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."

Comments

Of course!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what we need more of! Computer-savvy criminals!

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

For those who still want to believe that there's a long-term future in coding ... how DO you plan to compete with people who have no debt from education and will qualify for massive job subsidies?

Re:Of course!

[eth1]

For those who still want to believe that there's a long-term future in coding ... how DO you plan to compete with people who have no debt from education and will qualify for massive job subsidies?

You mean the ones that will probably never get hired because of their criminal record?

Re:Of course!

[ranton]

For those who still want to believe that there's a long-term future in coding ... how DO you plan to compete with people who have no debt from education and will qualify for massive job subsidies?

... and won't pass any corporate background checks. I think it is great to teach inmates anything that could help them lead a productive life after prison. But personally I would start with professions where background checks are not common.

It seems improbable for people with few job skills to come out of prison to get $50k/yr jobs as developers. I would be happier if prisons spent times training inmates for more realistic jobs where they may only make $18/hr, but will actually have a chance of being employed.

Re:Of course!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now now, the mob is always hiring.

Re:Of course!

[MickyTheIdiot]

Did you jump the rails? Are we talking about H1-Bs again?

Re:Of course!

[sumdumass]

They will probably pass a law saying you cannot discriminate against prior convictions or something unless you can demonstrate some need for security that requires it.

The Governor of Ohio is already trying something similar. He's expanded or trying to expand professional license qualifications to convicts who have been trouble free for an amount of time. He said something about how do you expect recidivism to be low when released prisoners cannot even get jobs they can likely support themselves on. I'm not aware of any specific legislation but I saw him bring it up in a couple speeches.

Re:Of course!

[ranton]

For those who still want to believe that there's a long-term future in coding ... how DO you plan to compete with people who have no debt from education and will qualify for massive job subsidies?

The same way I compete with developers with little to no college debt today (median student loan debt is still only around $10k), and who live in the cheap neighborhoods near me instead of the high property value township I live in. By being better than they are.

Re:Of course!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-discrimination laws do little to stop discrimination. They will 'find' another reason not to hire them. It's an expensive gamble to take to pursue a lawsuit, and difficult to win. Companies will hire who they want, for whatever reasons they want, and honestly that's the way it should be in the free society.

Re:Of course!

[Opportunist]

There is only one reason to hire a criminal, and that is planning to do something criminal. That way, if you get caught, you can play innocent and shift the blame on the ex-con because, ya know, once a crook always a crook and all that.

Else, why hire some ex-con when there's 100s battling to get that job? No, I didn't discriminate against him, that other guy just had better qualifications. Because, uh, I do value that experience he has in ... hell, we'll find some tech in his resume that he did the ex-con didn't!

Re:Of course!

[Fnord666]

For those who still want to believe that there's a long-term future in coding ... how DO you plan to compete with people who have no debt from education and will qualify for massive job subsidies?

By not having a felony conviction?

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

Not if the government is the one suing, because it's in the interest of society as a whole to make it possible for former criminals to actually be rehabilitated and contribute to the system.

Considering that 40% of the adult American working-age population have criminal records, many of them for completely stupid and banal offenses, do you really want to make it so impossible for someone to be honest that they have to return to crime just to eat?

Re:Of course!

[brian.stinar]

I don't believe that my education and experience is comparable to that which would be received in prison, which makes me think there wouldn't be much direct competition to me. If anything, something like this would seems (likely to me) to result in the massive, lower skilled end, of tech work being sent to prisons or half-way houses inside the U.S. as opposed to being shipped outside the U.S. This seems like a good thing.

I've worked on numerous projects that were shipped outside the country, to MUCH cheaper labor rate places. That tends not to work out very well, unless the project is extremely well spec'd, and/or requires very basic skills, and a very strong relationship exists between the buyer and seller. Typically, I become involved when the project has failed, and the customer decides that dealing with someone with greater skills that lives in a higher wage place is a better investment.

I am grateful for the fact that different options exist. Most projects that I could view as "competition" with low waged workers are not the types of projects I'd like to be involved with. The person shipping the project out typically has no long term relationship with the outside entity, is EXTREMELY price conscientious, is unable to clearly state what they want, and has very limited abilities to evaluate the quality of what they receive. These are people I do not want to deal with, until they have decided that they want to spend some serious money and change their viewpoints.

For me, it is a good thing that purchasers of goods and services have an option VASTLY different than what I'd like to sell. It allows them to segment themselves, and not come to me until they are the types of purchasers that I'd like to deal with. I would waste a lot of time dealing with the lower end of the market if these release valves didn't exist.

Throughout this response, I've tried to make it clear that these ideas only represent my viewpoint : I do not consider what low wage / low skilled people to be selling to be competition. I have never wanted to compete at the bottom, and I recommend that anyone involved with ./ not compete with prisoners, or outsourcing companies.

Re:Of course!

[mark-t]

Since such discrimination is illegalCitation? There's plenty of places that won't disciminate for such reasons, even very good and profitable careers... but I can't see how it could ever be actually illegal to discriminate against somebody because of something they have done in the past.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

If they can hire 10 really motivated coders (and after a few years in "the big house", they'll be motivated), for next to nothing after taking into account subsidies, for less than 1 of you, many will take the chance, because the bottom line is the bottom line.

Re:Of course!

[Anonymous Coward]

As a convicted felon who served 2 1/2 years in prison and have spent the last 10 years working for ATT and IBM, I'm going to have to disagree. I make over $100k per year and I deserve it because I'm a good engineer regardless of my past criminal record. There's no reason they should not make as much as you and I if they have the skills.

When I was in prison, I actually tried to learn programming and was denied the opportunity to even read coding books because the department of prisons said it would make me a smarter criminal. So I went back to college when I got out and got my degree in computer science. I think the shift in the emphasis on training and education are absolutely critical to keeping people out of prison. Period. There is no other way. Prison as a punishment simply isn't enough to prevent crime or recidivism. People need something positive to strive for instead of constantly struggling to survive.

So, if you're a convict - do not give up! Educate yourself and be persistent and it will pay off, I promise.

Re:Of course!

[WGFCrafty]

You're confusing protected minorities with non-protected ones.

Protected ones are race, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation.

Non-protected ones are smokers, criminals, nihilists, believing the earth is flat, which teletubby is your favorite and MANY more.

If you could easily get jobs with a criminal record there would probably be less recidivism. Making a law that forbids you from not hiring criminals would however be quite stupid. If you embezzle money, it would be pretty dumb if they couldn't discriminate when hiring for an accountant position you were otherwise qualified for.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

Eventually, some of these "low-rate bottom-of-the-barrel" coders will get better, same as you were once not so hot at what you do today. This will drive wages down, same as always when the supply/demand curve has more supply than demand. Same as all these initiatives to teach everyone to code whether they want to or not.

Perhaps it's time to think ahead and figure out what, if anything, your next career will be.

Re:Of course!

[mark-t]

They will probably pass a law saying you cannot discriminate against prior convictions or something unless you can demonstrate some need for security that requires it.

How about the fact that knowledge of it might make the employer uncomfortable? Or is the law allowed to dictate which people we are and are not allowed to dislike? At best, all they can do is say that the employer is not allowed to ask about such convictions.

Re:Of course!

[Simulant]

  It probably doesn't matter since there's no long-term future in general.

Re:Of course!

[rasmusbr]

Most of these people will not be able to get good enough fast enough to keep up with people who are already in the field.

In the long run we're all dead, so I wouldn't worry too much about the truly long-term prospects in any field of work unless I'm giving advice to kids.

Re:Of course!

[AthanasiusKircher]

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.)

Re:Of course!

[NormalVisual]

There is only one reason to hire a criminal, and that is planning to do something criminal.

Well, there's also the situation where the ex-con is actually good at what he does. Back in 2010 I did some contract work for a large and established company (big/old enough to have a pre-ARIN /16 netblock), and I shared a cubicle with a guy that had a third-degree felony battery conviction after putting a guy in the hospital during a bar fight years earlier, and happened to be a wicked sharp Java coder with great customer interaction skills. Even with the clearly disclosed felony on his record, he was eventually extended quite a nice offer to go onboard as a permanent employee.

Re:Of course!

