Government officials in Amherst, VA can now require employers to fire ex-cons

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/31/government-officials-in-amherst-county-virginia-can-now-require-employers-to-fire-any-ex-con/

by thaumasiotes • 11 years ago

181 173 11 years ago

washingtonpost.com

nostrademons• 11 years ago

Curious if you could get around this by incorporating in a different state and then employing yourself. With Clerky or any of the numerous online LLC generators, incorporation is only a few hundred bucks. Then your employer isn't subject to this clause because it's located in Delaware rather than Amherst County, VA, and anyone who employs you contracts with the corporation, so they aren't liable either.

A C corp (a la Clerky) would still be a bit of a pain because you're subject to all the regulations & double taxation of a corporation, but I believe an LLC gives you pass-through taxation with little administrative hassle.

chc• 11 years ago

I don't know much about Virginia law, but based on the wording here, it sounds like you probably need some kind of license to do business in Virginia even if you're incorporated in another state.

jerephil• 11 years ago

Yes, you do need a license. However, you shouldn't have to have a license in Amherst county to sell your services there unless that's your primary place of business. Much like any business owner on here shouldn't need a business license from Amherst county to sell to customers in Amherst county.

If you incorporate as a single member LLC, then the IRS doesn't usually consider you to be an employee either.

dredmorbius10• 11 years ago

How does this not violate due process and equal protection?

Edit: Hell: add the Fifth amendment (double jeopardy, due process, just compensation), Eighth (cruel and unusual punishment), Ninth (generally), Thirteenth & Fourteenth (if one cannot work gainfully, what options remain, equal protection), and Fifteenth (statistically given crime and conviction statistics)?

CapitalistCartr• 11 years ago

This wouldn't withstand federal judicial scrutiny for a second.

AnimalMuppet2• 11 years ago

... I hope.

This shouldn't withstand federal judicial scrutiny for a second.

simplicio• 11 years ago

Well, they had due process, since that's how one becomes a felon in the first place. But I suspect a blanket ban on being able to earn a living in a particular region will be found cruel and unusual.

Plus as a purely practical matter, banning former criminals from making a legal living seems like a pretty good way to ensure they continue to commit crimes.

Kinnard4• 11 years ago

How do you know they had due process? Because they had a trial? Are you under the impression that that actually guarantees due process in this country?

russell_h• 11 years ago

Ironically, this would probably have been an unconstitutional violation of the business's right to enter into a contract according to early 1900s doctrine (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract).

That doctrine was reversed in the 1930s to permit states to set a minimum wage, but granting states greater authority to regulate contracts cuts both ways.

tehwebguy• 11 years ago

Plus as a purely practical matter, banning former criminals from making a legal living seems like a pretty good way to ensure they continue to commit crimes.

This county wants ex-cons back in prison or in another state.

api• 11 years ago

Wow. So let's make absolutely sure that people who have made mistakes in the past can't get their lives in order or do anything legitimate.

mschuster91• 11 years ago

Welcome to America, where the point of putting someone in jail is the vile intention of pure revenge instead of resocialization.

tgflynn5• 11 years ago

There used to be the notion in this country that after a person was released from prison they had "paid there debt to society" and should therefore be able to go on with there life. How did we get to a place where no one seems to believe this anymore ?

I would think that a punishment for a crime that includes forced destitution for life independently of the nature of the crime would be considered cruel and unusual. But the Bill of Rights doesn't seem to be taken seriously anymore either.

plorg• 11 years ago

If my local politicians are any indication, the ones who were in office during the 'tough-on-crime' era, particularly of the 80's and 90's, tend to speak as if the convicted are reprobate, can never fully 'repay' their victims, and are destined for a life of crime. I suspect some of this rhetoric bled into their perceptions of the point of criminal penalties, leading to much more retributive and much less restorative/redemptive sentencing practices and laws.

But it's hard for me to separate that all from the general Calvinist/religious culture of the area where I live.

csense• 11 years ago

How did we get to a place where no one seems to believe this anymore?

It's technology's fault. Before the advent of widespread computers capable of indexing large amounts of data, in order for someone to know a person had a felony, they would have had to know where you were convicted, travel to the courthouse in that county, and go through stacks of dusty paper files.

