[bruceb]

At a previous job I had to turn people away that had felonies. Some of them just had drug related ones. Felt terrible about it.

If we are going to expect felons to reform and get a job and support themselves using legal means, well we have to make sure they have at least some opportunity at doing so.

Seems we could have thousands MOOCs available on non internet connected computers. These inmates should spend their time reflecting, studying, and working.

Who wants to spent another $35k a year when they get locked up again, instead providing them with near free education that might help them not come back to prison?

[tyingq]

This is a bigger problem than it used to be. Back in the day, small businesses didn't have access to background checks, so people with felony convictions could find employment.

These days, a background check is a $10 service on a website. A felony conviction is now pretty much economic ruin. The only loopholes left are working as your own business, like hairdressers that rent space at a salon or day labor for under-the-table cash.

[banned1]

That’s one narrative.

The other narrative is that for $10 bucks I can protect myself, my family, and my business from terrible people.

Whether they are terrible or “misguided” is up to me to decide, as it is whether to employ them or not.

Again, not everybody in jail deserves humane treatment. There are animals in there. Maybe you have never been on the other end of crime, but there are humans who are animals.

[pc2g4d]

"not everybody in jail deserves humane treatment"

Maybe this attitude is part of why they're in jail in the first place.

[banned1]

So you are saying that my ATTITUDE made THEM rape or stab or kill someone?

[nate_meurer]

I don't think anyone's really arguing that records of violent criminals should be hidden, turning all hiring decisions into games of roulette.

I'm guessing that you're capable of sensible, fair evaluation of a criminal record, and making an accordingly sensible hiring decision.

The problem is that most others are not. Most companies have a blanket ban on felons, even for things that should not be crimes. Remember that it used to be illegal to possess alcohol, or to marry someone outside your race, for example.

Thus, if you value the information that allows you to filter genuinely dangerous individuals from your life and business, then it seems that it would be in your interest for the system that provides such information be robust against injustice and abuse.

[banned1]

Thank you for your very reasonable answer.

[tyingq]

Was with you up until ”not everybody in jail deserves humane treatment”

[banned1]

Sorry, I believe some crimes deserve death.

[tyingq]

Well, for those crimes that result in life sentences or the death penalty, background checks don't really come into play.

There's a wide range of felonies that don't automatically make someone an animal.

[fortythirteen]

So the fifty year old that got picked up for weed in 1982 doesn't deserve to find anything more than the most menial job?

[adventured]

The parent didn't actually say that.

They said that it should be up to them, as to whether they hire that person after a background check eg reveals something.

There are very obvious cases where it makes a lot of sense to screen people based on background checks (eg a daycare or school). Further to that point, every business operator is different and has different beliefs. One operator might be ok with hiring a previously convicted rapist. The next business owner might be a woman who was raped in the past and has a very different view on that for good reason.

[banned1]

Whether the inmate deserves or not whatever you think she deserves is irrelevant to the issue that I am the one supposed to provide such thing. Why do I have to be the provider? Why don’t YOU do that if you so much believe in that? Why don’t YOU start a business and hire all felons?

[jpao79]

I give my kids unlimited 24/7, AYCL (All You Can Learn) screen time on their own Chromebooks that are URL locked down to only khanacademy.org. They learn about math, business econ, history, etc.

This really would be a game changer for these individuals and the costs could be marginal given a Chromebook is <$150 and Khan Academy could provide bulk discounts.

Latest on Khan Academy: https://www.ted.com/talks/sal_khan_let_s_teach_for_mastery_n...

There seem to be trials of the offline Version of Khan Academy (KALite) at a correctional facility in Idaho and Los Angelos: https://www.khanacademy.org/resources/out-of-school-time-pro...

https://learningequality.org/ka-lite/

[Hydraulix989]

Why not add Codecademy and Wikipedia to the whitelist?

Has anyone published a whitelist of educational web sites? Wouldn't be a bad idea. Could make it a collaborative effort, too, by versioning it with GitHub and accepting online pull requests with public discussion.

[jpao79]

Good point - should have thought about coding when posting to HN. It does look like someone is leading the effort already. The key would be to keep the overhead low and encourage the participants to mentor each other somehow.

https://ideas.ted.com/why-im-teaching-prisoners-to-code/ https://thelastmile.org

[kolpa]

> Who wants to spent another $35k a year when they get locked up again?

The prison-industrial complex and their political pawns.

[rukittenme]

Do you have any evidence to support that nuanced and well-considered opinion?

[mooneater]

Not sure how anyone informed can question whether this is a thing, so I wonder kind of strange bar you may have for evidence. But this issue is well covered (see below for just a few examples), and I've never heard intelligent rebuttals. I would say at this point, the onus is on you to show why this is not how it works.

- https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/07/c...

- https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/prison-priva...

- https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/12/the-pri...

[lev99]

I feel like you didn't adequately cover the "political pawns" phrase.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/...

