[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?