Discriminating against criminals is now illegal

[Wry Catcher]

That's one guy. So the kid who stole a tube of lipstick from Walgreen's 10 years ago shouldn't be hired because of that?

We have prisons so that people can pay their debt to society. After it's paid, the slate should be clean.

There's no reason to brand them and punish them further.

Reductio ad absurdum at its best. We're talking about people with serious criminal records, shoplifting, theft, embezzlement, etc.
Besides, how can you as a narco libtard be in favor of the gov't telling private employers what standards theycan use?

Nonsense. I'm talking about people who commited serious crimes, did their time and want to get on with their lives. I'm talking about people like you stopping them out of some kind of self-righteous tizzy.

...and what a retarded (yes, retarded) retort with the narco libtard bullshit. Employers can hire whom they please. It's not a government function to supply them with information, though.

Do you think at all?

Years ago I arrested and later testified against a young man who committed several street robbery's while brandishing a hand gun. He was convicted and sentenced to the Ca. Youth Authority. Years later I went out to start my car go to work and it wouldn't start, so I called AAA.

A while later the yellow tow truck showed up and as soon as the driver got out of the truck we recognized each other. He walked over and thanked me, he said he was on the wrong path and by arresting him he got a second chance.

 

[Flopper]

That assumes everyone convicted is guilty of the crime they were accused of which is not always the case.

Immie

Most people assume that those convicted of felonies were tried and found guilty by a jury of their peers. Not True. About 95 percent of all felony convictions in the United States are the result of plea bargains. Plea bargains are just a way of increasing conviction rates for the prosecution and reducing the load on the court system.

The way plea bargains were suppose to work and the way they actually work are quite different. The idea of the plea bargain was to keep cases of obvious guilt out of court by offering less jail time to the defendant if he pleads guilty to a lessor charge. In reality, it works quite different. The defendant is threatened with a number of charges that would add up to a lot of jail time. Then he's offered less jail time if he pleads guilty to a lesser charge. The defendant, 95% of the time will go for the plea bargain rather going to trial with a public defender who spends most of his time negotiating plea deals rather actually going to court.

So when the prisoner says he's innocent of the crime he was convicted, he certainly may be telling the truth. In the eyes of the prisoner, the justice system is a sham and the likelihood that he will strike back is quite high. So when he's released in less than 3 years and he can't get a job, he feels justified in returning to crime.

Faqs | The Plea | FRONTLINE | PBS

They plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid trial on the greater. Typically they do this because they are guilty as hell. Given how hard it is to arrest, try, convict and sentence someone in this country it is a lead pipe cinch that the person is guilty of a felony.

Yes, they are probably guilty of something. Maybe it's something for which they are serving time or maybe not. Plea bargaining has changed the purpose of the judicial system. The focus is no longer on determining the guilt or innocent of the accused but rather to get the accused into prison, rehab, or probation as fast and cheaply as possible. After arraignment, there is no presumption of innocent. The defense and prosecuting attorney work together to determine not guilt but the degree of guilt and what the punishment should be. Any resemblance to justice is purely coincidental.

 

[Katzndogz]

It shouldn't be a secret that sometimes a criminal is known for a whole string of crimes but there just isn't the evidence to put that smoking gun in his hand. Everyone knows it, the street talk is all about it, but they just can't get enough to prove it. The police and prosecutors will get the perp put away on some bullshit charge just to get him off the street for awhile.

 

[Flopper]

Most people assume that those convicted of felonies were tried and found guilty by a jury of their peers. Not True. About 95 percent of all felony convictions in the United States are the result of plea bargains. Plea bargains are just a way of increasing conviction rates for the prosecution and reducing the load on the court system.

The way plea bargains were suppose to work and the way they actually work are quite different. The idea of the plea bargain was to keep cases of obvious guilt out of court by offering less jail time to the defendant if he pleads guilty to a lessor charge. In reality, it works quite different. The defendant is threatened with a number of charges that would add up to a lot of jail time. Then he's offered less jail time if he pleads guilty to a lesser charge. The defendant, 95% of the time will go for the plea bargain rather going to trial with a public defender who spends most of his time negotiating plea deals rather actually going to court.

So when the prisoner says he's innocent of the crime he was convicted, he certainly may be telling the truth. In the eyes of the prisoner, the justice system is a sham and the likelihood that he will strike back is quite high. So when he's released in less than 3 years and he can't get a job, he feels justified in returning to crime.