This struck a good balance between making court records public (anyone can look at them), and the privacy of individual defendants (few people bothered because it's time-consuming and inconvenient, therefore expensive).

Of course software's eaten this market, there are companies that have digitized and indexed all those public records, and now you can run background checks on people with a few mouse clicks and a few bucks on your credit card.

x0x0• 11 years ago

It's clearly technology's fault. Just like police never assaulted black/brown people before everyone had video cameras on their persons 24/7. And ufos stopped visiting.

On a serious note, you're running perilously close to google and the right to forget. I strongly agree with you, but it's the google party line that there's no difference at all between (1) the ability to conduct a background check on someone as long as you're willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars, and (2) the ability for anyone to conduct and publicize a background check for free. You'll note also that asshole Eric Schmidt simultaneously suggested people should change their names if they want youthful indiscretions not to follow them for the rest of their life while using his billions and lawyers to erase his mistresses' stories from the internet.

toomuchtodo• 11 years ago

It's technology's fault.

Its our fault, not technology's. Technology is just a tool; we've failed to properly address how it should be used.

See: Drones, NSA spying, etc as well.

_delirium• 11 years ago

Traditional tort law also put some barriers in the way of doing various negative things you could imagine doing with the public information. For example photocopying a bunch of public records about someone you don't like, and then mailing them to the person's employer, flyering the neighborhood with copies of them, etc., or following the person as they go apply for employment and handing a copy to the prospective employer, would all fall afoul (in some jurisdictions) of economic torts and anti-harassment law. But running an "information service" that does this systematically for everyone doesn't have the same element of targeted harassment, so avoids these torts, while still harming the person in question.

NoCulturalFit• 11 years ago

My theory is that people are dissatisfied with what the "debt to society" is. How can you blame them. If you have loved ones who were attacked, how would you feel if the criminal only got 180 hours of community service for sexual assault?

http://www.stoppa-pedofilerna.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/...

ploxiln2• 11 years ago

Well in the US, "sex offenders" (including public urination and some people not actually convicted of doing what is alleged) are marked for life and need to inform their neighbors of their shunned status whenever they move. (On the down side, some people like me don't take "sexual offender" status seriously because it's so often mis-applied.)

Kinnard4• 11 years ago

How did we get to a place where no one seems to believe this anymore ?

I think for some groups in this country, we're not just getting to this place, this is where we've been for a long time. It's just that the masses are better able to access information about it now.

Blacks being killed by police with indiscretion did not start in 2013. I'd guess in fact that that the past 5 years were way better for black live than the 5 years before them. People just happen to be paying attention now.

Retric4• 11 years ago

The Black lives matter movement was catalyzed as a marketing campaign by companies that sell police cameras that went viral. http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

comrh• 11 years ago

Take away a person's right to vote and in a democracy they're no long part of society.

knodi1232• 11 years ago

society: the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.

There's a lot more to american society than standing in a voting booth. I agree it's a steep price, but there's no need to exaggerate.

fweespeech• 11 years ago

I think this is a case of local crazies doing something crazy.

The courts will shut it down when challenged, I'd hope.

imaginenore• 11 years ago

And what's really crazy we force sex offenders (which includes the people who got caught peeing in a public place) to announce themselves, not allow them to live within X feet of schools, and there's a public database of them.

But we don't do the same with kidnappers or murderers.

How insane is that?

harshreality• 11 years ago

I suppose society gets restless if it doesn't have some class of people it can very publicly brand, so if needed it makes one up semi-arbitrarily. Modern day scarlet letter.

Frozenlock• 11 years ago

Interesting...

This means I can prevent a school from being built near my house by peeing in a public place... :-)

UnoriginalGuy3• 11 years ago

Not that it matters, but most "kidnappers" are actually parents (or other close family members) and most kidnapping victims are actually children involved in child custody disputes.

This doesn't change your point at all, just wanted to point out that putting "kidnappers" on the list might not be very effective.

DanBC• 11 years ago

Public urination is unlikely to involve sex offender registration. Only three US states have the law needed (arizona, california, and georgia) and two of those (arizona and georgia) also require either repeat offences or the presence of children.