[Oligonicella]

many of them for completely stupid and banal offenses

As opposed to murder, theft, arson, bribery, etc. Hell, you can be rejected now for just having been arrested for possession of pot. I certainly wouldn't want a convicted felon, guilty of robbing a bank, *working* for a bank. They can get another job. It doesn't have to be working with people's money. Good damn reason not to want them doing that. You seem to be purposefully conflating "stupid and banal" with vicious and dangerous.

Re:Of course!

[mark-t]

Else, why hire some ex-con when there's 100s battling to get that job?

What about the possibility that the employer just didn't happen to like any of the others that he interviewed? You might get hundreds of applicants, but will probably interview only a dozen or so... what if the one with a criminal record happened to still leave the best overall impression?

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

Other countries do it, and have far lower prison populations per capita. 40% of all working-age Americans have a criminal record. Do you really want them all to be unemployable, and having to return to crime to survive?

Believing that it is not possible for someone to reform is a self-fulfilling prophecy when you then also enact policies that actively drive them back to crime. Not too smart, especially when many of the crimes are minor. How do you expect a sex worker to get out of the trade if you cut her off from the alternatives that are open to everyone else? Or anyone else who has a criminal record, for that matter?

We had a police captain here who was caught stealing cocaine from the evidence locker. Arrested, convicted, did his time, and while inside learned how to be an accountant. Got a job while living in a half-way house. Now he's a tax-payer again. Win-win for everyone.

Or you can keep building jails. Just remember, you're the one footing the bill for it.

Re:Of course!

[ranton]

If they can hire 10 really motivated coders (and after a few years in "the big house", they'll be motivated), for next to nothing after taking into account subsidies, for less than 1 of you, many will take the chance, because the bottom line is the bottom line.

They can already do this now with foreign labor. And they can already hire 4 low quality recent college grads for the same price as well. But they don't, because they don't want to deal with a large team of people causing their bosses more headaches than they are worth. They don't want to deal with inaccurate data on their corporate reports, support cases which are orphaned in the database, or business users who refuse to use their new CRM/ERP systems since it is too buggy to be useful. They want someone who fixes problems, not people who create them.

Many pointy hair bosses aren't smart enough to realize the value of quality employees, but enough of them are.

Re:Of course!

[pla]

For those who still want to believe that there's a long-term future in coding ... how DO you plan to compete with people who have no debt from education and will qualify for massive job subsidies?

I don't worry about it because I don't buy into the bullshit idea that anyone can do anything if they just have the opportunity and apply themselves.

Many of the same attributes that make someone a good programmer act in directly opposition to those shortcomings that make someone a criminal (the capriciousness of the US legal system aside) - Problem solving, impulse control, ability to sit motionless for hours, ability to attend to a task despite external distractions, solid math background, early exposure to technology and the luxury of spending time learning it, etc.

I honestly don't believe that everyone can learn to code; and of those who can, a large majority would hate it. When I describe what I do to most (educated and intelligent) people, they involuntarily cringe.

Yes, this program will probable find a few gems who fell through the cracks early in life (at the expense of millions of taxpayer dollars, of course). I feel comfortable that I can withstand a few dozen subsidized competitors entering my profession per year.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

The US is only 5% of the world's population. Maybe it's time to see how other countries with less than 40% of the adult working-age population having criminal records (pretty much all of the rest of the world), do it.

Re:Of course!

[ranton]

So, if you're a convict - do not give up! Educate yourself and be persistent and it will pay off, I promise.

Unless you know of a few dozen of your fellow inmates who also pull in 6 digit salaries, I think you are a bit of a rare success story. That is great, and rare success stories do happen. For instance I flunked out of college, worked as a shift supervisor at a fast food restaurant until I was 24, and still crossed the $100k barrier as a software developer by the age of 32. But I sure wouldn't advise average college drop outs that they are likely to have the same lucky success I did. For instance there were also many things working in my favor: been programming since I was 8, above average intelligence even among college graduates, a supportive family as a safety net while I was failing in life, etc. Something tells me you were an above average convict as well.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

No, but they'll have an advantage over non-criminals entering the field - subsidies to the employer, training directed to job market needs, and no student debt. They can afford to work for less. Much less.

Re:Of course!

[AthanasiusKircher]

Else, why hire some ex-con when there's 100s battling to get that job?

What about the possibility that the employer just didn't happen to like any of the others that he interviewed? You might get hundreds of applicants, but will probably interview only a dozen or so... what if the one with a criminal record happened to still leave the best overall impression?

In an ideal world, that's what employers might (should?) think.

In the real world, employers often have to worry about things like liability. You have an application from someone saying they committed a crime in the past. If they commit a similar crime again while doing anything related to that job, could you be held liable? You had prior knowledge that this person might be dangerous/unstable/willing to commit whatever (fraud, deceive customers, etc.), and then that person did it again. Are you responsible? Or, if the previous crime was something that could directly harm your business, would you take that risk?

For many employers, even if such a risk is very low, it might be a deciding factor. We can (and should) argue about when such reasoning is flawed, but that's the logic that would happen in the real world. Employers are not going to be looking for reasons to hire the ex-con; they'll be trying to figure out whether it's possible to take on that risk (however minimal) *before* they even consider how the ex-con stacks up against other candidates.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

The majority of Americans with criminal records are for minor offenses.

I doubt a bank robber would want to work in a bank, knowing that every time something goes wrong, their name will immediately be put at the top of the "sh*t list."

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

I agree. If we don't give them a chance to go straight, how come we act so surprised when they re-offend, right?

Re:Of course!

[prefec2]

This also applies to many Europeans, because we do not have to pay large fees for university. But beside that, your upside is that you have most likely not the stigma of being a criminal and it is like those times during New Economy when they trained jobless people to become programmers. Truck drivers, carpenters etc. We had such people in our company as trainees. They didn't fit at all and they were not able to solve puzzles on their own. So don't worry. If you have good university grade CS degree or any other university degree in science you should be far better trained and equipped then they ever will be.

Re:Of course!

[sumdumass]

Well, I started out thinking there wasn't a law on the books yet, but here is some of what was done. I guess sealing the record is one thing.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/...

and

  http://www.ideastream.org/news...

Re:Of course!

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Exactly, buy them this book and they'll find no shortage of understanding and tolerant employers. ;-)

Re:Of course!

[ColdWetDog]

and with main talents like low to average IQ, poor impulse control and shitty judgment.

We should make them politicians, they would fit right in.

Re:Of course!

[dreamchaser]

It is not illegal to deny employment on the basis of criminal background. That's the very reason so many employers do background checks. It doesn't necessarily disqualify a person but it certain can be used in the decision making process.

Re:Of course!

[weilawei]

I believe you a </quote>

From Wiki:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly permits felony disenfranchisement. But it has been pointed out that constitutional approval of felons' political powerlessness is not the same as constitutional approval of government prejudice toward the politically powerless. Such prejudice may violate the Equal Protection Clause, which contains no provision authorizing discrimination against felons. A "discrete and insular" minority subject to prejudice, in particular, may be considered particularly vulnerable to oppression by the majority, and thus a suspect class worthy of protection by the judiciary.[6]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

[...]

Re:Of course!

[X10]

You mean the ones that will probably never get hired because of their criminal record?

Why get hired when you've just been taught how to hack into bank accounts?

Re:Of course!

[cascadingstylesheet]

40% of all working-age Americans have a criminal record.

If that's true ... then it's including some very violent subcultures. But we can't say that, of course.

Maybe we need to change the violent subcultures, instead of trying to shame people for not wanting to hire ex-cons.

Re:Of course!

[penix1]

Protected ones are race, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation isn't one of the "protected species". Sex (meaning mostly female) is though. Disability also isn't enumerated in the Constitution however there is the Americans with Disability Act that covers them. So to restate it they are race, religion, age, national origin and sex.

Re:Of course!

[phantomfive]

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

Re:Of course!

[squiggleslash]

Like the others, I'd be interested to see actual (US) court records of discrimination against ex-cons being illegal. There's an entire infrastructure out there focused on ensuring potential employers can find out if a person has a record or not. And while some professions may actually require discrimination to comply with, not contradict the law (such as high security positions), that doesn't explain why it's available for virtually everything.