Faqs | The Plea | FRONTLINE | PBS

I know if I were innocent as charged, I would fight tooth and nail.

Are any of you aware of any type of work rehabilitation programs that help train and then re-integrate ex-cons back into the workplace? I understand that not every one will be qualified for every job. Some types of crimes may disqualify applicants from certain types of high security jobs, or jobs directly related to the crime they were convicted of, such as embezzlers not being desirable bank employees; or child molesters being unsuitable as day care workers or school janitors.
One of the problems with a lot of potential workers in this country is their over-inflated sense of value. Face it, a farm laborer is not as valued as a doctor. (Lawyers are far over-valued, IMHO, but it is what it is.) Too many people, including ex-cons, refuse to accept employment they consider "beneath" them, or that doesn't pay what they think they should receive. I know, now comes the objection about a "living wage". Again, people (Americans specifically) have learned to live way beyond their means and the easy credit available is one of the major ills killing this country...again, different discussion.

There are tons of programs for ex cons. Ex cons are trained in welding, house painting and solar panel installation. Although I would not want an ex con at my home or business installing solar panels. Neither would I want one in my living room painting the walls.

And that is the problem. Provide training, just don't ask me to hire one. Most jobs for ex-cons are really pretty crappy and don't last long.

So often we think that we can forget the criminal once incarcerated but the fact is most will be on the streets within 3 years. If they can find and keep employment, their chance of making it is pretty good. If not, they will either end up on government support or back in prison or both.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Most people assume that those convicted of felonies were tried and found guilty by a jury of their peers. Not True. About 95 percent of all felony convictions in the United States are the result of plea bargains. Plea bargains are just a way of increasing conviction rates for the prosecution and reducing the load on the court system.

The way plea bargains were suppose to work and the way they actually work are quite different. The idea of the plea bargain was to keep cases of obvious guilt out of court by offering less jail time to the defendant if he pleads guilty to a lessor charge. In reality, it works quite different. The defendant is threatened with a number of charges that would add up to a lot of jail time. Then he's offered less jail time if he pleads guilty to a lesser charge. The defendant, 95% of the time will go for the plea bargain rather going to trial with a public defender who spends most of his time negotiating plea deals rather actually going to court.

So when the prisoner says he's innocent of the crime he was convicted, he certainly may be telling the truth. In the eyes of the prisoner, the justice system is a sham and the likelihood that he will strike back is quite high. So when he's released in less than 3 years and he can't get a job, he feels justified in returning to crime.

Faqs | The Plea | FRONTLINE | PBS

They plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid trial on the greater. Typically they do this because they are guilty as hell. Given how hard it is to arrest, try, convict and sentence someone in this country it is a lead pipe cinch that the person is guilty of a felony.

Yes, they are probably guilty of something. Maybe it's something for which they are serving time or maybe not. Plea bargaining has changed the purpose of the judicial system. The focus is no longer on determining the guilt or innocent of the accused but rather to get the accused into prison, rehab, or probation as fast and cheaply as possible. After arraignment, there is no presumption of innocent. The defense and prosecuting attorney work together to determine not guilt but the degree of guilt and what the punishment should be. Any resemblance to justice is purely coincidental.

I think you're being to cynical, or the system you worked in (?) had become so overwhelmed justice gave in to expediency. I've seen cases dismissed with and without prejudice when the DA (prosecutor) was unprepared. DA's have large caseloads too.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

We've lost our minds at this point. A company is screening potential employees for criminal records because people with criminal records represent a liability. And the Obama Administration is now suing because, ta da, most of the people getting screened out are blacks.
EEOC sues over criminal background checks at Dollar General | Nashville City Paper

Sometimes it's a good thing to read past the headlines, or at least represent the article fairly on this board. A salient excerpt:

"""The [EEOC] commission says it wants to reduce barriers to employment for those with past criminal records who "have been held accountable and paid their dues."

The EEOC alleges that BMW's policy affected dozens of employees working for a contractor that staffed a BMW warehouse in Spartanburg, S.C. The contractor's policy was not to employ anyone with a criminal record within the past seven years. When a new contractor took over the company, BMW ordered a new round of criminal background checks and fired anyone with a criminal record from any year.

