[Jenrn1966]

I have an 18 year old son who was charged with a Felony offense (arson) when he was 16, he was placed on Diversion ( like Juvenile probation) and in January of 2008 he can petition the court to have it expunged from his record since he hasn't been in any trouble since or even before that.
My question is this.. he repeatedly answers "yes" to the question; Have you ever been charged/ convicted of a Felony? On job applications... and you know what that means.. they pitch his app and he never gets a chance to even interview. He's afraid to say no and tells future employers the story.Some companies do background checks on all future employees.
1. Does he have to say yes to that question on an app, since he was a juvenile when it occurred?
2. If a future employer did a background check, would the charge appear?

[charlotte234s]

I would say yes unless the charges were formally removed from his record and yes, they would see the charge but also that he was a minor when it happened, I believe, until is it actually expunged from his record.

[excon]

1. Does he have to say yes to that question on an app, since he was a juvenile when it occurred? 2. If a future employer did a background check, would the charge appear?

Hello J:

1) I don't know. Like if he lies is he going to be struck dead?? Of course he can lie. If he gets caught, he either won't get the job or he'll be fired if he already HAS the job.

2) I don't know again. SOME background checks might show it, while OTHERS won't. There isn't any such think as a "background check". There's GOOD background checks and there's BAD background checks. It depends on who the company buys their background checks from and how much they pay for them. If they're cheap, and they hire Joe Schmoe to do the checks, then it probably won't show.

excon

PS> (edited) Good for your son. He knows a lie when he sees one. You could learn a lesson from him.

[ScottGem]

Was he convicted? Most of the apps asked if you were convicted, not just charged. Most background checks only show convictions.

[charlotte234s]

I agree with both posts by excon and scottgem. I think it is just a good idea not to lie, that will be bad, and if he is going to be expunged soon, then he can try again then if it affects him getting the job now, and yes, convictions are the only thing that show on background checks, I believe.

[e419]

I believe that records are seeled at 18 for anything that was done before then. Check into it but I'm pritty sure they are seeled

[Jenrn1966]

Some people who answered my question thought that I was encouraging my son to lie.. I was not, I encourage honesty and think its better to be upfront. I was just curious if there was a legal difference between being "charged" with a crime and being "convicted " of a crime. Lots of people are charged.. you can charge me with all kinds of things... but I won't be convicted if I'm innocent(hopefully).
I'm also discouraged with hiring practices.. my son applied for a city job, told them the story and they didn't even want to do a background check... how does someone get a second chance these days?

Our decision: he's waiting, finishing school and we will get his juvenille record expunged in January.. thanks to those who answered

[Jenrn1966]

Defined conviction versus charged

[Jenrn1966]

Useful info

[Jenrn1966]

Judgmental answer... I wanted to know if he could legally, honestly and in good faith, answer no to the app question, I don't want him to lie

[Jenrn1966]

I know they are in Canada, but couldn't find out for sure in US

[TzAngels]

In the state of Illinois you can answer NO if you were convicted as a juvenile because on MOST background searches it is not there... state and federal jobs have access. It would be a good idea for you to check your state and maybe even still have him put no on the application aBUT explain it at the END of an interview, that way they know he isn't trying to hide it .

Good luck

Tz

[jlew001]

I have noticed a lot of replies all over the internet that are simply opinions and a split between whether to answer yes or no.

Opinion is not fact so is there anyone out there who can actually come up with a LEGAL answer to this question?

Generally speaking, if you lie and say NO on an application and they find out, it can be grounds for immediate termination or denial of the application (which is usually the case).

Most of the time, an employer will not look at the circumstances of the conviction or the reason the person may have had to commit it. All they see is "Convicted" and "Felony" and the application goes in the trash or to the bottom of the pile.

On the other hand, if you answer YES, it is usually the opinion of the employer that you would possibly do something illegal on the job and therefore, your application is refused or trashed anyway.

If you try to say they "Discriminated" based on the employer not hiring you because of being a felon, they can get around that by making up a legitimate "Story" that you were under qualified, over qualified, or for some other reason.

Personally, I feel that this question on an application is a form of discrimination and really should be "Job Specific":
Example:
For a job involving handling money = Have you ever been convicted of a felony crime of fraud, theft, embezzlement, etc.
For a job involving handling medication such as a clinic or pharmacy = Have you ever been convicted of a felony crime related to drugs, drug use, trafficking, etc.

Lets say for example you have a conviction of Burglary. Burglary can be as simple as just going into a house uninvited to actually stealing things from it. A crime of that nature does not prove an inability to perform as a carpenter or laborer.
Lets say you killed someone in self defense and they convicted you of Involuntary Manslaughter. You had legitimate reason to defend yourself but all they see is that you killed someone and they are now in fear of you.

