Support NeoGAF

[Piecake]

The problem is that women are generally smaller and physically weaker than men. So if a man hits a woman, the injury to the women will be far in excess of the threat she posed to the man. The disparity would be the same, if we were talking about an 80 year old man and a 20 year old. The better course is to push her away, leave and/or call the police.

You do realize your basic argument revolves around the fact that because a man his bigger and stronger he deserves to be unemployed and live in poverty while a women, because she is small and weak, should be able to find employment and move on with her life and get a job?

I honestly don't know how you dont see that as totally unfair and wrong

 

[Telephoto999]

What if you push her and she falls and fractures her skull? When the cops interrogate me and the judge sentences me for manslaughter, I'll be like "But hey, I didn't hit her!" They'll be like "Oh, shit, you a'ight," and give me time served.

Speaking of time served, when I was arrested I spent 32 hours in lockup. This was how long it took to dress me, intake me and then get me processed for release due to the amount of people they had arrested that evening alone. It was absolutely staggering how many people pass through the justice system on a daily basis and this was only one county in Georgia.

 

[Fantasmo]

Ignore people like Brolic Gaologer. They are useless to you, they want to see you suffer forever. People like him aren't capable of being convinced, and want to see you penniless and broke and live out one bad choice for the rest of your life. Luckily, there are people that won't want to.

Thacker, it's "telling" when people say "it's telling". Whenever you hear "it's telling" when you haven't done ANYTHING wrong, especially something simple as opening up about a painful shameful and embarassing portion of your life, and they use the word "telling" painting you as some sort of monster when clearly you've regretted it a long time ago, is very "telling" about who they are.

You've mentioned over and over you regret your past and yet something about a post is "telling". Whenever you encounter someone like that, just move it along. You aren't going to win them over, and they will just make your life worse. It's an ill way of thinking. They want you to suffer more. To them you will always be a monster.

 

[ConradCervantes]

People make dumb mistakes. People like you are what is wrong with our prison system. Fuck rehab. Just punish indefinitely. What a shitfuck industry.

Just how long should he pay for his crime? And people are shocked others reoffend.

Alien is just bummed he didn't get a chance to break Thacker's fingers with his baton.

 

[demon]

The problem is that women are generally smaller and physically weaker than men. So if a man hits a woman, the injury to the women will be far in excess of the threat she posed to the man. The disparity would be the same, if we were talking about an 80 year old man and a 20 year old. The better course is to push her away, leave and/or call the police.

Does the same apply to two men of different size? What about a woman who's large? And there are more factors in how much injury someone can inflict than just the person's size, or their gender for that matter. If it's a 185lb man up against an angy 120lb woman swinging a cast iron frying pan then that renders her size/gender irrelevant. I've noticed that many people tend to ignore how physically abusive women can be towards men, I remember reading about how it's more common than is generally believed.

 

[CrankyJay]

Thacker, have you seen this website?

http://www.gjp.org/programs/criminal-records/faqs/faqs-expungements/

Expungement is Georgia is now called record restriction. Read the FAQ. You qualify for record restriction under the Youthful Offender section

Certain misdemeanor convictions that occurred before you turned twenty-one (21) years old qualify for restriction. To qualify, you must have successfully completed your sentence, and since the successful completion of your sentence, you cannot have been arrested for any offense, other than minor traffic offenses for five (5) years. - See more at: http://www.gjp.org/programs/criminal-records/faqs/faqs-expungements/#sthash.mDAI393w.dpuf

 

[Telephoto999]

Thacker, have you seen this website?

http://www.gjp.org/programs/criminal-records/faqs/faqs-expungements/

Expungement is Georgia is now called record restriction. Read the FAQ. You qualify for record restriction under the Youthful Offender section

Thanks man. That's exactly the process I am going through now and that website is what motivated me to pursue it.
I filed for record restriction and I was denied as I don't think they took my age into consideration. I'm sure it's just some robot like worker that looks at the requests and doesn't check the finer details.That is why I've hired an attorney and the appeal process has started.

 

[Keri]

Knowing a man can cause much greater harm to a female of equal size or smaller size, why would she ever strike that man knowing what could possibly happen? I've seen this happen with friends girlfriends, out in public...women can be very instigating and confrontational to the point of physical. Just the other night on skype I heard my friends girlfriend start attacking him over the microphone while we were playing Dota. I'm not accusing you, but I find it hard to believe you've never confronted a man physically...can you honestly say you haven't?

