal aliens is proven wrong. Were there not 30 million illegals already here - plus another million or more streaming across the border each year - people like these who are obviously decent and trying to fix their lots in life would have opportunities. But when a business, even a fast food restaurant, has so many thousands of people to select from for each opening, they can be ridiculously picky, and hence large numbers of americans who could do these jobs and need them are left out.
We need to deport the illegals and get Americans back to work. Its time this "publication" started supporting Americans and not its corporate masters seeking to destroy the middle class.
We need to deport the illegals and get Americans back to work. Its time this "publication" started supporting Americans and not its corporate masters seeking to destroy the middle class.
25
"I'm more likely than a white person to get in trouble"
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. You can choose not to "get in trouble".
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. You can choose not to "get in trouble".
5
Well this is a new argument against illegal immigration. First it was "they're criminals" and "they are taking our jobs"! Now it's "we need to deport the illegals because they are taking the jobs of our criminals"!
11
My apologies, my response was for the comment above yours. I agree with your post 100%.
It is sad to see this continuing war on men using the proxy fight of "it's for the child" to ruin men's lives. The guy was unemployed and still required to pay child support. The awards given to women are unilateral, capricious and have only served to enrich the family court system and their lawyers. Coupled with undocumented illegal workers taking jobs from these men, the continuing use of unlawful administrative law creates a quagmire of landmines for men trying to work. It is just so sad the American is turning into this kind of a country.
5
That financial award wasn't given to a woman; it was given to a child who has to eat and be clothed regardless of the decisions of her father.
15
It was given to a woman for the support of the child, and they will throw a man in jail for being unemployed or becoming disabled and falling behind on payments. All he needs is his public defender to be typically unmotivated about helping him explain his situation. In the case of disability, doctors must weigh in and agree on the degree of disability. Doctors who have never done daily physical labor in their lives are weighing in on whether a guy with a wrenched back can work half-time or 3/4 or not at all.
3
Have we become a society that every sentence is a life sentence? To exclude automatically an individual for a job or housing because of an arrest or criminal conviction, especially a non-violent conviction, is both economically impractical and deeply unjust. Is this aspect of our judicial system completely broken? It is certainly practical when hiring a new employee to inquire fully about the person’s background, however, how can this happen unless the employee has the opportunity to have a full review without initial bias from the employer? I always thought that the point of criminal sentencing was to provide a safe and orderly society for everyone. Ultimately, when one has served a sentence he or she should be afforded an opportunity to work and create a healthy and happy life. Isn’t that what we all want?
6
It's our puritan background that pervades our society. Which is strange because few among us are of puritan decent.
1
Non-violent crimes should probably be purged after a fixed period, like bankruptcies.
3
I want to know if I'm presented with convicted thieves and burglars.
4
Employers should continue to be allowed to consider criminal convictions as they see necessary.
However, for jobs that don't involve unusual amounts of access to the vulnerable (children, the elderly, etc), and don't involve furnishing the employee with weapons or other means of easily injuring someone, employers should be held immune from civil liability for hiring someone with a criminal conviction. After all, they have to work somewhere, with someone. An employer shouldn't be liable unless their provision of a job results in a significant net increase in danger to society as a whole. NIMBYism in employment should not be supported by the court system.
However, for jobs that don't involve unusual amounts of access to the vulnerable (children, the elderly, etc), and don't involve furnishing the employee with weapons or other means of easily injuring someone, employers should be held immune from civil liability for hiring someone with a criminal conviction. After all, they have to work somewhere, with someone. An employer shouldn't be liable unless their provision of a job results in a significant net increase in danger to society as a whole. NIMBYism in employment should not be supported by the court system.
1
The take-away point of the article isn't to blame employers, it's to stop making so many non-violent acts into felonies that not only involve harsh prison sentences (at great tax payer expense), but also involve a life-time scarlet letter in some computer database (which can't even keep straight arrests from convictions!) that makes regaining employment difficult.
