EEOC effectively makes background checks illegal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gared

Gared

On the other hand, one could argue that it's not whether or not a person has been convicted of a crime that's the issue at hand, but rather, what kind of crime the individual has been convicted of (if any) and that crime's severity. For instance, if a bank wants to run background checks on all of their applicants, they may not care if someone's been convicted of assault and battery in the past, or DUI, or even necessarily of Possession; but if the person's been convicted of Bank Fraud, Wire Fraud, Bank Robbery, etc....

Stupid EEOC.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Also, ethnic minorities are more likely to be convicted of a crime, regardless of the crime. So while this may indeed hold some water, the real problem to fix is the one causing more convictions.

Basically, they're treating a symptom.
 
strawman

strawman

Turns out it actually hurts minorities anyway. This report effectively discourages employers from doing background checks on minorities as a rule, and since they can't do that, they discard minority applications much earlier in the process, where its harder to find proof of discrimination.

They have no problem with employers who do background checks on white people, so guess who's going to get hired more?
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
The biggest problem with background checks is that, with enough money, you can get almost any minor charge removed from your file. This completely taints the background check system, and makes it generally prejudiced against the economically disadvantaged. This is something I have a big issue with. I don't care if you're some pretty upper middle class white chick. You get a DUI you suffer the same consequences to your career that Pedro does.

The worst example of this that I can remember were some high school cheerleaders involved in some particularly nasty hazing in Katy, basically Assault level stuff. IIRC they all got like 1 year probation and could then get it removed from their record.

No one should be able to remove stuff from their record. Ever.
 
Officer_Charon

Officer_Charon

Juveniles are allowed to have their Juvenile records "sealed" - which is different than having it erased. The thinking behind this is that what you do as an immature juvenile should not be held against you when you get older. Which is asinine.

However, for the purposes of future ADULT convictions, previous JUVENILE offenses are still taken into account, as District Attorneys can pull that information from a Criminal History report.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
So that's having the record sealed, but I know it's also possible to have the record expunged. I tried reading through the Texas code on this, but the thing is a mess (like 10 pages of clauses and subclauses), but right at the beginning it says that you can have a conviction expunged if you are pardoned for any reason. In texas the gov grants the pardons, and only pardons a handful of people each year, so it can't be that often.

Are there other ways of expunging your record? I know multiple people who have gotten DUI's that have gotten them sealed or expunged, which makes me kind of mad (even though one of them is my brother). Maybe it was a condition of the conviction?
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
No, not necessarily, but the standards for branding HAVE to be equal. Either we brand everyone, or we allow everyone simple access to remove the branding. The current system makes it far easier for people of means to clean up their records.
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

Officer_Charon said:
A DUI is not a mistake. A DUI is a conscious decision by someone that places the entire public at risk.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, that's bullshit.

I got a DUI a few years ago. It was actually the catalyst for me to quit drinking, go back to school and clean up my life.. So by your logic, I should forever be branded, regardless of how much I clean up my life.

Yeah, screw that.[DOUBLEPOST=1361498718][/DOUBLEPOST]
GasBandit said:
There's "a mistake" and then there's a 16 year old stealing a car. That's not a mistake.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a mistake, we do really stupid things when we're young. If someone reforms themselves, they should not be painted for the rest of their lives as some sort of criminal. That's not justice.
 
Officer_Charon

Officer_Charon

I was not articulating my viewpoint well...

I did not mean that the action itself was not a mistake.

I meant that society's general perception of it as a mistake is incorrect. By terming it a "mistake," given Gas's previous context, we lump DUIs into the same category as "youthful indiscretions," which is not accurate at all.

Dammit... I am usually articulate, but I can't get what I'm thinking across right now.

Suffice it to say: No, I was NOT intending that you (or anyone else) should be branded. But DUIs are a serious offense that should not be hand-waved by "Oops, my bad?" You, on the other hand, are a sterling example of what the "system" is SUPPOSED to do: Rehabilitate. You recognized the issue, and took action to rectify the problem.

Now, if only EVERYONE did that... instead of me having to arrest the same guy three months running for 3 DUIs...
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

For the record, unless the crime is extremely severe, first time offenders can have their records expunged in most states. Obviously, if they're repeat offenders, no force on this earth will get those record expunged.

 
strawman

strawman

GasBandit said:
a 16 year old
Click to expand...
My limited experience suggests that a 16 year old changes so much in the next ten years that you can't really judge the 26 year old by the 16 year old's actions, nevermind the 36 and 46 year old decades later. That's why it's important to see the record to discern trends in behavior over time. A one time conviction as a youth, however, should not be considered definitive of character.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Bowielee said:
For the record, unless the crime is extremely severe, first time offenders can have their records expunged in most states. Obviously, if they're repeat offenders, no force on this earth will get those record expunged.
Click to expand...
And see, this is what grinds my gears. I know a number of people who were able to get their DUI's expunged. My gf on the other hand can't afford it and it kept her out of a couple of graduate schools she wanted to go to. Same thing may happen when she applies to her PhD internships.

If some people can get them expunged it seemingly increases the severity of the offense for those that can't. I have a serious problem with that. I don't really have a problem with getting the record expunged tbh, but it should be a very low cost option. In TX I think she figured it would cost between 10-20k. Not acceptable.
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

Necronic said:
And see, this is what grinds my gears. I know a number of people who were able to get their DUI's expunged. My gf on the other hand can't afford it and it kept her out of a couple of graduate schools she wanted to go to. Same thing may happen when she applies to her PhD internships.

If some people can get them expunged it seemingly increases the severity of the offense for those that can't. I have a serious problem with that. I don't really have a problem with getting the record expunged tbh, but it should be a very low cost option. In TX I think she figured it would cost between 10-20k. Not acceptable.
Click to expand...
Mine was in MN, where it is literally impossible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top