Martial Arts in prison

[Gerry Seymour]

Isnt it a protected employment characteristic? You cant not hire somone because of their criminal record? (i know exceptions exist)

Personally, i wouldn't have a issue hiring one. (its probably cheap labour anyway that you can get away with paying minimum wage for)

I don't think it is a protected characteristic. I haven't filled out a job application in many years, but it used to be a common question on the application. Protected characteristics are usually not found on applications, to protect from charges of discrimination.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

I don't think it is a protected characteristic. I haven't filled out a job application in many years, but it used to be a common question on the application. Protected characteristics are usually not found on applications, to protect from charges of discrimination.

Some charges come with legally bound restrictions. Which is why it would be there.(that and trust exercise if they background you) I swear somone cited it at some point to me as being protected. Its either just the U.K or i thought wrong.

They’ve all got equal qualifications. Is it that hard to say it had nothing to do with his crime and it was based solely on current work experience?

Thats the most blatant loophole of it.

 

[JR 137]

That's what I mean. Helping someone have the necessary skills isn't useful if nobody will hire them. Mind you, if we actually rehabilitated more criminals, there would be less reason NOT to hire them. There are private programs that have shown amazing results with felons directly out of prison. Give them enough valid work experience, and more jobs will open up for them. Of course, it's unlikely we'll ever reach an ideal state where a rehabilitated felon gets the same treatment as someone who never committed a felony, but we can do better.

But... and I’m not asking you to answer publicly... would YOU hire one? If you took the chance, would you look at them the same way as everyone else?

Let’s say you need someone who was convicted of embezzlement and fraud. They were great at their job (minus the obvious mistake), and they’ve been rehabilitated. Would you put them in a position with the potential to do it again? Would you make sure they were being watched far closer than someone without that past?

I wouldn’t.

A guy I know and his brother owned an eyeglasses business and got caught defrauding Medicaid or Medicare for quite a bit of money. They did time for it. I’ve never had a single problem with him personally. He’s always been nice to me and I’ve had plenty of good conversations and interactions with him. A few years after his sentence was served, he was appointed as the financial guy at my church. Quite a few people, myself included, objected to that appointment. He said he did his time, deeply regrets his mistakes, and has been living an honest life ever since. I genuinely believe him, but it’s still not enough. I don’t think he nor anyone with a similar past should be put in a position like that. That’s most likely my own issue to work out, but I’m just being honest. If the decision were mine, there’s no way he’d be appointed to that position.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Some charges come with legally bound restrictions. Which is why it would be there.(that and trust exercise if they background you) I swear somone cited it at some point to me as being protected. Its either just the U.K or i thought wrong.

It's possible I'm not aware of some newer law. Or it might just be a UK thing.

 

[JR 137]

I don't think it is a protected characteristic. I haven't filled out a job application in many years, but it used to be a common question on the application. Protected characteristics are usually not found on applications, to protect from charges of discrimination.

A common question on an application is “other than traffic infractions, have you ever been convicted of a crime? If yes, please list the convictions and dates.” or something like that.

An employer should absolutely have the right to know if a prospective employee has been convicted of a crime that could be a conflict of interest. See my post about a convicted embezzler running the books above.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But... and I’m not asking you to answer publicly... would YOU hire one? If you took the chance, would you look at them the same way as everyone else?

Let’s say you need someone who was convicted of embezzlement and fraud. They were great at their job (minus the obvious mistake), and they’ve been rehabilitated. Would you put them in a position with the potential to do it again? Would you make sure they were being watched far closer than someone without that past?

I wouldn’t.

A guy I know and his brother owned an eyeglasses business and got caught defrauding Medicaid or Medicare for quite a bit of money. They did time for it. I’ve never had a single problem with him personally. He’s always been nice to me and I’ve had plenty of good conversations and interactions with him. A few years after his sentence was served, he was appointed as the financial guy at my church. Quite a few people, myself included, objected to that appointment. He said he did his time, deeply regrets his mistakes, and has been living an honest life ever since. I genuinely believe him, but it’s still not enough. I don’t think he nor anyone with a similar past should be put in a position like that. That’s most likely my own issue to work out, but I’m just being honest. If the decision were mine, there’s no way he’d be appointed to that position.