5
Michael Mirsky's case is another example of the double standard women enjoy. Men should not have to pay any child support. Women decide to have or not have babies. Women need to be 100% responsible for them. This would eliminate the heads I win tails you lose with abortion decisions. Women want 100% of the right to decide but then after having a baby say since there are two parents the men must ante up. Rip off city. Women have the babies women should pay for them. Of course if men wanted visitation or custody rights they would have to granted by the mother. And an agree could include financial support.
3
Men are part of that decision as well, at least where I'm from. If you don't want to make babies, keep it in your pants.
11
Yes, excluding rape and any other situations involving lack of consent, all decisions involving pants and pants enclosures involve two parties. The decision to allow a zygote to be potentially created is made by two. In a pro-choice, body-autonomy-based society, the decision to allow the zygote to potentially become a living, breathing child is made by one. Therefore, as long as that second decision is made autonomously, it logically follows that the financial responsibility would be autonomous as well.
1
so even in the situation where men and women jointly agree to have a child but later end the relationship, the mother should be the only one responsible for them? Or in the situation where an abortion cannot be obtained due to income, age, stage of pregnancy, or state law?
3
I wonder what the spying policy of the NY Times on prospective employees is ?
I am of the opinion that along with the many stupid, vicious and useless "benefits" brought by the "internet",that the commercialized industry of ratting and tattling on people for a fee is without doubt, only a lower profession than divorce lawyers and payday lenders.
It should be banned. It has little or no utility and absolutely no public benefits.
Employers can find out the things they need to know without the aid of cheap lowlife organizations probably working to slit American throats out of some foreign nation. The commercial information dispensing agencies are, among the classic "95% of all things seen on the internet, either useless, bogus or socially harmful."
I am of the opinion that along with the many stupid, vicious and useless "benefits" brought by the "internet",that the commercialized industry of ratting and tattling on people for a fee is without doubt, only a lower profession than divorce lawyers and payday lenders.
It should be banned. It has little or no utility and absolutely no public benefits.
Employers can find out the things they need to know without the aid of cheap lowlife organizations probably working to slit American throats out of some foreign nation. The commercial information dispensing agencies are, among the classic "95% of all things seen on the internet, either useless, bogus or socially harmful."
First, this is a great and timely story -- well researched, well reported, and very important to our generation.
Second, through our excessive zeal for punishment, we have created a massive "surplus population" as characterized by Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol."
Third, the "Public-Be-Damned" policies of our "conservative" politicians have allowed for no debate or consideration of what might be the greatest good for the greatest number. Even discussing such a concept is condemned as "liberal" or "progressive."
Fourth, through over-incarceration, background checks, and a paranoid immigration policy, we have fostered a massive black market that cannot be quantified or integrated into our mainstream economic system. Furthermore, this cash economy cannot be taxed, and therefore cannot support the ever-expanding prisons and social services required by our "excess humanity."
"If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
Second, through our excessive zeal for punishment, we have created a massive "surplus population" as characterized by Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol."
Third, the "Public-Be-Damned" policies of our "conservative" politicians have allowed for no debate or consideration of what might be the greatest good for the greatest number. Even discussing such a concept is condemned as "liberal" or "progressive."
Fourth, through over-incarceration, background checks, and a paranoid immigration policy, we have fostered a massive black market that cannot be quantified or integrated into our mainstream economic system. Furthermore, this cash economy cannot be taxed, and therefore cannot support the ever-expanding prisons and social services required by our "excess humanity."
"If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
3
The California parole system makes it very difficult for those o parole to get jobs, even if they have someone wanting to hire them.
Firstly if you are paroled, you have to return to the county where you were convicted. You cannot leave that county without permission from your parole officer. so even if there is job you can have in the next county, you can't take it, as it takes several weeks to get permission to move to a different county, and by that time the job has been filled.
I know of one case where a prisoner with car and truck repair experience, who had been working as a diesel Mechanic at a fire camp in Northern California, had to return to southern county that has a high unemployment rate. Yet he had a job offer in Northern Cal that would have paid him $80K or more a year.
So instead of going to work and paying taxes, he ends up where he can not even get food stamps because it was a drug conviction. The recidivism rate in Cal is almost 90%. if you can not get a job, you go back to doing what you did before to get money. All this policy does is fill up the prisons for the benefit of the prison guards.
