Tell me about it. Between my prison "stigma" and the discriminatory ageism that is very prevalent in the industry, and even though I have 30 years professional programming experience, I am currently finding it impossible to find any work.

Can someone please tell me...what am I supposed to do at age 55? Find a new "career"...doing what?

I know plenty of you reading this with your secure jobs and paychecks have done illegal things and not been caught...well what if you were?

I mean I hear all day all the "protections" that this group and that group are getting recognized for, and meanwhile all I want is an opportunity to work my ass off in the field that I have loved since I was a 13yo kid riding my bike to the local Radio Shack on weekends so I could literally sit-in the window display and program on the TRS-80 and save my "work" to a cassette drive.

But no...hiring me (or anyone else in my situation) would apparently pose such an existential threat to companies so in need of people with my exact talent stack that I can't even be considered once it's discovered I went to prison some 20 years ago.

I know this subject has been discussed ad nauseum here on HN, so I don't expect any new answers to my questions, but maybe a few of you with open ears and the ability to think outside the box when it comes to hiring could be a bit more understanding if a qualified candidate with past legal issues come thru your interview process.

I don't think ANYONE should be able to request a federal background check. I don't think background checks should be allowed for employment or housing. Same as credit checks.

A person is either safe enough to be in society, or not. There should NEVER be an in between state. And before you say anything:

1. Yes I am fine with previously convicted murderers living in the same building as me. Teaching my children. And being my co-worker. I want to be able to trust the "justice" system to allow people back into society when they're able to.

2. Yes I'm fine with sexual predators living in the same building as me. Teaching my children. And being my co-worker. For the same aforementioned reasons.

3. Yes. I'm fine with any person with any crime history that the courts and various other medical institutions have deemed that they can be a normal citizen to do what they want.

For the group of people that "maybe they're safe but we're not sure but we don't want to keep them in prison". Then you need to give them a very good stipend and let them live in relative peace. Also, don't limit their housing. Housing limits should never be done. Think of this situation as a "disability payment", because it is a state induced disability.

What someone did in the past shouldn't matter to anyone if that person has been rehabilitated.

That's just it though. The US prison systems, as a general rule, don't rehabilitate; they punish. There is no reason to trust that a person who spent time in prison is more safe after than they were before. In many cases, it's common for people to become more dangerous because of stay in prison.

We need to work towards the prisons rehabilitating before we can trust the people coming out of them are "safe" (understand that a lot of people that get sent to prison _are_ safe... the term has a vague meaning the way I'm using it).

We can't effectively rehabilitate when we have so many people in prison.

Our rates of re-offense are also messy because we literally don't give people another option other than returning to crime.

But the reason we have so many people in prison is that we have stupid laws that mark as jail-able offenses the stupidest stuff. Just take financial fraud, why must someone be jailed for that? Are they a menace if outside?

You do make an interesting suggestion that, if we do put a scarlet letter on someone for a past crime for which they are deemed "safe" enough to be in the public, that they should be compensated for that in some way. Shit, look at the movie "Heat" for one of many examples. If someone is trying to get their life together but can't find decent work on parole, or is abused and looked at as a criminal despite paying their debt, what motive might someone have to stay out of a past life?

Now I believe that if you pay your debt to society, you should be square with the house and your punishment should stop including any ex-judicial punishment like denying people work they are otherwise qualified for. I think reasonable exceptions can be made for sensitive jobs involving money handling or children.

Doesn't this contradict the whole idea of parole? My understanding is that people who are out on parole are deemed not safe to be fully left to their own in society, they often have not served their full sentence, but are given the chance to ease back into society earlier.

Wouldn't a more hard-line approach of either 100% safe or unsafe result in even more time spent in jail?

I worked with my Dad growing up and going to school, and I’m fortunate enough to have worked along side people that had felony records.

Some of them for some scary sounding crimes.

I’ve learned just how much nuance is lost in our current “scarlet letter” system (as well as how a crime is judged changes significantly over time).

I can see the notion that somebody should have some kind of re-integration or probationary period, but until we can have an objective and perfect means of conveying the nuance behind every crime, sentence, and rehabilitation (which I say facetiously, because I don’t believe that’s possible) then we should err on the side of not having any scarlet letters.

Would you trust your personal banking to an institution with history of leaking/mishandling/selling everything about you, or losing records of your balance?

Would you trust your health information to a doctor with previous history of kickbacks, malpractice, lax HIPAA compliance?

It's entirely possible that you do.

An enlightening This American Life episode dives in to who gets to keep their medical license and how they may continue practicing after grievous ethical violations: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/719/trust-me-im-a-doctor

> Would you trust your health information to a doctor with previous history of kickbacks, malpractice, lax HIPAA compliance?

Were the proper precautions taken so that this won't happen again? Then sure!