I'm happy to answer publicly. It depends upon the job. Some jobs, the need for trust isn't high. If some guy with a criminal record wanted to pave my driveway, I have no issues with that. If I had an office outside my house and someone with a record wanted to work as an admin, not handling sensitive information (entry level job), I'd be okay with that. I wouldn't hire one as a consultant to work with my clients, unless they had a post-release track record of being an effective consultant in trust-sensitive positions. I wouldn't hire one to teach martial arts classes unless they had a pretty stellar post-release record of community service and working well with others. I'd have similar reservations about anyone with something sketchy in their past, even if it wasn't a conviction. There are some people I knew in college I'd trust less than an average white-collar felon.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

A common question on an application is “other than traffic infractions, have you ever been convicted of a crime? If yes, please list the convictions and dates.” or something like that.

An employer should absolutely have the right to know if a prospective employee has been convicted of a crime that could be a conflict of interest. See my post about a convicted embezzler running the books above.

That's what I was recalling. I just don't think I've seen an application in many years, so wasn't sure if that was still on there. I think if criminals were a protected class, you wouldn't get that question on most applications.

 

[JR 137]

I'm happy to answer publicly. It depends upon the job. Some jobs, the need for trust isn't high. If some guy with a criminal record wanted to pave my driveway, I have no issues with that. If I had an office outside my house and someone with a record wanted to work as an admin, not handling sensitive information (entry level job), I'd be okay with that. I wouldn't hire one as a consultant to work with my clients, unless they had a post-release track record of being an effective consultant in trust-sensitive positions. I wouldn't hire one to teach martial arts classes unless they had a pretty stellar post-release record of community service and working well with others. I'd have similar reservations about anyone with something sketchy in their past, even if it wasn't a conviction. There are some people I knew in college I'd trust less than an average white-collar felon.

You make a lot of good points, and I feel the same way. In theory anyway. It all depends on the crime and what they’re looking for, work-wise.

Paving my driveway - I wouldn’t hire a guy who’s recently been released for robbing houses or a sex offender. Sorry, but I don’t want a rapist or child molester around my wife and kids. Call me crazy. Away from my house, such as fixing my car, no problem.

I’m pretty sure a convicted felon or criminal has indeed done some work for me in some capacity without me knowing. I don’t know the check-out guy at Target’s past. And I don’t care. I don’t know who cooked my lunch at the restaurant this afternoon. And I don’t care. If I owned or ran either of those places, I’d have no problem hiring someone so long as they didn’t commit a crime that’s not a safety issue, customer confidence issue, nor a financial loss issue. So long as they could do the job anyway.

 

[Saheim]

One of the facilities I worked for had an awesome vocational program. Down side was it was in waste water management, so it was literally a crappy job. Upside was the inmate would be making significantly more than the C.O.'s who took care of them while they were "down". It kind of weeded out those who dreamed compared to those who planned. Ya want a honest life making more than just about everyone ya know? Well ya gotta study, take tests and it involves sewage. Some took the opportunity, most just went back to credit card fraud, dope, or whatever "field" they had experience in.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Maybe there’s a law saying you can’t discriminate against them. But I don’t think it would be too difficult justifying hiring someone else over them. You could cite breaks in employment, no revelant work experience in the last however many years, etc. Put another way - you’ve got 10 people applying for the same job. They’ve all been working in the field for 10 years, except for one guy who hasn’t worked for the last 5 years. They’ve all got equal qualifications. Is it that hard to say it had nothing to do with his crime and it was based solely on current work experience?

There are specific places that are known for hiring felons. I had a list of them at my old job, and would refer the felons that were my clients to them for work. Not going to out who they are, but felons that really pursue a career can find one.

 

[Anarax]

So no one thinks that prison is about rehabilitation and that the discipline involved in martial arts could be a good way to get people to turn their lives around?

One thing that gets lost concerning imprisonment is rehabilitation is only one component of it. The courts have determined that these people of varying capacities are a danger to society. The rehabilitation component is usually secondary.

 

[Anarax]

Absolutely! Religion can (and often does) provide the structure and behavioral guidelines that they need to make less destructive decisions.

I think you are making a mistake a lot of folks do - viewing the situation from a perspective other than that of the involved party. You are entirely correct that giving religion to some folks can create extremists. Given to an educated, charismatic alpha could possibly result in a megalomaniac like Hitler (whose reign of terror was not rooted in religion btw). However giving it too someone who can not manage their own chaotic life or stop seeking instant gratification (dope, promiscuity) long enough to get a job or education has already proven to have significant positive effects on their lives. Love it or hate it, it is already tested and works.