There is a total of about 5,00 people in the US on the register for exposure - and obviously not all of those are there for public urination.

vidarh2• 11 years ago

It reflects an idea of risks of re-offending and perceived danger.

It may not be perfect, and there are very real issues with making it harder for people to resume a normal life after getting out, but this is actually one of those areas where actions are more in line with actual risks than a lot of policies relating to how past offenders are treated.

Murderers are highly unlikely to carry out another murder - most murders are "one of a kind" heat of passion, not sociopaths killing for the entertainment value or similar. The nature of the victims of murders and the low risk of re-offending makes it relatively low risk to live near someone who has carried out a murder in the past.

Sex-offenders are much more likely to be an ongoing risk to society after being released, and sex-offenders who have previously targeted children are extremely likely to target based on level of access (e.g. parents and close relatives top the list, but other people with close access to a child rank high, such as e.g. a neighbour that manages to become friends with the parents of a child), which is a particular impetus for people to worry about where they live.

a3n• 11 years ago

As an individual, I would be cautious about hiring a former convict, but it's not out of the question.

Intuitively (I'm not an actuary), it seems that insurance companies get away with charging you more if you've had a prior accident. It seems a person who has broken the law may be more likely to break it than the average person.

I think it stinks that this local govt can tell a business to fire a felon though, that just compounds the problem of re-entry. I smell a Supreme Court case in the future.

dogma11382• 11 years ago

While I'm perfectly fine with employers not hiring ex-con's under certain conditions for example not to hiring sex offenders (actual ones not a guy that was caught peeing in an ally) in schools, or some one who was convicted for financial fraud in banks or an investment agencies.

But unless other wise mandated (mostly sexual offenders stuff) It's up to the employer to make that decision, what right does a government has to force a private employer to fire their employees on any count?

dredmorbius10• 11 years ago

what right does a government has to force a private employer to fire their employees

I'm perfectly fine with that following due process for the specific matter pertinent to the firing, or as part of an issued sentence or punishment for an original crime.

E.g., sexual predators (and no, not someone urinating in public) not working in seclusion with children, or those convicted of business fraud and related crimes not being officers of a company, losing accounting, actuary or similar licenses, etc.

But "thou shalt not work" doesn't cut it.

seanflyon2• 11 years ago

as part of an issued sentence or punishment for an original crime.

I think this is the key point. You have a fundamental right to work for anyone who wants to hire you. The government can take away that right (and other fundamental rights) as punishment for a crime when you are convicted. I don't see how they can take away rights that are not a part of that sentence. That would be like calling you back for another year of prison after your sentence was completed.

dogma11382• 11 years ago

Did you actually try to make an argument or did you just restructured my original comment? I seriously can't tell at this point :S

thaumasiotes• 11 years ago

I'll cop to punching up the title of this. But I actually view it as highly significant that the law at issue forbids ex-cons from employing themselves just as it forbids other people from employing them. (Actually, it allows but doesn't require the government to prevent them from doing any of those things.) The only option left is subsistence farming. The original title is missing that. Was my title misleading? :/

dredmorbius10• 11 years ago

The original ("Government officials in Amherst County, Virginia can now require employers to fire any ex-con") at 93 characters wouldn't fit HN's length limitation (80 chars).

dang2• 11 years ago

People shorten titles appropriately all the time.

thaumaturgy• 11 years ago

I like your original title better ("Amherst County (VA) law: felons may neither self-employ nor be employed"). HN has a blanket policy that they will change any submission title to match the title of the submitted URL as closely as possible, except when they'd rather not. I wish they'd quit doing that and limit themselves to misleading/inflammatory/clickbait titles.

Getting the original submission title is one of my favorite things about having my own HN reader.

dang2• 11 years ago

The HN guidelines ask you to please use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait. Your rewritten title was arguably more misleading and more linkbaity. That's exactly the opposite of what we're looking for.

