Not trying to nit-pick, but I’ll correct this just to avoid people getting incorrect information. Based on the latest Federal court rulings, private employers in the U.S. consider themselves completely free to not hire someone because of a past bankruptcy (government employers are different). There are restrictions on firing someone because of a bankruptcy, but not on hiring someone.
This is pretty common at banks or financial firms. My guess is that people would be quite upset if they lost most of their life’s savings because a firm knowingly hired someone to manage their money who had had severe financial problems of their own. I know I don’t want to be responsible for Grandma having to eat dog-food during her old age because all her investments were lost or her pension funds were embezzled.
Yes. I don’t know about Stanford in particular, but many male swimmers get a buzz-cut at the start of the season, then don’t get haircuts and let their hair grow out during the season, then shave their heads and bodies completely right before championship meets. They’re often walking around with crew cuts at the start and after the end of the season, though they can get quite shaggy in the middle of the season. This has to do with drag as you’re swimming through the water. Makes a lot of difference, both in reality and psychologically.
I got a word Pizza. Deviant. His behavior was certainly deviant. Whether he remains a deviant only time will tell. And the word deviant doesn’t imply any kind of socio-economic status…it just is…deviant. dstark could probably even agree with that word
@al2simon - when you do a background check, how much “bad” information is out there? In other words, could someone fail a drug test because of eating a poppy seed muffin and have that show up, out of context, years later?
I just watched a John Oliver piece about debt buyers and it was scary. You could have a disputed debt, or a non-statutory debt, and still have it follow you around because someone wants to profit off of it.
To pose my own: Do you have to be so condescending?
Studies exist that highlight the racial disparity in arrest, bail, jury selection, jury perception, and sentencing. If you want to chalk that all up to income and pretend racism doesn’t exist in the justice system that’s your right, but I think it’s very shortsighted.
<<<
In terms of employment after a felony conviction… there is a vicious cycle of recividism here:
Employers fear recividism, so they refuse to hire released prisoners to good honest jobs.
Released prisoners have little chance of being self-supporting with good honest jobs.
The truly reformed ones end up being dependent on others, homeless, etc..
Those of more marginal ethics may find that criminal work is the easiest way to earn money when good honest jobs are closed to them.
Eventually, they get arrested, convicted, and sent back to prison.
Then they get released years later, still unable to find good honest jobs...
>>>>>
And some jobs require that the employees be bonded, deal with money, or get security clearances, and those with felonies are not going to be hired.
It is very hard for someone with a felony on their records to get a good paying job. Sure, if you’re connected enough (family money or previous wealth, like Martha Stewart), you can be self-employed and successful post-felony.
My housekeeper has a son with a record. I don’t know if it rose to the level of felony…it was looting after the tornadoes in 2011. That record has kept him from getting jobs…over and over again. He gets some “off books” jobs painting and cement work, here or there, but that’s the best he’s been getting. He lives mostly by mooching off his GF. My housekeeper now suspects that he might be dealing drugs. If he is, the fact that “good honest jobs” have been closed to him, is likely a factor. If he gets arrested again, no one will be surprised.
@jonri says that some states make it harder for those with felonies to get passed over for jobs, but I highly doubt that many employers fear any sort of retribution. It’s very hard to prove that you weren’t chosen because of ONLY the felony on your record. Typically, for most good jobs, there are numerous applicants for each req…many apply who are truly qualified for the job…and yet, only one gets hired. The convicted felon who is trying to re-enter the work force already has a big ole hole on their resume …the time spent in prison. So, hiring someone who doesn’t have that hole would seem to be reason enough.
[QUOTE=""]
Being a convicted felon does indeed make your life a lot harder in a lot of ways. But really, if that's enough punishment for a heinous violent act, why even bother with prisons at all? Because some crimes are deemed worthy of it for reasons including deterrence, removing the person from society, etc. I certainly think this crime is worth at least a few years, first offense or not.
[/QUOTE]
Of course rape is worth more years. I don’t think anyone is arguing that it’s not. My point was simply that even though the judge gave a slap on the wrist prison sentence, this guy will not be returning the life he once knew…ever. This kid was likely a tippy-top student his whole life…with test scores to match. We know from these forums how these types long have high expectations for themselves…Wall Street, surgeon, T-14 law schools, etc. These aren’t dreams that they came up with overnight. It’s been in their blood for years. So, his sentence, even while living in his parents’ home, will still be a prison of sorts. He doesn’t have family wealth to carve out a nice life for his future.
