Hypothetically speaking
I run a small business and: hard no.
“Yeah it was stupid but I was younger then” okay I can look past that “Nah man I didn’t do nothin, actually” maybe so, but I’m not gonna take that chance
For people who distrust police / the legal system: If you ran a small bussiness and need to hire people, and someone has a conviction but they claim innocence, do you hire them?
Submitted 2 hours ago by DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works to [deleted]
Comments
Cursed_Fig@lemmy.world 47 minutes ago
Nemo@slrpnk.net 2 hours ago
I’d be more likely to hire them if they didn’t claim innocence.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 1 hour ago
I mean, let’s say the person said something like: “It wasn’t me, they [framed me / they got the wrong person / etc…]”
I mean people do get wrongfully convicted… but who do you believe? The courts, or this person claiming innocence who might actually be telling the truth (but you can’t really verify it)? That’s the crux of this problem.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
I think what Nemo is saying is, if there’s 2 people applying for a job. Both ex convicts.
Jim says “I didn’t do it. I was framed”
And Bob says “Yeah I killed her. So what?”
Nemo hires Bob.
ivanafterall@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
Depends on the business and the conviction. E.g. if I’m sending cleaners into people’s homes, I probably feel a little wary if you stuck up a liquor store. Maybe don’t make car thief a valet. That kinda thing.
Some dumb drug/gun charge, etc.? I probably wouldn’t care.
Sex crimes are a no-go across the board for me. Take that shit back to the White House.
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 1 hour ago
Depends on the conviction. If it was something that was settled in front of a judge with police as the primary witnesses, I probably wouldn’t care. If it was a serious crime decided by a jury, I’d give that a lot more weight.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
Jurys are just people who aren’t firmiliar with the court system. I’m not firmiliar with the court system, but one thing I do know is that it’s NOT legal for the prosecution to claim a defendant confessed to police interigation, unless he actually did confess. HOWEVER what they don’t tell you is that it IS legal to police to interigate you until you confess to anything. Some interigations, in one room, can go on for 70 hours. Imagine being in one room, being asked over and over if you did the crime. You know you didn’t, but you’ve been in this same interigation chamber for almost a week. No windows. No clocks. No toilet. No food. No water. Just waiting for a confession.
I know thats legal, but most other people don’t. So I give zero credibility to “he confessed”. The first question I’d ask is “how long was he held in custody?”
Because another thing they do, is they might interigate you for 8-12 hours. Then put you in a holding cell. Then interigate you again for 8-12 hours the next day. Then back to the holding cell. With no limits in place on how long you’re held.
Most people just hear “he confessed”, and thats it. Case closed. I’ve even heard of times that a crime happened in the 70s, guy was interigated, claimed innocence, then confessed, served decades in jail, and then DNA testing technologies improved. Then they find out the DNA wasn’t a match. He didn’t do it.
Another thing they do is say “You can confess and serve 2 years, OR we can stack the deck, and you’ll get a lifetime sentence.” And now people confess to things they didn’t do just to get the lighter sentence.
OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
Depends what the charge was and what business i was running. Id want to hear their story and see their track record after prison. I believe in giving them a second chance but id be watching them until i trust them
disregardable@lemmy.zip 1 hour ago
Did they complete rehab? Do they have a recommendation letter? Do they pass a drug test? I’d be more concerned about that.
Exusia@lemmy.world 18 minutes ago
Distrust of police is separate from distrust of the legal system, at least in my eyes. Your question is about two different groups - Two applicants walks in and one is exLEO and one is not. Thats different than two applicants walk in and one being a felon/one not.
For criminals, people draw all sorts of lines. Sex crimes, violent crime, robbery, crimes of any kind against children. Different people in different fields will draw different lines. A great example is people who work with money obviously get leery around people charged with theft, embezzlement, or tampering. This is why convicts working trash services is such a “popular” job for the deeper end of the crime spectrum. They dont work with people, children, or money. You can be a sex pest, violent home invader, fraudster, and none of that matters because you sling cans and don’t talk to homeowners. If you can wake up at 4am, and show up not drunk, and can move 60-120 lb trashcan, you have a job.
As for exLEO, as the question probably wants to ask, people in this thread would probably get leery about why they are looking for new work. Retired and Forced to Quit are very different reasons that HR won’t answer and the person is not obligated to be forthcoming about yet probably what people would want to know. Its also generally a highly prized skillset, honestly. On the professional end, you (generally) have report writing skills, documentation, and hypervigilance skills. While honesty of LEOs is probably the OPs aimed weak point, most customer facing jobs do not have the one thing LEOs perceptually abuse - authorisation to use force. Most customer facing jobs dont allow you to talk back, get in confrontations where you might be the cause, or put hands on people. For these reasons most people who distrust former police will still hire them.