A person should not be labeled or punished because of their actions on the worst day of their lives
3:15 PM | April 15, 2016
Anonymous
I think that experience in incarceration shouldn't be stigmatized in the way that it is. Employers should be able to ask about prior convictions, but they should also consider that history as telling and powerful experiences that can provide valuable intel
3:15 PM | April 15, 2016
Anonymous
This should not come up until after full consideration has been given and a decision has been made. It should only affect the decision then if the position directly correlates to the "crime."
2:14 PM | April 15, 2016
Tiffany Campo
The only way to prevent discrimination in the hiring process is to eliminate the question.
1:13 PM | April 15, 2016
Najai Lewis
Not in all cases depending on nature of job u are applying for. In today's hiring practices it is abused and widely over construed mostly in order to meet quotas. In the short term the overall effects are disingenuous. In the long term it is self defeating. Because rehabilitation and reintegration into society is not being acheived. Which is supposedly the main goal of prisons since the majority of people in prison will once again be members of our society. If someone is applying for a job that has certain pre requisites or puts you in a position of trust or requires transparency ect,However the majority of jobs that someone in that demographic would apply for do not.
9:09 AM | April 15, 2016
Anonymous
They already served their time. If we want to punish them their whole life, why let them out?
6:18 PM | April 14, 2016
Anonymous
They may or may not be a treat to the safety of co-workers and/or clients
6:18 PM | April 14, 2016
Anonymous
It's a discriminatory practice
6:18 PM | April 14, 2016
John Keenan
This is a good question. It's a question about the conflict of two rights; the rights of the employer to know who they are employing and the rights of citizens who have paid their dues to society by going to prison and paying for their crimes to not be penalized further at the crucial moment of reinsertion into society. The answer can only be expressed in the law, and in that respect the law has to be balanced between the needs of those two conflicting rights. At the end of the day it would clearly be self-defeating for society to have a law that doesn't protect the rights of the citizen who has paid his debt to society to have a return to active life. Furthermore, this "right of return" is essential to the coherence of society. Its absence would mean that those who committed a minor crime would have to be punished forever and society would have to pay forever for that punishment.
Anonymous
A person should not be labeled or punished because of their actions on the worst day of their lives
3:15 PM | April 15, 2016
Anonymous
I think that experience in incarceration shouldn't be stigmatized in the way that it is. Employers should be able to ask about prior convictions, but they should also consider that history as telling and powerful experiences that can provide valuable intel
3:15 PM | April 15, 2016
Anonymous
This should not come up until after full consideration has been given and a decision has been made. It should only affect the decision then if the position directly correlates to the "crime."
2:14 PM | April 15, 2016
Tiffany Campo
The only way to prevent discrimination in the hiring process is to eliminate the question.
1:13 PM | April 15, 2016
Najai Lewis
Not in all cases depending on nature of job u are applying for. In today's hiring practices it is abused and widely over construed mostly in order to meet quotas. In the short term the overall effects are disingenuous. In the long term it is self defeating. Because rehabilitation and reintegration into society is not being acheived. Which is supposedly the main goal of prisons since the majority of people in prison will once again be members of our society. If someone is applying for a job that has certain pre requisites or puts you in a position of trust or requires transparency ect,However the majority of jobs that someone in that demographic would apply for do not.
9:09 AM | April 15, 2016
Anonymous
They already served their time. If we want to punish them their whole life, why let them out?
6:18 PM | April 14, 2016
Anonymous
They may or may not be a treat to the safety of co-workers and/or clients
6:18 PM | April 14, 2016
Anonymous
It's a discriminatory practice
6:18 PM | April 14, 2016
John Keenan
This is a good question. It's a question about the conflict of two rights; the rights of the employer to know who they are employing and the rights of citizens who have paid their dues to society by going to prison and paying for their crimes to not be penalized further at the crucial moment of reinsertion into society. The answer can only be expressed in the law, and in that respect the law has to be balanced between the needs of those two conflicting rights. At the end of the day it would clearly be self-defeating for society to have a law that doesn't protect the rights of the citizen who has paid his debt to society to have a return to active life. Furthermore, this "right of return" is essential to the coherence of society. Its absence would mean that those who committed a minor crime would have to be punished forever and society would have to pay forever for that punishment.
11:23 PM | April 7, 2016
Mahko ikematsu
It's none of their business.
6:18 PM | April 6, 2016
Pages