(Of course, you may be talking about Canada which would have laws like that, because they tend to be a little more socially responsible.)

Re:Of course!

[squiggleslash]

What about if they're the best person for the job?

People make mistakes. Everyone does. Most of the time that doesn't result in a criminal conviction. In a small number of cases it does.

More-over, most of the students I went to University with are unconvicted criminals, guilty of serious felonies related to illegal drug use. Around 40% of prisoners are in prison for similar (as in drugs related) non-violent crimes.

What's (seriously) the difference between the two? Why do the guys who spent time get to be blocked from having the jobs given to the other guys, when both DID THE EXACT SAME CRIME?

Re:Of course!

[angel'o'sphere]

Well, that could happen to me, too.
I only do .aikido, no other martial arts. And the german courts are notorious for convicting the defender in 'a bar fight' for using 'excess violence' because they don't grasp the fact that being educated in a martial art does not give some super human powers to subdue a drunk violent guy who feels no pain and is in rage without hurting him.
Anyway, if you colleague put someone into hospital I wish that guy either deserved it *or* if not, he learned to hold his temper :)

Re:Of course!

[NormalVisual]

I never pressed him for the details of the fight, but my personal experience was that he's one of the most laid-back and funniest people I've ever known, and I've never seen him even come close to losing his temper. I wasn't making any kind of judgment regarding his conviction, just saying that having a felony on one's record doesn't mean one doesn't have legitimately marketable skills.

Re:Of course!

[kuzb]

Good luck with that background check. The more likely scenario is they come out of it with a new skill but nobody of any real importance will hire them because of their criminal record.

In the best case scenario they find some work with someone willing to take a chance. In the worst case, they're unemployable and start using those skills to further criminal activity.

Re:Of course!

[plopez]

Who may still owe 50k in restitution?

Re:Of course!

[WGFCrafty]

I made no value judgement about whether or not it was a good or a bad thing.

Employment is one of the largest factors in recidivism, but the jails themselves are another large factor. They most often are not "correctional" institutes, but universities for how to become a better criminal. I think a large part is that for the longest time they were merely to punish and not much thought given for afterwards. The US is well behind in this regard when compared to European prisons.

There is a reason that US prisons are stigmatized (I know this from what I've read, no first hand experience :-p).

But forcing people to hire felons is not the answer. The government already gives tax breaks to people who hire felons, that's about as good as it's going to get. A stick and carrot, not a baton. There's no reason to punish businesses for your mistake. Being able to not commit felonies is not something you put on your resume because it's generally understood to be a requirement in any higher level job unless you have very specific/unique qualifications.

Apparently the only high level jobs where it doesn't matter is being a US senator (Ted Stevens - Alaska (R)(dead) )

Re:Of course!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but they are already used to working in a 6x4 cell!

Re:Of course!

[russotto]

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).

Re:Of course!

[itsenrique]

A common attitude is "we already discriminate based on your credit score, age, looks, disability, race, and gender (even though those last 3 aren't supposed to be done). so why not your record?" A lot of rich folks also seem to be truly afraid of those with (notable, not a DUI) criminal records. Like an untouchability in India or something. Source: Charged with 2 felonies 7 years ago.

Re:Of course!

[Anonymous Coward]

The text you bolded amounts to "states can't take stuff away from someone because of prior misdeeds."

Nowhere does it say "employers are required to give jobs to people, regardless of prior misdeeds."

Failing to hire someone is not the same thing of depriving them of liberty. Or, spun the other way around, having committed a crime, and served your time for it, does not give you the right to deprive an employer of the liberty to hire somebody else.

Re:Of course!

[Opportunist]

He committed the worst crime of all: Getting caught.

Because, well, why should the employer give a fuck if he's hiring a crook as long as said crook knows how to avoid getting caught?

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

You make that sound like a universal truth when it isn't.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

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?

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

No, I was referring to another article. I even posted the link, but here's another reply, including both a link a quote that cites the stats from the US Dept of justice. Linky

. This does not include juveniles, or those where were just arrested, but adults with a criminal record (30% of all adults) and adults of working age with a criminal record (40% - which includes retirees, etc).

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

As another person pointed out, even in the US, there are laws against discrimination based on criminal record that apply to minority groups, which is a good thing because of all the stupid DWB stops that lead to confrontations which escalate into legal stupid-land.

Yes, we do better up here in Kanuckistan, but as much as we could. Some European countries "get it" more than we do, even though the logic is quite simple - if you want someone to not re-offend, the minimal thing to do is reduce the barriers to employment so they have less reason to re-offend.

Put someone on the street with no hope of employment, of course they'll re-offend. What other choice do they have? At least that way they get a roof over their head and food.

Re:Of course!

[MechaStreisand]

Do you really want them all to be unemployable, and having to return to crime to survive?

I don't, and most non-horrible people don't, but the prison-industrial complex does, and that's the enemy here.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

Who may still owe 50k in restitution?

In that case, all the more reason to reduce barriers to employment so they can compensate their victims.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

Businesses and individuals discriminate very little due to free market not approving of it.

I hope you don't really believe that. All the evidence says otherwise.

as long as a business can be sued in court for money by anybody claiming that business caused them damage by hiring an ex con and the client somehow lost something and now wants retribution and government allows him to sue because business maybe hired an ex fellon, as long as that is the case (and it is happening all the time), you bet businesses will not hire ex cons.

There's a program that not only bonds the employer against loss by hiring an ex-con, but also give them a tax break. So, if they're bonded and get sued, it's not their problem.

Re:Of course!

[OrangeTide]

This only increases the number of computer-savvy criminals that aren't smart enough not to get caught.

Re:Of course!

[OrangeTide]

Maybe it's time to see how other countries

...

You can stop right there. We don't care what other countries do, because they'll all eventually have McDonalds, Pizza Hut and diabetes.

The world will be reforged in America's own image!

Re:Of course!

[gweihir]

Simple: Offer high-quality software engineering, where the coder is also the problem-analyst, architect and designer. With that, most of the effort for a detail-spec can be skipped, as the coder already knows. And all changes during coding can immediately be cleared by the architect and designer. This eliminates a tremendous amount of overhead.

Now, that model is not for every problem and most coders cannot do it. It does require a project on higher difficulty-level. But it is a way of doing coding at full consulting rates, and the implementation cost is _lower_ as the implementation is about an order of magnitude faster and the result quality is significantly higher as the coder does understand the overall project. An yes, I am talking from experience.

As to low-cost low-skill coders (the majority): Sorry folks, you are doomed. Eventually, your jobs will vanish entirely, and before that they will get off-shored. The same fate happened to cobblers, smiths, scribes, etc. Some found a niche, all the other became redundant by technological advances.

Re:Of course!

[russotto]

I saw that article, but while it claims the numbers are from the DoJ, there's no cite and the link is dead. I'm fairly sure it's referring to the same study and the interpretation of the number has been perverted.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

Other studies give similar figures for the 30% of adults having a criminal record. The 40% of working-age adults having a criminal record is due to the simple fact that there are more younger people working, and the application of the law has become arbitrary.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

How do you expect a sex worker to get out of the trade

Sex work should not be criminal, period.

While I agree with you, not everyone who's in the sex trade is there by choice. You're young and foolish, get busted for something minor, get a record, and all of a sudden many job opportunities are closed to you. You've got to eat. You've got to have a place to live. What do you do? It's a real-life example of a Hobsons Choice.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

You're confusing transsexuals with cross-dressers again. Tsk, tsk. Also, the law disagrees with you.

Re:Of course!

[quenda]

... then it's including some very violent subcultures. But we can't say that, of course. Maybe we need to change the violent subcultures,

You mean young black males? Plenty have said that. But violent crime is responsible for a minority of the prison population, and a much smaller minority of convictions, and so those with criminal records. A huge number have records for non-violent drug offences.
It would be a lot easier to abolish the War on Drugs, given its blatant failure, than to change subcultures. Though cutting the flow of drug money wouldn't hurt.

Re:Of course!

[mysidia]

If you could easily get jobs with a criminal record there would probably be less recidivism. Making a law that forbids you from not hiring criminals would however be quite stupid. If you embezzle money, ....

