Recently in Collateral Consequences Category
As today's News Scan notes, Uber has announced it will do annual background checks for its drivers. That is a step in the right direction, but not a big enough step.
CEO Dara Khosrowshahi has a post on Uber's website titled "Getting serious about safety."Since Uber got started nearly nine years ago, we have conducted criminal and driving record screenings on millions of people. While no background check is perfect, our process is thorough, fair, and relevant to the work at hand. However, we can do more to ensure drivers continue to meet our standards on an ongoing basis, long after they take their first trip. Moving forward we will increase due diligence to strengthen our screening process:
The two paragraphs that follow describe the annual checks and new offense notifications. Okay, they are getting more serious about new offenses. How about old ones? Follow the link in the above paragraph and what do we find?
For some jobs, that may be okay. If a person is under constant supervision or doing a job where irresponsibility doesn't cause much damage, opportunities can be created for offenders to prove themselves and go straight.
And then there are jobs where people's lives depend on an employee doing the right thing when no one else is there.
Greg Bensinger and Alejandro Lazo report for the WSJ:
The test operator in the Uber Technologies Inc. self-driving car that killed an Arizona woman was a convicted felon with a history of traffic citations who wasn't watching the road before the accident happened, facts that raise new questions about the company's testing process for autonomous technology.* * *
Weinstein Co. is exploring a sale or shutdown and is unlikely to continue as an independent entity, a person close to the company said.I hope they find a buyer. It would unfortunate if regular working folks found themselves unemployed due to a company collapse.
The film and television studio's board of directors has been talking to possible buyers as it mulls how to move forward after firing co-chairman Harvey Weinstein on Sunday amid dozens of accusations against him of sexual assault and harassment.
WASHINGTON--The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider whether North Carolina can bar individuals on the state's sex-offender registry from accessing social-media websites such as Facebook.
The high court, in a brief written order, agreed to take up the appeal of Lester Packingham, who was convicted of violating the social-media ban after a Durham, N.C., police officer in 2010 found a Facebook post in which the defendant happily announced the dismissal of a traffic ticket. "Man God is Good!" the post said.
Mr. Packingham in 2002 pleaded guilty to taking indecent liberties with a 13-year-old when he was age 21.
A North Carolina law enacted in 2008 prohibits sex offenders from accessing social-networking sites when the offender knows that the site allows minors to become members. The Supreme Court will consider whether that law is allowed under the Constitution.
This provision is clearly intended to allow the Governor to restore voting rights, among other rights, upon an individualized determination that the person has actually "gone straight." Is it limited to that? Former Governor Tim Kaine (D) thought so.
Or does it empower a governor to effectively repeal the disqualification provision by entering a sweeping restoration of voting rights to all felons? Present Governor Terry McAuliffe (also D) thinks so. The WSJ has this editorial.
Why does Governor McAuliffe want more criminals to vote, whether they are rehabilitated or not? Simple. Criminals perceive -- correctly -- that on the whole Democrats are more likely to favor their interests as opposed to the interests of law-abiding people. That tendency has been somewhat less pronounced in recent years than it was in earlier years, but the difference is coming back, as noted Bill's and my posts of Monday.
Hence, criminals -- especially those who have not gone straight -- will vote for the Democratic Party in greater proportion than law-abiding people do, and in a close election the criminal vote may tip the scale. After 2000, the Florida recount, and all that, we must recognized that such matters could have serious consequences.
The editorial notes that the Virginia Supreme Court heard arguments on the question Tuesday.
Life in prison is meant to be difficult. But it doesn't always get better once you're out. Re-entering offenders often have a tough time finding employment, even when they are motivated and able to work. But "ban the box" - a popular policy aimed at helping ex-offenders find jobs - doesn't help many ex-offenders, and actually decreases employment for black and Hispanic men who don't have criminal records. This is a classic case of unintended consequences. We should repeal "ban the box" and focus on better alternatives.
Can he do that, constitutionally? Of course. Virginia Constitution Article V ยง12, the clemency power, is quite explicit on that point.
Why did he do it? The primary reason, in my opinion, is that he expects that the criminal vote will go overwhelmingly to the Democratic Party versus the Republicans, and I believe he is correct on that.
The primary division in America today is not between rich and poor, labor and management, white and black, or any of the old divisions that have been prominent in the past. The primary division is between people who believe in personal responsibility, obedience to the law, and work ethic, on one side, and those who do not along with their apologists, on the other.
Gov. McAuliffe believes that those who do not are more likely to vote for his party, and that should send a strong message to those who do.