Hold on there. You're not painting with a wide enough brush. Please stick to making wide-sweeping generalizations about groups that consists of over a billion people. Also how dare you use Hitler as an actual historical example to make your point. What are you going to say next? Stalin wasn't religious?

 

[jobo]

You're talking about what's in the book, still. I'm talking about what people actually teach. Those are two different things.
Ye
As for waiting for me to leave, they'd have had to wait about 12 years in one of those denominations. Probably not what happened.

Isnt it a protected employment characteristic? You cant not hire somone because of their criminal record? (i know exceptions exist)

Personally, i wouldn't have a issue hiring one. (its probably cheap labour anyway that you can get away with paying minimum wage for)

Your in the uk, Arnt you ? No it most certAinly is not a protected characteristic, there's something called the rehabilitation of iffendersr act that means after a,set amount of time, dependent on the severity of the offence, you don't need to disclose your convictions, but any employer who does a search on prospective employee can find out as your conviction is a matter of public record, They t can also find out if you were tried and found not guilty, and discriminate as you might be a criminal

 

[Dirty Dog]

ATTENTION ALL USERS

Political/religious debates are not allowed here. If you'd like to continue this, take it elsewhere. If it continues in this forum, the thread will be locked and points will be issued. Please don't make us do that.

 

[Martial D]

I heard that doing martial arts in prison can get you beaten or killed.

 

[oftheherd1]

So no one thinks that prison is about rehabilitation and that the discipline involved in martial arts could be a good way to get people to turn their lives around? Also to be fair this is a UK idea and I think UK prisons are a bit different to US prisons so maybe it wouldn't work in the US.

Frankly no, not much about rehabilitation. I worked in a couple of stockades while in the US Army. I really used to get disgusted when parents came to visit their sons and told me to be sure and make them do right. Really? Parents had them for 18 or 19 years, and either wouldn't or couldn't train them to do right. By the time we got them, they were usually very well set in their ways. Why would parents think that if we didn't have them for at least the same 18 - 19 years we had any chance for rehabilitation.

Before you think me too negative, let me tell you that in my short experience, the only ones you can really rehabilitate are those who sincerely want to rehabilitate themselves. They are easy to spot and differentiate from those who only say so for any favors they may get.

Some have mentioned not teaching boxing. I think it used to be common. Fraught with danger. It may be oped to give them something to do other than getting into trouble. Problem is it may make them a better trained fighter for when they decide to get into trouble.

But help rehabilitate them? Not unless they want it. A History of Boxers Doing Jail BidsIntro

 

[JR 137]

Frankly no, not much about rehabilitation. I worked in a couple of stockades while in the US Army. I really used to get disgusted when parents came to visit their sons and told me to be sure and make them do right. Really? Parents had them for 18 or 19 years, and either wouldn't or couldn't train them to do right. By the time we got them, they were usually very well set in their ways. Why would parents think that if we didn't have them for at least the same 18 - 19 years we had any chance for rehabilitation.

Before you think me too negative, let me tell you that in my short experience, the only ones you can really rehabilitate are those who sincerely want to rehabilitate themselves. They are easy to spot and differentiate from those who only say so for any favors they may get.

Some have mentioned not teaching boxing. I think it used to be common. Fraught with danger. It may be oped to give them something to do other than getting into trouble. Problem is it may make them a better trained fighter for when they decide to get into trouble.

But help rehabilitate them? Not unless they want it. A History of Boxers Doing Jail BidsIntro

You make a good point - you can’t help someone who doesn’t want to be helped. No different than AA, drug rehab, anger management, etc. The success rate isn’t exactly stellar with people who genuinely do want to be helped in those places; the ones who don’t want help aren’t going to change. What’s that saying? You’ve got to hit rock bottom first?

 

[Buka]

So no one thinks that prison is about rehabilitation and that the discipline involved in martial arts could be a good way to get people to turn their lives around? Also to be fair this is a UK idea and I think UK prisons are a bit different to US prisons so maybe it wouldn't work in the US.

U.S prisons are not about rehabilitation in any way, shape or form, regardless of the nonsense you might read about them.

Martial Arts in prison is as bad an idea as I've ever heard.