[Banthum]

True, it is a de-facto outcome that constitutes a punishment.

Still totally understandable from an employer's point of view. e.g. How much of a discount would you need to hire a nanny previously convicted or domestic abuse?

But, it still functions as a de-facto punishment. But the rationality of it is what makes it difficult to address, without taking away the freedom of free people.

Perhaps a solution would be to make judges explicitly state that part of the punishment is to have a really hard time finding work, to make them acknowledge what's being done. Then, if the judge doesn't wish to make this part of the punishment, he can order that the criminal's future employers be subsidized, or that the record be hidden.

The thing is, these are political non-starters. Even if the overall result is better, we know what'd happen the first time a felon with a hidden record or whose paycheck is government subsidized does something awful on the job. And that will happen, fast.

Former criminals are far more likely to commit crimes than random citizens. So it's rational to discriminate against people with records. This fact has to get acknowledged, and my sense is that a lot of people don't want to because it makes the problem seem really hard to solve.

Overall, given that employers should have the right to choose their employees with knowledge intact (see: nanny example), but criminals shouldn't be receiving life-long extrajudicial punishments, I think subsidizing their wages to some degree, if they find work, seems like a good policy option. I wonder if it's ever been tried.

[vidarh]

> Former criminals are far more likely to commit crimes than random citizens. So it's rational to discriminate against people with records. This fact has to get acknowledged, and my sense is that a lot of people don't want to because it makes the problem seem really hard to solve.

What I'd like to see is how that number changes if you only look at those in stable employment.

One reason I'm wondering about that is that the re-offending rate in the US is really horrific compared to places like Norway for example. But it's not clear if that is because of the particularly brutal US prisons, or because of ability to run background checks (there are strict legal limitations on who can request background checks and for what roles, and what can be revealed, in Norway), or something else.

[Banthum]

Yeah, there are a lot of confounding differences between Americans and Norwegians here.

History, terrain/density, climate, culture, and even genetics all likely play a role. Not just policy.

I would be curious to learn how the numbers compare between Norwegians and Norwegian-Americans. That'd cut a few confounders at least.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

(Firstly: Hi @crispinb, I lived in Mullumbimby for a few months, Northern Rivers truly is a beautiful place).

In Australia, for a first offence of a not-particularly serious nature, it is possible to ask for "no conviction", at the magistrates discretion, even when found guilty, especially if a conviction would effect your chances of future employment or study options. This doesn't apply to sexual offences, and typically wouldn't apply to anything that goes further than the magistrates courts.

[crispinb]

[ Yes, @TheSpiceIsLife, the Northern Rivers is marvellous, and Mullumbimby's a sweet little town (I'm in the bush over the Nightcap near Nimbin). We're in that part of the year though when many of us wish for some of your cooler Tassie days ;) ]