We don't let people use submission titles to editorialize. If you have a point to argue, such as that a law effectively makes ex-cons unemployable, you should argue it by commenting in the thread, where everyone is on a level playing field. Otherwise the submitter of a story would get to frame it for everyone else, a huge undue influence over the discussion.

crb002• 11 years ago

IANAL

Hold them accountable under the Hobbs Act for obstructing interstate commerce via extortion of business licenses? http://extortion.uslegal.com/anti-racketeering-act-hobbs-act...

Not to mention a local "business license" is shady. It seems like a major restraint on first amendment freedom of association.

jrockway• 11 years ago

The First Amendment does not cover collecting money from other people. If you want to associate with people or give away some sort of printed material, you don't need a business license. If you want to collect money from people, you need a business license.

ichamo4• 11 years ago

As an ex-con, these kind of attitudes really concern me! Hoping when I graduate university I can find a job somewhere that will be willing to overlook my teenage years.

lsb• 11 years ago

Really depends on where you work. In SF, it's pretty amenable to that. A smart friendly co-worker had gotten locked up for drugs a few years before he started, even warning the HR department that his background check wouldn't come up clean, and that'd been no problem at all, and he's since moved gigs. (If you'd like an intro just hit me up :-) and I'll see what I can do)

ichamo4• 11 years ago

Cali is too far for me, thanks for the offer though :) Hope to find people like you in the south east!

UnoriginalGuy3• 11 years ago

Does expungement not apply to your case? I know some teenage criminals get their records cleared.

ichamo4• 11 years ago

No, I have federal drug charges, and I embellished a little on "teenager". I was 18-19 which technically is an adult. I have this background forever.

rdudek3• 11 years ago

I work for a major healthcare provider and we hired folks with not-so-clean backgrounds as long as they're disclosed. If you do not disclose any issue and it comes out that you did find something, you can either 1) appeal the decision by reviewing the background check with our provider or 2) wait a full year before reapplying again.

Background checks are not perfect, we know. That's why when you apply, you have the right to get a full report for free. I always recommend checking that box to get it when applying. That way, if something comes up, you can dispute it with the background check agency, and it's very easy.

ichamo4• 11 years ago

What would you advise for smaller companies that don't background check? Or if I don't fill out an application and get an interview? Do I still bring it up and if so, when is it appropriate?

mindslight3• 11 years ago

you could be stripped of your business license, so you can’t go into business for yourself

The article of course means you can't obtain government protection for your business. You can still privately transact as much as you'd like. If you've been convicted criminally, the possibility of some direct civil liability shouldn't scare you. For instance, put your savings in bitcoin or an offshore trust and have a plan to get the fuck out of dodge to avoid debtors' prison. Obviously this isn't an ideal way to live your life, but these are our times.

Of course if the government were functioning properly, keeping a business license would be contingent upon not firing "ex-cons", since having served their time their punishment is complete. But we already know it's irreperably broken.

PhasmaFelis2• 11 years ago

If you've been convicted criminally, the possibility of some direct civil liability shouldn't scare you.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

mindslight3• 11 years ago

If you've been convicted of something, you've got a huge black mark in the various tracking/surveillance databases such as the system discussed in this article.

You're thus already disqualified from relationships that require you to be a squeaky clean perfect abstraction. Those databases showing a large debt / bankruptcy / ongoing suit / etc will not harm you nearly as much as someone who was clean, and even having to relocate to duck a judgment won't hurt you as much since you're already not benefitting from touting your identity.

I'm not saying you should deliberately attract civil suits since losing one would still be quite disruptive, but that spectre of a little-merit high-payout suit destroying your perfect life is no longer so large since you're already suffering half the damage.

ascorbic• 11 years ago

Is it common for jurisdictions in the U.S. to require licenses to do any kind of business? Seems pretty crazy. In the UK there are very few businesses that require licenses. Mainly ones involving alcohol or gambling.

tgflynn5• 11 years ago

I've been wondering about that too and I live in the US.

