There are a lot of people saying they're in favor of this type of thing. And for non-violent offenses I'd probably also be on board.
But this person committed a "serious, violent crime" that sent them to prison for 13 years. Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? Are there certain crimes that cross the line for you? Would you expect your employer to inform you of their record?
Edit: Just want to remind people, 13 years could very well mean that they murdered someone. Context around the charge is key, and no one seems to be acknowledging that.
I was a co-creator of The Last Mile's coding program, and taught many classes in San Quentin prison. The students were generally there for a decade plus, for violent crimes.
I would sit next to any of them for any length of time. They pose zero threat to anyone.
This is for two reasons:
1. Generally, violent crimes are done by very young and poor people. By the time they get out of prison, they aren't very young any more. If they have a good job, they aren't poor either.
2. If a prison lets someone in an educational program, you know the system considers them safe. The system buckets inmates; behavioral offenses are harshly penalized; everyone in a classroom is an angel, and they won't stop being an angel on the outside.
Let's break this down. Someone commits murder, and gets sent to prison for 13 years. They are out now. How do we deal with them?
1. If everyone says that they will no longer want to work with such a person, especially rich people, who can enforce that want, that person will end up working with poor people. The rich people are making a classist argument.
2. Worse, if that person, cannot even get bad jobs, they will be forced to commit more crimes in order to live. Now, the first crime might have been because they were a bad person, but the second crime is on the people who refuse to work with them.
3. What are other possibilities?
You get out of this conundrum by making prison about rehabilitation. Ensuring that people who come out are changed people who are not inclined to commit more crimes. Then you treat them like normal people. And hopefully, that world, while not perfect, will be better than this world.
After reading everyone's responses and responding myself, I've realized that I'm really caught up on the murder aspect.
I think my revised opinion is that if you intentionally murder someone without a damn good reason, you should spend life in prison. This can include second degree murder, which is often not life in prison in the US (And also happens to line up with the OP scenario).
Happy that someone changed their mind. You asked a very good question. I don't think there are any easy answers to it. Crime hurts people and creates lots of strong emotions, so our instincts on what is best for society regarding crime are not very reliable.
A lot of conversation needs to happen on this, and we need to constantly reevaluate our positions.
I didn't want to dive down away from murder, because then I'll have to pick my "line". I'm not prepared to do that for various reasons. For example, I don't know the punishments for the crime you mentioned.
Murder is the "easiest" crime to use to make my arguments. And even then I have to specify stuff like "intentional without a damn good reason".
> We can't make the punishment the same, or he would just murder her, yet I don't think such a person should every be let out.
Do you believe people can change? Or perhaps more generally, what do you think the purpose of a prison should be when considering rehabilitation vs punishment?
I very honestly have less problem with murder then something like past harassment. Like, unless it was not random burst of violence, that must won't happen to me or someone I know. So that person generally working is lowering chance of recidivism for little cost to me.
I suppose another possibility is that the market just deals with it. Through wages, employee retention, or 'danger money' for the non-convict colleagues.
Market "dealing" with it means high recidivism. It's the tragedy of the commons. It might be in everyone's individual interest to not hire an ex-felon, but it leads to a worse outcome for everyone.
Personal story, fwiw. Wheelchair Tom was a neighbor growing up. Nice guy. Little quirky, but nice. Tom gave out quarters for Halloween, and paid small amounts to neighborhood kids to help out around his property.
Why was Tom in a wheelchair? Tom killed his wife years earlier in a crime of passion after catching her with another man in their bed. He grabbed a gun, shot both people. She died. Tom walked out and the lover came behind him and shot him in the back.
Tom went to prison for a very violent crime. I raked leafs for him as a kid, and so did my kids. I wouldn't have had second thoughts of asking him to keep an eye on the kids for a while if needed. Tom was a member of our community who had a very violent past that all the adults knew about and were accepting of.
Alternatively, there are folks who have sterling records that I would not let my kids do chores for.
I agree. Given some circumstance or set of them, the overwhelming vast majority of people are capable of extreme violence.