I don’t want to pretend I am some expert on vocabulary because I am not.
I do think it is good that there are people in society like you who fight for the rights of assaulters. Otherwise, society would probably just cut the assaulters into little pieces.
I held the wrong cards with Jackie in the UVA case.
You are holding the wrong cards in the Brock case.
I would like to learn more about Brock being on the sexual offender registry list for a lifetime. Sometimes lifetime sentences are not really lifetime sentences.
If Brock is really going to be on the list for a lifetime, I can see a 3 to 6 year prison sentence with a possibility of parole as ok.
Did Stanford impose any sanctions on the frat? At my son’s college there was a rape at a frat by a nonmember and the fraternity was banned and removed from the campus.
My son’s campus requires that a percentage of sober members are required to monitor the grounds. You also need a university ID (from that school) to enter any fraternity party.
Has it been determined how the two were behind the dumpster? Did he take her from the party to that spot?
My friend’s daughter got drunk at a party and a man with a history of going to parties looking for drunk women, raped her. Then a second guy with no history went into the room and raped her.
The first guy got 30 years because he was considered a predator and the second guy (who called her the next day and apologized) got 1 year.
“The top photo is Brock Turner at the sentencing.”
This is all a big “whatever” to me. Who cares what his mugshot looks like. And of course, duh, he’s going to look as clean-cut and choirboy as possible during any time he’s front of the judge. I don’t get what this is supposed to prove. Any of us would also have our sons look as choirboy as possible.
@mom2collegekids I’d agree to a point. Even so, the Ferguson protestors, Baltimore protesters, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and others were all referred to as thugs in the media.
<<<
Has it been determined how [long] the two were behind the dumpster? Did he take her from the party to that spot?
<<<<
I was wondering as well. If she passed out at the party, I would think someone would have noticed him carrying/dragging her out of the house and to the spot.
@greenwitch - I can only give you a very incomplete answer. Our HR folks handle the nuts-and-bolts of the background checks; I’m only involved in setting policy and in the (thankfully) rare cases when there’s a judgment call to make involving a senior potential hire.
If someone fails a drug test or drug screen at a previous employer, it almost never shows up in a background check when they’re applying for a new job. Of course, the new employer might have their own drug test too. Besides, the “poppy seed muffin” thing is a bit apocryphal in my experience - the lab will flag trace food elements as a possibility and almost any reputable candidate will just take the drug test again in a few days and pass … after all, they don’t want their reputation in the industry to be tarnished. (Failing the drug test is a reason for not hiring someone that you may decide to disclose to the candidate).
Other than that, I think nowadays people should assume that almost everything they do that involves the court system will show up (as well as a lot of other interactions with the government / police) … perhaps not the details but the broad strokes of the matter … even the existence of “confidential settlements”. Our policy is for information that turns up in background checks to stay bottled up in the HR department unless it rises to a level that a line or staff manager needs to know about it. This is to avoid internal gossip. No surprise, divorce proceedings can get pretty nasty, and they occasionally hit the public filings.
Our work force is almost entirely white-collar, well-educated, and making a good living. Lots fewer problems with this demographic … our HR people who worked at blue collar shops have “interesting” story to tell by the bushel.
15 years ago you had to do background checks on a state-by-state basis, so it was possible to miss something if you didn’t pay the cost in money and time to go back far enough, or if the candidate wasn’t honest about where they’d lived before. Now, much of this stuff is accessible through nationwide databases, and they’re getting better all the time. You’d also be shocked at what a person armed with Google / Facebook and a lot of time to kill can sometimes turn up.
The NY Times is reporting that Judge Persky has been innundated with threats of violence over his ruling.
Also, Jeff Rosen, the Santa Clara County District Attorney, whose office prosecuted the case, issued a statement saying that while he strongly disagrees with the court’s sentence, he does NOT believe that Judge Persky should be removed from the bench. I think that is very, very important to note.
@albert69 By media I was primarily referring to Hannity, O’Reily and other tv programs, not newspapers. Even so, those comments on newspapers represent real people so I’m not sure how this acts as a relevant counterargument.