I've often seen various places asking for "business licenses" but as far as I know there's no such thing where I live (New York State). There are licenses for certain professions and types of business of course, but you don't need a license to start a business in a field that isn't explicitly regulated.

duaneb• 11 years ago

There are articles of incorporation, which are pretty necessary to avoid liability.

chrismcb• 11 years ago

http://licensecenter.ny.gov/business-licenses I haven't looked at every state but I would be surprised if there was a state that had no business licenses.

hyperpape• 11 years ago

I can't say exactly how many states require them, but it's not uncommon. My impression is that it's typically stupid red tape and a source of petty revenue, rather than something that actually is denied people.

thawkins• 11 years ago

You are not seriously going to try and claim that setting up a business is an easy thing to do in the uk. Between the VAT and accounting rules, and conforming to the government and council ordinances, it may as well be licensed. And in many cases is, transport, food, retail, and many other business types also have licence requirements ontop of the mountain of paperwork.

stephengillie• 11 years ago

WA State requires a license also for this privilege.

  When Do You Need a License?

  Your gross income is $12,000 per year or more.
  Your business is required to collect sales tax.
  Your business is required to pay taxes or fees to the Department of Revenue.
  You are a buyer or processor of specialty wood products.

  If you answer yes to any of the above statements, then you need to register with 
  the DOR.  If you’re a corporation, limited liability company, limited liability 
  partnership, a limited partnership, or one of the offshoots of these three 
  organizational structures, you need to register with Washington’s Secretary of
  State Office prior to filing a Business License Application.

http://business.wa.gov/are-you-starting-business#top

joveian• 11 years ago

Yes, it seems like most cities (at least larger cities, but at least many of the small ones too) and a few states require business licenses for any business. Some cities wave the fee for low income folks and some will happily charge you more than you made as "business income" in some cases (Philadelphia going after folks who put ads on their blog is the one I know about, there may be more).

I think most state licensing is more limited, but still tends to cover wide professional areas and often is more trade protectionism than public benefit.

x5n1• 11 years ago

These sort of laws create the sort of circumstances you hear about in the news. I wish them the best of luck with their lives, pushing these sort of laws on felons who then have nothing to lose. Freedom for the win, amirite guys?

sankyo• 11 years ago

Point of clarification: there is no such thing as an "ex" con. The conviction stays even if the person never breaks the law again.

joshuaheard• 11 years ago

"Ex-con" refers to "ex-convict", a former inmate in jail, not "ex-conviction", one who has been previously found guilty of a crime.

dragonwriter5• 11 years ago

The phrase "ex-con" or "ex-convict" is well established to refer to a person who has been convicted of a crime and who has completed any sentence associated the crime of which they were convicted, distinguishing them from both those who are still serving a sentence and from those who have never been convicted of a crime.

(Its derived from the usage of the term "convict" to refer specifically to a person who is currently serving a sentence for a conviction of a crime, i.e., a prisoner or inmate.)

If "convict", the noun, had a primary definition of anyone who has ever been convicted rather than someone serving a sentence for a conviction, then, yes, you might be right that you couldn't be an "ex-convict". But that's not what the word means.

gwright• 11 years ago

The County issues business licenses for the privilege of doing business …

Never mind the issue of ex-cons, the premise that freedom of contract and association (i.e. gather a group of people to engage in commercial activity) is a “privilege” granted by the government is arguably unconstitutional.

There are reasons to regulate but the default position should be that you have a right to engage in commercial activities and that right should only be restricted via due process (such as the levels of scruitiny employed by the Supreme Court).

lutorm• 11 years ago

Is the issue not that society agrees to limit your liability in exchange for these businesses doing something beneficial for society? You can argue that you have a right to engage in commercial activities, but I don't think you have a right to escape personal liability for those activities.

ubernostrum2• 11 years ago

Yup.

A business license is what frees you from personal liability. I don't know of any approach to contracts or personal freedom which suggests society automatically owes zero-personal-liability to everyone without conditions or restrictions attached.

anigbrowl8• 11 years ago

Getting a business license and incorporating are not the same thing, and the former has no impact on our legal liability. If you run a business as a sole trader then anyone with a legitimate grievance can go after your personal assets.

kylehotchkiss• 11 years ago

Why would you want to live or work there? (I live 15 minutes away from amherst.)

This is the same place conspiratists say Disney is building a theme park. Nothing to see here, really.

markbnj• 11 years ago

> So if you have a felony conviction, or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude — e.g., petty theft or making a false statement

Ironically, these are just the qualities that make you most suited to be a municipal politician.

dataker2• 11 years ago

Why would anyone support this?

