| > We've already lost when an arrest is equivalent to a conviction. It's not, under the law, of course. But since businesses can (generally) freely choose who to hire or fire, it is legal for them to ask employees about arrests and make decisions based on the answer. This is different, though, in that the federal government itself (the FBI) is assisting companies in doing this. The FBI is reporting arrests to businesses, in full knowledge of the negative consequences for employees in doing so. Indeed, the negative consequences are the entire point of the program. The federal government is held to different standards. If an employee could prove that they were fired because of an arrest that never led to a conviction, reported through Rap Back, I think they would have a pretty good test case for the ACLU to go to town on. The whole point of our system of justice is to ensure that the government only punishes citizens when there is beyond reasonable doubt that an actual crime was committed. Here, the federal government is delivering punishment entirely outside that framework. The government will argue that they're just supplying information, not punishment, but they don't get to just pretend they have no idea what happens next. Everything the FBI has ever said about this program will be reviewed and will show that the whole point is to fire people. |
> It's not, under the law, of course.
It is under some circumstances. For example, the US visa waiver program:
> We do not recommend that travelers who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, attempt to travel visa free under the Visa Waiver Program.
(From https://uk.usembassy.gov/visas/visa-waiver-program/additiona...)