In one of the episodes of The Ozark a big deal is made of one of the characters having a criminal record, and whether or not a judge will clear that record.
So what consequences are there for having a (non sexual) criminal record, when you have already done the time. What sort of opportunities are closed for you?
As usual, “it depends.” For the U.S., it depends on the crime they were convicted of, how long ago it occurred, the laws of the state, the type of work, the employer, and probably a few other things. (In Wisconsin, for example, an employer can’t reject a job applicant based on their arrest or conviction record, though there are a few exceptions in the law. And in Minnesota, an employer can only ask about a criminal record after an applicant has been selected for an interview.)
Having said that, I know quite a few people who have a really tough time finding a job due to their criminal record. Especially when they have a felony. Even certain misdemeanors can be a problem.
When I got by DoD clearance, they wanted to know if I had been arrested for any crimes, even if the arrest did not lead to a conviction.
Some jobs require a background check. These jobs include a lot of government jobs and jobs with government contractors, and jobs where you might handle money, or be responsible for procurements. Other places simply do a background check as a matter of course.
To be a little specific to the OP’s example (which involved the character Ruth from Ozarks), most of her record (as stated in the show) were juvenile records. In her case getting her juvenile records “cleared” frankly would not have a significant impact on her life one way or another. The reason being in Missouri all juvenile misdemeanor records are automatically sealed, and essentially no private or other governmental entity will have easy access to them–they won’t show up in any form of professional background check. I don’t believe it was implied she had juvenile felony records, but if she did, those are not automatically sealed in Missouri, but can be sealed upon simple request and don’t require special privileges or making personal friends with a judge.
Note I am being careful with noting “Missouri”, while it is a popular TV trope, juvenile records are not universally or automatically sealed in every State, however Missouri does seal misdemeanor records automatically and allows felony records to be sealed upon request.
The broader question–there’s plenty of criminal records that will not cause a significant problem for you in most jobs, but some jobs and some employers are hypervigilant against any criminal record sometimes tied to specific types of crimes and the job role you are filling. For example, while not a DOT rule or anything, lots of trucking companies won’t hire someone with a prior DUI out of fear of the driver being a liability. There is a common claim that you can’t get a CDL with a DUI on your record, but there is not generally such a law–you can’t get a CDL if your regular driver’s license is currently suspended for DUI, and your CDL gets suspended automatically if you get a DUI while driving your personal vehicle. However, lots of insurance companies that provide insurance to trucking companies won’t insure drivers with a history of DUIs.
Jobs involving positions of financial trust often have a zero-tolerance policy against hiring anyone who has committed any type of financial fraud or similar crime.
Additionally, some companies just won’t hire anyone with a record, it is relatively unusual for most companies to have a blanket ban on misdemeanants, but it is more common for companies to outright refuse to hire convicted felons. A felony is universally seen as being a serious behavioral breach, while most employers tend to give benefit of the doubt about misdemeanors, particularly if they are a number of years in the past. Many employers don’t actually perform background checks, others only ask if you have been convicted of a felony (essentially saying they aren’t concerned about misdemeanors.)
Don’t some rental property companies also do background checks for prospective tenants?
When I was the guarantor for my son’s college apartment, all they asked for was a credit report and checked for prior evictions. Of course, I don’t know whether or not they looked at anything else without telling me.
It is very difficult to get a job if you have a criminal record. You are pretty well limited to labor intensive work. There’s no upside for companies hiring people with a record. If you hire the guy with a clean record and he steals or becomes violent there’s no way you could have known. If it’s the guy with the criminal record then you should have known and it may cost you your own job. It sucks for someone trying to start over.
In certain fields like law enforcement or medicine, you lose your license if convicted of a felony. However I don’t know if they take your license away for a misdemeanor.
My impression is if you have your own money and don’t need to work for anyone, having a felony record isn’t that big a hurdle to day to day life. Finding/keeping a job seems to be the biggest hurdle. of course with a sex offense, you face a lot of stigma.
Theres also issues with traveling to foreign nations, visitation rights, owning a gun, voting, etc. that can come up with a felony conviction.
I think it is difficult if you have a serious criminal record, but I disagree with the blanket statement “very difficult to get a job if you have a criminal record.” Around 70 million Americans, roughly 1/3rd of the workforce, have criminal records. Most people do not understand that anything more serious than a traffic offense or some minor city ordinance violation is considered a misdemeanor in most States, and misdemeanor records typically will show up in any criminal background check. A misdemeanor in most States means a crime punishable by up to, but no more than, one year incarceration. A felony in most States and in the Federal system means a crime punishable by more time than that.
