Would you employ someone with a Criminal Record? [Archive]

View Full Version : Would you employ someone with a Criminal Record?

easyasit

27th January 2006, 14:50

This is an interesting cunundrum you may well be faced with, if you havn't already.

Employing someoneone who had a criminal record.

What is everyones view on this?

Al

Jayne

27th January 2006, 15:08

Depends what the did. If they'd fiddled the Tax man, i'd give them a second chance. If they have hurt children or animals, or did something very bad no I wouldn't.

Jayne

bwglaw

27th January 2006, 15:10

Depends on the nature of the offence and when and what job is being considered and the level of vulnerability in the job.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 makes provisions for an ex-offender to be exempted from declaring a criminal record within a set period. It depends on the sentence given for each conviction and the conviction becomes 'spent' after the statutory period. This means the ex-offender is not obliged to disclose the conviction if 'spent'. However, there are some exceptions to this rule for certain occupations.

Pebble Communications

27th January 2006, 15:13

Yes I agree it depends what they did!

I would avoid those convicted of 'white collar' crime like tax fraud though as they probably did it through greed rather than financial necessity, I would wonder about their ethics, and I would worry about what they might do to my company. Likewise drink drivers etc clearly have no sense of consequences or responsibility.

No to violent crimes. I would have a trust problem with thieves too.

You probably have to look at every one individually. I do think people deserve a second chance.

bwglaw

27th January 2006, 15:21

Rob Holmes

27th January 2006, 15:23

Is it illegal to ask for disclosure of ANY offences past, spent etc and to refuse employment because of past offences?

Rob

Ian J

27th January 2006, 15:25

Rob Holmes

27th January 2006, 15:28

bwglaw

27th January 2006, 15:28

Ah Rob, you gave the game away!...I wanted to see what everyone's response was!

Actually, the scenario is true. There was a case in Bristol where colleagues discovered that one of MOD's security guards had a conviction for a sexual offence. Colleagues caused a protest and they were dismissed accordingly. They claimed Unfair Dismissal and the claim was rejected. The Tribunal said that the employer had a duty of care to all their employees (amongst other things)

Jayne

27th January 2006, 15:44

I know a case too...Mr B employed Mrs X, then found out through his staff said she had been to prison for 5 years for cruelty to her children, she held one on a radiator and burned him and beat the little girl often. The staff threatened to leave if this woman stayed and customers were complaining too. So Mrs X was sacked and that was OK!

Especially OK by Mrs B :D

Jayne

bwglaw

27th January 2006, 15:51

Let say you employed someone. 1 year later you discover that they committed a sexual offence some 10 years ago and the conviction is 'spent'. Their job is security guard for the MOD.

Would you dismiss them?

Yes

Then you will probably have an Unfair Dismissal claim on your hands if you had dismissed the employee on the grounds of their spent conviction, which has no relevance to the job.

DuaneJackson

27th January 2006, 15:52

I think it depends on the crime. If it was a "nonsense" crime like the ones mentioned then no.

Virtually anything else, then yes. I don't think that becuase someone has a criminal record they should be punished for it for the rest of their lives.

Having a crimninal record and being a criminal are two very different things.

bwglaw

27th January 2006, 15:59

Let say you employed someone. 1 year later you discover that they committed a sexual offence some 10 years ago and the conviction is 'spent'. Their job is security guard for the MOD.

Would you dismiss them?

I don't know the MOD's terms of employment - surely you'd have to go by them?

Do you know what they say?

Rob

I will find the case and post later. However, the terms of employment is irrelevant, that is terms in the contract of employment. To put it simply, all employers have an implied duty of care for their employees in addition to any terms in the contract.

I cannot remember the full facts but the MOD dismissed the colleagues who protested because they carried out an unlawful protest falling short of a strike and exposed a colleague's criminal conviction.

The MOD did not find the conviction to be relevant to the person's job and it was spent (thus the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 comes into play) and in exercising their implied duty of care to employees they dismissed the protesting employees. The decision to dismiss the protesting employees was upheld by the Employment Tribunal. Upon reading the case when the decision was announced I agreed with the judgment.

I will find the case later

bwglaw

27th January 2006, 16:03

Having a crimninal record and being a criminal are two very different things.

Quite agree. It is society that decides what is criminal and what is not. In fact, we are all criminals because we have exceeded a speed limit, parked on double yellow lines, etc Although these are deemed 'minor' because they are offences against the State. More serious crimes are those against the person, especially the young and vulnerable ones.

winton50

27th January 2006, 16:13

I gave an ex-offender a chance at one of my former businesses as he was straight and up front about his crimes and told me he wanted to get a legit job.

Then he broke in one weekend and stole £6500 worth of tools and some petty cash!

I employ a woman who had been caught shoplifting a couple of years ago and she has been one of the best, most loyal and honest employees you could wish for.

you just never know.

Real World Hypnotherapy

27th January 2006, 16:22

I think it is really harsh to pay people should be punished for something they have done for the rest of their lives. When someone commits a crime it is usually for one of two reasons, they have a mental illness or issue, or it is because of their upbringing and they do not know any better.

People will a mental issue such as sex offends I can not make a comment on as I do not know enough about mental illness so say if people can be “cured” or not. With everyone else there is hope and the younger the person the better. No one was born a criminal and crime is just a bad habit that can be broken just like smoking or drinking. If nurtured and set a great example by those above them, you may just find the most hard working and loyal employee you have ever seen.