What is scary is those who enjoy violence and causing harm. My grandma worked in the next cube over from a guy for years. "Nicest guy ever." He spent his weekends cutting people into parts and mailing the the parts around.
>"But this person committed a "serious, violent crime" that sent them to prison for 13 years. Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? Are there certain crimes that cross the line for you? Would you expect your employer to inform you of their record?"
I would not feel comfortable sitting next to someone who was substantially more capable of committing a serious, violent crime (which might indeed have been murder if she did 13 years) than an average member of the population and I would expect an employer to take my welfare and safety into account.
The question is whether someone who did do that and went to prison for it is so much more likely to commit such a crime than average. I don't know the answer to that but I don't think it's outrageous to think the answer is "no".
Some friends and I just happened to watch Trading Places (1983, Eddie Murphy, Dan Aykroyd) last night, and it deals directly with this question, and got us talking about it.
I work with a guy who did some time, but I'm not sure what for. Probably drug-related, if I had to guess, but I've never asked. He's a model employee, as long as you include a snarky wit in your model. And I feel perfectly comfortable around him.
There are people around who DO creep me out, but that's not even slightly correlated, in my little sample, with the people who've been to prison.
We're all capable of it. Humans are hairless apes with neither claws nor tusks who spend more time in helpless, bawling infancy than any other animal. Yet somehow we survived among literal monsters in prehistory. If we are not prey...?
Have you never been violent, not even once? With anyone? Were you old enough to be tried as an adult under the right circumstances? Even the slightest physical conflict is only a dice roll away from turning into a horrific accident that does lasting damage.
And what is your alternative? Keep offenders in the system forever? Do we believe in the "Correction" of "Correctional Facilities" or not? Forgiveness? Rehabilitation? Redemption?
At some point you have to stop passing the buck to someone else to let people back into society, otherwise you're just being a predestinationalist by your deeds.
> Would you expect your employer to inform you of their record?
No, I would find that offensive. Similarly I wouldn't want to know about their military record, substance habits, childhood, credit score, or the last mean thing their spouse said to them. That's all personal.
Are you comfortable being judged on the worst thing you've ever done in your life?
Sure, a violent crime is worse than some bone-headed mistake made at a college party, or whatever your worst moment is. But how much have you grown up since then? Would you do it again? Or are you older and wiser? Well, they are probably older and wiser, too.
I'd be willing to be that the worst thing most people have done isn't murder or manslaughter. You don't have to be "older and wiser" to know that you aren't supposed to murder people.
> *You don't have to be "older and wiser" to know that you aren't supposed to murder people.
I mean, I'm not sure how relevant "knowing" anything is, but age is an incredibly strong predictor of criminality. Gender is another one. The majority of crime, and the overwhelming majority violent crime, is committed by young men. One factor that likely contributes to this reliable statistical phenomenon is that the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for decision-making, self-control, emotional self-regulation, and other aspects of executive function, doesn't fully develop until around 25 years of age. For one example of how executive function relates to criminal behavior, look into the connection between ADHD (a disorder linked to deficiencies in the prefrontal cortex) and crime.
I agree that most people haven't killed anyone, but I also don't think that there's any reason for any of us to assume that 'we' would have behaved any differently when placed in the circumstances of those who have.
Put yourself in a companies position, if you hire someone who had a violent past, and they commit a violent crime while at work, or to a coworker or client off the clock, the company will be held liable, no two ways about it, it will come back on the company.
Additionally, there are countless contracts that require you specifically not have anyone with criminal convictions, and require full background checks to be awarded the contracts, even more so if it was a violent felony.
Those are two very serious liabilities to a company, I understand that people deserve a second chance, but do you put your company at risk to give it to them?
This is a really important point. Most attempts to reduce discrimination against felons (e.g. Ban the box) do nothing to address the reason why the discrimination happens in the first place. It also places the burden on the applicant and state to retroactively correct and create chances (which are then already in a strained condition).
If states were to specify some rules around when a 'Negligent Hiring' liability suit could be pursued against a business, business owners would be more willing to hire and provide chances. If the state is liable should something happen, the burden on the state then becomes to proactively rehabilitate felons who meet the set of conditions such that their future litigation costs are reduced.
