Don’t forget that impaired driving is a criminal offense. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that impaired driving makes up over half of those with criminal records. Maybe more in SK, where even senior politicians, including the Premier, have impaired driving records.
Not at all! While I have some problems with the impaired driving law, I’m firmly on side with it being a criminal offense. But my experience is that employers mostly ignore those convictions, suggesting that the statistics may not mean what we think.
In anticipation of the next question, my concerns with impaired driving legislation, enforcement, and punishment are:
Abstinence is the only reliable way to determine whether you meet the legal definition of impairment outside of actually getting pulled over. If abstinence is the objective, then that should be the law. If abstinence is not the objective, then there should be ready access to reliable tests ahead of time.
In the absence of actual property damage or injury, it should not result in incarceration. This follows my general objection to incarcerating those who have caused no concrete harm.
There needs to be supplementary legislation surrounding ownership of road legal vehicles so that someone other than the driver can be held responsible when a suspended driver is driving.
There needs to be due consideration given to the fact that it’s possible for an impaired driver to be involved in a crash without being any more responsible for that crash than an unimpaired driver would have been. That is, if I run a red light, hitting a vehicle operated by an impaired driver, that driver should not be assessed fault or denied access to my insurance.
In addition, there needs to be proper enforcement of all crimes. For example, many boating laws go unenforced because enforcement officers are reluctant to subject someone to criminal penalties for the infraction.
During her time in prison, Emily O’Brien came to the conclusion that it would be difficult to find a job after her release, so she developed an idea for starting her own business.
A new report being released Wednesday says many Canadian companies remain unwilling to hire people with criminal records, even when they have the skills or experience needed for the job.
The report is based on interviews of 400 hiring managers at Canadian companies, conducted on behalf of the John Howard Society of Ontario, a non-profit agency that advocates for humane responses to crime and its causes.
“It didn’t matter whether the record was old, what type of offence it was, whether it was relevant to the position,” said Safiyah Husein, senior policy analyst for the John Howard Society of Ontario.
Three-quarters of the hiring managers who participated in the interviews said they had never knowingly employed anyone with a criminal record, despite the latest figures from Statistics Canada show more than 700,000 job vacancies across the country.
The interviews with hiring managers were conducted by a research team led by Kemi Anazodo, an assistant professor at at the University of Windsor’s Odette School of Business, as part of a larger study focused on employment and reintegration issues.
The original article contains 752 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Feels like it goes without saying, but if you did the crime and paid the time, there’s no reason you shouldn’t be re-integrated back into society in the free-and-clear.
You’re right but that’s how society sees it. I forgot the exact term, something something something “justice for the community” being said in a few court videos I’ve watched.
Absolutely, there’s a reason people become career criminals. If we remove any opportunities to make money legally people will turn back to criminal ways to make money.
As a financial institute, I’m not hiring someone convicted of fraud whether they served the time or not. That’s just goofy. I’m not the one that’s going to give someone that’s already proven themselves malicious to hurt my customers.
By all means, go become an engineer or an architect. And after sufficient time goes by as a functioning member of society, apply for a pardon and get the record expunged. But the record is there for a good reason.
O’Brien says “a combination of bad characters, bad substances, and just going through a really tough time emotionally” led to her conviction for smuggling narcotics into Canada.
Definitely a plus for a CEO with a veritable record of experience in ‘logistics’.
Jokes aside, I fully agree, how is anyone supposed to recover and return to society if a criminal record keeps them out of it? A number of stories highlight the rough and convoluted process of applying for a pardon.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
That’s 10 percent of Canadians with a criminal record, which is higher than I would have guessed
Don’t forget that impaired driving is a criminal offense. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that impaired driving makes up over half of those with criminal records. Maybe more in SK, where even senior politicians, including the Premier, have impaired driving records.
Are you implying that impaired driving shouldn’t count as a criminal offence?
Not at all! While I have some problems with the impaired driving law, I’m firmly on side with it being a criminal offense. But my experience is that employers mostly ignore those convictions, suggesting that the statistics may not mean what we think.
In anticipation of the next question, my concerns with impaired driving legislation, enforcement, and punishment are:
Abstinence is the only reliable way to determine whether you meet the legal definition of impairment outside of actually getting pulled over. If abstinence is the objective, then that should be the law. If abstinence is not the objective, then there should be ready access to reliable tests ahead of time.
In the absence of actual property damage or injury, it should not result in incarceration. This follows my general objection to incarcerating those who have caused no concrete harm.
There needs to be supplementary legislation surrounding ownership of road legal vehicles so that someone other than the driver can be held responsible when a suspended driver is driving.
There needs to be due consideration given to the fact that it’s possible for an impaired driver to be involved in a crash without being any more responsible for that crash than an unimpaired driver would have been. That is, if I run a red light, hitting a vehicle operated by an impaired driver, that driver should not be assessed fault or denied access to my insurance.
In addition, there needs to be proper enforcement of all crimes. For example, many boating laws go unenforced because enforcement officers are reluctant to subject someone to criminal penalties for the infraction.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
During her time in prison, Emily O’Brien came to the conclusion that it would be difficult to find a job after her release, so she developed an idea for starting her own business.
A new report being released Wednesday says many Canadian companies remain unwilling to hire people with criminal records, even when they have the skills or experience needed for the job.
The report is based on interviews of 400 hiring managers at Canadian companies, conducted on behalf of the John Howard Society of Ontario, a non-profit agency that advocates for humane responses to crime and its causes.
“It didn’t matter whether the record was old, what type of offence it was, whether it was relevant to the position,” said Safiyah Husein, senior policy analyst for the John Howard Society of Ontario.
Three-quarters of the hiring managers who participated in the interviews said they had never knowingly employed anyone with a criminal record, despite the latest figures from Statistics Canada show more than 700,000 job vacancies across the country.
The interviews with hiring managers were conducted by a research team led by Kemi Anazodo, an assistant professor at at the University of Windsor’s Odette School of Business, as part of a larger study focused on employment and reintegration issues.
The original article contains 752 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Feels like it goes without saying, but if you did the crime and paid the time, there’s no reason you shouldn’t be re-integrated back into society in the free-and-clear.
Prison isn’t punishment that you "pay for"with time. Its a center for rehabilitation.
If you did the crime and were rehabilitated with time*, theres no reason you shouldn’t be reintegrated into society free-and-clear*
You’re right but that’s how society sees it. I forgot the exact term, something something something “justice for the community” being said in a few court videos I’ve watched.
Absolutely, there’s a reason people become career criminals. If we remove any opportunities to make money legally people will turn back to criminal ways to make money.
As a financial institute, I’m not hiring someone convicted of fraud whether they served the time or not. That’s just goofy. I’m not the one that’s going to give someone that’s already proven themselves malicious to hurt my customers.
By all means, go become an engineer or an architect. And after sufficient time goes by as a functioning member of society, apply for a pardon and get the record expunged. But the record is there for a good reason.
Definitely a plus for a CEO with a veritable record of experience in ‘logistics’.
Jokes aside, I fully agree, how is anyone supposed to recover and return to society if a criminal record keeps them out of it? A number of stories highlight the rough and convoluted process of applying for a pardon.