OP, I really want to believe you, when you say you regret what happened, but this doesn't help. I'm guessing your girlfriend struck you, despite the fact that you were bigger and capable of significantly injuring her, because she was so angry she wasn't acting reasonably. Why did you strike someone smaller than you, knowing how much you could hurt them? I'm guessing its the same reason, no?

The fact that your girlfriend was dumb and horrible, doesn't make your response OK (especially not when you're capable of hurting her, more than she was of hurting you). Two wrongs don't make a right. When you ask questions like the above, it makes it sound like you think they do. And, no, I've never struck anyone (except play-fighting with my brother as kids).

You do realize your basic argument revolves around the fact that because a man his bigger and stronger he deserves to be unemployed and live in poverty while a women, because she is small and weak, should be able to find employment and move on with her life and get a job?

I honestly don't know how you dont see that as totally unfair and wrong

Haha. No, that's not my argument. My husband is pretty big and strong, so I hardly discriminate based purely on size. The assault is an important element here. Also, I don't think the OP deserves to be unemployed. I think that employers have the right to chose who they want to work with and I understand their hesitation.

 

[CrankyJay]

Thanks man. That's exactly the process I am going through now and that website is what motivated me to pursue it.
I filed for record restriction and I was denied as I don't think they took my age into consideration. I'm sure it's just some robot like worker that looks at the requests and doesn't check the finer details.That is why I've hired an attorney and the appeal process has started.

Sorry, I saw you posted the link on a previous page. I hope your lawyer has some more pull, but they need to to stay on top of them.

I don't know how desperate you are but I would contact the local news with your story. Point out you meet the qualifications for record restriction but was turned down for some reason unknown. That might get the office to fast track your case.

 

[CrankyJay]

Have you tried reaching out to the GJP to see if they can help?

 

[Telephoto999]

Have you tried reaching out to the GJP to see if they can help?

I've called and left 2 voicemails, but never received a call back. Since this is a relatively new thing, I am sure they are absolutely overwhelmed by requests. When I went to the county office just to apply for expungement, there was a line of about 15 people there for the same thing.

 

[Zoc]

I don't think the OP deserves to be unemployed. I think that employers have the right to chose who they want to work with and I understand their hesitation.

I also completely understand why employers would hesitate to hire someone with a past like the OP's, which is precisely why people like the OP should be protected from background checks when their punishment has concluded and they have been deemed ready by the justice system to be free again.

It seems simple to me: if someone is dangerous, he should be locked up, which means the state is responsible for food and lodgings. If someone isn't dangerous, he should be free, which means he is responsible for those things, and should therefore be free to work and earn a livelihood. Creating an in-between category of people who are not dangerous enough to be locked up, but too dangerous to be allowed to work proper jobs is just pure cruelty.

 

[Fantasmo]

OP, I really want to believe you, when you say you regret what happened, but this doesn't help. I'm guessing your girlfriend struck you, despite the fact that you were bigger and capable of significantly injuring her, because she was so angry she wasn't acting reasonably. Why did you strike someone smaller than you, knowing how much you could hurt them? I'm guessing its the same reason, no?

The fact that your girlfriend was dumb and horrible, doesn't make your response OK (especially not when you're capable of hurting her, more than she was of hurting you). Two wrongs don't make a right. When you ask questions like the above, it makes it sound like you think they do. And, no, I've never struck anyone (except play-fighting with my brother as kids).



Haha. No, that's not my argument. My husband is pretty big and strong, so I hardly discriminate based purely on size. The assault is an important element here. Also, I don't think the OP deserves to be unemployed. I think that employers have the right to chose who they want to work with and I understand their hesitation.

How about don't attack someone?
So you'd just allow someone to keep hitting you?
I lived in that home, I let my family abuse me, sister included with objects thrown at me. They are much more vicious than I could ever want to be.
But I told them, if they come at me again, they are going to pay the price. One night I went completely nuts on them raving like a lunatic, never did hit them.
Luckily it scared them enough to stop forever. Took me YEARS to not enjoy the idea of hurting them because they took pleasure in my suffering. Fuck. That. Shit. I wouldn't hit someone but I can understand how it feels when you're getting attacked. FUCK, THAT.

 

[Deleted member 22576]

Yeah I think its kinda strange I've made it to 26 without throwing a single punch, or having a single punch thrown my way. I got very close one time about 18 months ago, but I think all I got was pushed and I didn't retaliate because I deserved the pushing.