Firstly if you are paroled, you have to return to the county where you were convicted. You cannot leave that county without permission from your parole officer. so even if there is job you can have in the next county, you can't take it, as it takes several weeks to get permission to move to a different county, and by that time the job has been filled.
I know of one case where a prisoner with car and truck repair experience, who had been working as a diesel Mechanic at a fire camp in Northern California, had to return to southern county that has a high unemployment rate. Yet he had a job offer in Northern Cal that would have paid him $80K or more a year.
So instead of going to work and paying taxes, he ends up where he can not even get food stamps because it was a drug conviction. The recidivism rate in Cal is almost 90%. if you can not get a job, you go back to doing what you did before to get money. All this policy does is fill up the prisons for the benefit of the prison guards.
22
It's a wonder people can even fiduciarily survive California's pinball machine of draconian laws.
3
So we're now automatically arresting men who--for whatever reasons, including unemployment--fall behind on child care payments, thereby making them unemployable. Which means they'll continue to fall farther and farther behind, with a greater and greater risk of being unemployable.
This seems like a sick version of the debtors prisons of the Victorian era.
This seems like a sick version of the debtors prisons of the Victorian era.
57
It kind of is, for the men who are really trying to pay but fall behind. It comes about, however, because of all the deadbeats trying not to pay.
1
I expect it's likely a substantial number of arrests for failure to pay child support are the result of men who were active in the baby-making role but not a part of the child's life. This article would have been better with research to identify groups of men who had no role in their child/children's life/lives.
How many of the men married the mother? How many of the men had a role in the lives of their children? How many of the men have more than one child with more than one woman? How many of the men had a strong presence and supported their child until they lost a job?
Many of these men may be what Shaquille O'Neal called 'my biological'. Shaq was lucky: his mother married a good man who became his father.
How many of the men married the mother? How many of the men had a role in the lives of their children? How many of the men have more than one child with more than one woman? How many of the men had a strong presence and supported their child until they lost a job?
Many of these men may be what Shaquille O'Neal called 'my biological'. Shaq was lucky: his mother married a good man who became his father.
Somehow, I think there is more to this no child care payments story. My first husband lost his job and I received no child support payments from him for nearly a year. He had no other sources of income, and I understood that. The state has no idea if one is making child support payments in a timely fashion unless the decree specified that they be made directly to the state and then forwarded to the custodian of the children, or the ex-spouse filled charges of non-payment.
If he was living on his savings, perhaps some of that could have gone toward some form of child support? Did he discuss this with his ex-wife? Did he attempt to work out a payment plan? No - he most likely did what he did to get himself fired in the first place - argue.
I'm SO tired of reading about all these "victims" of the big bad world! Most of these people have a long history of poor decisions, and continue to make them. This does not make them "victims" - it makes them what we used to call "losers".
I don't for one minute believe that an employed PhD professor was denied an apt rental over a bicycle theft years ago. There was more to this story, too.
If he was living on his savings, perhaps some of that could have gone toward some form of child support? Did he discuss this with his ex-wife? Did he attempt to work out a payment plan? No - he most likely did what he did to get himself fired in the first place - argue.
I'm SO tired of reading about all these "victims" of the big bad world! Most of these people have a long history of poor decisions, and continue to make them. This does not make them "victims" - it makes them what we used to call "losers".
I don't for one minute believe that an employed PhD professor was denied an apt rental over a bicycle theft years ago. There was more to this story, too.
Some employers ask simply whether someone has been arrested, which is totally bogus. And we arrest and incarcerate far too many people, with no way for them to clear their record. However, I'm not wild about the idea of an employer not being able to screen out someone with a gun or assault conviction. Yes, there could be mitigating circumstances, but there are so many workplace acts of violence that I don't know that it's a good idea to prevent employers from screening out violent felons is a good thing. We again seem to be putting the needs of the marginalized over those who are just regular folks. I wish there were more jobs created specifically for those newly freed, and perhaps after a long period of time, other employers could hire them. And I wish crime records would be taken offline. Once they're on Google, they never die.