I was talking to my friend over the weekend and a funny story came up. My friend is a chess player and made friends with an elderly gentleman at a local starbucks over a game of chess. They became chess buddies and played many games and my friend even visited his house to play a games after the man developed a severe joint disease and had difficulty moving.

It turns out he was playing chess with Nicholas “Nicky No Socks” Facciolo a convicted mobster and murder who learned and fell in love with chess while in jail. My friend told me that after learning that he continued to play with Nicky until he could no longer play due to his disease. He never felt threatened or uncomfortable. As far as he was concerned Nicky paid his debts and was no longer the person he was.

I think the incarceration for drug crimes and such should be stopped, but I am also a-ok with stigma following repeated and/or violent crime. I personally think people who have repeatedly shown to be too dangerous to live in society should never be released into said society, but if that mechanism is broken due to "compassion", at least I prefer to never interact with them.

I am parent and I understand what you mean here and It makes complete sense to me. But I am having a little hard time with this, some part of my brain just wont' accept it.

I completely understand, we need to "unlearn" what we know about policing and criminal justice. It's a hard process that takes generations, but at the end of the day it will lead to less offensive behaviour overall. As a society we're too "reactive" to problems. We don't provide the help for people before they turn to various forms of criminality.

But it is a big mindset shift. If someone has paid their debt to society - their debt has been paid, and they shouldn't continue to be punished.

Does that mean we should just lock them up forever? Or do you really think having someone like that live next to children is a necessary gamble?

Where should people stay before then?

I trust the state to test the medicine I buy from a pharmacy. The state isn't some __other__ machine. It's made up of people like you and me, trying to make society operate and people to generally get along with eachother.

If I saw that we as a society are moving towards rehabilitation, and better social services for criminals, then yes. I would trust them. Just like I trust them with roads, with hospitals, with medicine, with food.

How does the process of testing medicine compare to that of sex offenders? I don't think the two are at all comparable.

> It's made up of people like you and me

I'm not qualified to test medicine, or run medical trials, so I hope whoever does it on behalf of the government is not like me.

> I trust them with roads, with hospitals, with medicine, with food

All of which have proven physical-science process to verify them. I don't trust criminology/Phycology as a science capable of making the calls you are implying.

Any history of sexual abuse -> be put on a register that prohibits ever working with children again.

So your answer appears to be that the state decides, since they decide what constitutes sexual abuse.

> the state decides, since they decide what constitutes sexual abuse.

True. But its a decision that can be made pretty formulaically from a persons known actions/behaviour, as opposed to predicting their future actions/behaviour.

Side note: are there really NO companies that let you in the door? I've had some larger corporate places ask me about any criminal history and have even run a background check. But I don't think it's come up at small and medium-size companies, where I'd also expect there's a bit more understanding and flexibility anyway. Maybe the ageism is more of an obstacle there? But then maybe I just don't notice because I don't have a conviction to tell them about. I certainly don't mean to minimize your problem, just wondering if it's really a complete deal breaker everywhere.

After a remodel I learned how lucrative cabinet makers have it. I started building my wood working shop a while ago and at some I’ll transition to that.

I’ve got some growing and I have a lucrative position, but this battery is about depleted.

I’m in my 40s now, and I realized last year I’m utterly burned out. The passion for programming is just gone. I get home from work now and the last thing I want to do is look at code again. My garage is filled with Arduino projects I can’t bring myself to finish or throw out.

Unlike you, I haven’t found another career path, but I did find solace in making music. At least it is much more permanent than software and something I can share with my kids.

Art, in general, survives time, whereas it has become apparent that software does not.

But you are right, in that there can be a good bit of coin to be had with furniture building, especially if you can draw on some standardized design principles to output good customized pieces. Think things like a closet organizer that is "perfect" for a customer's bedroom. Or things like cranking out desks needed by students doing school from home.

In fact, I probably could have made a killing in selling "pandemic" desks (there were absolutely no desks to be found at the beginning of the school year). I made a couple for family members, made out of real hard wood (no partical board) for about $130 in lumber and connecting hardware -- nice 3-drawer desk units. I basically used rail-and-stile frames to make the back, sides, and drawer box using pocket screws, then 1/4 inch plywood tacked from the inside of the drawer box. Took about 3 hours to cut, drill, and assemble everything but the drawers themselves. If I was out of work I probably would have made a bunch and sold them for $350 a piece.

Is there any legislative push to seal records of non-violent offenders after N years of non-recividism?

Seven years for most crimes, and fourteen for fraud and corruption would seem fair.

My home town had a deputy that wanted to be a sheriff or had won the position. However, they had a minor record.

Parents filed statutory rape charges because he was 18 and she was 17. They just didn’t like him and they were eventually married later. Still, he carried they charge for 20 years.

The sealing or removal was made public notice and of course everyone talks.