 

[Piecake]

Haha. No, that's not my argument. My husband is pretty big and strong, so I hardly discriminate based purely on size. The assault is an important element here. Also, I don't think the OP deserves to be unemployed. I think that employers have the right to chose who they want to work with and I understand their hesitation.

those are the effects of your views though. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise

I also completely understand why employers would hesitate to hire someone with a past like the OP's, which is precisely why people like the OP should be protected from background checks when their punishment has concluded and they have been deemed ready by the justice system to be free again.

It seems simple to me: if someone is dangerous, he should be locked up, which means the state is responsible for food and lodgings. If someone isn't dangerous, he should be free, which means he is responsible for those things, and should therefore be free to work and earn a livelihood. Creating an in-between category of people who are not dangerous enough to be locked up, but too dangerous to be allowed to work proper jobs is just pure cruelty.

Spot on

 

[BlackGoku03]

Look above. When you're convicted of a domestic battery you can't own or operate a firearm.

You work for a government owned facility or private?

 

[demon]

OP, I really want to believe you, when you say you regret what happened, but this doesn't help. I'm guessing your girlfriend struck you, despite the fact that you were bigger and capable of significantly injuring her, because she was so angry she wasn't acting reasonably. Why did you strike someone smaller than you, knowing how much you could hurt them? I'm guessing its the same reason, no?

The fact that your girlfriend was dumb and horrible, doesn't make your response OK (especially not when you're capable of hurting her, more than she was of hurting you). Two wrongs don't make a right. When you ask questions like the above, it makes it sound like you think they do. And, no, I've never struck anyone (except play-fighting with my brother as kids).



Haha. No, that's not my argument. My husband is pretty big and strong, so I hardly discriminate based purely on size. The assault is an important element here. Also, I don't think the OP deserves to be unemployed. I think that employers have the right to chose who they want to work with and I understand their hesitation.

Not every man is twice as large as his girlfriend/wife. Beating your girlfriend is one thing, but hitting/pushing back is kind of a natural response when being attacked by someone, and sometimes the distinction between a 'strike' and a push is kind of hazy. I'm not saying hitting anyone is ever appropriate (I suppose sometimes necessary), but in these kinds of situations it's not always so black and white as "you shouldn't have hit her". I have a female friend who's not that much smaller than me and one time when driving her back home from a bar she was incredibly fucked up on what I could only assume was a bad mix of alcohol and some prescription drug she was taking. And for whatever reason (well, none, she was drunk) she got angry at me and started hitting me...while I was driving. The fact that I had 30-40 pounds on her didn't mean shit as far as how much it hurt, and in the moment you can bet I fought back. Now if a policeman had seen that and decided to arrest one of us I can only imagine who it would have been, circumstances be damned. That's kind of an extreme example, but I can only roll my eyes when I see people automatically chastise the man and just say "well he should've known better" in these kinds of situations.

That's not to say I don't recognize domestic violence against women as a real legitimate problem (Patrick Stewart don't hate me!), but it's not fair to lump every man who fights back against a crazed woman swinging punches in with real wifebeaters.

 

[Keri]

It seems simple to me: if someone is dangerous, he should be locked up, which means the state is responsible for food and lodgings. If someone isn't dangerous, he should be free, which means he is responsible for those things, and should therefore be free to work and earn a livelihood. Creating an in-between category of people who are not dangerous enough to be locked up, but too dangerous to be allowed to work proper jobs is just pure cruelty.

The OP is free to work. Its just that no one will hire him. I hope the OP finds a job too, but you can't force people to hire him. A balance has to be found that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Personally, I like the idea of government programs that help former criminals find employment and I'm not opposed to expunging certain records, after enough time has passed or a minimal review.

those are the effects of your views though. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise

Here's the effect of my view: If I'm ever interviewing a man with a conviction for hitting a woman who doesn't disclose his conviction and appear remorseful, I will definitely not hire him.

That's kind of an extreme example, but I can only roll my eyes when I see people automatically chastise the man and just say "well he should've known better" in these kinds of situations.

Well, keep in mind, I asked for the details earlier, but the OP never explained how much he hit his girlfriend. All I know is that he hit her and the D.A. found his response to be excessive and disproportionate.

 

[Piecake]

The OP is free to work. Its just that no one will hire him. I hope the OP finds a job too, but you can't force people to hire him. A balance has to be found that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Personally, I like the idea of government programs that help former criminals find employment and I'm not opposed to expunging certain records, after enough time has passed or a minimal review.

