Yale Daily News

Yet another reason not to start a business in New Haven.

The comment by #1 is indicative of a larger cultural and political problem in the U.S., but nowhere more evident than CT.

The automatic assumption is that someone who is a felony is a) a morally bad person and b) unable to ever contribute to society again. If b) were true, then all felony convictions should be for life, which, luckily, is not the case. But the stigmatization of released felons who have completed parole, etc., is ultimately a reason for recidivism. If you can't get a job, because no one will hire you, it certainly increases the likelihood of returning to crime, wehther theft, fraud, blackmail, etc.

Furthermore, problem a) is intimately tied to public perceptions of race and class. "Once a criminal, always a criminal," seems to be the thought, and it ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. With white-collar criminals, no one seems to object to them returning to the workforce. Martha Stewart, Enron execs. etc. will undoubtedly be rehired as soon as they finish their sentences, because no one supposes that rich, white criminals are somehow bound to repeat their crimes.

Prison is a civil system of punishment by which we remove those who trespass public good for a time. We abandoned the branding and the stocks punishment is not now thought to be permanent (in theory) and humiliation is not the point, but rather forcing people to change their ways.

But here in CT, the idea seems to be that the way to solve crime problems is to lock up everyone until the problem goes away from sight. Not away entirely, just away from those who don't want to deal with it. We push our problems into housing ghettoized by race and class and into the prisons themselves; as long as it does not disrput the lives of our democratic liberal "paradise," then the system "works."

I'd challenge Anonymous #1, if he or she is still around, to answer why the system we have now is just, and if so, why isn't a lifetime prison colony a better idea. That way everyone in society will have never comitted a crime. Everything will be peaceable — for us, no? I'm sure they'd appreciate Martha Stewart's cooking there, too.

"Have you ever been convicted of a crime"?
and
"Have you ever been convicted of a Felony"? are two different animals

i agree with commenter #1 ,Many of these applicants will cause problems in their employ,the same problems that they cause if not employed,I have seen it way too many times in the workplace.

It is sadly used as a double edged sword by Municipalities, mainly New Havens
when it suits their need the person who was convicted of a minor crime and NOT a Felony will be passed on by the person who checks "YES" on his Felony question.
It would depend on the political status of applicants and cover themselves from litigation ,

yeah, i know what you mean. i once flattened a penny on a railroad track with with preschool class, which is not only defacing currrrency, but i think it's probably also some sort of property damage, sabotage. and then i applied for a job, and i mentioned that, and then just like that, the job went to someone else. the city and the government should really do more for people like me. i feel so discriminated against.

Hey "crime" you should have used your head - on the railroad tracks - please have someone fill out your application for you, like a Lawyer.
that reminds me ,i knew a townie who checked "no" on the box and was passed for someone who checked yes, it was a case of a City employ contacted the desk at One Union and the cop says ,"oh yeah,number one is the felon and number two is not ...??
It was sent along to Corporation counsel who nulled the application ,by the time the townie found out the C.O was long gone ,so you basically will need a Lawyer to guide your application
AND your $500 to the Union and the $500 to the Alder presiding on the Human resources board at the time

I understand not demonizing criminals but why should a criminal have the same rights or jon perspectives as someone who has followed the law, particularly for a job funded by taxpayers

Because they are, hopefully, FORMER criminals. They've done their time, fulfilled their sentences. Once they re-enter society, they are (or should be) entitled to all the rights and protections of any other citizen of the USA. Our justice system has precautions against letting people believed to be incapable of reform take what is not due to them, putting them away for life being one of them--which the taxpayers also pay for, by the way. I think we are fortunate that we live in a country where someone can make a successful life for himself even if he did steal or do drugs when he was young (a fictional but credible example being Dr. Foreman on House--a good doctor who saves lives but stole some cars when he was a teenager), or even not so young. I saw a headline just today that said that coinciding with the hard economic times there has been a rise in shoplifting. Do you really think those people who have been forced to steal deserve to be limited in their lawful money-making opportunities? I have always considered such sentiments contrary to the spirit of equality that we aim for in America.

Anybody with a criminal record IS NOT eligible for Neighborhood Housing
Anyone with any kind of criminal record
IS NOT eligible for Habitat for Humanity

so there is No point in giving these types any kind of municipal job,the jobs go to folks who will build strong communities,and of course rewarded with the home

Any problem with that you go stright to Mike Morands office, Levin, Bruce Alexander - more than anyone at Yale is the Union in place (Mr.nepotism and PAC man Proto especially)

Dare you ingrates to talk to the Bd.of ED of New Haven, Mr.Destiff u all know and love (loathe,depending on the check huh?)

evry fly speck of crap in between