DUI Charge And Back Check
- Thread starter XTORONTO
- Start date
XTORONTO said:
Depends 100% on the company, they may not check at all. Or only care about Fraud and Theft charges.
Really he has no choice but to try or stay home until the pardon comes. Worst that could happen is they say no.
On tip, if you do consent to a background be upfront and tell them about the charge before they find it for themselves.
He needs to apply for a pardon pronto. It takes up to a year for the paperwork to go through but, unless he has other criminal activity since the DUI, it's pretty much automatic (especially for a DUI).
The pardon will seal his DUI from any potential employer's criminal background check.
Whether or not it will affect his chances depends on a lot of things. How diligent the company is in conducting background checks, how much they care about DUI, how much relevance DUI has to the job, etc.
It's not good, but it could be worse. But he really should have obtained the pardon by now. After 3 years of being clean, you can apply.
The other thing is that he will probably receive an application form from the company and it will likely have on there, "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offense for which you have not received a pardon?" He will have to answer yes and indicate the details. Depending on how interested they are in him, that could either screen him out right there or it could just be minor road bump. But you can see why getting the pardon was/is important. If he can hold off his application until he gets the pardon, that's his best bet.
IMHO, DUI without accident/injury on a first time offense shouldn't be a criminal conviction. We're needlessly criminalizing a large number of people that could be dealt with in other ways that are just as, if not more, effective.
The pardon will seal his DUI from any potential employer's criminal background check.
Whether or not it will affect his chances depends on a lot of things. How diligent the company is in conducting background checks, how much they care about DUI, how much relevance DUI has to the job, etc.
It's not good, but it could be worse. But he really should have obtained the pardon by now. After 3 years of being clean, you can apply.
The other thing is that he will probably receive an application form from the company and it will likely have on there, "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offense for which you have not received a pardon?" He will have to answer yes and indicate the details. Depending on how interested they are in him, that could either screen him out right there or it could just be minor road bump. But you can see why getting the pardon was/is important. If he can hold off his application until he gets the pardon, that's his best bet.
IMHO, DUI without accident/injury on a first time offense shouldn't be a criminal conviction. We're needlessly criminalizing a large number of people that could be dealt with in other ways that are just as, if not more, effective.
Isn't a DUI without anyone being hurt or killed similar to a robbery while possessing a firearm that wasn't discharged?
Maybe I am using too much common sense, but I hardly consider DUI something that should be decriminalized. Or perhaps we should only imprison the poor bastards whose stupidity actually causes harm?
Maybe I am using too much common sense, but I hardly consider DUI something that should be decriminalized. Or perhaps we should only imprison the poor bastards whose stupidity actually causes harm?
Keebler Elf said:
It may not be a problem. Some years ago I had a conviction for a prostitution related charge. Then a few years later, I needed a RCMP criminal records check to apply for landed immigrant status in another country. I was a bit worried, not because it would automatically disallow my application but because it was kind of embarashing. It took a hell of a long time to get processed, but it came back as ‘no record found’ or something to that effect. I was surprised but did not complain. I get the impression that they don’t keep good track of convictions for minor offences.
Making DUI a criminal offence is supposed to be a DETERRENT from doing it in the first place. I hate to be an ass but thats why its a criminal offense. If It wasn't more people would be doing it and expecting to get away with just because they were lucky enough not to hurt anyone.
Having said that, I hope you buddy gets the Job. I have a buddy who has had 2 DUI charges. He takes his lumps and realizes that he deserves them. He is also kinda glad he got busted cos now with all of the contraptions in his vehicle, he cant Drink and drive even if he wanted too.
Having said that, I hope you buddy gets the Job. I have a buddy who has had 2 DUI charges. He takes his lumps and realizes that he deserves them. He is also kinda glad he got busted cos now with all of the contraptions in his vehicle, he cant Drink and drive even if he wanted too.
Actually depends on the job. If the job involves driving a vehicle during working hours, than it might matter. I do not know many respectable company with a legal department that will accept the risk of legal liability of hiring you if driving is involved. If you ever got drunk again while driving a vehicle during company time and hurt someone they could be liable for damages because they had evidence you did the DUI thing before.
Most companies are not evil and out do get you. They just see no reason to select a risky candidate when a safe one is available.
Most companies are not evil and out do get you. They just see no reason to select a risky candidate when a safe one is available.
foxwilly said:
Key words being "supposed to." The same thing has been said about capital punishment and studies have shown that has no deterring effect on the murder rate.
The fact that it's a criminal offence has very little, if any, effect as a deterrent, IMO. People know drinking and driving is bad. And they know they'll suffer serious consequences if they get caught doing so. But criminalizing a large percentage of the population isn't the answer. Stripping someone of their license, huge insurance increases, making them attend weekly AA meetings for a year, community service, etc., etc., etc. (not to mention the social stigma), is just as effective, if not moreso. There's no need to potentially ruin someone's career or livelihood (remembering that we're talking about a first offense, no accident/injury here). Hell, you take away someone's ability to earn a living and you'll do more to steer them toward the bottle than you will to steer them away from it.
wikiwild said:in before 7 pages of crap debate.