7
I kind of feel both ways about this. My first question though is what is a minor criminal offense?" Not paying child support would not seem to be among them, but I would be wondering about how well the person handles responsibility. The decision, though, about hiring would be based on a myriad of other things, in all probability, that were more important and relevant. On the other hand, a "minor criminal offense" seems serious. It is not that I can't understand how desperation could drive some one to think they could make a quick buck, but you've got to ask yourself, "What kind of judgement does this person really have?" If you know how to interview in an open ended sort of way, you might be able to determine, but who has the time, and why would one want to spend the energy, when there are so many applicants. There are boundaries in life, and when people cross them, they cast their fate to the wind. Always doing the right thing is a very hard to do, but avoiding drifting over in to criminal behavior would seem like a basic. Can people atone? I think the best way to do that would be through public service, where they could prove their worthiness and become employable again. It's not going to happen on its own. We can study it to death, but it will not change, unless we change it by doing something meaningful. Of course, they would get paid. They wouldn't be slaves. They would be apprentices to life and rebuilding their credibility. That seems to be the thing that is missing.
27
Why not give people with convictions a card entitling them to welfare, heath care, housing, transportation? Then they need never burden employers with job applications again. See, simple!
5
O yes he would make a great employee. I will take an app. right now. Challenging his supervisor at the first job and gets fired. Go figure.
Then gets a break and could become a pipefitter, which is a great job and blows that. Then fights with the cops when they come to his house.
His predicament is his own fault no one else's. Its not a set of unfortunate events, its his own behavior period.
Then gets a break and could become a pipefitter, which is a great job and blows that. Then fights with the cops when they come to his house.
His predicament is his own fault no one else's. Its not a set of unfortunate events, its his own behavior period.
9
Relatively minor mistakes should not be enough to ruin people's lives. Why are we such a punitive society?
4
Because "I don't want to deal with it; someone else has to." When everyone's got that attitude (including the person you replied to), this is what happens -- nobody's willing to help.
It's the bystander effect -- everyone says "someone else will take care of it", so no one does -- and then we blame the victim when they do what they have to do to survive because no one is willing to help.
It's the bystander effect -- everyone says "someone else will take care of it", so no one does -- and then we blame the victim when they do what they have to do to survive because no one is willing to help.
1
We should be much more discerning who's life we ruin with a "criminal" record
38
The orgy of over-incarceration the United States has indulged in for the last few decades is going to continue to haunt us in many ways. We need to roll back the number of people in jail to those who are an actual danger to the community, and release those who simply didn't obey arbitrary and foolish drug laws.
57
What about drug offenders who don't pay child support? Spousal abuse? DWIs? Refuse to take responsibility for the problems they've caused?
3
I don't think anybody would argue that there is no stigma attached to a prison record.
Equally, as plausible, it may be completely reasonable that a potential employer would not want a gun nut, a drug dealer with a pattern of dealing or an employee who can't get along with his superiors as a new employee.
The point the article makes is that a conviction and prison time stigmatizes the convict. Part of this may be due to moral opprobrium but also employers may fear liability if, say, he hires the otherwise charming gun nut who then proceeds to go on a bloody rampage that leaves many of his co-employees dead or alive. Finally, it may just be a balancing act: Do I take the felon or do I go with the gal with the clean record who is otherwise equally poorly-qualified?
Should we assign blame to the knucklehead who doesn't want to hire felons or to the knucklehead who became a felon?
Is your first instinct to: 1) deal drugs because you need quick money? 2) Argue violently with your supervisor and violently resist arrrest when approached by the police who are acting on an arrest warrant? 3) Illegally carry a concealed weapon? 4) Do you feel comfortable working intimately with people whose first instinct is to answer yes to any other of the first 3 questions?
Equally, as plausible, it may be completely reasonable that a potential employer would not want a gun nut, a drug dealer with a pattern of dealing or an employee who can't get along with his superiors as a new employee.
The point the article makes is that a conviction and prison time stigmatizes the convict. Part of this may be due to moral opprobrium but also employers may fear liability if, say, he hires the otherwise charming gun nut who then proceeds to go on a bloody rampage that leaves many of his co-employees dead or alive. Finally, it may just be a balancing act: Do I take the felon or do I go with the gal with the clean record who is otherwise equally poorly-qualified?