Research has shown most employers are willing to overlook a criminal record, with variance based on the specifics of said record: Research: Employers Willing to Overlook a Criminal Record to Hire the Right Person (shrm.org)
Not as many as you think. We run credit reports on all of our tenants but not criminal background checks. While some property companies do so, the reason many don’t (and the reason my business doesn’t), is it is fraught legally. There’s actually a good bit of Federal regulations here from HUD and you can get yourself in trouble. On net I didn’t think it was really worth it. HUD has a regulation against rental policies that cause a “disparate impact” and blanket bans on renters with criminal histories can run afoul of that. The only way to easily comply with the law is to commit to doing a case by case decision on prospective tenants with criminal histories, but you’re getting yourself into a bit of a mess on it.
The landlord game is one filled with a lot of small business owners who often are running family businesses and are more or less accustomed to “doing whatever the hell we want”, and that runs the gamut of ignoring the law and such, I have zero doubt that many landlords just won’t rent to anyone with a record, but there’s also landlords for whom that would be one of the lesser of a long list of laws they break in the operation of their business.
Specifically in Ruth’s case on Ozark, a criminal record would make it impossible to get a casino license.
Practically speaking though, an employer is likely going to have several applicants to choose from, and can just choose an applicant without a record. If they’re called out on it, they can just say the one they chose was more qualified. It would be difficult to impossible to prove discrimination based on criminal record, I’d imagine.
I know a former coworker with a fairly recent (within 7 years for sure) conviction for reckless driving who got a job as a sheriff’s deputy.
I on the other hand had two ARRESTS (one not charged by DA, one dismissed by the judge) in 1992 and 1998 that were still showing up on background checks by private employers in 2003 and 2005. I know this because I was asked to explain this by at least one prospective employer each. I don’t know how many prospective employers just shitcanned my candidacy due to this. This also turned up in my BROTHER’s security clearance investigation.
The tragedy of this is that I am so law abiding I have managed to drive for 37 years without ever even getting a traffic ticket. We refused to hire a dozen “perfect” nannies because they wanted to work off the books. And I have to worry about what a background check will turn up!
You might want to check into getting those arrest records expunged, considering they were 24 and 30 years ago, and didn’t actually result in a trial.
Disclaimer: I didn’t read the whole thread. Just wanted to tell my experience.
My ex (now late) boyfriend had a conviction for cocaine possession (a felony) in the early 1980s in Texas. He was in his early 30s and was on probation for seven years. Such a conviction cannot be expunged for an adult in Texas. Career-wise, that was it for him. He could never get a job at any company that did a background check. Occasionally he would find an individual employer who would hire him. He could get sales jobs. He couldn’t vote. During the six years we went together, I worked for a social services agency that had a day care center. He was very handy and could fix or build anything, but he couldn’t even volunteer there because of his past conviction. Fortunately, he lived in his paid-for childhood home after his divorced mom married again, so he never had to look for housing. He never got crosswise with the law again, but he was stuck up the creek without a paddle. He died in February at the age of 72.
A lot of workplaces just flat out reject any work candidates automatically at any record of an arrest even without a conviction, regardless what the laws may say. Hell, some will reject anyone who has a bankruptcy, which makes no sense to me.
Another possible consequence of a criminal record is being unable to care for a foster child, or even have one in your home under someone else’s care. On a basic level this makes sense-- don’t give vulnerable children who’ve already been abused or neglected to criminals! But when you work with these families directly, you see that what it really means is that when mom develops a drug problem or gets into an abusive relationship and the county takes her kids away, the kids can’t go with grandma because she got busted for shoplifting when she was young, they can’t go with their auntie because auntie has a roommate with a prior drug history (despite roomie being clean now), they can’t go with their older cousin whose partner was once convinced of being an accessory after the fact to a friend who stole a car, etc. It has the practical effect of tearing poor families apart, because poor people are more apt to break the law out of desperation, less likely to get away with it, and more likely to need to share housing with others, at least one of whom is likely to have a record.
Jesus, this never occurred to me. That’s new levels of fucked up!
Years ago someone showed me how to look up state court trial records online. It was fun looking up friends/acquaintances and seeing their speeding tickets, etc.
I looked up a neighbor and was shocked to see that this thirty year old mother of two had a bunch off citations and convictions for retail theft/shoplifting. Totally changed the way I looked at her. I no longer considered asking her to water my houseplants when I went on vacation.
They are expunged. They were expunged in 2003. But they kept showing up. Basically the databases that the background check companies use (or used) can have all kinds of old information archived. It may even be illegal, but what’s your recourse?
A point a lot of the “social justice warriors” make, and with good cause, is that justice is not colour-blind.
If 15% of Americans are black but half the prison inmates are, this can have an extreme effect on that part of society. Poverty can only explain so much - the rest is the greater tendency of the system to seek out, arrest, charge, convict, and for longer imprison black people - especially black men.
If employers as a matter of course will avoid hiring people with a record, that puts a greater impediment in the way of making society economically more equal.
(There was even a NYT article about the shortage of “eligible black males” especially for educated black women since the majority of those in prison tend to be younger - one woman complaining her boyfriend was seeing several other women, and he said “I didn’t realize this was supposed to be exclusive” since in some communities almost half of black males in their 20’s are in jail.)