[rukittenme]

There's a rebuttal for everything if you look.

According to the ACLU 7% of state prisoners and 18% of federal prisoners are in for-profit prisons[1]. Federal prisoners make up less than 20% of the total prisoners. So a minority of a minority are prisoners of the federal "prison-industrial complex".

I of course also hear the rebuttal that public prisons are supplied by private companies. Which is of course true. The government does not grow food or produce security cameras. Perhaps we'll accuse Georgia Pacific of being a beneficiary of the "collegiate-industrial complex" as well as the "prison-industrial complex" because they supply paper products.

I believe our prisons are broken. I believe our prisons are cruel and immoral. But I do not believe there is a vast conspiracy of private interests locking people away for the sake of profit. Nor do I believe that those interests influence our politicians in any meaningful way.

Ask yourself, is it likely that our politicians are completely beholden to an industry that makes up a fraction of a fraction of a percent of our economy? Or is it much more likely that our representatives believe private prisons could, should, or do work?

1. https://www.aclu.org/issues/mass-incarceration/privatization...

[greeneggs]

The "complex" isn't just of private companies. In California, for example, the prison officers' union (California Correctional Peace Officers Association or CCPOA) is a major political power, and advocates for harsher sentencing rules. This article describes some of its political history [1], starting in the 1990s.

> "In 1994, it was a major force behind the passage of Proposition 184, California’s “Three Strikes” initiative. In the same election cycle, it spent a record amount on former Gov. Pete Wilson’s successful reelection campaign…"

Since 2011 it seems to have reduced its spending on elections. However, this article [2] says that in the 2016 election they upped their spending again, and suggests that they had been splitting "members’ contributions among a half-dozen or more PACS" to somewhat obscure their advocacy.

[1] http://capitolweekly.net/ccpoa-transition-powerful-low-profi...

[2] http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-wor...

[pixl97]

>Perhaps we'll accuse Georgia Pacific of being a beneficiary of the "collegiate-industrial complex" as well as the "prison-industrial complex" because they supply paper products.

If and when they donate to candidates for harsher sentences, then yes, they are.

Most businesses and people that work for said businesses tend to vote in a matter that leads to their continued employment.

>Ask yourself, is it likely that our politicians are completely beholden to an industry that makes up a fraction of a fraction of a percent of our economy?

Absolutely. You're thinking of the wrong economy. The economy that matters the most to a politician is the one that gives the most donations during the election.

[bsenftner]

I think it is highly likely that individual politicians accept lobby money from the private prison industry, which influences their votes on any issue impacting this "paying for their interests" constituent. Just repeat this, not very many times, and the nation's voting balance sways in their direction. Realize that each politician has a net of obligations, and by directly impacting a few's behavior, many other politicians are swayed due to their obligations towards their peers accepting lobby incentives. Speaking from experience, I worked very effectively as a lobbyist, until my ethics would not longer allow it.

[lev99]

Part of the problem is it is legal to discriminate against felons and so many paths to success in our society are closed to them. A person with a felony is denied the pursuit of happiness.

[khedoros1]

In our current prison system, people go in broken and come out worse. As a practical consideration, and taken in the short view, discrimination against felons makes sense.

If we had a legal system that resulted in prisoners improving themselves during incarceration, it'd be much harder to justify that. But if a business has a choice between two candidate employees, one who's been in prison for a couple of years, and another who hasn't, then (all else being equal), which candidate do you think they're more likely to hire?

Taken another way, how would you improve prison to make prison time seem like less of a risk factor, or even as a positive thing?

[banned1]

Why is it a problem?

Wouldn’t you want to know the background of a person before hiring a nanny for your child?

Now change nanny to employee and child to business.

[khedoros1]

Wait...are we talking an employee in the sense of a CEO, or in the sense of some lower-level position? First, my child is more precious than my business. Second, a nanny has much more direct influence over a child than an employee does over a business (except in the case of particularly-powerful employees, of course). Third (and ignored by the person you responded too, as well), not all felonies are created equal.

[banned1]

Does it matter? What if it is a low level position and the person stabs someone at the first disagreement? Why do I have to take that risk?

[khedoros1]

> Does it matter?

Stupid question. Yes.

> What if it is a low level position and the person stabs someone at the first disagreement?

Why do you assume that "felon = violent"?

> Why do I have to take that risk?

Every hire is a risk. Running a business is a risk in the first place. If you're risk-averse, you probably aren't running a business, anyhow. So, why do you take that risk? Presumably because you've concluded during the interview that they can perform the task that you're hiring for better than the other candidates. If they can't, then it's a moot point anyhow, isn't it?

[banned1]

Why is the question stupid?

I can assume whatever I want if I am doing the hiring right? After all, it’s my money which is being risked. Simply put, a business owner can hire whoever they want in practice.

Every hire is a risk, but hiring a felon is an increased risk. It is possible that it is an increased reward too, but with so many available candidates, why bother?