Monkey, huh? At least I can read the forum descriptions and my universities policy on academic honesty.
BTW, jongri, this is the thing that proves you lied to your employer:
That is, of course, assuming you’re not making up this story either.
Spell-check in your mind to replace “universities” above with “unversity’s” and you’ll have a correctly spelled post.
How do you figure? jongri says his employment application asked him if he had been convicted of any felonies in the past ten years. Assuming he applied for the job after he was 29, I don’t see where any dishonesty came into play (his penchant for plagiarism notwithstanding.)
Personal insults are not permitted in this forum, or in any other SDMB forum than the BBQ Pit. Don’t do that again.
jongri, you are off to a very poor start here. I very strongly urge you to read all the sticky threads in the ATMB forum. If you break another of our rules you are very likely to be banned.
That said, this is not really the proper thread in which to bring up another poster’s previous misdeeds on the SDMB. That’s what the Pit is for. In this thread, let’s stick to the factual question about the rights of convicted felons.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
Telemark: I dunno about the second, but as someone who runs a retail business, I can tell you that it’s pretty common to look askance at felony convictions among your prospective job applicants. Apparently in some states it is not possible to reject someone based solely on their criminal record, so most job applications state that they are “not an absolute bar to employment” … but in practice they are often (and rightfully) an absolute bar to employment.
For example, I would not and will not hire anyone, ever, who has been convicted of theft, embezzlement, or similar charges, regardless of the severity or passage of time. Most retail stores also would not. It’s also very likely that a conviction for a violent felony would disqualify you from being hired at many places, including mine again. This is what is referred to colloquially as a “no-brainer” - so long as there are likely to be other applicants, it makes no sense to hire someone who’s a known risk.
Some Guy: So you’re not a believer in folks turning over a new leaf? You’d rather have other folks knowingly violate the employment laws? You’d rather create an entire class of unemployable persons?
I would rather they were not employed by me, or by my company. That is the extent of my feelings on the matter. I do believe that people can and do sometimes turn over a new leaf, however, I am not a believer in taking risks with the assests of the company that has employed me to protect those assets. Furthermore, I, as a law-abiding citizen and employer, am not “creating an entire class of unemployable persons”. Rather, persons who commit certain classes of crimes, and are convicted, are affecting their future chances of employment in any job that might require basic respect for property rights, or restraint from offering physical threats to others. I don’t particularly have sympathy for thieves or bullies.
For the record, if your state/province/whatever requires that you must not exclude persons from employment consideration based solely on the fact of their criminal record, then I advise you to follow the law in any hiring that you do. (That’s a general “you”, not just Monty.) However, I believe that such laws are utterly wrong-headed, since they force a potential liablility upon the company for attempting to protect itself from a class of persons who provably are more likely to commit crimes. Of course, as a libertarian, I also believe that any state interference in hiring practices is also wrong-headed, but that’s off the topic of this thread. In any case, my exclusion of convicted thieves and violent offenders is based on pure, practical risk avoidance, and not particularly on moral condemnation, though of course if one does not want one’s future job prospects to be marred by an embarrassing criminal conviction, one may always choose to refrain from committing crimes.
You cannot be an airline pilot or work in a casino with a felony either.
I have a misdeamnor theft conviction on my record from 1996. Unfortunately, it is from my home city. I had a job offer withdrawn because of these GD background checks. It was a crappy job driving a shuttle bus for a hotel.
Yeah, I F’ed up. Oh well. I also believe that over a period of time, say 7 or 10 years that a misdeamnor should be withdrawn. people should be allowed to be employed and their job skills and experiences a determining factor for employment.
I am now working in a foreign country where they cannot look such things up. Hopefully, I can start some kind of business here that will transcend to myself returning to the United States. I enjoy what I do here anyway, I am a teacher, which includes child students, a position in the US would require an FBI screen, fingerprints, piss test, psychological analysis and 200 questions.
Remember, GW Bush has a record (DWI, Maine 1975). We have all screwed up.
Such is life. You F up, you pay.
Ex-criminal
SP
Poor Jean Valjean. Is there anything a felon can do to get back on at least some businesses’ good side?
I know a great way to build character…
One word that really pisses me off is the word “character”. What is that? If I have never done anything wrong and am an upstanding citizen in your eyes, am I a person of good character to you??
“Those among you without sin, cast the first stone”
Mr. Jesus Christ 29 AD
SP
With respect to entry into the Great White North, here are the criteria for inadmissability: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-2.5/63300.html#rid-63400
As a generalization, if you were convicted in the USA of something that in Canada could be an indictable offence (usually this would be something with a penalty of more than six months), then you would be barred entry.
Here is our Criminal Code for those who want to se what they would have got in Canada for their conviction: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/index.html
Something of which Americans visiting Canada should be aware is that in Canada impaired driving can be an indicable offence, so a conviction for DWI in the USA is a bar to entry into Canada.
Temporary or permanent dispensation can be granted by the Minister of Immigration, so quite often the immigration officers at the border will grant admission with no further ado to a person with a DWI many years back, however, if the conviction was for a more serious offence or if the person if the officer wants to get tough, then a proper application must be made, which generally includes providing proof of rehabilitation, and even there is no guarantee of eventual admission. In short, folks with a record in the USA should speak with the nearest Canadian Consulate Immigration Officer many months in advance to get everything taken care of rather than risk being turned back at the border.
different felonies have different restrictions sex offenders have different restrictions than someone convicted of theft and drunk drivers have different restrictions than someone convicted of meth making
If nobody is going to hire you, what is the point of vocational and educational programs in prison?
It is not the case that no one hires any ex-felons.
I don’t buy any of your posting there, Some Guy. You said the laws were wrong.
Pardon? Where, precisely, did I say anything at all about the laws? If my original post appears to say anything at all about any law, other than that some laws exist in some states, then my original post must be quite badly worded indeed, since I only intended to say that I, personally, would not hire people with certain criminal convictions.
In fact, looking over my original post, I cannot see it at saying anything other than that I, personally, would not hire someone with certain criminal convictions. Perhaps you perceive it differently, but that is what it says. In any case, it is a statement of my own personal beliefs, so I’m not sure what there is to “not buy” about it. If you think that I’m advocating violation of the law, you are wrong. There is no such law in my state, and if there were I would obey it, even though I strongly disagreed with it.
Achernar: The best advice I can give someone with a felony conviction is to be realistic about what jobs may be barred to them, be up front and honest about their criminal record on any employment application, and be cooperative with an employer who wants to give them any chance at all. In fact, some skilled vocations (think industrial metalworking) will readily hire people with a criminal record if they have the necessary skills to do the job. Most employers, however, will not hire someone who lies on their job application, or who responds to an employer’s concerns by whining about not being reated fairly. This is true even for people without a criminal record, of course.