Paging the HR / Personnel guys and gals.
I was just reading about someone who was convicted and imprisoned, but later vindicated on appeal some time later. Now, a criminal conviction - never mind a period in prison - is usually an automatic disqualifier for many jobs. So is a gap in emloyment. So, how would you put this on your resume / CV in such a way that you don’t get tossed at the filtering stage?
Well, the empirical experience of many of the men freed by “The Innocence Project” and followed by Frontline found that by and large finding half-decent employment was virtually impossible. Not only had their time in prison denied the opportunity to stay up-to-date on required general job skills like typing or computers, but explaining the whole process was virtually impossible. Even in “exonerations” people tended to assume that they had escaped prison on a technicality or by an early release of some type.
So, the short answer to, “how would you put this on your resume / CV in such a way that you don’t get tossed at the filtering stage?” is that you don’t. Unfortunate.
I find it ridiculous that a person cleared by DNA evidence should be obligated to report time served in prison. Is that in fact the case?
Usually one has to account for all employable years since college. When you have huge gaps in your timeline, your resume doesn’t make it to the call back or interview stage.
One of the best resume formats I’ve ever seen was one that broke down one’s job skills by category or achievement. It wasn’t a chronological listing of jobs held but rather a “what I can do for you” listing of skills. Of course, if someone wanted to put a pencil to it, they would find a gap. I think this format would work as well for blue-collar (equpment operators, for instance) as it would for white-collar workers.
As a bit of a hijack – in cases where an conviction has obviously resulted from overzealous but unprofessional investigation/prosecution, should there be almost automatic sanctions for the agency/agencies responsible? In other words, if a DA blindly railroads someone into prison and that person is later exonerated, should the DA be held liable? Criminally or civilly? Maybe it warrants another thread, I dunno.
A DA can’t do that by himself. It takes a jury of twelve to unanimously find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Takes a Judge or a Grand Jury to rule on whether there’s enough evidence to warrant a trial in the first place. If the DA hasn’t violated the law or legal ethics, he’s done nothing to deserve punishment.
The DA can railroad, by not presenting all the facts. And he is not liable for it other than down right lying. Check out the Duke case for details, and this was a high profile case, many other cases of the DA abusing power to get a good conviction rate exist. If it had been teens from Podunk Wisconsin attending Frozen Fish University, they would have been railroaded.
As to the problem of being convicted and and then being declared innocent, you are pretty much screwed. The system almost forces those released from prison to become criminals, because they can’t get a real job.
My dad told me of a friend of his who was a businessman in the community. He was accused of raping a babysitter. It went to trial, and the girl admitted that she had sex with her boyfriend and was pregnant, and created the tale because she did not want to tell her parents she had consentual sex with the boyfriend.
The case was dismissed, but the reputation of the defendant was ruined, and his business as well. He moved to another state. Sorry no cite, but I don’t think my dad made it up.
In today’s world jumping state would not help.
Retirement is always a nice option! (Hint: Marry someone rich, or be rich to start with!)
I vaguely remember reading about one case where the exonerated person was allowed to report that he was employed by the state Department of Corrections while he was in prison. I’m afraid I can’t cite, but that is one possibility.
MrjackBoots, that is what I think should happen. They were employed by the prison and it may not be a lie. Many prisoners do work while they are there. Why not put it on a resume. If they have been exonerated, then the rest of the details don’t really matter.
I knew a guy that put down he was employed by the NJ State Dept of Corrections for 3 years. First it was the kitchen, then some shop, but each time he was moved it was a different entry on his resume. Not until we looked at his app did we see it as for a felony sentence. Still hired the guy though. He was a pretty good manager, too.
A resume isn’t a legal document or an interrogation. It is a marketing presentation to report skills. You can make them look however you want and hiring managers often don’t look all that closely if you have the skills they want. There are lots of formats you can use to cover gaps and they aren’t rare. Older people often just report skills for example outside of chronological order for example and people hardly ever blink an eye. The employment application does bare some weight but hiring managers often don’t see those at all in larger companies.
In one of the double standards in a woman’s favor, a big gap looks far more shady on a man than on a woman. I hired someone a little while back with a six year gap in her resume. When I looked at her resume, my very first thought was not “Was she in prison?” or something of that nature, but “Oh, she must be a mom.”
HR person here. Many good points have already been made. It is true that a resume is not a legal document and doesn’t need to include everything. However, it is also true that lengthy gaps are likely to be held against the applicants, especially male applicants. My HR colleagues weigh in **heavily against ** the functional resume that is a compilation of skills and not a chronological listing. I have seen threads on HR boards that were so convincing that I changed my own resume, even though much of the logic behind functional resumes made a ton of sense to me personally. Also, job applications, which tend to be much more relevant to blue collar or retail work, almost always do have you sign that you are providing correct and complete information.
My personal recommendation would be to lay it out there plain as day. List the employment by the department of corrections. Make it clear that you were exonerated, but don’t use that “big word.” State something like “released because DNA evidence disproved my conviction.” An interesting idea would be to get some speaking gigs talking about your wrongful conviction, so you can list those as experience. Make the HR person or manager take a minute to think about whether they want to dismiss out of hand someone who was wrongfully incarcerated, don’t let them just toss it like apparently a lot of people do to all the functional resumes they get. Also, giving the sense that you are hiding something is the kiss of death.
Another piece of advice would be to work on getting a job through government or nonprofit agencies that place people after their release from prison. They would have the benefit of experience to know what employers do hire ex-convicts, and would probably be motivated to go to bat for you.
Also, if the person is a minority, there is also the angle that prevents employers from asking about arrests. Asking about arrests is considered discriminatory because minorities are more likely to be arrested, but being arrested and not convicted is irrelevant to the job. The same angle could apply to wrongful convictions, assuming (and not much of a stretch in my mind) that more minorities are wrongfully convicted. If the person was exonerated, they probably already know a good lawyer and might be able to play this angle.
I think it’s very unlikely that the person will ever be on an even footing with someone who didn’t go through this, but I do think that if the person is an otherwise capable worker they will often be able to get a job.
I am going to answer this with a quote from threemae:
(emphasis mine)
Laying it on the line is not going to work. It appears you are openminded but that doesn’t mean the vast majority of people are.
Your quote says nothing about the job search approaches they used, or how “half-decent” employment was defined. So it doesn’t say anything at all about whether being honest or secretive is the better approach. The OP was asking for a recommended approach to the problem, and I stand by my approach as probably a better choice than many others one could take in that situation.
Independent Contractor in the State and Local sector.
If people assume that you got out on a technicality or something like that, then why would being open and honest be the best approach? Most people don’t understand how that sort of thing works and probably don’t care…HR people are no different. I’m sorry but I find your approach of just coming clean about everything as naive. You do seem like you would not hold it against someone but most people will.
Another HR person here.
This is not something that I would mention on a resume. I would list work experience, with no mention of the conviction and gap in employment. This will get you through most filters, and likely to a phone interview stage (if qualified).
However, if pushed to complete an application, I would check the box that says “convicted of a crime” but write something like “exonerated in 2000”. During an interview I would then explain the situation if asked.
Also, agree with **Harriet the Spry ** – functional resumes are AWFUL, and are MUCH more likely to be screened out in the initial stages. Whenever I see one, I think to myself “What is this person trying to hide?”.