If you have committed robbery, drug trafficking, DUI, sexual offenses, etc, we don't want you on our property, as our staff would feel uncomfortable knowing that their safety may be at risk due to having to work with some potential violent criminals, let alone trying to apply for a position.

We have customers who are schools, many employees need to visit their premises for various reasons, and they also require background checks on agents.

If we send some employee to a school, and they steal something, or commit rape or assault against a teacher or student, it is our company that would look bad.

Therefore, I think the idea of not discriminating against convicted criminals is insane.

Their jail term was their official sentence, but just b/c their jail term ended, does not mean that all members of society should be happy to accept them fully back into the fold with no questions, no restrictions, and the same level of trust as a 'clean' citizen.

Re:Of course!

[mysidia]

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.

Yeah..... but what about all the applicants for the same job who have a perfectly clean record and no recorded past lapses in judgement to be concerned about, And less risk to the employer of being sued because they 'knew' such and such person had committed that sort of crime before?

Maybe.... just maybe..... we should have a procedure for expunging such records, once all sentences/penalties for the offense have been concluded for at least 4 years, if the offense is a minor offense that did not involve the use of a deadly weapon in robbery or assault, vandalism or theft in excess of $1000, death or sexual assault of any person, if it was a first time offense, the individual was eligible for parole on any sentence, and the facts meets certain criteria, and some service is rendered to the community in remorse.

(Any future offense would re-open the record for at least 10 years).

Get an official "stamp" attached to the conviction/arrest records declaring it unlawful to make an adverse employment decision based on the existence of the record, and requiring all record brokerage companies to disclose only to the party, And forbid all employers, government agencies, and background check companies for reviewing or acting upon such record.

Re:Of course!

[rubycodez]

They're employable, but they won't be holding any good IT job, they do background checks.

That Police Captain of yours won't be working for a big accounting firm, he's forever disqualified.

Re:Of course!

[goose-incarnated]

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.

Good luck proving discrimination. Hell, half the stories here are about systemic discrimination in IT against females, and even that has yet to be proved successfully, in court, or in any peer reviewed journal. There is no PR war over systemic discrimination against ex-cons, and yet you still expect to see an employer prosecuted for discrimination of ex-cons?

Re:Of course!

[goose-incarnated]

How do you expect a sex worker to get out of the trade

Sex work should not be criminal, period.

While I agree with you, not everyone who's in the sex trade is there by choice.

That's true for all professions, excepting the star/celebrity ones.

Re:Of course!

[kjhambrick]

While there may not be a law against hiring felons, the Feds encourage the practice via the WOTC http://www.doleta.gov/business/incentives/opptax/wotcEmployers.cfm.

What disturbs me most is they place 'Ex-Felons' and Veterans on equal footing under the program

PHqing Feds.

-- kjh

Re:Of course!

[houghi]

One of the things that can be done is decriminalisation of certain "crimes" like the sexual worker as mentioned.

Making it legal (nog just tolerated) will increase safety for both workers and employees as well as lower the crimes connected to prostituation (trafficing and pimping). While regulation can keep it away from certain areas (e.g. schools or malls).
People unwilling to use the service will never be forced to do so.
People willing to work there, can do so within the legal parameters. Sure, some people will not like their job, They can still becaime call agents or work anywhere else (and have the right to hate that job as well)

From what I understand, the only reason it is illegal, is because some people do not like it that OTHERS do that job.

Re:Of course!

[fafalone]

New York, at least, does have such a law. In addition to not being allowed to ask about arrests that didn't result in conviction, they can't use an actual conviction to disqualify a candidate unless it was a very serious crime that would represent someone legitimately dangerous to the public, or if the crime is directly relevant to the job (e.g. thieves handling cash, drug offenders working in a pharmacy, etc).

Re:Of course!

[houghi]

In Belgium for some jobs, a background check can be done. However these are most likely NATO oriented. For other jobs sometimes a check can be asked. This means going to the police and get a certificate that indicates if there is a criminal record or not.

At this moment there are discussions about a change concerning the details.
This would mean that crimes would be linked to the job. e.g. a pedophile will be shown as having a record when going for a job with children, but not as a e.g. a cleaner during the night.

Also after a certain period, the slate will be clean. This will depend on the crime commited.

Re:Of course!

[Cederic]

I live in society, where transgendered people are accepted as people.

Re:Of course!

[Cederic]

Sex (meaning mostly female) is though.

I'm expecting feminists to demand that this program is shut down as it unfairly benefits men by giving them skills in a well remunerated profession.

Re:Of course!

[Cederic]

Possibly because both have a significantly higher prevalence of mental conditions than the general populace.

Differences in whether those conditions are cause or effect, but as an employer it's an additional factor that influences suitability for role.

Re:Of course!

[Cederic]

Unless you know of a few dozen of your fellow inmates who also pull in 6 digit salaries, I think you are a bit of a rare success story.

There may be a reason for this.

When I was in prison, I actually tried to learn programming and was denied the opportunity to even read coding books because the department of prisons said it would make me a smarter criminal.

Re:Of course!

[Cederic]

I must be strange. I encourage people to learn the skills that I have, help them get better at doing the work that I do, try and get them to be as effective as I am.

It's not a threat to me, and it doesn't cause me problems getting a job. Additional people skilled locally merely attracts more businesses to the area. Additional people skilled within the country may drive wages lower but that just means less work gets outsourced instead, and the roles that aren't outsourced will still remain and will continue to be career options with higher pay.

That's the nice thing about IT. There's always more work.

Re:Of course!

[Cederic]

Now I want to find a class in how to become a comical sidekick :(

Re:Of course!

[Half-pint HAL]

I was expecting to see this view come up, but I thought it would be under the heading "FIRST PSOT!!!11!!1!!"

Basic coding skills are a good thing, people. Every day as an IT guy, I would see intelligent people do things in a remarkably stupid, labour-intensive way, because they didn't understand how to automate repetitive tasks.

Re:Of course!

[Half-pint HAL]

I live in society, where transgendered people are accepted as people.

Hear, hear. If you don't want to refer to a transgendered person by their choice of pronoun, the polite thing is to avoid pronouns at all.

Re:Of course!

[Half-pint HAL]

Your current society is "permissive" and "socially liberal", and also it is a "free market economy". These links are not necessarily causal, however. The free market does discriminate, as employers are free to give lucrative jobs to there friends, and insurance companies can refuse to cover people as they're too high risk. If you look at any country with a state-controlled healthcare system, you'll see that they are by definition less discriminatory -- as the popular meme goes, Walter White would never have turned to making drugs in any country but the US.

Re:Of course!

[Half-pint HAL]

How do you expect a sex worker to get out of the trade

Sex work should not be criminal, period.

Why not?

Re:Of course!

[Half-pint HAL]

But once you legalise a profession, you have that (t)horny issue of public benefits and "willingness to work". Right now, people are forced into working in the shittiest places, for the shittiest bosses, because if they don't accept the job, they'll lose their unemployment benefit. There are very few reasons you can object, and this means that market forces don't force the employers to improve their working conditions.

If sex work was legal, eventually people would be "sanctioned" for refusing to interview for it.

Re:Of course!

[AmiMoJo]

You're confusing protected minorities with non-protected ones.

Protected ones are race, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation.

How does having a race, religion (or lack of), age or sexual orientation make you part of a minority? Doesn't everyone have those things?

Disability is the only one that would make you part of a minority.

Re:Of course!

[Coren22]

You should put something on sexual orientation to say "not in all jurisdictions" as there is no federal law about it yet, it only exists in some states.

Re:Of course!

[Coren22]

Your last sentence isn't actually true. Walter White turned to making drugs when the prospects for his family after he died would have been being poor. It was lack of time, not only the money for treatment. If he had proper life insurance, I am pretty sure he wouldn't have turned to making drugs, though the health insurance issues could be many. He was a teacher, so very likely his health insurance wasn't an issue.

Re:Of course!

[Coren22]

That time has come. White is now 50% of the population.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

With fewer people required to do all the work, thanks to productivity gains, we're going to be forced to address that one way or another.

3 or 4-day work weeks, job sharing, earlier retirement ...