In the grand scheme of things it was his wife and the age difference issue was amended in law. Because people recognize kids don’t magically not socialize on 18.

Incidentally, I've also once been told by a Hiring Manager family member of mine that for minor charges it might be best *not* to seal them, since that would leave a potential employer guessing and likely assuming that it was something serious as opposed to something small or common, e.g. a marijuana-related misdemeanor.

IANAL, obviously.

Even after expungement where possible, there can be problems with records being inappropriately cached by background check services, and a background check after expungement may still show the conviction. Yes, this can be appealed, but still puts an undue burden on the applicant and may ultimately be a deciding factor between similar candidates even though it should not be used

[70 Million Staffing](https://www.70millionstaffing.com/) - focused on hiring people with criminal records and its counterpart: [Commissary Club](https://app.commissary.club/) - a social network for ex-cons.

Also, maybe now with the new emphasis on remote work, people with criminal records have a better chance at getting hired?

I'm so happy to hear that you had that.

A while back, a member of my community was not so lucky. He got caught with an ounce of pot, spent some time in prison. When he got out, he had no legitimate job prospects due to his criminal record. He did eventually a job, though, through networking. In this case, the network was some prison acquaintances - apparently the only people who would/could offer him an opportunity. A while later he got caught stealing cars for a chop shop. Rinse and repeat.

I don't think I really understood it until I saw it with my own eyes: the US criminal justice system, by being so retributive, isn't just (wantonly, excessively) harming people who get caught. It's also a significant cause of US crime in the first place.

In Europe if you say that you were imprisoned for smoking pot, people will just laugh at the situation, because it’s so hard to believe.

At the same time even with non-violent crimes I make a huge distinction between stealing and marijuana use. I wouldn't want to trust my code base to anybody who has stolen anything in his life, as the downside for stealing the whole codebase is enormous.

Regarding marijuana, who cares, it doesn't hurt anybody (except the passive smoking issues).

let's cut every sentence (and sentencing guidelines) by 90% right off the bat and use the savings for better rehabilitation programs (like more support systems, instructional content, and training programs). involve families and communities to integrate folks back into society.

How do you see this working out for repeat offenders? Seattle today has a mini-version of this FWIW: We have offenders who have 44+ counts of 'minor' arrests and a felony conviction on the street [1] getting involved in public shootings.

Overall I like the part where folks who have paid their dues get their life back through a measured re-introduction back into regular society (from jail). Even over here, we will need oversight from professionals who have insight into both the worlds who can help with the transition. I don't think commuting sentences by 90% is the answer.

[1] https://komonews.com/news/local/who-are-the-alleged-downtown...

Not necessarily in a "received 4 counts of xyz" situation, but maybe increasing punishment nonlinearly in situations like "received a 4th count of xyz in the past 10 years". Chronologically/temporally separate incident #4 should carry more weight than #1, since the offender probably should've learned their lesson after #2.

The very notion of a "career criminal" is driven by the lack of a social safety net and inability to secure a job on release. I can imagine if you're homeless and targeted by the police it would be very easy to rack up 50 arrests in a year.

If it was possible for everyone to make a living wage the vast majority of "career criminals" would choose a less dangerous way to make a living.

we all make mistakes and break laws (often unknowingly) all the time. (harsh) punishment escalates the resentment cycle, pushing it to fester and metastasize, and is counterproductive to stable and harmonious societies. as such, you'll never completely segregate away injustice-fueled resentment, so the better strategy is to dissipate it away using compassion and care. much less than 1% of humans (and probably less than 0.001%) are truly irredeemable, requiring segregation from the rest of us. most petty crimes are of immediate, and often temporary, circumstance.

the crimes that need harsher punishment are those committed from positions of power that affect many people (like environmental disasters and corruption). by harsher, i mean take away all the money and status garnered from the crime and provide full restitution to victims (not lawyers), not longer prison terms.

This is worse than it used to be, as companies of any size can now pull not just convictions, but arrests as well. And not just felonies, but misdemeanors too. Background checks used to be less accessible. They are now cheap, fast, and easily nationwide or worldwide.

Do people generally want rehabilitation?

I find that when I talk to people, they want rehabilitation for minor crimes and retribution for major crimes, but when feel comfortable enough with talking about it, they generally don't want the minor crimes to be illegal to begin with. Once you get them to discuss the group they actually want in prison, it tends to consist of people they retribution against.

Try asking people what is a crime that deserve 2 years of prison, give or take a year. I find few are able to place crimes into that window, even though 2 years is plenty of time to rehabilitation people if one was actively working at it.

Don't you think one helps with the other? Honest question.

As in, the less people in the system, the easier it would be to dedicate to each person the resources needed to rehabilitate, rather than just keeping them inside?

I program too, its my job so I get it provides a living but my God do we get myopic at times. Other careers, good ones too are out there.