Should we assign blame to the knucklehead who doesn't want to hire felons or to the knucklehead who became a felon?
Is your first instinct to: 1) deal drugs because you need quick money? 2) Argue violently with your supervisor and violently resist arrrest when approached by the police who are acting on an arrest warrant? 3) Illegally carry a concealed weapon? 4) Do you feel comfortable working intimately with people whose first instinct is to answer yes to any other of the first 3 questions?
18
If you have a concealed carry permit, then by definition you have not been convicted of any crime.
1
>
This is basically prison for life where your debt to society is never paid. You are restricted to construction work, or you return to jail at the expense of the taxpayer and the benefit of the Prison Industrial Complex.
"America the free" is an illusion.
This is basically prison for life where your debt to society is never paid. You are restricted to construction work, or you return to jail at the expense of the taxpayer and the benefit of the Prison Industrial Complex.
"America the free" is an illusion.
67
""America the free" is an illusion."
Why is it an illusion? He was free not to argue with his supervisor. Verizon was free to fire him. He was free to not pay child support. Employers are free to not hire him. He is free to start his own business. Freedom abounds in this country. It's how you use that freedom that determines your success in this society.
Why is it an illusion? He was free not to argue with his supervisor. Verizon was free to fire him. He was free to not pay child support. Employers are free to not hire him. He is free to start his own business. Freedom abounds in this country. It's how you use that freedom that determines your success in this society.
2
/
"Freedom is so much the essence of man that even it's opponents actualize it even while combatting its reality"
Marx
"Freedom is so much the essence of man that even it's opponents actualize it even while combatting its reality"
Marx
1
Joe
You ever here the story of the young guy walking down a country road when he comes across an older man tending to his property.
He asks the old man who's property is this? The man tells him it is his. How did you get it?, asks the young man. My father gave it to me. Well how did he get it? His father gave it to him. Well then how did he get it?
He fought for it, says the old man. Well then, says the young man, I'll fight you for it.
And with that the libertarian submarine is detected and instantly crushed with its own freedom.
You ever here the story of the young guy walking down a country road when he comes across an older man tending to his property.
He asks the old man who's property is this? The man tells him it is his. How did you get it?, asks the young man. My father gave it to me. Well how did he get it? His father gave it to him. Well then how did he get it?
He fought for it, says the old man. Well then, says the young man, I'll fight you for it.
And with that the libertarian submarine is detected and instantly crushed with its own freedom.
8
As someone who used to do HR and interviews fairly often, I can offer some incite into what employers are seeing as red flags:
1. Decided not to higher someone, because of a past DWI. Reason - possible repeat offense, as interviewee said they still like to go out often. Will this person even show up in the morning, or do they still have a problem? Too many other applicants to take the risk.
2. Decided not to pursue a further interview process, because of a conviction of "carnal knowledge." Do not trust this person to work with women, young people, children. Too many other applicants to take the risk.
3. Decided not to higher someone after a conviction for possession of marijuana. Much like the person who received the DWI, just can't trust this person. It might be recreational, or it might be systemic (yes, they say it's not addictive, but then why does every pot head semi-religiously light up at 10:20?). Too many other applicants to take the risk.
In other words - there are a lot of people looking for work. I'm going to go with the sure thing, instead of relying on someone with a record. I know it sounds harsh, but that's the state of the job market, today.
1. Decided not to higher someone, because of a past DWI. Reason - possible repeat offense, as interviewee said they still like to go out often. Will this person even show up in the morning, or do they still have a problem? Too many other applicants to take the risk.
2. Decided not to pursue a further interview process, because of a conviction of "carnal knowledge." Do not trust this person to work with women, young people, children. Too many other applicants to take the risk.
3. Decided not to higher someone after a conviction for possession of marijuana. Much like the person who received the DWI, just can't trust this person. It might be recreational, or it might be systemic (yes, they say it's not addictive, but then why does every pot head semi-religiously light up at 10:20?). Too many other applicants to take the risk.