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

The feds offer a plan to bond ex-cons while they try to get a job, as well a an additional tax credit.

Re:Of course!

[dave420]

Or you could realise that not letting people break out of a cycle of violence only guarantees it continues and draws more people into it...

Re:Of course!

[Slashdot Parent]

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

The "banksters" have armies of lawyers to ensure that what they are doing is legal, or at least pretty close to legal.

Also, the types of crimes that poor people commit are easier to detect than the type of crimes that rich people commit. A poor person smoking marijuana and a rich person committing securities fraud could be sitting right next to each other at a coffee shop, but guess who's going to jail? The one who smells like marijuana, because how's the cop supposed to know the rich guy is committing securities fraud?

It's not really "selective" in that the cop would rather bust the weed smoker. Hell, the securities fraud is probably a felony, so I'm sure the cop would rather bust the rich guy if he could. But to the cop, it's just a dude in a suit working on his laptop. Nothing illegal about that, right?

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

Thanks :-) In 20 years the poster is going to feel that their current position is silly, since we're pretty much everywhere and now aren't so reticent to stand up for our rights (after all, if we don't, why should others who aren't directly affected).

Re:Of course!

[Reziac]

Or maybe we can stop putting people in jail for trivial shit like selling pot. THAT is why we have this 'prison-industrial complex' in the first place -- because the War On Drugs generates a never-ending income stream by providing lots of low-risk, low-maintenance, highly-profitable prisoners (vs. actual violent criminals who are not nearly so profitable). I vaguely recall that about half of our prison population is there for drug-related offenses. I would guess that a disproportionate number of these nonviolent offenders are incarcerated at for-profit facilities. (I base that on reading about one for-profit prison's contract that didn't allow violent offenders at all.)

At any rate, I have mixed feelings about teaching a skill that can so readily be used to rob or bring down someone else, but it sure beats coming out of prison worse people and more socially-useless than they went in (as is so often the case right now).

Financially, I don't see that *any* kind of job training is going to trump selling drugs, not so long as prohibition keeps prices artificially high. So maybe the upside is that this will help those who have no marketable skills but really want a legal job to rise above that, even if it means taking a pay cut (compared to selling drugs).

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

There shouldn't be any government oppression where it concerns our private property and private deals.

So you think what the bansksters did, what insider traders continue to do, should be legal? Wow.

Re:Of course!

[Reziac]

Strange stat: the first five TG'd people I ever heard of (and I knew two of 'em) were all named Larry in their first life. Two were airline pilots. Clearly there's a correlation here. ;)

(Come to mention it, two took Samantha as their new name. Another correlation! ;)

I figure the pronoun follows from the person. If the person changes, so does the pronoun.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

I'm well aware of the discrimination against women in IT, against older IT workers, and against people whose skin colour is not "Snowy White" in IT. And yes, it's not just limited to IT. The real work is in changing peoples attitudes so that none of this matters. And that applies to ex-cons, single parents, people with mental illnesses, people with physical handicaps, and pretty much everything else.

Everyone here has baggage. Everyone.

Now I'm not saying that someone who was convicted of defrauding a bunch of people of their life's savings should get a job after that involves, say, setting up their own fund-raising scheme ... or that a serial pedophile should should be applying for a job working at a day-care. But even in those cases, there must be jobs that they can do to, at the very least, make some restitution to their victims.

We have a saying "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Once they've done their time, it's time to move on, fix what got them thrown in jail in the first place, and make sure to the best of our abilities that it doesn't happen again while allowing them to have a stake in being a law-abiding citizen.

Re:Of course!

[Reziac]

I know someone who had hired several ex-cons under such a program, sincerely hoping to help them get a new start. Had no luck with any of them, and the last two robbed her facility of restricted drugs (she was a veterinarian) and when they were caught selling the stolen drugs, SHE is the one who lost her license and (after fighting the ruling for a couple years) eventually lost her business entirely -- for "allowing" restricted drugs to be distributed without a prescription, even tho she was the one robbed and wronged here. In fact she narrowly avoided prosecution (losing her license was part of the deal).

This might not have happened in a state with a more-rational regulatory system and a less-predatory court system, but this was California.

Re:Of course!

[Reziac]

One suspects that were the War On Drugs abolished, its financial structure would collapse, thus pulling the rug out from under the violent subculture cuz now there'd be no money in it. But so long as it's profitable, it will continue (both the war and the subculture).

It's been pointed out that two of the primary lobbyists for "tough on drugs" laws are the for-profit prison industry, and foreign 'drug lords'.

Re:Of course!

[Slashdot Parent]

Eventually, some of these "low-rate bottom-of-the-barrel" coders will get better, same as you were once not so hot at what you do today.

And presumably they will expect a higher compensation at that time, which is commiserate with their improved skill level.

I worked for peanuts before I knew what the hell I was doing. That was then, this is now.

Re:Of course!

[Slashdot Parent]

Eh. I've been around the block a lot of times at this point. I'm not concerned that throngs of ex-cons might be interested to do what I do for less money. Most people, criminal record or not, would not be able to imitate what I do at any price.

Re:Of course!

[nmr_andrew]

Unless you know where the poster you're responding to is, I don't think you should be so sure about the law disagreeing. AFAIK, in the US, transgendered and transsexual are not protected classes federally, although they are protected in some states.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

Works for me :-) And those are strange coincidences.

Re:Of course!

[Reziac]

BTW I took a notion to check your journal... and for heaven's sake get a full thyroid panel (not just TSH, which by itself can be extremely misleading) and it needs to be done in the depths of depression, not when you're feeling fine. Undiagnosed or borderline hypothyroid is a major cause of unexplained depression, especially when accompanied by malaise and brain fog. There might not be ANY other symptoms. -- There's also a relationship between TSH and blood glucose.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

You have a point there. Up here in Kanuckistan, the courts have already said we're protected based on the constitutional protection against discrimination by sex. The judge must have had a sense of humor when he said "if discrimination based on sexual identity isn't discrimination based on sex, what is?"

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

Check with your provincial human right commission. Example from the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms

18.2. No one may dismiss, refuse to hire or otherwise penalize a person in his employment owing to the mere fact that he was convicted of a penal or criminal offence, if the offence was in no way connected with the employment or if the person has obtained a pardon for the offence.

Other provinces have similar rules.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

Thanks. I was thinking that low thyroid might have had something to do with it, so I asked my psychiatrist at my list visit,and he said no, this is typical of a really severe depression. (and this was certainly severe and extended).

However, I will mention it to my endocrinologist so maybe he can put it on the list of things to check each time when I see him next month, since he does regular blood tests for all sorts of things anyway (hey, it might even be on the list already :-). If there's a problem, I certainly want to know so it can be fixed, and maybe lessen the impact of the next episode.

Unfortunately, PTSD can come with lots of side effects, major depression being one of them. On a brighter note, I found myself humming "I Feel Good" when I was getting dressed this morning. It's sure been a long time I haven't been able to say that.

Re:Of course!

[david_thornley]

Some need for security?

I have full access to the most critical asset my company has: the source code that makes us able to do what we do. There's no way to stop me from taking it to a competitor if I decide to. In many of my jobs, I've needed full access to production data for troubleshooting, and had it. Some of that data was very salable on the black market. As it happens, I'm a pretty honest guy, and never would do that, but that doesn't apply to everybody.

Programming is usually a job that requires trust.

Re:Of course!

[Reziac]

I have Hashimoto's thyroiditis, which is commonly not well understood by general practitioners (to the point of doing exactly the wrong thing for the patient's welfare, because that makes the numbers look good, but leads to immune attacks on not only the thyroid gland, but also sometimes the eyes and other organs). In sheer self-defense, I've had to become an expert, mainly by reading the Journal of Endocrinology.

Removal of the testes is going to affect thyroid production, tho that's something I haven't looked into. If thyroid proves normal, you might ask about slightly increasing your testosterone (females need this too) and/or estrogen intake, or progesterone (which is a mood elevator in some people). Your TG hormone cocktail isn't going to be quite stable if the thyroid isn't right, either.