If you're in the left and believe in equality, it's disgusting.

If you're in the right an believe in freedom, it's disgusting.

dragonwriter5• 11 years ago

If you're in the left and believe in equality, it's disgusting.

While many on the left believe that the criminal justice system has structural inequities that need to be addressed, few on the left would adhere to the position that past conviction of a crime is categorically unacceptable basis for discrimination (though they might agree that particular instances of it exceed what is warranted.)

So, I don't think this works as a blanket statement.

If you're in the right an believe in freedom, it's disgusting.

Most on the right would not, IME, support the position that freedom cannot be restricted based on past conviction of a crime. So I don't think this works as a blanket statement either.

dataker2• 11 years ago

I don't what dimension of left-right you have, but no one that supports individual freedom would fundamentally support the idea that a government can take your business away if you hire a specific person. It's not the individual employer that chooses it, but a tyrannical force.

On the left, while supporting equal opportunities, there'd be simply no reason to support outcasting individuals, especially when many ex-cons were raised in poverty and are URM. You don't have to be like SFiscans(tax breaks for employers that hire ex-cons) to be against this.

anigbrowl8• 11 years ago

Well, I wouldn't say categorically unacceptable - if I had kids I wouldn't want them to be supervised by a child molester even if the person had completed parole, and that's far from the only troublesome corner case I can think of.

but as someone on the left, a great deal of what is taken for granted in the US penal system is categorically unacceptable to me. In my country (Ireland) and most other EU countries except the UK, people in prison are still allowed to vote in elections, for example; we consider the ideal of political self-determination so sacred that it is inalienable even if you lose your liberty.

Of course a cynical rejoinder to this is to point out the futility of voting as a political determinant and I can't really answer that other than to stand on principle. As a pragmatic matter I dunno how you expect people to reintegrate into society by formally excluding them from the annual rituals of civic participation but then most hardliners aren't interested in the rehabilitation arguments anyway. As a foreigner living in the US I can't vote anyway and I feel left out on election days; I think eliminating the franchise for people with a felony conviction is an appalling psychic injury to inflict on people (even if they never voted before going into prison) and it's one of the least defensible features of UK and US culture.

hga• 11 years ago

Most on the right would not, IME, support the position that freedom cannot be restricted based on past conviction of a crime.

As someone on the right, one issue here is who is doing the restricting of freedom. One approach that strikes me as reasonable is requiring full disclosure, but the state then can't interfere in the relationship between a business and potential employee, aside from obvious exceptions like crimes of pedophilia and care of children.

In between there can be issues where someone is put in a position of trust over other's lives, like, say, a bus driver. But this sort of meat ax approach ... no, I doubt it's going to find a lot of support on the right. Certainly not from myself.

jeffmould2• 11 years ago

IANAL, but I highly doubt this would hold up in court by any means for several reasons:

1. Virginia is a "ban the box" state, meaning it is state law that the state or government contractor cannot ask about a criminal background until a formal offer of employment is on the table. Unless of course the job requires prior to extending the offer (i.e. schools can't employ sex offenders, law enforcement jobs don't want convicted felons, etc..).

2. The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits job discrimination on a criminal background when it comes to race or nationality.

The law seems to have been written with a very broad pen. While I understand there are certain businesses that should not be run by certain convicted felons (i.e. you don't want a daycare center run by someone convicted of molesting children), this law seems like it was written to solve a specific problem and needed a very general approach. Comparably, many states/cities do have restrictions on the types of licenses an individual can get based on their background (commonly referred to a collateral consequences of a conviction - http://www.abacollateralconsequences.org/). For example, some states prohibit the issuing of a real estate license to individuals convicted of fraud.

I don't know if it is a coincidence or not, but this ordinance came into effect a month after the governor of Virginia signed the Ban the Box law.

leereeves• 11 years ago

it is state law that the state or government contractor cannot ask about a criminal background until a formal offer of employment is on the table.

