Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: 16 Jun 91 00:26:13 GMT From: "Owen M. Hartnett" Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Reply-To: "Owen M. Hartnett" Message-ID: Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 460, Message 3 of 7 Lines: 37 In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: (in a very fine article) > When Len is released, he'll be 'allowed to' carry the tag "ex-con" > with him when he applies for work and tries to make new friends. One > part of his punishment is that in the future he must reveal his status > to prospective employers. Something about the above bothers me, from a legal standpoint. Wasn't there a movement quite a few years ago that said, in effect, that since ex-cons have little chance of employment once they've told their prospective bosses that they're ex-cons, that requirements to do so were being mitigated, so that they would stand a better chance of rehabilitating once they got out? This seems probably the most harsh of the requirements. Does a bank robber have to inform a prospective employer of his past history, even if said employer doesn't ask? This sounds almost unconstitutional, if not cruel and unusual punishment. Owen Hartnett omh@cs.brown.edu [Moderator's Note: In your example, it probably would be unreasonable to force a garage mechanic to tell a prospective employer he had robbed a bank. It would not be as unreasonable to force the same person to reveal this if he applied for employment as a bank teller. In the case at hand, I quoted the court's decision without really agreeing with it. If Len goes into non-computer employment, it should not have to be discussed. If he goes into computer-related employment, well ... I'd be reluctant to make him wear that ball and chain his whole life. PAT]