To me, that is a much better alignment of incentives though not perfect.
If no employer is willing to “put themselves at risk”, what choice do ex-convicts have but to commit more crimes? May as well give them a life sentence in prison for anything that makes them an employment risk.
This is a failure of the state, the purpose for incarceration is retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation, is the most important aspect for a person who has been in prison to be able to return to society. Storing people in a hellish place does not fix them, it only punishes them, with out counseling and education, how is a person who is released in anyway more prepared than when they went in?
I agree the current system makes it damn near impossible for someone with a conviction to get a second chance. That issue should be address at the corrections level, and the services provided after conviction.
But most companies do not have the resources, education, or ability to help rehabilitate someone, so should we blindly hire on hope that this person won't cause harm to the people a company is responsible for, should the company forgo the opportunities that require your staff not have convictions, that is just an unrealistic expectation.
Think about it like this, say there was a piece of equipment that had malfunctioned and caused serious injury to someone, and your company then wanted to bring that piece of equipment into your office, knowing that there is a 44% chance that it will malfunction in someway again, and there is a 25% chance that the malfunction would cause serious harm to someone, would you be comfortable with that choice, if that malfunction happened do you think the company would and should be liable for this?
There are too many situations, where trying to make this right for someone with a record would have too many of my employees face situations I don't think they should have to in a work place. with 1 in 5 women being the victim of sexual assault or rape, how could I ask any of them to work side by side with someone who was convicted of it, I can't insure their safety, and I don't feel it just to put them in that situation. Same with someone who has been the victim of any violent crime.
I think it boils down to person choice I suppose, and for me, I won't put the people I am responsible for at risk, not the company that I helped built. If that makes me a bad person, I think I can live with that.
People change, especially after being punished for the mistake they made for 13 years. Chances are she would be less likely to engage in violence than the people you currently sit next to, because she has a personal understanding of the harsh punishment it would involve.
Edit: The downvotes that this comment is currently receiving actually illustrate the problems outlined in this thread. If you disagree with the idea that people can change, you will never hire someone with a criminal record, and you will perpetuate the problem. The unemployment rate among felons in the US less than 2 years after release is 31.6% [1]. The unemployment rate at the peak of the Great Depression was 24.9% [2]. It is always the Great Depression for the felon population, because of the incorrect belief that people can’t change. Among any population with unemployment this high, there will be a drastically higher crime rate.
First, you did not point out the specific page where it says that “nearly all” violent offenders will commit another violent crime. This is a 42 page report. Second, I could not find any statistic in that report that comes even remotely close to describing that “most” violent offenders will commit another violent crime. Some states have recidivism rates approaching 50% (for ALL offenders, violent and nonviolent) but those numbers include technical parole violations and new non-violent crime.
Please indicate the page where the data supports your statement.
I originally posted the pew one as I feel the chance of biased against offenders is lower from their research, but this article does a better job of summarizing, as well as offering their full report.
After looking over the data again, it seems that nearly half will commit another crime but only 28.4% will be a violent one.
with these adjusted numbers, it still is inaccurate to say "...Chances are she would be less likely to engage in violence than the people you currently sit next to,..."
It would be interesting to see what the recidivism data on longer sentences is. There is a big difference between someone that served a 90 day sentence for something, then goes and commits a serious crime, and someone that serves 13 years for something. There is a much more significant lesson in the 13 years. Also, crime rates decrease among populations as they age. The mere fact that people who serve longer sentences are older when they get out would have a further push down on crime rates among that population.
You don't get 90 days for a felony, something that short is usually served in local lockup (city/County) and aren't typically included in these sort of stats.
But there is data on people doing under 5 years, and if you compared to that you would likely be right, but don't have the data to prove it.
Many, many people get 90, 60, 30 days or even probation for felonies as part of a plea agreement. Felony simply means that the maximum sentence is over 1 year. There is even a term for it..”felony probation”.
That is a really gross oversimplification of the term, a felony is a serious crime that can result in long term punishment or capital punishment and no less than one year (minimum not maximum) sentence (which can be less due to plea agreements, and time served before conviction) the distinction between felony and misdemeanor is the servity of the crimes classification not just the length of sentence.