Low thyroid can affect just about everything. If your depression is at all alleviated by eating, that's a strong redflag, since the food serves to improve blood sugar (albeit temporarily) when thyroid is not doing the job.

https://soylentnews.org/commen...

and that was just what I could recall at that moment; about a dozen more came to mind later, like constipation, chest pain in the region of the heart, mild palsy, loss of coordination, and vertigo.

Also, thyroid production trails off with age... a great many "problems of aging" go away with thyroid replacement, but it is seldom done for that sort of patient. A lot of elderly are suffering needlessly as a result.

Re:Of course!

[Reziac]

Forgot to mention -- spaying/neutering in dogs causes hypothyroidism in a significant percentage of individuals (up to 20% depending on which stats you look at).

34. Milne KL, Hayes HM Jr. Epidemiologic features of canine hypothyroidism. Cornell Vet. 1981;71:3-14.
35. Panciera DL. Hypothyroidism in dogs: 66 cases (1987-1992). JAVMA 1994;204:761-7.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

Ouch - 20% looks VERY significant. There's a bit of irony that the studies were on dogs - it's been a while since anyone called me a b*tch - at least to my face :-)

Thanks :-)

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

I test my blood sugar, and it's pretty normal (except a couple of nights ago when I miscalculated and woke up in the middle of the night with it at half what it should be. It happens once in a while, but not too often).

Re:Of course!

[Reziac]

If your depression is indeed low thyroid, that's one of the very easiest things to fix, and that in turn fixes loads of other stuff. And if you can persuade 'em to prescribe natural desiccated thyroid instead of or in addition to synth, that's usually better (not always. But I definitely do better on NDT.)

Yeah, the spay/neuter craze has done dogs no good. (In most of Europe it's considered mutilation, and in some countries is even illegal, but that's changing -- not for the better.) Cancer rates skyrocket (four times higher in some breeds). Other health issues that increase significantly: temperament issues, especially fearfulness and inappropriate aggression. Joint disorders, notably ACL and hip dysplasia. Immune issues including fatal blood disorders.

A good overview:
http://speakingforspot.com/blo...

another, with numerous citations:
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs...

a few studies I happen to have bookmarked:

http://journals.plos.org/ploso...

http://avmajournals.avma.org/d...

a vet's rant:
http://www.angryvet.com/neuter...

Unwanted puppies? There's an ancient invention that adequately covers that problem. They use it in Europe. It's called a leash.

Be well. I'd miss you. :)

Re:Of course!

[Agripa]

But an arrest record seems to be a big deal in the US and is tracked? Unlike in many other common law countries where an arrest, even with a charge, means *nothing* whatsoever if you are not convicted or charges are dropped, and it cannot be used against you in any way.

Yes, arrest records are tracked and a job application may specifically ask about arrests.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

Those links tend to agree with my experience with dogs. And it really IS the owner, not the dog, that is usually the problem. If a dog is properly socialized, why "alter" them to change their behavior. The comments under the Angry Doctor implying that spay or neuter should be obligatory fail to address the real problem - there wouldn't be too many dogs if dog owners were more responsible.

Glad your condition is under control. And it's almost midnight here, and strangely enough, I'm not really tired. I think it's getting notably better every day.

And yes, I'd miss me too :-) Thanks.

Re:Of course!

[goose-incarnated]

I'm well aware of the discrimination against women in IT, against older IT workers, and against people whose skin colour is not "Snowy White" in IT. And yes, it's not just limited to IT. The real work is in changing peoples attitudes so that none of this matters. And that applies to ex-cons, single parents, people with mental illnesses, people with physical handicaps, and pretty much everything else.

Everyone here has baggage. Everyone.

Now I'm not saying that someone who was convicted of defrauding a bunch of people of their life's savings should get a job after that involves, say, setting up their own fund-raising scheme ... or that a serial pedophile should should be applying for a job working at a day-care. But even in those cases, there must be jobs that they can do to, at the very least, make some restitution to their victims.

We have a saying "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Once they've done their time, it's time to move on, fix what got them thrown in jail in the first place, and make sure to the best of our abilities that it doesn't happen again while allowing them to have a stake in being a law-abiding citizen.

I do not disagree with any of the above; what you said was:

expect any suspected discrimination to be challenged in the courts

and what I said in reply to that was:

Good luck proving discrimination.

I do not expect to see widespread (hell, even in limited numbers above a single percentage point) challenges of discrimination in court. Firstly, in most jurisdictions it is legal for employers to discriminate based on criminal record. Secondly, if you found a jurisdiction which makes it illegal to discriminate against ex-cons, how the hell would you prove a particular ex-con was discriminated against?

I mean, even with the whole organised PR campaign against discrimination of women, we have yet to see a successful case of an employer discriminating against females.

Re:Of course!

[BarbaraHudson]

I mean, even with the whole organised PR campaign against discrimination of women, we have yet to see a successful case of an employer discriminating against females.

Maybe you didn't look hard enough, but hey, what's measly $185 million dollar award to one woman for discrimination by an employer

California Jury Awards Record $185M Verdict to Female Employee

Why it matters: A California jury made national headlines and terrified employers across the country when it awarded $185 million in punitive damages (and less than $1 million in compensatories) to a female employee who alleged gender and pregnancy discrimination against AutoZone. The plaintiff told the jury that she was encouraged to step down from a managerial position when she became pregnant; when she refused to do so and complained about the discrimination she faced, she was first demoted and later terminated. Jurors awarded her a total of $872,719 in compensatory damages and then returned to deliberate on punitives, deciding on $185 million – what is being called the largest verdict ever for an individual in an employment case. In a statement, AutoZone said it intends to appeal the record-setting verdict. The staggering dollar amount of the settlement should reiterate the importance for employers of complying with anti-discrimination laws.

After all, it's only a record-setter :-)

Re:Of course!

[Half-pint HAL]

And I also find it difficult to see how we can allow people to submit to irreversible surgery without having physical symptoms to diagnose, but A) I do not know whether any particular transgendered individual I encounter has a clinically diagnosed intersex disorder or not, and B) even if I was talking to someone who was entire self-identified as "transgender", I still wouldn't want to be a dick, so I wouldn't be talking about "Legal-Fiction-Land" or other such judgemental claptrap.

Re:Of course!

[Half-pint HAL]

Hey, I'm all in favor of people having the chance to be who they want to be. I just don't believe it's possible for a male to become female, or vice versa.

Saying, "Hey everybody, BarbaraHudson is pretending to be female, let's all pretend with him!" doesn't make it fact.

I'm not asking you to do that. I'm just asking you not to be a dick about it. I don't believe in god, I don't believe in market liberalism, I don't believe Apple deserves its reputation as "cool"... but I don't go around trolling people anonymously for disagreeing with me on that.

It would be different if you were to raise a rational argument around the therapeutic value of gender realignment surgery, with reference to published statistics... but even then, it would still be very much off-topic for the discussion.

So basically you're trolling.

Re:Of course!

[dreamchaser]

I didn't do anything of the sort. It 'doesn't necessarily' disqualify an applicant is all I said. It does not. The converse of that is it also often does.

Obligatory joke,,,

[tchdab1]

...about capitalism doing it the other way around.

What could possibly go wrong?

[BitZtream]

Are we going to use them for NSA contractors, coders for various banks and such? Maybe let them write software for various government contracts right? Great idea!!

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[svanheulen]

Yeah, there's no way they could ever be of benefit to society. Lets just let them rot in prison and then when they get out they'll have no marketable skills and go back to committing crimes... That's a much better plan.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[NormalVisual]

Remember - by law, you can't discriminate against them.

True in some cases, but not as a blanket statement. The EEOC says an employer's policies regarding one's criminal history cannot be used as an employment criteria if:

They significantly disadvantage Title VII-protected individuals such as African Americans and Hispanics; AND
They do not help the employer accurately decide if the person is likely to be a responsible, reliable, or safe employee.

I had a former co-worker that was convicted of felony battery years prior to the current job. The employer would have been well within their rights to deny him a job based solely on the second criteria.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[AmiMoJo]

Many cops in the UK have criminal records, it doesn't seem to be an impediment to employment for them.

"Pretends to be online"?

[wonkey_monkey]

the class only "pretends" to be online

In what way - and why - does it "pretend" to be online?

