The major problem with “the box” as it stands, though, is that it extends punishment past the end of the sentence, effectively imposing lifetime punishment even on people who serve as little as a year of jail time.
So? While I am all in favor of ex-cons being able to feed themselves, the fact is that the sentence of a court generally is for a penalty far greater than a term of incarceration. Everyone knows this - and for some things it isn’t terribly controversial.
Sex offenders land on registries. Bad parents are supervised by the appropriate authorities. Most felons have their right to own firearms permanently revoked - whether their crimes were violent or not. And the right to vote can be sharply curtailed.
And all of this is just what the government does to you after your prison term is up. For you to concentrate on what a private employer does (and often for good reason) misses a huge part of the picture.
Unless you’re working somewhere like an electronics store, no way can you load a hundred grand of merchandise onto a truck in two minutes. When I worked at a grocery store, there were cameras in that area, and nobody loaded or unloaded anything single-handedly.
In most cities you can’t feed yourself on a minimum wage job. Well, not feed AND house yourself. If an ex-con has no way to get a legal job what the hell do you think will happen? Do you expect people to let themselves starve or freeze to death?
Absolutely, former embezzlers should not be in accounting - but saying they can’t do anything but flip burgers is almost guaranteeing they’ll either be crap-poor for the rest of their lives, or they’ll turn to crime again.
Again - if you bar ex-cons from legal employment, what do you think will happen? Yes, some types of crimes should bar you from some types of jobs, but not from all jobs.
Worse yet, if an ex-con has been a good citizen post-release and has kept their nose clean for, say 15 or 20 years then suddenly imposing new rules that force them out of their job isn’t a good idea either - and I personally know an ex-con who, despite a clean post-release record and 20 years of good behavior DID lose his job because of a company policy change to never employ a convicted criminal. He got a “sorry - we forgot you had a record” then was terminated. Then, despite his good behavior, he has to deal with “the box” on subsequent job apps. He did, eventually, get a new job (doing the exact same thing as the old) but was that fair? Wasn’t a sex offense, wasn’t violent, didn’t involve a firearm… hardly some crazed, wild-eyed madman here.
Is this a concern for all felons? Or just those whose crimes are related to theft? What about felonies like manslaughter or perjury? Or domestic battery?
I guess the mayor feels that the employment rate is just too high in New Haven at the moment.
I’m sorry - perhaps you missed the part where I advocated other programs to address this issue, as I was sympathetic to the problem.
If so, please reread my posts so that you can understand where I’m coming from.
Is it better for non-felons to be unable to feed and house themselves? Why should ex-felons get special protection on hiring practices? Committing a crime was a voluntary choice they made. If jobs are scarce in my city and I have to make choices between hiring ex-felons and non-felons, why can’t I decide to hire people who haven’t committed crimes?
Even the plan by the mayor in the OP doesn’t force any employers to hire ex-felons. It simply says that you interview people first, which allows you to form an opinion about them as a possible employee without any preconceptions. Then you get a criminal record check. If something shows up on their record, you can re-interview them to see if their particular record (and circumstances since then) conflict with your job opening. You’re still completely free to not hire them.
Why wouldn’t you as en employer like this? It’s entirely possible that by completely refusing to consider job applicants who are felons that you’re missing out on a good potential employee. No one’s saying you have to hire every felon and only fire them if it doesn’t work out, costing you a lot of time and money. But if a felon has a good resume and work experience, and the crime was unrelated to the type of employment and they’ve since been a model citizen, then why not interview them?
Of course not, but non-felons generally have an easier time of it, not facing extra obstacles in obtaining employment and housing.
I don’t see the proposal as “special protection” - they must still be qualified and pass the initial screening, and the employer is under no obligation to hire said person, just obligated to seriously consider their qualifications.
Well, certainly for some jobs a criminal record is incompatible with the duties of that job, but saying “I will never hire anyone who ever had a felony conviction, ever” strikes me as being prejudiced. I can completely understand the hesitation in hiring, say, someone who ax-murderer their family fresh out of the pen, but not all felons are violent criminals. Also, as I pointed out, there are people out there who screwed up once, served their time, and have been well behaved since and after 20 or so years of being honest citizens I think it’s time to stop tossing out their job applications without looking at their qualifications as potential employees. Of course, this reasonable attitude might be why some employment applications ask only for convictions in a certain time period but such is by no means univeral. If someone is convicted of tax fraud they might still make a pretty darn good forklift driver and would hardly pose a threat to you or you other employees. Someone who got busted for growing an acre of pot on grandpa’s woodlot at 20 might be quite changed at the age of 30.
The person I currently get occasional work from has hired ex-cons in the past. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn’t, but that’s true of people who aren’t ex-cons. His most recent problem employee (who was convicted of theft, for stripping copper pluming and aluminum siding from a property) had a clean record until she stole from him and he turned her in, yet he’s had ex-cons who where honest and did nothing wrong while working for him. A criminal record tells you someone has definitely screwed up, whereas a lack of record is no guarantee of honesty (which is why background checks of any worth go beyond just criminal records). There are a lot of crooks out there who just haven’t been caught yet.
We just had an ex-felon apply at our store. We aren’t hiring, but we got into a conversation with him about his past, and if the story he tells is true, his is a case of someone who really didn’t do anything a future employer would have to worry about, but he is still an ex-felon. At 14, he was hanging around with a rather rough crowd. One of these friends killed someone,and told our applicant what had happened (didn’t get the details). The applicant, being a stupid 14-year-old, didn’t tell anyone, didn’t turn his friend in. Friend gets caught, applicant gets hauled in as accessory after the fact, and they are both tried and sentenced as adults. Applicant serves 21 years in jail for not notifying the police about a murder he took no part in, didn’t witness, that occurred when he was a juvenile. So now he’s 35, no work history, awkward social skills as a result of spending those formative years in jail, and he can’t even get an interview to explain the situation. He showed us some artwork, and he has talents. But if a company won’t even look at his application, (like ours…we do criminal records checks on everyone we consider hiring, so to even interview someone who has checked the box seems a waste of time) how will he find honest work to support himself?
I am against this new law, because, for the vast majority of jobs, applicants are under no legal obligation to tell the truth on a job application. If an applicant believes his convictions would preclude employment, he can simply lie about them. The burden is on the employer to verify any information recieved on a job application.
Hate to burst your bubble, but there’s more to the story. There has to be, because as a general principle, there’s no requirement for a person to report a murder he becomes aware of. “Accessory after the fact” refers to someone who conceals a fugitive or actively frustrates the investigation in some way. Merely being told of a crime and failing to report it does not, in ordinary circumstances, make one a criminal. (There are specific factual situations where this is not true, like becoming aware of sexual abuse when you’re a mandated reporter like a teacher).
And, I stand corrected, it also seems to want city contractors & vendors, which I guess means companies that do business with the city, to do the same.
You run your own business?