In other words - there are a lot of people looking for work. I'm going to go with the sure thing, instead of relying on someone with a record. I know it sounds harsh, but that's the state of the job market, today.
31
Eric,
While I wonder if your misspellings were deliberate, I also wonder if simple things like this affect hire-ability.
We counsel offenders being released to reveal their criminal past, and be prepared to explain why they should still be hired (why they are different now, what their work ethic is, why they will be a valued employee, etc.).
While this does not automatically make it easy, honest, open admissions may allow continued dialog that is denied to people who have to "check the box".
While I wonder if your misspellings were deliberate, I also wonder if simple things like this affect hire-ability.
We counsel offenders being released to reveal their criminal past, and be prepared to explain why they should still be hired (why they are different now, what their work ethic is, why they will be a valued employee, etc.).
While this does not automatically make it easy, honest, open admissions may allow continued dialog that is denied to people who have to "check the box".
9
The "sure thing" without an interview or further investigation?
While there is a certain logic to your decision process, I can think of a wide array of circumstances, from petty to serious, that might yield the background check results you cite in your examples. Successful HR is not just about screening applicants or lightening caseload, but taking the effort to find people who will perform jobs well and add value to their employer.
At my previous place of employment for example, two of the hardest working, most competent, dependable employees were individuals who, largely by the circumstances and environments of their upbringing, had past criminal records. When interviewing these individuals, my employer, to his credit, took the time to ask them about it, and decided to take the risk and hire them, a decision that proved a benefit to them, our company, our clients, their families, and ultimately the community at large.
You know the old saw about a book and its cover, and speaking of "red flags", there's only so much a spell-checker can do.
While there is a certain logic to your decision process, I can think of a wide array of circumstances, from petty to serious, that might yield the background check results you cite in your examples. Successful HR is not just about screening applicants or lightening caseload, but taking the effort to find people who will perform jobs well and add value to their employer.
At my previous place of employment for example, two of the hardest working, most competent, dependable employees were individuals who, largely by the circumstances and environments of their upbringing, had past criminal records. When interviewing these individuals, my employer, to his credit, took the time to ask them about it, and decided to take the risk and hire them, a decision that proved a benefit to them, our company, our clients, their families, and ultimately the community at large.
You know the old saw about a book and its cover, and speaking of "red flags", there's only so much a spell-checker can do.
3
Jimi, have you ever been threatened with a lawsuit by a fee-hungry trial lawyer? Who is looking for the smallest issue possible, to grab your wallet, to pay her/his bills?
How many of your friends have hired ex-offenders, convicted as adults? The trial lawyers would like to know. Thanks.
How many of your friends have hired ex-offenders, convicted as adults? The trial lawyers would like to know. Thanks.
3
The unintended consequences of mass imprisonment. Not only are these people convicted of a crime(s) taken out of the work force by incarceration, but we are paying to support them while in prison. Then when released, few employers will give them a break. In the scheme of things, though, this individual doesn't provoke a lot of sympathy from me. It sounds like he has made a series of poor choices rather than extremely bad luck
3
It is not the function of a business to further rehabilitate those with criminal records. If I had a choice of hiring someone with a criminal record and someone without, I might hire the criminal (minor felony or misdemeanor) for a menial job but not for something that requires access to the public or in a position of trust. These people were adults when they committed their crimes; old enough to know better. Acting impulsively can endanger a business and you prefer to avoid potential time bombs. Even the government bars criminals from positions of trust.
10
That's correct.
Isn't amazing how much politicians, academia, the Hollywood crowd, and the MSM lectures on how to live -- then never provides a role model? Never "walking the talk?" As David Axelrod noted "he can't implement?"
Isn't amazing how much politicians, academia, the Hollywood crowd, and the MSM lectures on how to live -- then never provides a role model? Never "walking the talk?" As David Axelrod noted "he can't implement?"
1
I sympathize with the felon who pays his/her dues, but then learns that jobs, voting, driving licenses, all beyond their reach, and so the punishment continues well beyond the sentence. Soldiers come home and wait until the nightmares and voices and questions drive them over an edge none of us can understand. It is sad....