Employers Using Criminal Records as Background Checks

Based on our former debate, YOU WOULD HAVE TO KNOW THAT I WOULD OBJECT severely to a pedophile DOING ANYTHING BEYOND A PRISON CELL or MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE...DEATH, it would be ludicrous. I am speaking of MISDEMEANOR CHARGES and I was quite clear on that, there isn't a PEDOPHILE SCENARIO that would be considered MISDEMEANOR. And due to my BELIEF in the SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY (a relatively new concept in law that should have been enacted YEARS ago), I daresay that anyone with such a record COULD walk in front of school. The drug user that has a long criminal record or BACKGROUND of drug abuse and use certainly should not become a pharmacy technician, that too would be ludicrous. A drug abuser is fairly obvious, when quizzed on his/her last ten years it's difficult to insert, "Well I've been in treatment for the last year. I was a drug addict for nine years prior to treatment," which if manually checked is easily determined. Fortunately we can avoid that because as I type this ANY criminal offense would eliminate any sort of attempt to secure that type of employment. I am speaking of general misdemeanors. Of course I believe that any employer that makes the effort can be aware of an individuals past, but I do not believe that it should be used against that individual nor based solely on anyone's criminal record with all of it's inaccuracies and such. It's simple enough to determine if any individual is skilled to meet the demands of the job, POST that being judged, I believe that a past has an explanation, especially a past that occurred years ago. EMPLOYERS USE TO DO MANUAL BACKGROUND CHECKS, this has taken it's place. However if MANUAL BACKGROUND CHECKS were still performed, one would know quickly if the person would be a desired employee. The entire principal of our corrections system is rehabilitation, if we accept that an individual has served his/her debt to society by release of whatever sentence he/she received, then why in the world would I want to continue to support him/her once released? I have to believe that rehabilitation works and that most people are good, that most people want to better their lives and because of this one POLICY (not law) a person is stripped of his/her ability to become a productive member of society, thus leaving most no choice but to return to what they may know, CRIME, as well as food stamps and the like. I personally know a TEACHER whom worked for the same school system for TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS. His release of service came because of CUT BACKS. Back when he got the job the POLICY to use your criminal background as a condition of employment DID NOT exist. He was first laid off, then totally severed from the local school system SIX years ago and due his charge of "Possession of Less Than An One Half of an Ounce of Marijuana" THIRTY TWO YEARS AGO he has NOT been able to find equal and substantial employment since. His unemployment benefits extinguished four years ago, he is a fine teacher, a Deacon of his church, and was a shining star in the profession, but because of NORTH CAROLINA'S POLICY REGARDING CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS he will NEVER work in the profession again, at least not here. He has attempted to expunge the record but HEAR THIS...TO EVERY ONE BUT THE LOCAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THIS CHARGE WILL NEVER BE SEEN AGAIN, BUT to those AGENCIES, it will always be readily available. And you only get to do this ONE TIME in your life, expunge a record. It is unlikely that ANYONE would offer reference to any background that they may or may not have had, but truth is this, NO ONE CAN CHANGE ANY COMPANY'S POLICY REGARDING THIS ACT, but government can mandate that a criminal history that falls into certain guidelines NOT BE CONSIDERED, pedophiles excluded :) If employers are going to let a criminal background check be the be all in employment, then our welfare lines will get longer and hostility will continue to rein over us. As far as the safety of our communities, tell me young man, when do you think it would be good time to begin mandating backgrounds on our neighbors, after all a person MUST have a place to live.