Matthew Brown wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 9:16 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
True, but conversely, many offenders do reoffend (I don't know how many, but it's definitely a significant number), so it still worth checking.
Also, if you've set up an expectation that anything significant that might show up in a background check should be disclosed beforehand during the hiring process, such a surprise indicates someone feels they need to hide something; possibly problematic.
The first step to getting the right answers is to ask the right questions. If a person is not asked about any criminality in his past, he should not feel obliged to volunteer that information.
Some with criminal records will lie and say "No." That mostly comes from a perception that an honest answer results in unfair treatment. The lie may never surface, but it is nevertheless a compounding offence. It too needs to be judged in a context.
The question then is what to do when we get a "Yes" answer. If the person was convicted in a trial only the judge and jury had any real say in the matter. Even with a highly publicized case none of the sensationalism stirred up by the journalists makes any difference. What purpose is served by a repeat performance of the public exposure? If you missed knitting in front of the guillotine the first time, too bad.
Thomas' statement that a significant number of offenders do re-offend verges on the tautological. When you are faced with a real employment candidate you want to know if that person will re-offend, and a statistically determined likelihood is a very rough tool. If that person encounters enough rejections, that relatively higher proportion will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those who are worried about an employee who has shot her boyfriend(s) should maybe avoid acting like male spiders.
Ec