There is also a further sub division of felony based on a class code which determines sentencing.
Regardless, it is very rare for someone doing that little time to do so in a state of federal prison, and most studies on this data are based on the department of prisons data, which is why it's not typically included.
Many felons get probation after serving time, this is the only term I've heard felony probation applied to, what are you referencing to mean?
Actually, that is not a gross oversimplification. According to [1], whether a crime has maximum sentence of over 1 year is precisely how the US government determines what crimes are and are not felonies:
In the United States, where the felony/misdemeanor distinction is still widely applied, the federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. If punishable by exactly one year or less, it is classified as a misdemeanor. The classification is based upon a crime's potential sentence, so a crime remains classified as a felony even if a defendant receives a sentence of less than a year of incarceration.
Also, no, I wasn’t referring to post-release supervision (which is usually referred to as parole or supervised release). Many hundreds of thousands of people every year receive a sentence of probation for felonies, primarily because countless “tough on crime” measures have increased maximum sentences for minor crimes, which automatically turned them into felonies where they used to be misdemeanors.
Honestly, I'm more worried about what 13 years in prison did to the person than the original crime. We don't know what the original crime was so it is hard to say in this case. Perhaps they have some deep, anti-social personality flaw and I wouldn't want to sit next to them. I would be concerned about sitting next to an innocent person who spent 13 years in prison, though. For me, that is a root issue. How many criminals are flawed people vs people who made a mistake or reacted badly to an isolated situation or just didn't have the skills or maturity to handle a difficult situation. I'm reminded of a quote I heard once. "Crime is committed by the young but prison is full of old men." People aren't the same their whole lives.
> I'm more worried about what 13 years in prison did to the person than the original crime.
100% this. Going to prison is a traumatic experience, and would be even in a country that had a real commitment to safe rehabilitation. In the US, it's all too often multiple traumatic experiences one after the other. Nonetheless, I think former felons absolutely deserve every chance to reintegrate. I just worry about their psychological safety when things get tense and others get combative. This is just one more reason why more people in tech need to grow the hell up and treat people around them with basic respect.
> Perhaps they have some deep, anti-social personality flaw
Like a lot of people in IT ? Not necessarily anti-social but you need to be asocial to some degree to want to spend 8+ hours in front of a screen talking to a computer. It's usually easy to pick out programmers from general population.
You replace my word, "anti-social" with your word, "asocial" which doesn't mean the same thing. Anti-social behavior is a clinical diagnosis. I mean to describe people who react with a lot of violence or anger at situations that might happen at an office.
Just trying to clarify here: you’re saying if someone was exonerated of a violent crime due to newer, overwhelming forensic evidence but had already spent 13years.
You’d feel more comfortable working with the actual criminal than the innocent person who spent 13 years in prison?
I'm not saying I would be more concerned. I'm saying that 13 years in prison might cause problems by itself. This is a criticism of prison, not the person.
I spent most of my career working in restaurants. We had a server who literally lit someone on fire. I had drug addicts who didn't show up for work, causing a panicked chain reaction among all the other people from their halfway house. Half the cooks were violating some sort of immigration or labor law.
It's fine. Most criminals are fine most the time.
What's your alternative? If you go to jail it's just for life because creampuffs can't handle sitting near someone who did something bad? Why is society comfortable with white colar criminals working when they cause more damage (both to the companies and to society as a whole)?
I think the real issue is that we don’t rehabilitate, so under our current system of justice, I would argue that it’s normal for someone to feel something in proximity of such a convict. The reason being, they were probably treated like an animal for over a decade. Give them hope and some courses to get their shit together and suddenly I’m less worried about the whole situation.
It has to start somewhere. Like...giving them a good paying job in a thriving industry. You're contradicting yourself and you only wrote 3 sentences. You've being shown the proof of how we can rehabilitate and then going "but IDK, doesn't seem good enough..."
I’m not being clear. I am sympathizing with OP. Because we know recidivism is higher when you don’t rehabilitate, sitting next to a violate offender carries some risk.