I personally do not believe in punishment, I intend believe in a reward, goal orientated support system. Crime brings quick rewards in the way of cash or goods but these soon go. What I teach people is that the best things are those worth working for and they lay down the foundation for the rest of your life. Forming good habits is hard, but not impossible.

With the right encouragement, training and support, anyone can be put into the correct mindset and start to build themselves an honest, ethical and hardworking character. This should be applied to all your staff and not just those who have been convicted of a crime in the past.

Matt, MK Printing

Pebble Communications

27th January 2006, 16:31

Of course, those who have been convicted are just those who were not good at covering their tracks....

what about those who commit crimes and are really good at it so don't get caught...you could be employing them and would never know it, but they are probably a greater risk as they are more talented!

Ian J

27th January 2006, 16:58

Then you will probably have an Unfair Dismissal claim on your hands if you had dismissed the employee on the grounds of their spent conviction, which has no relevance to the job.

So be it then. I wouldn't employ a sex offender under any circumstances.

confused

27th January 2006, 17:00

I think it would depend on the crime, how long ago it was, and whether it was related to the job they were going to do working for me, I wouldnt like to employ someone with a history of stealing from their employers. I would employ a kiddy fiddler or granny basher under any circumstances no matter how long ago - IMO people like that shouldt ever be let out.
crime is just a bad habit that can be broken just like smoking or drinking
I totally disagree with that, no one forces people to go out and rob houses, beat old ladies 1/2 to death in their own homes, kick the crap out of their babies because the noise gets on their nerves.
I personally do not believe in punishment, I intend believe in a reward, goal orientated support system
I posted a message a bit ago regarding some thugs being sent on a luxury holiday for stealing cars, IMO they should have been locked up.
I think a PROPER punishment will not only punish the person, but also act as a deterrent, if say you were convicted of mugging someone in the street, stealing their mobile and beating them up, then 15 years living in a 6 x 6 cell, let out for 18 hours a day to break rocks with a sledgehammer, fed a glass of water and a bit of bread each day would just about do it. If that were the punishment for similar crimes, and worse crimes carried a longer sentence of the same type, dont you think crime would drop? as it is now, people know they get away with it so do it again and again and again.

CALV

Coding Monkey

27th January 2006, 17:13

I'd employ a "cracker" on a trial basis and see what happened. Could be highly useful to have someone responsible for destroying systems to help secure them.

bwglaw

27th January 2006, 17:43

I believe in firm punishment, but also the 'cause' should be looked into. (from my criminology days!)

Tom, do you mean 'hacker'?

DuaneJackson

27th January 2006, 17:45

I suspect he chose the word cracker carefully, hackers don't destroy systems, a cracker is more likely to. It's nice to see someone using the correct terms for a change. : )

easyasit

27th January 2006, 18:06

A number of good and valid opinions mentioned.

I guess my school of thought is that they did the crime and served the time.
Also it depends on the nature of the crime as well, and wen they committed the offense.
I am all for giving ppl second chances but would not want the reputaton for hiring criminals. If you can see what i mean.

As for the spent period you refer to hanson group, is this not for someone who has served not more than 30 months? i think i read this somewhere

Al

Rob Holmes

27th January 2006, 18:07

Ah Rob, you gave the game away!...I wanted to see what everyone's response was!

Oh - I didn't mean to - just seemed an obvious thing.

Sorry!

Rob

DuaneJackson

27th January 2006, 18:40

Real World Hypnotherapy

27th January 2006, 18:47

I don't think anyone should be able to buy fireworks. Ones you use at home are rubbish and dangerous, if you like fireworks than go to an organised display.

Matt

seabro

27th January 2006, 19:03

I would - but I would not pay them any extra for it.

bwglaw

28th January 2006, 07:35

Ah Rob, you gave the game away!...I wanted to see what everyone's response was!

Oh - I didn't mean to - just seemed an obvious thing.

Sorry!

Rob

I know you did not mean to. It is apparently not obvious according to some responses

bwglaw

28th January 2006, 07:51

Tried to find some useful references in layman terms. Here are a few:

Dept of Transport website - Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transsec/documents/page/dft_transsec_026451.hcsp)

Your Rights - Liberty Guide to Human Rights (http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/the-right-to-privacy/spent-convictions-and-rehabilitation-of-offenders/index.shtml)

Criminal Records Bureau - Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (http://www.crb.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=313)

Hope the above are useful references

bwglaw

28th January 2006, 07:53

If you are senttenced to more than a certain number of months, 30 I think, then you have to admit to your criminal record if asked by a 'competent authority'. A very vague term.

You also have a lifetime firearm ban, Which also means you can't handle fireworks!

There is no 'rehabilitation period' for those who have received a custodial sentence of more than 2 and half years. That is the sentence imposed by the Court, not the time actually served in prison.

caroline

28th January 2006, 10:19

OMG Jayne that is a sad story of that womans kids. I'd like to hold her over a radiator and see how she liked it!

Jayne

28th January 2006, 11:32

You are not the only one, all the staff wanted to as well :D

Some people are so evil, I don't think they can ever be good. I think they should be chipped like dogs, so they can always be tracked and the only place they could be employed is away from nice people, like cleaning prison floors, that would be an ok job for them.

Jayne

jamie1964

4th November 2007, 22:27

If i employed mrs x and found out she did that to her kids i would sack her too, and i would escort her out of the place of work take her round the corner and have a fag with her, then i would stub my fag out on her forehead and kick her in the stomach.:)

younglaura24

9th July 2008, 08:08

It depends on what offense they did. But I'll think maybe times to consider, it might happen again.