Best and worst crimes for employment?

[Barrister]

I suppose there are plenty of jobs out there that don't care about minor offences.  Vehicle drivers, fast food workers, delivery boys, janitors etc.  But there is no way one can get an office job with a record.

Bah.  Most employers are pretty lazy.  I'm surprised how many do almost no checks.

I'm prosecuting the manager of a jewelry store.  He's charged with stealing from said jewelry store.  Once he was fired he managed to get a job at another jewelry store.  Now he's charged not convicted so a crim records check wouldn't have helped, but surely a phone call to the former employer would have been entertaining...

[Martinus]

All do not want.

Seems though some of those vary. Like the police problems group - fictitious info to police/delay doesn't seem as bad as assault/resist.

You wouldn't hire someone who carried an open container of beer in public? You are fucking nuts. 

[Martinus]

Interesting responses, Ed and Cal.  Is anything prostitution-related an automatic no?  Or just the sexual battery (which essentially means groping) and the indecent exposure.

Yeah, it's funny how they wouldn't hire someone who is guilty of indecent exposure but would hire a DWI perp. 

A lot of the "crimes" on this list shouldn't even be crimes in the first place, not to mention should not disqualify someone from being hired.

America: fucked up country. This thread just confirms this.

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah, it's funny how they wouldn't hire someone who is guilty of indecent exposure but would hire a DWI perp. 

Kind of hard to commit DWI in the break room.

[Martinus]

It might be worth mentioning that, for my part, I don't agree with many of our laws here (e.g. anti-prostitution laws, most anti-drug laws), but I think it's important to not hire people who think they don't have to follow the law, even if I may not agree with said law.  I don't trust such people to obey the company's policies and represent the company well, and I don't think I have a right to nullify the law just because I don't happen to like it.

The only problem is that a lot of these laws are very arbitrary and most people guilty of these crimes are simply unlucky. Most likely, someone who has a conviction for smoking pot is not a less upstanding citizen than someone who doesn't, it's just that the former was unlucky enough to get caught and the latter wasn't. Likewise, a lot of the "crimes" may be used to target and harass ethnic or sexual minorities.

[Martinus]

Yeah, it's funny how they wouldn't hire someone who is guilty of indecent exposure but would hire a DWI perp. 

Kind of hard to commit DWI in the break room.

Wow, you are an idiot.

[Eddie Teach]

Wow, you are an idiot.

Wow, that's a pretty harsh response for replying to one of Marty's posts.

Oh, shit- I'm doing it again. I guess you're right. 

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah, it's funny how they wouldn't hire someone who is guilty of indecent exposure but would hire a DWI perp. 

A lot of the "crimes" on this list shouldn't even be crimes in the first place, not to mention should not disqualify someone from being hired.

America: fucked up country. This thread just confirms this.

Pretty funny coming from a pedophile apologist.

[Ed Anger]

if you want the job bad enough, and it's not for a LEO or anything that requires a TS or TS/SCI or anything like that, fucking lie.

If they do and I hired that person, they better hope I never, ever find out. I will rip a hold in time/space moving so fast to terminate.

At the same time, you basically said you'd bar employment for all but really minor stuff, so what, exactly, is the benefit to not lying?  Not being found out a year later and getting canned, and having to explain either the termination or the gap in employment?  Sure, but most people like to eat.

And I like to hire non-scuzzballs.

[Admiral Yi]

Martim:  We're not talking about just bouncing a check.  We're talking about a fraud--fake checks, something like that.

It's still nuts though that in Portugal the bank is required to cover an overdraft <50.

[dps]

Interesting responses, Ed and Cal.  Is anything prostitution-related an automatic no?  Or just the sexual battery (which essentially means groping) and the indecent exposure.

Yeah, it's funny how they wouldn't hire someone who is guilty of indecent exposure but would hire a DWI perp. 

A lot of the "crimes" on this list shouldn't even be crimes in the first place, not to mention should not disqualify someone from being hired.

America: fucked up country. This thread just confirms this.

Did you miss the part where Capetan Mihali said that these were all misdemeanors?  Or where Seedy mentioned that in many jurisdictions, they aren't even bookable (or are bookable, but usually are handled just by a citation)?

Plus, we're talking about looking at this from a hiring perspective.  If I knowingly hire a new cashier or sales clerk who has a prior conviction for indecent exposure and he later exposes himself to our customers or other employees, it at best reflects badly on the company and potentially opens us up to liability for his behavior.  If I knowingly hire a new cashier or sales clerk who has a prior conviction for DWI and he later gets arrested while driving home from a party drunk, it doesn't really reflect on us and we won't have any liability.

[Threviel]

Martims post sort of explains why Portugal is an economic basket case though. I would rather live in the US, with it's rather harsh laws, than Portugal where no one seems to care about the rules.

[DGuller]

It might be worth mentioning that, for my part, I don't agree with many of our laws here (e.g. anti-prostitution laws, most anti-drug laws), but I think it's important to not hire people who think they don't have to follow the law, even if I may not agree with said law.  I don't trust such people to obey the company's policies and represent the company well, and I don't think I have a right to nullify the law just because I don't happen to like it.

The only problem is that a lot of these laws are very arbitrary and most people guilty of these crimes are simply unlucky. Most likely, someone who has a conviction for smoking pot is not a less upstanding citizen than someone who doesn't, it's just that the former was unlucky enough to get caught and the latter wasn't. Likewise, a lot of the "crimes" may be used to target and harass ethnic or sexual minorities.

More than likely, someone caught with pot had an aggravating circumstance, like being black.

[DGuller]

Did you miss the part where Capetan Mihali said that these were all misdemeanors?  Or where Seedy mentioned that in many jurisdictions, they aren't even bookable (or are bookable, but usually are handled just by a citation)?

Arbitrary discretion in enforcement doesn't really make bad laws better.  Quite the contrary, in fact.

[dps]

Did you miss the part where Capetan Mihali said that these were all misdemeanors?  Or where Seedy mentioned that in many jurisdictions, they aren't even bookable (or are bookable, but usually are handled just by a citation)?

Arbitrary discretion in enforcement doesn't really make bad laws better.  Quite the contrary, in fact.

I don't disagree, but the main point was that these are misdemeanors we're talking about, not felonies.