He isnt suggesting that we force employers to hire ex-convicts. He is suggesting that you remove the barrier to ex-convicts for getting employment by making it illegal for employers to check their criminal history. If they are too dangerous to hire, then they shouldnt be released. If they served their time and are not deemed a threat to society, then they should be given the same opportunity and rights as everyone else.

And its pretty clear from your statements that you think ex-convicts should be treated as second class citizens who don't and should not have the same rights as you.

 

[demon]

Well, keep in mind, I asked for the details earlier, but the OP never explained how much he hit his girlfriend. All I know is that he hit her and the D.A. found his response to be excessive and disproportionate.

I understand that, I thought I read that he only hit her once. Plus, and I'm no expert on the legal system here, but I don't know if some overzealous DA is going to have the most unbiased and impartial take on a situation like this.

 

[Carnby]

I understand that, I thought I read that he only hit her once. Plus, and I'm no expert on the legal system here, but I don't know if some overzealous DA is going to have the most unbiased and impartial take on a situation like this.

He didn't just hit her once.

 

[Dead Man]

Thanks man. That's exactly the process I am going through now and that website is what motivated me to pursue it.
I filed for record restriction and I was denied as I don't think they took my age into consideration. I'm sure it's just some robot like worker that looks at the requests and doesn't check the finer details.That is why I've hired an attorney and the appeal process has started.

Good luck man.

The OP is free to work. Its just that no one will hire him. I hope the OP finds a job too, but you can't force people to hire him. A balance has to be found that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Personally, I like the idea of government programs that help former criminals find employment and I'm not opposed to expunging certain records, after enough time has passed or a minimal review.



Here's the effect of my view: If I'm ever interviewing a man with a conviction for hitting a woman who doesn't disclose his conviction and appear remorseful, I will definitely not hire him.



Well, keep in mind, I asked for the details earlier, but the OP never explained how much he hit his girlfriend. All I know is that he hit her and the D.A. found his response to be excessive and disproportionate.

You can make it so you don't have to divulge misdemeanours though. The guy did the crime, and has done his time. I get that companies want to nkow who they are hiring, but when it results in permanent employment segregation it does nobody any good, least of all society in general who lose a tax payer and worker.

 

[Telephoto999]

He didn't just hit her once.

I lost my temper. No doubt. I still don't know why we are harping exactly on what happened. It doesn't change it. Of course I want to downplay it.. But I can't. I want this behind me. It's not who I am.

 

[Deleted member 22576]

I lost my temper. No doubt. I still don't know why we are harping exactly on what happened. It doesn't change it. Of course I want to downplay it.. But I can't. I want this behind me. It's not who I am.

Well, for us to give our opinion on the situation the details are the only thing that matter. This IS a grey area, there is a huge and vast gradient in terms of acceptability. Sure, there is a meta debate on when you should stop being punished for your previous actions. Which for the most part I take your side on, at the same token there are absolutely crimes and violations that are more appalling than others. Personally I would advocate for your rights to a meaningful job and "re-integration" into society without past demons haunting.. but that doesn't mean I wouldn't put you into the "violent people group" when my mind associates your presence with my knowledge of you.

When you say "I lost my temper" you're saying "I beat the shit out of her because I couldn't control myself and in the moment she deserved it and I saw to it she felt justice." You're NOT saying "I made an innocent mistake."


But I'm no judge OP. You're still a fellow citizen of GAF so keep on and good luck.

 

[demon]

Here's the effect of my view: If I'm ever interviewing a man with a conviction for hitting a woman who doesn't disclose his conviction and appear remorseful, I will definitely not hire him.

...

You can make it so you don't have to divulge misdemeanours though. The guy did the crime, and has done his time. I get that companies want to nkow who they are hiring, but when it results in permanent employment segregation it does nobody any good, least of all society in general who lose a tax payer and worker.

Pretty much this. No offense to Keri but I don't know why people like her (and every other potential employer Thacker has encountered) should be the ones to determine whether or not someone who committed one misdemeanor at age 19 should ever be able to find employment, and that is clearly what is happening in Thacker's case. It certainly shouldn't be up to her to hire someone based on how "remorseful" she perceives someone to be for a crime he committed years ago and paid his dues for.