What happens if the answer is "Yes, I've been convicted of a serious felony" after a formal offer of employment is on the table?

jeffmould2• 11 years ago

It really depends on the job and position, but there has to be a justifiable reason why the individual cannot be hired. In theory the jobs that this helps felons get are the blue collar type work (for example, there is no reason a felon should not be allowed to work on a state landscape crew or a state construction team. Prior to ban the box, they may have been automatically excluded. With ban the box, they are not automatically excluded.)

joshstrange• 11 years ago

This makes me sick. I work in the corrections industry and regularly encounter people that use the "they are criminals" justification for any/everything they want to do. People don't seem to understand the whole "paid debt to society" notion and it worries me because I was more or less brought up believing this and I worry for the future as more and more people seem to think this way...

I work in part in reentry, these people are trying to get their lives back together yet people want to treat them like bad behaving children instead of the adults that they are. I'm not saying they are fully functioning adults, most of them are just dumped out of the prison system and need a great deal of help to get back on their feet (find somewhere to live, a job, etc) but treating them as less-than... I can't think of a worse way to approach this problem. Thankfully the company I work for is largely part of the solution and not the problem or I couldn't bear to work in this industry.

rdudek3• 11 years ago

This is pretty bad, there is no way this law can be legal. If anything, I dare the folks who get fired to challenge the law and sue the county down to bankruptcy.

the_ancient10• 11 years ago

Part of the problem is the "Debt to Society" crap. People who violate the law do not owe a debt to society, they owe a debt to their victim(s) and no one else.

This "debt to society" was invented in order to justify the creation of 1000's of victimless "crimes"

It should be very simple... No Victim, No Crime.

Joky• 11 years ago

To be sure I understand you: you mean we can't prevent people from bringing an AK47 in school, as long as they don't shoot anyone? And one can drive as fast a she wants as long as there is no accident? One can sell outdated food as long as no client gets sick?

superuser23• 11 years ago

I don't think this works for you. Most "victimless crimes" have victims, you just don't believe they should count as victims, or the punishment isn't proportional. I suppose you could say not every instance actually has a victim, just some of them, but then should I get to walk if I shoot at you and miss?

Copyright: IP owners who lose money, everyone who no longer benefits from new content because making it is economically unsustainable.

Regulation: consumers who buy defective and dangerous products (particularly drugs), people who drink contaminated water and breathe contaminated air, people whose radio electronics won't work anymore because some asshole is jamming them, people whose retirement accounts evaporate on irresponsible trades or investment in fraudulent businesses, people who become suddenly homeless on the whims of their landlords, people who get hit by speeding cars, drunk drivers, cars without working brakes, cars that don't properly signal their presence and intentions.

War on Drugs: people whose friends and family members become unreliable and/or dead because of their addictions.

Tax fraud: people whose economic and medical situations get worse when government is underfunded.

fsloth2• 11 years ago

I fail to see what that has to do with a modern justice system.

Crime can be personal, but law and justice are statistical, bureaucratic instruments that target societies, not individuals. They only produce as an accidental external factor occasional catharsis for the victim.

clarkmoody• 11 years ago

paid debt to society

Since society is not actually an entity that can be paid anything, it's not surprising that individuals want to treat ex-cons unfairly.

I think we should scrap the notion of "paying your debt to society" altogether and instead focus on making victims whole. As it stands, victims of crime get minimal remuneration[1], and it varies by state. It's not the criminal who pays the victim, it's the taxpayer. And then the taxpayer gets to pay for the prison term as well.

[1] http://www.victimsofcrime.org/help-for-crime-victims/get-hel...

bilbo0s• 11 years ago

I'm a little confused by this ???

Why would you give the victim of, say, an assault... money ???

I thought the idea was to give that person justice ??? And for that reason, we put the perpetrator in a prison that, of course, we pay for.

What exactly is wrong with that system ???

dragonwriter5• 11 years ago

I think we should scrap the notion of "paying your debt to society" altogether and instead focus on making victims whole.

We have a whole justice system for that -- and its not the criminal justice system.

The criminal justice system exist to serve interests that aren't addressed by the compensatory orientation of the civil justice system.

milspec2• 11 years ago

If the offender has only ever committed one crime, and they did so while a teen, then OK. Give them another chance, provided they have a workable budget that includes a non-criminal job.