So let's execute them, prevent deaths and save taxpayer dollars then.
A few less worthless people can't be a bad thing, and may allow us less stupid, weak and innocent a better chance at not being killed by a piece of crap!
Keebler Elf said:
Well IMO if you're convicted of a DUI charge you should lose your licence for 10 years, first offence and forever on any second charge. You've proven that you do not deserve the privilege.
Keebler Elf said:
Well since the penalties that we currently have are not succeeding in deterring enough people from DUI, apparently we need to INCREASE the penalties, not decrease them as you would do.
Personally, although the thought of hurting/killing someone is enough deterrent for me, the second reason would be the loss of career/livelihood. All the other stuff (AA, insurance costs, ...) are very transitory. If I had to depend on my car to make my living there is no way in hell you would catch me getting behind the wheel when I've been drinking.
As for capital punishment not being a deterrent, well it does cut down on repeat offenses.
Go to the interview pissed, puke on his desk and tell him you didn't want a job with his big brother company anyway.
Wipe your mouth on his jacket and ask his secretary for her phone number.
Drive over the lawn as you leave.
None of thats illeagal....just tasteless....like so many job applications and interviews
Wipe your mouth on his jacket and ask his secretary for her phone number.
Drive over the lawn as you leave.
None of thats illeagal....just tasteless....like so many job applications and interviews
Keebler Elf said:
That's very different. No deterrence above and beyond a life time sentence; also, there's evidence that turning a moderate sentence into a long one offers little additional deterrence. These are the studies you're likely thinking of.
It's quite a leap though to go from that to saying that criminal convinctions have no deterrence effect.
The leading theory is there is LOTS of deterrence in a criminal conviction and a short jail sentence, but that there is a severe "diminishing return" in terms of deterrence from additional jail time or capital punishment. Long story short I would expect that a criminal conviction for DUI has a _large_ deterrent effect.
If you decriminalized DUI I think you would see a LARGE increase in the number of drunk drivers. That some still aren't deterred by the present law doesn't mean that many others aren't being deterred.
Moraff said:
This shows how out of touch you are with the situation and how little you know.
Lawyers, judges, the Crown, and police themselves all say that the current regime isn't working. It's flooding the courts with impaired charges that could be handled by alternative means. The lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank b/c the only ones profiting are them. And if you don't believe me, check out the recent Ontario legislation that creates alternative penalties for drinking and driving that reduce the license suspension for people who seek treatment. They know the current regime doesn't work.
Increase the penalties even more? What a stupid answer. Go ahead and make it a 10-year license ban. You won't find a judge in the province that will convict.
Always with the simple-minded solutions. Punish. Punish. Punish. Who cares that it isn't a deterrent, just punish some more b/c it's so much easier to pile on the punishment than it is to understand the problem and come up with a real solution.
I don't have a problem with there being very significant penalties for being caught drinking and driving. But criminalizing a large percentage of the population does just as much, if not more, to harm society than it does to fix it.
I'd rather see a first-time offender put in a year of alcohol treatment than ban their license for a year.
But hey, whatever. Can't argue with a fanatic.
Keebler Elf said:
Mainly because the courts keep handing out slaps on the wrists IMO. Of course the people who are trying to get drunks off the road are frustrated.
Keebler Elf said:
Well that's the problem isn't it? The problem persists even though the judges aren't using the punishment levels we already have in place.
Keebler Elf said:
While I agree it is not a perfect 100% deterrent, I don't believe there is anything out there that would be a perfect solution. What's to understand? People are stupid enough to drink and drive, period. Sure they may have a drinking problem and I hope they get help with that. But while they are doing that I want to make sure they have the time to get better w/o killing someone while driving impaired.
Keebler Elf said:
Wait, didn't you just say that punishment wasn't working as a deterrence? Wish you'd make up your mind here bud.
Keebler Elf said:
Why not both? Give them the help they need, plus give them a year to understand why they want the privilege of being able to drive.
Keebler Elf said:
Yeah, reading your posts has caused me to believe that too.
Perhaps we could shorten the debate if someone, anyone could cite a study that 'proves' severe punishments deter at all. DUI, theft, murder, rape whatever.
Historically, the evidence is that they do not. What does seem to deter—but never eliminates—the crimes of those who refuse to behave like the law-abiding majority, is the certainty of being caught at all.
Hanging an unlucky few in chains from the roadside gibbet until they starve and the flesh rots from their bones will always be less effective than a dozen more RIDE checks that catch their buddies. Just as every guy who buddy knows who drives away from the courthouse away w/ newly-suspended a license undoes the good of a dozen RIDE checks.
As for 'therapy' ordered by the courts: it's record is as dismal as outright punishment. What it takes is for the budding criminal to decide for himself, "I'm not doing that". Which drinking drivers, thieves, rapists … whatever clearly do not do, and the learning involved is not complex. If they haven't learned already, it's not credible that they can be taught. Some people imagine they're special enough to get away with what the rest of us know is bad for us all.
