Re: because we don't have enough

[Mdraf]

because we don't have enough


criminals in government

AB 218 would prohibit requesting criminal background information on the initial employment application for local and state government employees, with the goal of reducing unnecessary barriers to employment for the one in four adult Californians who have an arrest or conviction record.  AB 218 would remove any inquiry into a conviction history on an initial job application and delay any background check until the employer has determined that the applicant's qualifications meet the job requirements. An employer would still be permitted to ask about criminal history after the initial job application. With this bill, the state and our cities and counties will take an important step toward allowing people with a conviction history to compete fairly for employment

"until the employer has determined that the applicant's qualifications meet the job requirements." it used to be  that being a criminal meant you failed to meet an important qualification for government employment, but this is Californian government so maybe this is some form of honesty and transparency? admitting crooks make the best government workers 

AB 218 is on the governors desk waiting to be signed

This is so state government employees can get a job after they get termed out of office

I left California 10 years ago and took my business (and taxes) with me. Never looked back.

[WildAboutHarry]

There was a piece in the local rag (I mean the Sacramento Bee) a few weeks/months ago about a state worker that had been convicted of some sort of fraud or embezzlement that was hired because they took the "do you have a criminal past" question off the application.  So this person, technically, did not submit a fraudulent application. 

I'd go dig up the article, but I am too depressed.

[Ad Orientem]

At the risk of being seen as the devil's advocate I would point out a few things.

* The United States has by far the highest rate of incarceration of any country in the world for which reliable statistics are available. Most of this is a consequence of our War on Drugs.
* We have one of the highest rates of recidivism.
* In line with the previous, the US spends the least per capita on criminal rehabilitation of any country in the developed world.
* The US is the only country in the developed world that stigmatizes ex-offenders for life with criminal records that are accessible to anyone.
* The unemployment rate among ex-offenders is several times higher than in the general population. In some states it is near 50%.

Question... which would you rather do... pay $35,000 - 50,000 a year to lock someone up because he went back to crime in order to survive, or... give him a shot an honest job where he will be contributing to society instead of living off it either in prison or on the public dole?

This country really needs to rethink its entire approach to crime and punishment.

Before people start throwing out the usual "we don't want sex offenders in schools or felons as cops" arguments, I am not denying that there are certain sensitive jobs that as a matter of common sense should be off limits to persons with a serious criminal history. But those are few and far between.

[WildAboutHarry]

i cant really speak to the exact legal ramifications of the bills wording... in general i would say "its written by government its bound to be messed up" it sounds like the requirement to check is gone but checking later is OK... if you want to...
i will be the first to agree we have many ridiculous laws and that having broken one of them in the "not so recent past" shouldn't bar you from employment, but this doesn't sound like a "we need to make reasonable decisions based on the nature of each individual case" type bill. this sounds more a like feel good claptrap "we have to do it for the disadvantaged criminals" with no regard for the baby getting tossed with the bath water type bill...


also... the bill is specific to government jobs (honest job? ) so while we may get some limited contribution in return for their cost, they are still on the public dole in a way..

Actions have consequences.  Repercussions from those actions should have proportionate consequences.

I think getting an honest answer to such a questions speaks volumes about character.  Being able to ask such questions speaks volumes about the integrity of our government.

[Ad Orientem]

Actions have consequences.  Repercussions from those actions should have proportionate consequences.

They do indeed. Especially for society at large, which has to support unemployed ex-offenders or endure the effects of a return to their previous path in life when cut off from jobs or other means of surviving.

I think getting an honest answer to such a questions speaks volumes about character.  Being able to ask such questions speaks volumes about the integrity of our government.

I don't disagree with that, as far as it goes. The problem is that the consequences of those honest answers also speaks volumes about where we are as a society. The simple fact is that checking the "Yes" box net to the question "Have you ever been convicted of a crime" on a job application is a show stopper 98% of the time.

Thank you for your interest in this job. We will get back to you.

[RuralEngineer]

At the risk of being seen as the devil's advocate I would point out a few things.

* The United States has by far the highest rate of incarceration of any country in the world for which reliable statistics are available. Most of this is a consequence of our War on Drugs.
* We have one of the highest rates of recidivism.
* In line with the previous, the US spends the least per capita on criminal rehabilitation of any country in the developed world.
* The US is the only country in the developed world that stigmatizes ex-offenders for life with criminal records that are accessible to anyone.
* The unemployment rate among ex-offenders is several times higher than in the general population. In some states it is near 50%.

Question... which would you rather do... pay $35,000 - 50,000 a year to lock someone up because he went back to crime in order to survive, or... give him a shot an honest job where he will be contributing to society instead of living off it either in prison or on the public dole?

This country really needs to rethink its entire approach to crime and punishment.

Before people start throwing out the usual "we don't want sex offenders in schools or felons as cops" arguments, I am not denying that there are certain sensitive jobs that as a matter of common sense should be off limits to persons with a serious criminal history. But those are few and far between.

While you have a point, a more immediate solution is to clean out our bullshit legal code and get rid of all the crap laws that are muddying up peoples records.  Once those are no longer crimes we can expunge those and then it's no longer an issue for people who have only, for example, a drug conviction. 

Personally I'm all in favor of stigmatizing the hell out of child molesters.

Oops, I checked wikipedia and stigmatize isn't an exotic form of execution like I though.  Although disappointed, I'm still ok with it.    (not an attempt to derail the thread, just some snark)

[Ad Orientem]

While you have a point, a more immediate solution is to clean out our bullshit legal code and get rid of all the crap laws that are muddying up peoples records.  Once those are no longer crimes we can expunge those and then it's no longer an issue for people who have only, for example, a drug conviction. 

Personally I'm all in favor of stigmatizing the hell out of child molesters.

Oops, I checked wikipedia and stigmatize isn't an exotic form of execution like I though.  Although disappointed, I'm still ok with it.    (not an attempt to derail the thread, just some snark)

Child molesters have one of the highest recidivism rates among ex-offenders. Most criminologists and psychologists believe that the hard core ones cannot be rehabilitated and I generally favor natural life prison sentences for them on the grounds that they are a permanent threat to others. But again we are talking about an extremely small percentage of offenders here.