Re:"Pretends to be online"?

[BarbaraHudson]

Because too many n00bs think that "on-line" == "on the 'REAL' internet".

Re:"Pretends to be online"?

[schlachter]

they post snarky comments in their web browser which dumps them to dev/null and notifications with static text like "love u 4 ever dog" keep popping up on their desktop.

Re:"Pretends to be online"?

[s0litaire]

Because it's on a physically isolated network with its own server.
All documentation and resources required for the course have to be sourced checked /edited and then put on to the network by the staff.

BBC Click Online did a segment on it last week.

Re:"Pretends to be online"?

[MisterSquid]

they post snarky comments in their web browser which dumps them to dev/null and notifications with static text like "love u 4 ever dog" keep popping up on their desktop.

The real tragedy will happen once they've finished paying their debts to society and they get full access to the Internet with no one having told them not to read the comments.

Prisoners of their firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

Next week they will start a course on building security, beginning with how to find weak spots.
It's okay, these prisoners are locked up in prison.

Actually, I'd like to see the reverse of that . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

When I am sometimes debugging some " programmers' " code . . . I think that the programmer belongs in jail.

No Internet?

[tonywestonuk]

When I learnt programming on an old VIC20, there was no stinking internet.... just a few books I got from the library. Really, I think that the internet can be a huge distraction.... and, if cut off from the internet, I would probably do my best work!

Re:No Internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough is enough: I've had it with the motherfucking code on the motherfucking plane!

Re:No Internet?

[TeknoHog]

Code on a plane; it's wonderful.

Just don't use Python.

Re: No Internet?

[WarJolt]

The problem with that is now coding is about reusing as much as possible. If it takes 10 weeks to write a library or 10 seconds to download some open source library then the guy who takes 10 weeks is going to get schooled by the the guy who takes 10 seconds.

Re:No Internet?

[jopsen]

Really, I think that the internet can be a huge distraction.... and, if cut off from the internet, I would probably do my best work!

Agree... but I fear I would be inventing a wheel that already exists :)

So much coding today is finding libraries and stitching them together...

Re: No Internet?

[Darinbob]

Not always. Very often that code you download is utterly inappropriate for various reasons, and it may take more than 10 weeks to squeeze it into shape, after which you have programmers who just don't understand it at all and are unable to maintain it in any sensible format, but it's been smacked around so much that it's too difficult to pick up the next set of patches if they do come out.

Then there is the guy who is schooled because his 10 second download just won't fit on the target, is too slow for the customer, or the legal department refuses to allow it's inclusion.

Re:No Internet?

[Darinbob]

I suspect this isn't really programming, but writing in some sort of markup language, or using a GUI that creates the markup language for you. That's where most of the "programming" jobs are.

Re: No Internet?

[zippthorne]

How is this a problem?

Re:No Internet?

[jopsen]

just develop open source... or don't distribute... Two things are easy to do today...So much of the would is service oriented.

Not just programming

[sir-gold]

While we are at it, lets teach them chemistry, horticulture, and forensics too.

That way, they will have the skills to become professional criminals when they get out, instead of the amateur criminals they were when they got caught originally.

Re:Not just programming

[DanielOom]

America is falling behind compared to malware production overseas:-)

Incidentally, our country had a very similar program about twenty years ago.

Re:Not just programming

[AmiMoJo]

*facepalm*

The whole point of giving them skills is to give them a realistic chance of going straight when they get out. If they come out of prison and are unemployable they will fall back into crime. If they can build some kind of non-criminal life instead the stats suggest that most do.

Slave labor

[Anonymous Coward]

Also see "Today in innovations in Slave Labor magazine!"

Great way to outsource jobs from those that get paid fair market wages to a captive audience of people without choice!

How about teaching them management skills

[Opportunist]

I mean, they are already criminals, the rest should be easy.

Re:How about teaching them management skills

[AthanasiusKircher]

I mean, they are already criminals, the rest should be easy.

Precisely. There's often a lot of talk about allowing blue-collar workers to be empowered to transition or work their way up to white-collar jobs -- through education, training, etc.

So why not train blue-collar criminals so they can work their way up to white-collar crime? They need a career after all. And dealing drugs on the street corner is not a way to pay your bills, let alone moving up in the world. Why be stuck mugging people and earning $20 or $50 or whatever, when they could be embezzling, commiting financial fraud, or peddling bad investments and making millions?

[/sarcasm]

Except...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most tech companies have such a shortage in U.S. criminal coders that they need more H1-Bs to bring over foreign criminals to code for them.

Tuition-Free

[Anonymous Coward]

"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".

Re:Tuition-Free

[prefec2]

As we all know fruits can be a dangerous weapon, especially bananas. I saw a British documentary on that topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
However, people got shot for less by policemen in the US.

j/k

[WGFCrafty]

apt-get update
Connecting to..... lol just kidding.

Dupe from Nov 25, 2013

[Anonymous Coward]

This story already appeared on Slashdot back on Nov 25, 2013. So how many ex-con coders have been hired since then? How successful is this program? Given the prevalence of really short "boot camp" coder training programs, many cohorts of these ex-con coders should have been released from prison (they're not training lifers or long-term convicts, are they?) and established themselves in the workforce. We should have some hard numbers by now about how effective this program is.

Re:Dupe from Nov 25, 2013

[Nethemas the Great]

It makes people feel good. Who cares if it or other job training programs work. If we actually gave a sh*t then criminal record consideration for employment would illegal. The reality is that there are only a handful of states with such laws, many that do only apply to public employment. Given this environment, recidivism is all but guaranteed. We just want to keep these people locked up, out of site, out of mind. Sure it's expensive, but it's also a great way to manage minority populations. After all not everyone can be deported.

Good grief!

[YrWrstNtmr]

'Coding' is not the be-all and end-all of 'good jobs'. Plumbing, carpentry, electrical...any one of a thousand other professions.

J.O.B.
Do that first.

Of all the money spent on this program, I predict exactly 1 person will actually end up with a job as a 'coder'. (and he will suck at it)

Re:Good grief!

[serviscope_minor]

The converse is that what is so special about coding compared to other things that people think it shouldn't be taught?

Re:Good grief!

[Shortguy881]

I think this shows the desperate need for talented developers in the US. Personally, I am all for this program. The more medium to sub par programmers that get pushed out is more work for me to come back and clean up.

Because that's a good idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

never hire a systems administrator or programmer that you can't trust. You may as well hire a housekeeper that's hot for your spouse.

Can't add, Illiterate

[wisnoskij]

Half these people probably cannot even add or divide, and 10% are probably illiterate. But for all means give then a 4 month coding course.

Re:Can't add, Illiterate

[mjwalshe]

I think you mean dyslexic a shocking number of inmates have dyslexia

In a related news...

[ctrl-alt-canc]

...given the expected shortage of coders , CEOs of most importan IT companies are lobbying the government to have more people sent to prison.

they also get a doctor for free

[Joe_Dragon]

they also get a doctor for free

Could certainly make "scrums" more interesting ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

... and painful ...

Criminals? No, not for coding...

[rbrander]

..."Enterprise Software Systems Architect". "Framework Analyst". "Data Modelling Architecture Consultant".

These are the positions that suck $200/hour out of your accounts as they ask you to explain for the fourth time how you manage your list of projects and track their progress and pay their bills. Tens, then hundreds of thousands will disappear like Danny Ocean and the Boys had visited your bank, as your hoped-for upgrade to your Access application is turned into a web-based app with 20-second response time.

Former(?) criminals would be the 'best fit' for these jobs as a certain indifference to the customer's costs, stress and general suffering is valuable.

What's next?

[cascadingstylesheet]

Who will we teach to "code" next?

Babies? Nursing home residents? Beagles?

what could possibly go wrong

[Karmashock]

I am all for rehabilitating of criminals. But you need to be careful about the way you do it.

Re:Actually, I'd like to see the reverse of that .

[angel'o'sphere]

Wow, you work at a good place then.
We usually think about dragging the responsible person into the basement, keeping him there for a few days in darkness and then torture him.
The milder cases we want to drag outside and simply shot in public ...
Unfortunately both practices are rather unpopular in germany since 50 years :-/

Got my Spidersense Tingling.