Of the 88 workers fired, 70 were black. Some had worked for BMW — through the contractor — for more than a decade, the EEOC alleged in a lawsuit filed in federal district court in Spartanburg. The commission claims the BMW policy is a "blanket exclusion" without any regard for the nature and gravity of the crimes, how old they are, or whether they are relevant to the type of work being performed.""

This is why I would never live in the South again. I really couldn't stand the blatant discrimination then and I can't stand it now.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I know if I were innocent as charged, I would fight tooth and nail.

Are any of you aware of any type of work rehabilitation programs that help train and then re-integrate ex-cons back into the workplace? I understand that not every one will be qualified for every job. Some types of crimes may disqualify applicants from certain types of high security jobs, or jobs directly related to the crime they were convicted of, such as embezzlers not being desirable bank employees; or child molesters being unsuitable as day care workers or school janitors.
One of the problems with a lot of potential workers in this country is their over-inflated sense of value. Face it, a farm laborer is not as valued as a doctor. (Lawyers are far over-valued, IMHO, but it is what it is.) Too many people, including ex-cons, refuse to accept employment they consider "beneath" them, or that doesn't pay what they think they should receive. I know, now comes the objection about a "living wage". Again, people (Americans specifically) have learned to live way beyond their means and the easy credit available is one of the major ills killing this country...again, different discussion.

There are tons of programs for ex cons. Ex cons are trained in welding, house painting and solar panel installation. Although I would not want an ex con at my home or business installing solar panels. Neither would I want one in my living room painting the walls.

And that is the problem. Provide training, just don't ask me to hire one. Most jobs for ex-cons are really pretty crappy and don't last long.

So often we think that we can forget the criminal once incarcerated but the fact is most will be on the streets within 3 years. If they can find and keep employment, their chance of making it is pretty good. If not, they will either end up on government support or back in prison or both.

Sad but very true. Back in '82 (wow, 30 years ago) I attended DOJ training in Colorado where they housed inmates - doing their time - in group homes. Like county jail work-furlough these felons were required to go to work and return on a strict time-table, test for the use of drugs and or alcohol and make restitution to victims, pay fines and report to their parole agent as directed along with other usual terms and conditions of parole/probation. It worked well, I wonder, does Colorado still operates such a program?

 

[The Rabbi]

We've lost our minds at this point. A company is screening potential employees for criminal records because people with criminal records represent a liability. And the Obama Administration is now suing because, ta da, most of the people getting screened out are blacks.
EEOC sues over criminal background checks at Dollar General | Nashville City Paper

Sometimes it's a good thing to read past the headlines, or at least represent the article fairly on this board. A salient excerpt:

"""The [EEOC] commission says it wants to reduce barriers to employment for those with past criminal records who "have been held accountable and paid their dues."

The EEOC alleges that BMW's policy affected dozens of employees working for a contractor that staffed a BMW warehouse in Spartanburg, S.C. The contractor's policy was not to employ anyone with a criminal record within the past seven years. When a new contractor took over the company, BMW ordered a new round of criminal background checks and fired anyone with a criminal record from any year.

Of the 88 workers fired, 70 were black. Some had worked for BMW — through the contractor — for more than a decade, the EEOC alleged in a lawsuit filed in federal district court in Spartanburg. The commission claims the BMW policy is a "blanket exclusion" without any regard for the nature and gravity of the crimes, how old they are, or whether they are relevant to the type of work being performed.""

This is why I would never live in the South again. I really couldn't stand the blatant discrimination then and I can't stand it now.

Even the EEOC did not claim it was blatant discrimination.
And we don't want you here so STFU.

 

[Flopper]

It shouldn't be a secret that sometimes a criminal is known for a whole string of crimes but there just isn't the evidence to put that smoking gun in his hand. Everyone knows it, the street talk is all about it, but they just can't get enough to prove it. The police and prosecutors will get the perp put away on some bullshit charge just to get him off the street for awhile.

Yes, that certainly does happen, probably more often than you might think. One of the primary reasons why people commit crimes is they believe society has treated them unfairly so they think they have the right to respond in the same manner. When we charge a person with half dozen crimes punishable by as much as 20 years in prison and we plea bargain it to 5 years with parole after 3, this is in effect extortion. Reject the deal, and take your chances with an overworked public defender. No wonder most defendants go for the plea deal.

 

[Flopper]

They plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid trial on the greater. Typically they do this because they are guilty as hell. Given how hard it is to arrest, try, convict and sentence someone in this country it is a lead pipe cinch that the person is guilty of a felony.