If the offender repeated the crime while being older than 25, then no. There is no realistic hope that the person will ever be non-harmful. Never let them free.

(cases between those two extremes are questionable)

abalashov• 11 years ago

I would be extremely wary of making such cosmological, sweeping generalisations about anything. "Realistic hope that the person will ever be non-harmful" really depends on a gazillion other variables.

And why start with a semantically negative presumption, anyway? A world of difference in attitude can be reaped from daring to ask whether a person might harm again, rather than if they will "ever be non-harmful".

the_ancient10• 11 years ago

So you believe every crime after the age of 25 should come with a life sentence?

Get in to a drunken fight at the bar on night... Life

Shoplift a pack of gum.... Life

WOW....

icewater0• 11 years ago

regularly encounter people that use the "they are criminals" justification

The inclination to enslave others is ingrained into certain strains of the human species and they will take them where it can find them.

Blackthorn• 11 years ago

Some days, as a corrections industry volunteer (I teach computer science), I feel like the battle isn't just uphill, it's up-mountain. Ugh.

bcheung• 11 years ago

Take away someone's means to legally provide for themselves and only illegal means remain.

titfn• 11 years ago

If you look at it from that perspective, this idea appears to have been sponsored by for-profit prisons.

squozzer• 11 years ago

Normally I whip out my Peter...Turchin and talk about how structural-demographic theory could predict the increased marginalization of vulnerable groups as societies reach their next crisis point.

The truth of this problem however is probably more prosaic. Someone in Amherst has somehow gotten under the skin of the mayor or city council - probably refused to contribute to a campaign or hire someone's dumbass relative so now the target gets to enjoy the benefits of "civil society" or whatever half-assed rationale finds its way to the local rag.

nevdka• 11 years ago

The idea of needing a licence to run any business seems absurd to me. In Australia, you need to register for an Australian Business Number, but that's for tax purposes, and it's cheap and easy to do online. Even forming a corporation costs less than $500 and a few days waiting. (literally - it's 2 days after the government receives the application form)

There are restrictions around certain trades (electricians, doctors, etc), but they're the exception, not the rule.

dredmorbius10• 11 years ago

There are reasons for business licenses. From a current HN story:

"Behind Deadly Tianjin Blast, Shortcuts and Lax Rules" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/world/asia/behind-tianjin-...

One partner was the son of a local police chief, the other an executive at a state-run chemicals firm. After meeting at a dinner party, they started a company here to handle the export of the most dangerous chemicals made in China, promising “outstanding service” and “good results.”

geomark• 11 years ago

Another example of the tyranny of petty bureaucrats.

sandworm101• 11 years ago

Once upon a time "felony" meant the sort of crime that you could be executed for. In that context nearly any restriction short of death seems reasonable. But our society has pushed "felony" down to mean anything which might result in custody of a year or more. That used to mean only those sent to prison (jail != prison) would be called felons. But there again society has pushed down the punishments to the point that most "felonies" don't even result in jail time (ie drunk driving).

We can all hate lawyers and laws, but throwing around "felon" and "convict" so loosely has brought us to this unsettling situation. I can understand giving a commissioner power to have a "felon" fired or barred from certain employment, but only under the old definition of the word (murders, rapists, arsonists etc).

I'm not sure the law could be used to bar any and all employment. It may be constitutional as a 'regulation' but a total ban on any form of work would be a per se deprivation. It's akin to land use rules which can limit used but cannot forbid any and all economic use. That constitutes a taking, as banning someone from any and all work would constitute an unconstitutional exile and/or an ex poste facto increase in punishment.

hadeharian• 11 years ago

Sounds highly discriminatory. I'd hate to live there. The commissioner sounds like the biggest criminal in that town.

balabaster• 11 years ago

...and the craziness that is U.S. Laws created in direct violation of the constitution continues. Stories like this make me wonder how far down the road we are from it being completely torn up and a police state being officially imposed.

Some days I read the news and can scarcely believe what I'm reading. I wouldn't believe it at all if it weren't under the Washington Post banner...

Government officials in Amherst, VA can now require employers to fire ex-cons

Related Stories