[Aeolun]

So? They may take a stricter stance, but I just fail to see how anything but extortion or treason really applies to working in security.

Hell, even if you committed a murder that doesn’t make you any more likely to steal company secrets.

[nhumrich]

Statistically, it does.

[thaumasiotes]

> Statistically, it does.

If that mattered, all of antidiscrimination law would be struck down.

[berdario]

IANAL (and law differs around the globe) but...

discrimination is prohibited towards protected categories. i.e. gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation... on top of it, most of those aren't things that you choose yourself.

With the possible exception of religion (you're born into a certain culture, so "by default" you might feel affiliated to a certain religion, so asking people to renounce that would definitely be oppressive), and veteran status (which is not a protected category around the world, I think... though it is in the US)

If you self-select into a segment of the population that no one is born into[1], yet it's lawfully discriminated against (i.e. felons ITT) I'm afraid that you don't have a good case to protect yourself from such discrimination.

[1] Unfortunately, systemic racism and the plea/prosecutors/bail system make it so that people in certain segments of the population are more likely than others to end up involved in crimes.

[afiori]

In my personal opinion anti-discrimination laws are not born out of precise definition of fair/unfair discrimination but on a value judgement that some particular classes of discriminations are disproportionate and are causing too much harm.

If there never was any racism there would be no need for laws forbidding discrimination on race, conversely if we where deeply elitist based on height there could exist laws about height discrimination.

With regards to felonies the two question I consider focal are:

1) what is the long-term plan for convicted criminals, and

2) how much extra-judicial/social punishment should we tolerate on non-public figures for non-public crimes.

[rendall]

Statistically, it does? You have a citation, then. Would you share it, please?

[Tepix]

Found this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/once-a-criminal-always-a-crimin...

1% of 988 murderers were arrested for a new crime (yet not another murder). Is that higher than average? It sounds like it is.

[InitialLastName]

Let's be clear that being arrested for a new crime is different than being convicted of a new crime. Given that none of the murderers in that overview went back to prison, I'm inclined to think that their conviction rate is low.

Keep in mind also that being an ex-con in a community likely puts you at the top of the PD's suspect list for new crimes, and that reintegration with society is difficult, so imprisonment (regardless of crime) makes recidivism more likely.

[rendall]

Yes, agreed.

Intuitively, it makes sense that "statistically, it does", but if words have meaning, than "statistically" means literally there are statistics demonstrating the assertion, and so far, bupkis

[afiori]

Ironically if this is true probably part of the reason would be that too many people already believe it.