Slashdot Mirror


Prison Program Aims To Turn Criminals Into Coders

Press2ToContinue writes with news that San Quentin, a notorious California prison, has started a program to teach a class of inmates to write code. The first class will last for six months, and the inmates are learning about programming for eight hours a day. The hope is to give them the skills to find a good job after they leave prison, which in turn would reduce their chances of recidivism. Since the state's Dept. of Corrections prohibits internet access, the class only "pretends" to be online — they can't use internet-based resources, and nobody on the outside can see or use the software they create. One of the class's backers said, 'Almost every week there's epiphanies. And most of the guys in here, they've never touched a computer before. They are progressing beyond our expectations."

4 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. Tuition-Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Yes, your honor. I did attempt to attack the police officer with a piece of fruit. I deserve to be sentenced for say, oh. Hm.... Two semesters".

  2. Re:Of course! by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since such discrimination is illegal, and the government (and society) has an interest in getting these people jobs, expect any suspected discrimination to be challenged in the courts.

    [Citation needed]

    It's NOT illegal to discriminate against ex-cons. Otherwise, how it is that so many companies get away with running criminal background checks? Are you saying that all these companies pay to run background checks but then can't actually use them in the hiring decision process??

    Things are changing a bit, though, and it is getting a little harder to discriminate overtly. For what's really happening, see for example, here:

    Federal labor laws do not explicitly prohibit companies from discriminating against ex-offenders. ... Most of the rules spelling out what an employer can and can't do come from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is stepping up scrutiny of employer hiring practices. Corporate policies that immediately screen former criminals can disadvantage minorities and violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the agency says. In April 2012 it issued a "guidance"--a set of rules for companies to follow in evaluating job applications of released prisoners. The guidelines "create a burden on the employer to do a more individualized assessment" at the start of the hiring process, says Andria Lure Ryan, a labor lawyer in Atlanta, and not simply weed out ex-offenders from the start. The agency acknowledges there are valid reasons why some employers--a day care center, for instance--might not want to hire someone who has committed certain kinds of crimes. In such cases, the guidance says rejecting those applicants is OK. And there are federal regulations against hiring people convicted of violent crimes for jobs in airport security, among other fields.

    In sum -- there's no explicit law against discriminating against ex-cons. It *IS* illegal to discriminate against minorities, and since a disproportionate number of ex-cons are minorities, the federal government has said businesses need to be careful.

    In practice, however, what this means is now many companies tend not to do a background check immediately upon receipt of an application, but rather do some sort of interview or other screening first, then only do the background check later in the process.

    At that point, employers still often toss people out of the pool of applicants for previous convictions. There's no federal law preventing that, particularly if the company gave them "fair consideration" early in the process before doing the background check. (Some states and cities have more policies to prevent such discrimination, such as the "Ban the Box" movement, but if a company can justify running a background check, it's hard to prevent discriminatory actions.)

  3. Re:Of course! by russotto · · Score: 4, Informative

    Appears to be false; the statistic of 40% relates to the percentage of American men who have been arrested by age 23, not the percentage of working-age Americans with a criminal record. It includes juvenile arrests for status offenses (e.g. truancy, underaged drinking) and also arrests for which there was no conviction.

    I've been arrested (twice, even), and I do not have a "criminal record". First arrest all charges were dropped and the arrest record expunged, second arrest was for a matter not rising to the level of a criminal offense (NYC ordinance "violation"); I took adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (does not require an admission of guilt).

  4. Re:Of course! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think this is the statistic he's talking about.

    psst - s/he/she/ :-)

    No, this one (partial quote only)

    The FBI estimates that 50 percent of its criminal records contain errors. No HR professional wants to hire a person with DUI convictions to drive a vehicle or someone convicted of child abuse to work in a school. But disqualifying every applicant with a criminal record for every job is unnecessary.

    This is especially true because of profound changes in the criminal-justice system. When I was 17, I punched another young man in an argument in the local pool hall. The security guards promptly "escorted" me to the manager’s office. The manager called my father, who assured the manager that if he would allow my father to handle the situation, I would never enter his establishment for the rest of my life. To this day, I have never returned. If my son were to repeat my foolish mistake, he would unquestionably be arrested for assault and battery, and the conviction would follow him for the rest of his life. Literally millions of people in the United States today have criminal records because they were caught smoking marijuana at a rock concert 10 years ago, accidentally bounced a check, or got into a shoving match with another driver after a fender bender. Many of these people can be excellent employees.

    Consequences

    Refusing to hire anyone with a record is not only unnecessary, it takes a huge bite out of the applicant pool. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 30 percent of America’s adult population has a criminal record. Among people of working age, about 40 percent have criminal records. For some demographic groups, the rate is even higher. More than 50 percent of Black males have a criminal record. As the United States’ demographics continue to change, the problem presented by using criminal records as an employment screen will continue to grow.

    Enforcement of the law is still highly selective. How many banksters went to jail?

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.