Yes, they are probably guilty of something. Maybe it's something for which they are serving time or maybe not. Plea bargaining has changed the purpose of the judicial system. The focus is no longer on determining the guilt or innocent of the accused but rather to get the accused into prison, rehab, or probation as fast and cheaply as possible. After arraignment, there is no presumption of innocent. The defense and prosecuting attorney work together to determine not guilt but the degree of guilt and what the punishment should be. Any resemblance to justice is purely coincidental.

I think you're being to cynical, or the system you worked in (?) had become so overwhelmed justice gave in to expediency. I've seen cases dismissed with and without prejudice when the DA (prosecutor) was unprepared. DA's have large caseloads too.

I pretty much agree. The problem as I see it, is the system is overloaded because we arrest and charge too many people for minor and victimless crimes. The criminal justice system is like so many areas of government, we pass laws but we don't want to spend the money to see that they are enforced. So we overload our courts, jails, and prisons to the extent that we put dangerous criminals on the streets that should be in prison.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Reductio ad absurdum at its best. We're talking about people with serious criminal records, shoplifting, theft, embezzlement, etc.
Besides, how can you as a narco libtard be in favor of the gov't telling private employers what standards theycan use?

Nonsense. I'm talking about people who commited serious crimes, did their time and want to get on with their lives. I'm talking about people like you stopping them out of some kind of self-righteous tizzy.

...and what a retarded (yes, retarded) retort with the narco libtard bullshit. Employers can hire whom they please. It's not a government function to supply them with information, though.

Do you think at all?

Years ago I arrested and later testified against a young man who committed several street robbery's while brandishing a hand gun. He was convicted and sentenced to the Ca. Youth Authority. Years later I went out to start my car go to work and it wouldn't start, so I called AAA.

A while later the yellow tow truck showed up and as soon as the driver got out of the truck we recognized each other. He walked over and thanked me, he said he was on the wrong path and by arresting him he got a second chance.

Undeniably a wake up call for some, but certainly not all. Be happy that at least one was "saved".
Long, long ago, I was working to become a police officer...for all the wrong reasons. LE is not a career for the faint of heart or those sensitive souls who would find offense at piddling things.

 

[Caroljo]

Here is one as a result of Democrats Frank/Dodd...

Yolanda Quesada Fired From Wells Fargo For Shoplifting 40 Years Ago

Imagine getting fired for a crime you committed not one, not two, not three, but four decades ago.

That’s what happened to one Milwaukee woman. Wells Fargo fired Yolanda Quesada after a background check found that she shoplifted in 1972, a local NBC affiliate reports. Though Quesada acknowledges she committed the crime, she says shoplifting shortly after high school shouldn't be something that influences her job standing.

"[I'm] very good at what I do for Wells Fargo," Quesada told the television station.

Quesada, who is now 58, was fired shortly after receiving a report from an FBI background check in the mail, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports. A Wells Fargo spokesman told the Journal-Sentinel that the company began performing thorough background checks on all existing mortgage unit employees last year "due to legal requirements and changes in the regulatory environment."

"Because Wells Fargo is an insured depository institution, we are bound by federal law that generally prohibits us from hiring or continuing the employment of any person who we know has a criminal record involving dishonesty or breach of trust," Wells Fargo spokesman Jim Hines told the Journal-Sentinel.

Banks hiring workers may be particularly sensitive to taking on employees with a record of property crimes, according to a report from the National Institute of Justice. There is no empirical evidence indicating when it's safe to hire an ex-offender, according to the report. Still, most employers choose an arbitrary statute of limitations that is usually somewhere between five or 10 years.

Additionally, new guidelines from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission now make it easier for employers to hire workers with criminal records. The rules suggest that employers give applicants a chance to explain any crimes on their record before outright rejecting them.

This doesn't surprise me....Wells Fargo bank sucks anyway, she's lucky not to be with them now.

 

[Trajan]

its the old disparate impact play,even if there appears to be no intent as to any bias due to skin color etc., if there is an impact , a 'disparate' one upon one alike sect. the Feds will use it...its dishonest imho.


Perez (yes the Black Panther case Perez, has been nominated for the labor dept post) at the DOJ played this game shaking down banks for settlements, and he submarined a case heading to the supreme court along the way, becasue he knows damn well it won't fly, good news is the court has accepted another case that will clear up the disparate impact issue.