However, when you do rehabilitate, even violent offenders can lead mostly normal lives as is the case here.
I agree, it has to start somewhere, but because our current system acts as a self fulfilling prophecy, it’s going to be very hard to enact change, though I’m all for it.
But this person committed a "serious, violent crime" that sent them to prison for 13 years. Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? Are there certain crimes that cross the line for you? Would you expect your employer to inform you of their record?
TBH, my answer to that is "I don't know." It has never come up, so I haven't given it a lot of thought.
But it is a legitimate question, IMO, and I don't see why you're being downvoted for simply raising the question. I gave you an upvote to help offset that, FWIW.
If you agree to the conceit that a system of justice is about rehabilitation, then someone needs to sit next to, work next to, live next to a person who committed a "serious, violent crime" that sent them to prison for 13 years.
An argument could be made that the justice system should be about rehabilitation but in its current state can't be expected to provide that. I'm not sure I'd make it, but I could see that perspective.
I'm capable of committing a "serious, violent crime", so are you, so are any of your colleagues. Yet I never have, and I assume neither you nor your colleagues have either (based on probability).
>someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"
That would be 100% of people who isn't either a baby or has somehow no way to move arms and legs enough to wield a knife, gun, poison, etc. It is not a question of capability but the situations you are put in and live through. Otherwise you are saying criminality is in the genes.
I am quite capable of "serious, violent crime". Have I ever done so? No.
I've had a relatively easy life, all things considered. I've never been truly desperate. I've never wondered where my next meal will come from. I never made any major mistakes, like messing around with drugs or alcohol.
I'm not planning on committing any violent crimes, ever. But I could. You should beware.
If you think the people around you haven't done terrible things over the last 13 years they haven't been caught for I've got some bad news for you about humanity
13 years for a "serious, violent crime" could very well be referring to second degree murder in many states. No, I don't think my coworkers or friends have committed second degree murder.
Context is of course key, but a blanket statement of "hiring someone who spent 13 years in prison for a serious, violent crime is a good thing" seems wild to me, which is the vibe on this thread.
So it becomes either a law enforcement issue- does our system properly rehabilitate offenders? or a psychological issue- is someone who commits a violent crime inevitably going to repeat it?- or maybe a moral philosophy question- are people inherently evil and dangerous?
Because you’re asking a safety/comfort question, but it’s dependent on the answers to the above.
I think those questions are distracting to my very simple point: I don't want to work with a person who has murdered someone without a damn good reason (self-defense).
I truly can't believe that HN thinks this is some offensive opinion.
They're not distracting, because those underlying questions shape your reaction.
Murder is considered one of the worst offenses in any society. But this person was already punished by society, and seen fit by the law to return to it. So what could explain your continue (and very understandable) discomfort? Is it because you believe that the penal system did not properly make this person safe to return to society? Is it because that once someone has committed such a terrible crime that they are inevitably going to be able to do so again, because they have the psychological profile to do it? Such a person is more likely to slip into violence? Finally, does it mean that such a person is forever marked as fundamentally dangerous and unworthy of reintegration?
After the visceral recoil that is an instinct that preserves safety, you have to examine why you are so opposed to working with someone who has committed such a crime. Because we claim to live in a free society that gives people the liberty to pull themselves up from the bootstraps no matter their circumstances, yet discriminates against those who have done the time. Because we claim this society is built upon Christian and post-Christian Enlightenment principles, yet we reject the power of redemption and modern methods of recovery. It's fine to have such an opinion, but you have to justify it, because it's an example of how our society operates.
> Is it because you believe that the penal system did not properly make this person safe to return to society?
I absolutely don't believe the penal system makes people safe after they serve their time.
> Is it because that once someone has committed such a terrible crime that they are inevitably going to be able to do so again, because they have the psychological profile to do it?
If a person killed someone without a damn good reason, why would I think they wouldn't do it again?
> Finally, does it mean that such a person is forever marked as fundamentally dangerous and unworthy of reintegration?
