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
Matthew Young
I'm all for the 'ban the box' campaign where it is not OK to ask about prior convictions. People should be given a chance to have a fresh start and not have the mistakes of their youth dragging them down forever.
12:12 PM | April 6, 2016
Sara Henry Thomas
It’s not their business if a person is currently able to perform the duties of their job. Just like medical history is nobody’s business.
2:14 PM | April 5, 2016
Anonymous
People with certain criminal convictions probably shouldn't work certain positions. For example, it would be a big risk to hire someone charged with money laundering as your accountant. However, if the charge has no bearing on position in question, prior convictions should not be used to discriminate against job applicants.
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
Matthew Young
I'm all for the 'ban the box' campaign where it is not OK to ask about prior convictions. People should be given a chance to have a fresh start and not have the mistakes of their youth dragging them down forever.
12:12 PM | April 6, 2016
Sara Henry Thomas
It’s not their business if a person is currently able to perform the duties of their job. Just like medical history is nobody’s business.
2:14 PM | April 5, 2016
Anonymous
People with certain criminal convictions probably shouldn't work certain positions. For example, it would be a big risk to hire someone charged with money laundering as your accountant. However, if the charge has no bearing on position in question, prior convictions should not be used to discriminate against job applicants.
2:14 PM | April 5, 2016
Pages