Pros And Cons Of Hiring In Elementary School Programs

Why do I believe you should hire a felon? It’s been said that when somebody has something to prove, they will move mountains for you. How much does an individual coming out of a situation such as prison have to prove? Plenty. Not only to you as an employer, not only to society in general, but also to his family and everyone else who doesn’t believe that someone who has been imprisoned can make anything of themselves in life. President Kennedy stated in an article titled, Address to the American Newspaper Publishers, "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it. We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them”

This is not fair to them. Therefore, in the before mentioned a disparate impact would apply. Because the individual that knowingly has a criminal conviction knows that he or she will not even have a chance. On the other hand, a case like this can be considered to be a disparate impact, if the employer based on the way that applicants look based on nationality, color, or gender may believe such individuals may need to go through a background check. The problem would be if the employer does not treat everyone the same. It would also be considered a disparate impact if this employer only employs individuals with a criminal history, yet an applicant passes everything and is qualified, yet does not get an

Incarceration can sabotage a worker’s success in the working force by making them less productive, lack work experience, and impaired social interactions. Employers are less likely to hire an applicant with a criminal record because of the preconceived notion that by serving time in prison it makes inmates less productive. Also, time incarcerated and away from the labor force prevents inmates from earning work experience and job skills. According to Amanda Geller in The Effects of Incarceration on Employment and Wages “behavioral adaptations to the conditions of penal confinement may leave an inmate withdrawn, uncommunicative, and unable to accept

This poses dilemmas as for employment breaks. Another disadvantage that comes to play is the initiative filling out the form of employment (The application). On that application for employment; reads a box that states criminal history, arrests previous to applying, also asks

Their possibilities of getting jobs thereby making them responsible adults in paying their bills, providing housing for their families, and being good citizens are diminished. Their children are born and raised into the same sort of backgrounds the parents have had and have the same ideas and values as their parents. Because the parents are poor images to look up to, they end up just like their parents and spend time in jail or prison. It is like a never ending cycle. Having a felony on your record is often a detriment to getting a job. Hiring a black or other person of color ex-con carries a connotation of fear for one’s life and property. They are worried that the ex-con will steal from them or kill

Implementing restrictions on convicted felons certainly does present both positive and negative affects on the individual felon and on society as a whole. Public support of such restrictions essentially is based on the personal beliefs and priorities of individual citizens. While some people think that restricting convicted felons will deter crime, thereby making society better over all, that isn’t always the case. In fact, these restrictions may even increase recidivism rates in the U.S. due to the inability of felons to achieve a stable lifestyle following their release from prison. Additionally, like you mentioned, such restrictions may impose unfair punishments on individuals who committed relatively minor crimes that only affected themselves,

Phillip it is clear that you have a complete explanation of the back ground requirement that so many employers utilize to classify potential employees. Yet with this classification many very capable candidates are quickly eliminated for either old run in’s with the law or youthful ignorance. To this end, we as a society have alienated the youth who have fallen into the trap of conviction of a crime. Clearly it is not necessary to penalize people who have repaid their debt to society for their life making them unfit for hire. The question is what is the answer to solve this injustice that is imposed on these candidates? In my view companies could have what they call a conditional hire that would go longer for a year than a traditional 90 day

A history of incarceration reduces an ex-felon’s chance of being hired by fifteen to thirty percent as well as the annual number of weeks worked by six to eleven weeks. That is a large amount of people! This is a big problem that is not to be dismissed. Having been incarcerated leads to struggles in finding a job. Some employers do not even consider hiring people with any kind of criminal record, they are much more likely to hire someone without one instead (Prison Legal News). These statistics and studies show that unemployment rates are in fact higher for

But the people that do not have that opportunity are offered little help in finding somewhere to live. Employment is also an issue faced. Many places do not want to hire someone that has been in prison before. Also, the level of education that the person has is a contributing factor to employers saying no to ex-prisoners. Often times background checks are initiated with the application process of a job and when someone tells them that they have been convicted of a crime the employer is a little more hesitant on hiring this person. But on the other end, only about 62 percent of potential employers would not consider hiring ex-inamtes, only 32 percent reported using background checks on a consistent basis. 38 percent of the potential employers would consider hiring ex-inmates (Police Operations).

