I never understood the whole felon thing, if that is allowed discrimination outside certain roles how can those people ever be expected back to society? Ofc, they are going to do more crime if it is their only realistic option for reasonable income.
> "if that is allowed discrimination outside certain roles how can those people ever be expected back to society? Ofc, they are going to do more crime if it is their only realistic option for reasonable income."
And you've found the answer to why the American judicial/prison-complex is a revolving door system.
"Welcome to the Hotel California. You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave!"
It's a method to exercise control over a large slice of the population and rob them of the means to challenge their position. I don't think too may see it necessarily as a fair measure that must be imposed on those people for the protection of them or others.
On the other hand you have egregious cases where such a measure would completely make sense but is ignored because of larger interests. One of them is how EU public institutions screen all their employees and filter out felons. And then a public institution like the European Central Bank names Christine Lagarde president, just 3 years after she received a criminal conviction of negligence in allowing the misuse of public funds.
A freshly minted criminal can be named president of an institution in more or less the same general area as where she committed her crime. But a someone with a minor drug charge can't take a dev job... Both are a stain on modern society.
But, are felons discriminated from most jobs in Europe? As an employer I’ve never checked the backgrounds, and I would be actually happy of giving someone a path upwards.
If the argument is that serving your time in jail rehabilitates you, then you shouldn't be limited in what roles you can take after you've served your time.
I assume the "certain roles" you are talking about is something like banking with someone with a history of felony fraud. I guess the argument is that maybe prison isn't 100% rehabilitative. But if that's the case, why should I, as a non-banker, hire a felon who, say assaulted a stranger with a baseball bat. Isn't there a similar chance that prison wasn't 100% rehabilitative?
There are a lot of people with a felony record who pose zero additional risk to their employer. Of course it depends on the person and it depends on the job. It certainly doesn't make sense to have a strict policy against all felons regardless of individual circumstances.
It depends on labor supply and demand curves. If it did not make sense, there would be an arbitrage opportunity for an employer by employing felons, but I have not heard of that happening on a large scale, at least at a white collar firm.
I find it ironic, though, to want to seek shelter in BRK to avoid a too tech heavy SPY, when BRK itself has maintained relevancy only by investing disproportionately in AAPL. It would seem prudent to cut out the BRK middleman and just directly invest in AAPL if one wants to emulate BRK’s success.
It seems fair for felons to work minimum wage last resort jobs, because non-felons surely deserve the same or better. But why are minimum wage last resort jobs so bad in this country?