Correct. And maybe I'm caught up on the murder aspect. Murder isn't a small little crime. It takes a certain type of person to be able to intentionally murder someone. And maybe most of this thread can be summarized by: I think if you intentionally murder someone without a damn good reason you should spend life in prison. Right now, second degree murder can include that and often is not life in prison.
Thank you for giving your honest answers. It's good to examine one's beliefs.
> I absolutely don't believe the penal system makes people safe after they serve their time.
Fair, and understandable.
> If a person killed someone without a damn good reason, why would I think they wouldn't do it again?
Why would you think they would do it again? Given that someone spent over a decade in prison, shouldn't it have deterred them from killing again?
You'd have to actually look into recidivism rates to see how this works out in reality, unless you believe that for psychological and moral philosophical reasons that such a person who's committed murder is both willing and likely to do so again.
> I think if you intentionally murder someone without a damn good reason you should spend life in prison. Right now, second degree murder can include that and often is not life in prison.
Okay, so your personal standard is that murder does not have to be premeditated to deserve life in prison. That's fair. But I think that goes beyond discomfort with working with such a person who has been through the prison system; that's believing that such a person shouldn't be out of the prison system at all.
So what should happen to that person, exactly? Should they be in prison forever? Should they be released but not allowed to work? Should they only be allowed to work by themselves?
I understand your reluctance, but the alternatives to "let the released felon work" are not great.
Actions have consequences and after breaking major societal taboos like murder or rape it is very difficult or impossible to repair the damage a person has done to society. I have trouble judging people negatively if they don't want to associate with a person who has murdered or raped someone.
I have the same visceral reaction - if I was seated next to a murderer at work I'd probably be wary. But visceral reactions tend not to make good social policy, and that's really my concern. We have some number of people who commit violent crimes. We either have to imprison them forever or let them out sometime. If we let them out we either need to support them or allow them to work. If we allow them to work do we relegate them to some low class of work, or allow them into white collar/privileged professions?
We should be concerned about creating the best society for everyone. That means sometimes we need to suppress our immediate/unconscious reactions.
It seems like you are viewing prison sentences as a 'price' for commiting murder, rape or some other violent crime. As long as you pay the price society must welcome you back with open arms. People will choose who to associate with based on their past behaviors and if you commit violent crime it is likely that most people will no longer want to associate with you.
So by that logic, you’d be as comfortable being entirely surrounded by former violent criminals at your work as you would be seated exclusively by citizens with spotless records?
Did they complete a sentence that was decided to be appropriate for the crime they committed? Then I don't mind at all. They can't change their past, but they can control their future.
If they are still dangerous after serving their time, then they should be held in prison longer.
The problem with this line of thinking is that some how people think that serving time in prison does anything to make someone less likely to commit crime. Our prison system doesn't positively reform people, in fact it almost certainly will make things worse. If you make someone spend 13 years in a prison, whose social rules are defined by violent criminals the persons cultural norms change.
The person doesn't leave prison ready to productively reenter society, they leave prison indoctrinated into prison culture.
If you made a programming error at work, and instead of someone spending time to teach you how you ended up making that mistake, and working to give you the knowledge and tools to not make it again. But instead made you stand in a corner for a fixed duration of time, it would be illogical to assume you would be a better programmer after standing in the corner, its the same with the US prison system.
I don't disagree with you, but I cannot fault the individual for the failings of the system. I also support efforts to reform and improve the prison system to focus on reform and improvement, rather than punishment.
Society decides that their crimes earns them X years of punishment. After they've done their X years, there should be no need to punish them more. I sympathize with the victims of the convict's crimes which depending on the crime, no value of X would suffice. But we are all human, and sometimes showing a shred of compassion is what motivates the real reform.
I agree. But letting someone who is dangerous live free in the community isn’t ideal either. The line is thin and blurry and has a ton of examples of being managed poorly.
But this person committed a "serious, violent crime" that sent them to prison for 13 years. Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? Are there certain crimes that cross the line for you? Would you expect your employer to inform you of their record?
Edit: Just want to remind people, 13 years could very well mean that they murdered someone. Context around the charge is key, and no one seems to be acknowledging that.