Historically, the evidence is that they do not. What does seem to deter—but never eliminates—the crimes of those who refuse to behave like the law-abiding majority, is the certainty of being caught at all.
Hanging an unlucky few in chains from the roadside gibbet until they starve and the flesh rots from their bones will always be less effective than a dozen more RIDE checks that catch their buddies. Just as every guy who buddy knows who drives away from the courthouse away w/ newly-suspended a license undoes the good of a dozen RIDE checks.
As for 'therapy' ordered by the courts: it's record is as dismal as outright punishment. What it takes is for the budding criminal to decide for himself, "I'm not doing that". Which drinking drivers, thieves, rapists … whatever clearly do not do, and the learning involved is not complex. If they haven't learned already, it's not credible that they can be taught. Some people imagine they're special enough to get away with what the rest of us know is bad for us all.
There is plenty of evidence that harsher sentences do reduce crime. However, it is more difficult to say that this is because of deterrence. This is because longer prison sentences reduce crime both through deterrence (discouraging people from committing crime) and incapacitation (criminals commit less crime when they are in prison). Statistically it is difficult to separate the two effects but given that you used the word “deter” you seem to be interested only in evidence regarding the first effect. The authors of the paper below have found an interesting way of separating the two effects by looking at differing prison conditions in different American states (measured by variables such as the death rate in prisons in different states). The idea is that once you control for a number of factors, two sentences of equal length should have the same incapacitation effects. However, differences in prison conditions should only affect deterrence and not incapacitation. Not only do they find a deterrence effect from poor prison conditions but the effect is significantly greater than the highest estimates for deterrence effects of capital punishment (not surprising, given that the marginal probability of dying is greater in states with poor prison conditions than states with capital punishment). For details seeoldjones said:
Katz, Lawrence, Steven D. Levitt and Ellen Shustorovich. 2003. Prison Conditions, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence. American Law and Economics Review 5(2): 318-343.
Anyway, I hope this answers your question.
I find another of his papers accounting for the fall in crime rates in the 90's more persuasive—partly because he's saying better policing (catching crooks) and some social factors (mothers aborting potential crooks—yes, he's that economist) play major roles and the soo scaaarry death penalty doesn't. Stuff I like. Which is more or less what he's saying in the study you cite: that the severe punishment of the death penalty deters less than the prospect of hard time—not necessarily long time— in a hellish hard place. But given that 'deterrance' is only hypthetical until it's reflected in declining crime rates, I'll still opt for his better policing and such over harsher punishments.
And the real question is why the bozos—like the buddy of the OP—who know what they're about to do is wrong, illegal, criminal, dangerous, and is very often detected, prosecuted and punished—by lawyer's bills and embarrassment even if they do get off— still think they're making a "sensible decision for me" when they decide to do it anyway?
We've all met five year olds with better decision-making. Sadly some of us take decades to acquire that same maturity. And the parenting practices observable in any supermarket aisle give ample proof that it is not learned by punishments—verbal or physical.
Can you buddy tell his prospective employer he no longer drinks and drives XTOR?
And the real question is why the bozos—like the buddy of the OP—who know what they're about to do is wrong, illegal, criminal, dangerous, and is very often detected, prosecuted and punished—by lawyer's bills and embarrassment even if they do get off— still think they're making a "sensible decision for me" when they decide to do it anyway?
We've all met five year olds with better decision-making. Sadly some of us take decades to acquire that same maturity. And the parenting practices observable in any supermarket aisle give ample proof that it is not learned by punishments—verbal or physical.
Can you buddy tell his prospective employer he no longer drinks and drives XTOR?
You have misread the paper you cite. He dicusses better policing as one of “Six Factors that Played Little or No Role in the Crime Decline”. The opposite of what you claim it says.oldjones said:
I also find it interesting that you find this paper “more persuasive” not because you think better techniques are used but rather because you mistakenly think it says what you already believe.
You might want to sit down and actually read the paper. Unlike the one I cited, this is just a survey paper that does not require any knowledge of statistical techniques to read.
Which is what I said.oldjones said:
However, the paper you linked to cites harsher punishments (in the form of more people in prision) as a factor that reduced crime and “better policing” as one that does did not explain reduced crime.oldjones said:
If true, the main effects of imprisonment would work through incapacitation and not deterrence. If you read the paper you linked, you will find this explained.oldjones said:
BTW, If the effects of imprisonment work primarily through incapacitation rather then deterrence, it does mean lower optimal sentences (I could explain if you would like), However, your original question was just rather there was evidence of deterrent effect, and I provide that. This is not to say that tough sentences are necessarily the best tool to use in combating crime, but it is incorrect to say there are not deterence effects. BTW, since you seem to like citing Levitt, I‘ll refer to to another paper were he finds that juveniles are also deterred by higher sentences:
Levitt, Steven D. 1998. Juvenile Crime and Punishment. Journal of Political Economy 106(6): 1156-1185.
However, a more recent paper argues that Levitt may be getting incapacitation effects confused with deterrence effects.
Similar threads