Our criminal justice system has set up criminals for recidivism. According to the Bureau of Justice within three years, 7 in 10 non-violent offenders are arrested and at risk for recidivism. The passage of the Civil Rights Act ended discrimination against people based on religion, sex, race or sexual orientation, but not criminal history. Today it is legal for a person to be discriminated against for their criminal history. In fact most jobs ask someone for their criminal history, asking the dreaded question of “Have you ever committed a felony”? This question many times disqualifies people from having the resume or application considered. President Bill Clinton’s administration pushed through laws that made it tougher for felons to move on and have a better life by; banning them from public housing, receiving federal financial aid or even receiving food stamps. Many former convicts are also at risk of having a high rates of suicide and homelessness because many prisons offer limited or no programs to attempt to help convicts with reentry into society. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws have incarcerated people for

Sending someone to prison is meant to interrupt their criminal activity but in doing so it also disrupts their positive life building activities as well (Apel & Sweeten 2010: 448). Being previously incarcerated has a negative impact on future job possibilities (Schmitt & Warner 2011: 92). Being previously incarcerated makes one notably less employable and significantly lowers employment opportunities (Schmitt & Warner 2011: 87). This is due to the fact that being in prison decreases the time spent in the work place, diminishing on-the-job experience and soft skills such as communication, people skills, and punctuality (Schmitt & Warner 2011: 93). They may also lack job interview skills, or the skills and confidence to continue their job search if their first attempts do not prove to be successful (Harley, 2014: 15). Along with this, being incarcerated can also cause one to gain less likeable qualities such as being confrontational and aggressive and have problems with authority (Apel & Sweeten 2010: 451). Being previously incarcerated makes obtaining employment harder for those already vulnerable with less job skills

Criminal record checks are high in demand for decision makers to predict future unwanted behaviors during employment screening. Employers conduct background checks on job applicants for several reasons. One reason may be to confirm their moral character. Another reason may be the desire to assess their risk of committing crimes that could cause somatic, monetary, and reputational damage to the company. Consequently, if a person has had their record expunged then it isn’t protecting the company at all, it only allows them to see what they would like. Background checks act as a filter for the ideal candidate, for

As Maurer (2016) mentioned in his article, this law may conflict with state laws prohibiting the hire of ex-offenders for certain regulated jobs or positions and this puts employers in a tight corner. While we could face potential legal challenges from negligent hiring and negligent retention claims, we are also subject to liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended. In order to avoid any legality, we need to understand the various federal and state laws restricting or impacting our ability to conduct background checks. I am also going to analyze the positions in question, review our employment documents and practices and ensure that all our human resource personnel are educated as to the legal implications of any errors or omissions in their background check

Someone people argue the point that once an individual has served time, their record should be expunged. Their record should also be expunged if they have gone a certain amount of time without reoffending. At first this seems like a fair deal. If a person has served their time, or any sentence that was assigned to them they should truly be a free man, this includes a clean record. However, I am a very skeptical person and need to mention the few individual who may serve their time and keep a clean record to get their previous crimes expunged so they could commit again. It may sound harsh, but if someone makes the conscious decision to commit a crime, they are forgoing the rights of an innocent citizen. Yes, I do believe in second chances, and believe some people are capable of change, however some individuals always have an alternative motive, and will not change. If there were a choice for records to be expunged cases would need to be looked at one by one, not as a whole. Every crime and offender is different. Like I mentioned, some individuals are deserving of a clean record and are capable of change. However, some people are only doing what they need to do, to obtain their alternative motives. It’s important to consider employers when considering eliminating someone’s record. Employees have the right to know the criminal history of an applicant, and in many cases run a back ground

Everyone deserves a second chance. You should never judge a book by its cover. These are some of the things that should be considered when an employer considers hiring an ex-offender reentering society after release from the prison system. Once a criminal, always a criminal is not always the case. Some ex-offenders have proven to be loyal and trustworthy employees. As well as tax-paying individual who open their own businesses. There are positives and negatives to hiring someone with a criminal background. There are many concerns by employers to hire an ex-offender, such as negligent hiring. An ex offender is a person who has been convicted of criminal offense. Over 600,000 people are being released from prisons