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.
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?
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.
> 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?
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?
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?