 

[ConradCervantes]

I lost my temper. No doubt. I still don't know why we are harping exactly on what happened. It doesn't change it. Of course I want to downplay it.. But I can't. I want this behind me. It's not who I am.

Because you need to pay for what you've done.

So what if you were detained, charged, paid a fine and took anger management classes? So what if, despite paying your debt to society and bettering yourself as a person, you have not been allowed to make the most of your education and talents?

The GAF Self-Righteous Police Dept. have found you guilty of being imperfect. Your sentence is constantly being shat on and reminded of a single mistake you made.

 

[Zoc]

The OP is free to work. Its just that no one will hire him.

Well then he's not really free to work, is he?

Here's the effect of my view: If I'm ever interviewing a man with a conviction for hitting a woman who doesn't disclose his conviction and appear remorseful, I will definitely not hire him.

I don't blame you a bit for this feeling, and I would probably feel the same. It may, in fact, be perfectly fair to have a personal zero-tolerance policy towards people with violent pasts.

The fact is, though, that if companies are allowed to find out the criminal past of job applicants and automatically disqualify them, ex-cons will never lead normal lives and will be far more likely to create future victims. It's in the best interests of all concerned to let people erase their pasts if they are truly to be given back their freedom after a conviction.

 

[Fantasmo]

Because you need to pay for what you've done.

He HAS. And he's remorseful. The man just wants to move on with his life!

 

[MalevolentPatent]

He HAS. And he's remorseful. The man just wants to move on with his life!

Time to engage your sarcasm antenna.

 

[ConradCervantes]

He HAS. And he's remorseful. The man just wants to move on with his life!

Read the rest of my post. It's tongue in cheek. I've been on this dude's side since post number one and have been shitting on people who won't let his past go.

 

[RoninChaos]

He didn't just hit her once.

Where is your avatar from?

 

[PSYGN]

Are you moving to Texas?

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

He didn't just hit her once.

Did I miss the story or did he delete it?

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Did I miss the story or did he delete it?

Girl hits guy. Guy hits girl. Deemed not to the standards of self defense. Therefore a misdemeanor charge and conviction 7 years ago for the guy.

Obviously should have walked away but whaddyouknow, 17 year olds are stupid sometimes.

 

[daw840]

Does the same apply to two men of different size? What about a woman who's large? And there are more factors in how much injury someone can inflict than just the person's size, or their gender for that matter. If it's a 185lb man up against an angy 120lb woman swinging a cast iron frying pan then that renders her size/gender irrelevant. I've noticed that many people tend to ignore how physically abusive women can be towards men, I remember reading about how it's more common than is generally believed.

Why does it have to be a frying pan?

 

[Carnby]

Where is your avatar from?

Alone in the Dark! Part one!

Did I miss the story or did he delete it?

He deleted it.

 

[Anticitizen One]

Have you tried applying out of state? Maybe Florida?

 

[Keysersoze]

Subway is always hiring sandwich artists in the meantime OP while you figure out how to get rid of your record.

 

[J_Lee]

OP have you tried getting a job out of state?

I honestly can't believe some of the responses in this thread, I can't even articulate how I feel. Implying female coworkers would/should be scared of him, you people must live in a bubble I can't believe how condescending people can be.

 

[Jon Armdog]

I recommend applying to a smaller software company. Many of them cannot afford to run applicants through proper background checks, or don't because of a more "family" type environment. The smaller organizations tend to rely on the lead HR person's opinion of you, results of your interview, and your qualifications. Then, if they think you are a flake, they axe you after the fact. At least that's what I've seen.

You could find a decent-paying position in IT, software development, or support at one of these smaller places. Then, once your resume shows enough stable work history, bigger companies may find it easier to ignore your legal troubles.

 

[nib95]

What an absolute joke and an outright injustice. I wish you all the best of luck and hope you not only find a fantastic job, but manage to get the Record Restricted under the link above.

Feel terrible for all those others who must have misdemeanours (especially in more impoverished or socio economically struggling areas) that also have this massive issue plaguing their lives. When you're young you do stupid things. Lord knows I've done things I theoretically could have got similar punishments for.

 

[Keysersoze]

OP i had a co-worker that had a an issue like yours and he had no problem getting work in IT. maybe you need to move to Oregon like he did.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

Sorry to hear about your troubles with this. DV convictions are very very difficult long after probation is terminated. I have represented DV defendants in the past and would counsel them routinely to take the case to trial or at least force the prosecutor's hand regarding the victim (they would still usually plead, just because that is the easiest, no jail risk for first offenders). The long term consequences are just too severe as you have learned. that said, recanting victims are pretty common and the prosecutors can work around them if they have the right evidence, for example photos of the injuries and a confession by the suspect, it really depends on the nature of the assault and the nature of the prosecutor and his office and how gung ho they are about these things.