[d00m.wizard]

I think anything to reduce the recidivism rate is a really good thing (at risk of sounding like the Northern California Bay Area native that I am) - I have severe concerns about the end results - as prisons are increasingly becoming a method of outsourcing within United States borders I could see this being a stepping stone towards a large minimally paid imprisoned work force. Uni-cor already outsources plenty of call-center activities to prison, and much of the clerical work for the government is being processed by prisoners paired with the increasing privatization of all aspect of incarceration - add up to greater incentives to having a large number of the population incarcerated. Of course the non-alarmist part of me really like the idea of people learning, and hopes this program was created with good intentions - maybe the instructors could set-up a Github of some of the impressive work?

Obligatory jailbreak joke

[GreatDrok]

They better watch what they google for.

Accountability

[globaljustin]

Are we going to use them for NSA contractors, coders for various banks and such?

I'd trust a reformed ex-com before I'd trust the NSA and 'various banks'...one has at least has had accountability and rehabilitation

you're a fool if you think otherwise

idiot

[globaljustin]

it's wrong *not* to give them the basic services humans need

their rights have been revoked...so they are "wards of the state" and must be treated humanely

wow, this is just great

[Pro923]

If I wasn't pissed off enough already by the dilution of the worth of writing code because of free software, now we're effectively turning this profession into some sort of chain gang related activity? This should really help my net worth. Another great idea!

Re:wow, this is just great

[Shados]

There hasn't been much value in writing code in a LONG time. You still need someone to do it, and it is somewhat time consuming (enough that people that do it aren't competing with bugger flippers...), but really, 95% of the value is between the time someone thinks up of a problem with a solution and its implementation design, until they open the text editor and start typing. After that point, a monkey could do it with a bit of support.

Re:wow, this is just great

[Pro923]

Well that's exactly the current perception that is held by almost everyone - except me of course. There's a special ability that very few possess that makes them great coders - this is the ability to take an idea and turn it into code in a way that hasn't been done before, or in a way that is better than that which has been done before. Most people on the planet don't have the ability to make something "out of the blue" - meaning (I doubt I can phrase this in such a way that I get my idea across) that most people take a problem and solve it by using algorithms that have been written before for solving a similar problem. Take Einstein for example. What made him so brilliant - in my mind - was that he came up with the idea of special relativity by just thinking it up. The idea behind it - that we're trapped in a very small frame of reference compared to the vast scale of velocities - is brilliant because he had no example or physical hint that gave him the idea. He just thought it up. Afterwards, we were able to prove some of it through experimentation - but the initial idea, without any of that experimental evidence is a very rare and unique brain indeed. Some people use a bubble sort algorithm. I prefer to rethink the problem every time. When I was about 10, I realized that a nested loop resembles a square and is somewhat inefficient by a factor of 2. All you really need is a triangle.
for a = 1 to 10; a++
    for b = 1 to a; b++
        if b is greater than a, switch a and b

I'm not saying that I'm Einstein or even nearly possess his intelligence or ability to perceive, but I excel at that part that you describe as a monkey - which I personally believe has a lot more value than most people think.

Re:wow, this is just great

[Pro923]

lol, I didn't think... for b = 1 to (10 - (a-1)); b++

Background check: FAIL

[msobkow]

I've never had a "good" programming job that didn't require a background check. The odds of a convicted criminal getting a job at any of those companies is ZERO.

Re:Background check: FAIL

[Slashdot Parent]

Presumably, there would be incentives for employers who hire the ex-cons. Obviously they wouldn't be appropriate to work in all roles, but I'm sure there's something that they could do.

Re:Background check: FAIL

[Nethemas the Great]

Except there aren't. There are incentive for NOT hiring them. Nobody wants the liability, it doesn't matter what the profession. Nobody wants to be in the same room with a criminal. They want them locked up and never exposed to such elements.

Re:Background check: FAIL

[Slashdot Parent]

There are incentive for NOT hiring them.

Of course that's the case now. I'm talking about the folks who go through the prison coding bootcamp. Part of the program will need to be incentives for hiring the ex-cons. Otherwise, you're right, they'll never get hired, and they'll just be ex-cons who now know how to write C#.

Nobody wants to be in the same room with a criminal. They want them locked up and never exposed to such elements.

I hate to break this to you, but I bet a lot of your coworkers have broken one law or another. They just never got caught. Are you only a criminal if you have a record?

I got our cats to start coding..

[toonces33]

But so far I only have them using sandboxing. The next steps are going to be harder.

In a privatized correctional facility system ...

[CptJeanLuc]

... it makes sense to receive money to teach inmates a skill which is very unlikely to result in employment opportunities, while preventing the inmate from spending the time on other and more productive training, thus effectively reducing the chances of employment, and increasing the chances of another stay and the chance to take a follow-on course in advanced programming.

Ok, so this is slightly cynical and based on not even reading the article, maybe there is something else going on here ... but after watching too many hours of The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and similar, this is the most probable explanation that comes to mind.

the benefits of criminality

[swell]

It has been suggested that you can not be a member of Congress or other high office unless you have a criminal background.

The theory is that there are certain powers who decide who may enter exalted positions. These 'powers' need to know that you will perform according to their wishes if elected. The way they do that is to have information about you. Information that could destroy you and any public support you may have accumulated. Once this is ascertained, you and they will come to an agreement about how you will behave in office. If you are a good boy or girl, you will be allowed a long political career.

If, OTOH, you are squeaky clean in all your doings ... you have no hope of being elected.

It's just the reverse of the cubicle system

[Chrisq]

It's just the reverse of the cubicle system .. which turned coders into prisoners

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

learn data processing in your spare time!

[Thud457]

Waitaminute, isn't that how Superman 3 started?!

Cheap website mate...

[akayani]

How did you get a website done so cheaply? Did your son do it?
No mate it was San Quentin Design Inc.

Seriously, do you really want a bunch of criminals with mood issues doing programming? I guess they will be perfect staff for Facebook!

Huge shortage of criminal IT personnel!

[braindrainbahrain]

I mean it's so bad, drug gangs have to kidnap people to get IT support! This program is just a market response to that huge demand

Problem solving skills! Hey!

[duck_rifted]

Learning mathematics actually restructures your brain. Programming involves math, but it's more natural because as much as we use math, we define our own in code. It's actually a great vehicle for studying mathematics. But more importantly, it teaches problem solving skills and solution modelling, and it trains the brain to think in terms of systems and separations of concerns.

That makes teaching criminals to program actually a great idea! We don't have to teach them how to do anything bad. There's no need to teach network code, nor how to mess with anything at the system level. Now think about the motivations and mentalities involved in criminality, especially among repeat offenders.

In programming, if they teach low enough level, there's a need to either do book keeping to maintain memory or a need to trust (and properly use) systems that do book keeping for you. Hey, just like managing money! There are rules that must be followed for code to work, consequently systems build upon code, and then that produces new rules that also must be followed. Just like society! What is the most overlooked cause of recidivism? Unemployable convicts. Programming can enable them to be self-starters who hire themselves, and they can start building their future products while they're locked up.

This couldn't possibly make more sense. The only argument I can see against it is that sociopaths infatuated with money might think people will go to prison just to learn to program or to develop software. I'd say that if somebody will do that, they'd go anyway.

Re:Must be nice

[BarbaraHudson]

That's the problem. I invest in the public and I get no return for this. It is nowhere. Maybe someone can tell me, "WELL DUH IT'S RIGHT HERE"

Oh - well, duh, it's right here - you get many of them out of the revolving door of crime and jail time. Economically, you're not longer spending $75k a year to pen them up - and they're paying taxes.

Re:better than the university

[BarbaraHudson]

So if I want to become a pro hacker I can just kill someone and get punished by getting sent to a "prison" where I am educated 8 hours a day in programming?

wow, this is better than my local university

There IS a down side - all the sex you never wanted.

a lot of hostility to prisoners here

[HongPong]

I think it shows a lot of insecurity about tech jobs that so many people here attack prisoners and fear job market competition from them after some basic tech training.

It is great that people could learn a trade which would let them prosper and be rewarded for their efforts. This could be much worse - they could be trained to become lawyers!