I can't speak to your qualifications that you mentioned earlier, but I'm guessing that there is no shortage of folks out there with similar qualifications and a college degree without the baggage of a dv conviction. the reality is that there are few people that are out there doing what they want to be doing and most folks are just working in order to survive, and it appears you fall into the latter category. There is nothing dishonorable about becoming a truck driver or working your way to a managerial position in retail or service and that might just be where you need to be. It has been what, 7 years? Time to let go of your IT dreams. That probably sounds harsher than I intended. Good luck.

 

[demon]

Why does it have to be a frying pan?

Women hit men with frying pans. Don't you watch movies?

 

[Draconian]

OP, I don't know you, but I take everybody at their word, so I'm going to assume that you are a different person now and are regretful about the whole situation that put you in the circumstances you are in now. I'm not going to give you advice, because frankly, I wouldn't know what to do in your shoes either. All I can say is that it stinks, and I hope you pull through because I believe that everybody deserves a second chance (for the most part). Seven years is enough time for a person to change and it seems you've paid for your actions enough already anyway.

Good luck, OP. I'll read this thread and hope that one day down the road, we'll get an update from you about you getting a good job and starting a great life for yourself. Just keep your chin up and remember that things can and will get better.

 

[Enron]

Speaking as someone who gets to make hiring recommendations at their job, I do feel bad for the OP but I will side with the companies here.

Whenever we post jobs, HR receieves between several dozen to well over 100 applicants for one position which they weed down to 3-5, and send to managers like myself to interview.

In the IT world, experience and certs are not uncommon. Anyone that has got some kind of record is going to get automatically rejected. There's just too many similar candidates available to take that risk.

Hopefully you can get that off your record somehow

 

[Purexed]

Speaking as someone who gets to make hiring recommendations at their job, I do feel bad for the OP but I will side with the companies here.

Whenever we post jobs, HR receieves between several dozen to well over 100 applicants for one position which they weed down to 3-5, and send to managers like myself to interview.

In the IT world, experience and certs are not uncommon. Anyone that has got some kind of record is going to get automatically rejected. There's just too many similar candidates available to take that risk.

Hopefully you can get that off your record somehow

Was going to post this sentiment as well. Tough situation, but dozens of talented and qualified applicants apply to every legitimate role, all over the country. Why take the risk on someone that has a record when there are many others that have clean background checks.

Not saying it's right and it's not fucked up, but I too wouldn't hire the OP based on the sheer volume of other candidates that wouldn't have a red flag. Employers are all about limiting liability, wherever possible.

Good luck though.

 

[Piecake]

Was going to post this sentiment as well. Tough situation, but dozens of talented and qualified applicants apply to every legitimate role, all over the country. Why take the risk on someone that has a record when there are many others that have clean background checks.

Not saying it's right and it's not fucked up, but I too wouldn't hire the OP based on the sheer volume of other candidates that wouldn't have a red flag. Employers are all about limiting liability, wherever possible.

Good luck though.

Which is exactly why we need it make it illegal for companies to ask about an applicant's criminal record and do criminal background checks

 

[Enron]

Was going to post this sentiment as well. Tough situation, but dozens of talented and qualified applicants apply to every legitimate role, all over the country. Why take the risk on someone that has a record when there are many others that have clean background checks.

Not saying it's right and it's not fucked up, but I too wouldn't hire the OP based on the sheer volume of other candidates that wouldn't have a red flag. Employers are all about limiting liability, wherever possible.

Good luck though.

Yep. If an applicant told me in an interview that they had a misdemeanor conviction (and made it through HR screening somehow) for assault, i'm stopping the interview right there, thanking them for coming in, and sending them out the door so I don't waste any more of their time.

Which is exactly why we need it make it illegal for companies to ask about an applicant's criminal record and do criminal background checks

hahaha, no. no no no no no. It's an absolute necessity for a lot of jobs.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

Which is exactly why we need it make it illegal for companies to ask about an applicant's criminal record and do criminal background checks

We'll this is just absurd. I do not want someone with a theft conviction handling my information at a bank or credit card company. Who wants that? Christ almighty.