This is a very touchy thing and laws should be made that make this question only required for the position you are being hired for and Job Specific.

Having a felony conviction of any kind, as it stands, is a MAJOR setback to finding a job.

For what I do know about the law, if someone is a minor then their record is usually sealed and/or expunged automatically once they reach legal age. On the other hand, if they are a minor but convicted as an adult then that record follows them the rest of their lives or until they can have it expunged which costs money unless they can get a Government ORder of Executive Clemency and petition the court for expungement.

The old saying goes: "If you do the crime, you do the time". The only problem is that once you have paid for it and have been rehabilitated, you are supposed to be able to have consideration or equal opportunity BUT you still face having to "Pay" for it for the rest of your life...
And THAT, my friends is WRONG, in a Country that claims it believes in "Equal Opportunity" and "Equal Rights".

It seems like once you have a felony, it doesn't matter if you have been rehabilitated. You are now a citizen but can't even vote for the President that you have to live under. You have no right to protect yourself anymore. You can't even open a Bar if you want because a felon cannot obtain a Federal Alcohol Permit. You have a hard time finding a home because most Federal Agencies won't help fund a place to live for a felon. And that doesn't even begin to cover how it affects your future life.

You have done the crime, paid the price... yet you will keep paying forever and ever because the idea of rehabilitation, equal opportunity, and Freedom is nothing more than an ILLUSION.

[JudyKayTee]

Some people who answered my question thought that I was encouraging my son to lie..I was not, I encourage honesty and think its better to be upfront. I was just curious if there was a legal difference between being "charged" with a crime and being "convicted " of a crime. Lots of people are charged..you can charge me with all kinds of things...but I wont be convicted if I'm innocent(hopefully).
I'm also discouraged with hiring practices..my son applied for a city job, told them the story and they didnt even want to do a background check...how does someone get a second chance these days??

Our decision: he's waiting, finishing school and we will get his juvenille record expunged in January..thanks to those who answered

I don't think the definitions of the words conviction and charge matter - if the question is have you ever been charged/convicted the slash takes the place of the word "or" and, yes, he has been charged. No one is asking the outcome, they are simply asking if he was ever charged OR convicted. So the answer is yes. Every application I've seen - and I've seen a few - have a space for an explanation.

I can see an employer could have a problem with an arson charge over, say, shoplifting.

The next moral issue would be after the record is expunged if he is asked the same question how will he answer? The fact that no one can find the arrest doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I don't know what job he's applying for but a lot of employers don't do background checks - not worth the time and money. They only use the application as grounds for dismissal if they want to get rid of you, find out you lied, don't want to pay Unemployment. Keep your nose clean and maybe the subject never comes up.

And if it's a matter of survival I guess he holds his breath, says no and keeps walking!

[jlew001]

Understood that no one is asking the outcome of the situation... it is a matter not of
"Have you been charged/convicted" because on most applications I have seen (and
I have seen thousands) it asks:
"Have you ever been convicted of a felony?"
OR
"Have you ever been convicted of a crime other than a minor traffic violation?"
AND
"If yes, please explain:____________________ .... "


The key here is "Have you ever been convicted...." and that is all most employers
Ever see.

They usually don't care about the reasons, circumstances, or outcome because the
"Outcome" is the fact that "Yes" there was a conviction, thus, a finding of guilt.

Lines offered for an explanation are not always a good thing because:
1. Everyone that works there can now see that you have a crime on your record

That can be worse than not getting the job in the long run because the majority of
Society tends to automatically mistrust anyone who has had a criminal conviction.
That is the nature of the beast - HUMAN NATURE.

The next moral issue would be after the record is expunged if he is asked the same question how will he answer? The fact that no one can find the arrest doesn't mean it didn't happen.

To answer this question:
There is no Moral Obligation to answer yes or no regardless of expungement or not.
The fact is that after a record is sealed or expunged by a court, you DO NOT have to
Answer Yes.
The law states that you are not obligated to answer Yes to, or discuss any record
Which has been sealed or expunged from public record.

Mind you, expungement does not mean Erasure... it simply means that the record
Has been Sealed and no one is entitled to the content of it.

As far as Background Checks go... it has become common practice of prospective
Employers to put the obligation of cost on the prospective employee. In that way,
The employer doesn't HAVE to consider cost or time for having a check done. They
Make the one applying pay for it now in many cases (save the major corporations
Who can afford to do it on their own).

This is a very touchy situation and as I stated before, I believe that the USA should
Re-evaluate such things and come to a better solution because everyone has the right
To be a "Productive Citizen", have a job, live with equality, eat, have a home, and
Provide for a family.

AND, the question should pertain solely to the position applied for and not IN GENERAL.

That is simply In my opinion

[JudyKayTee]

I have noticed a lot of replies all over the internet that are simply opinions and a split between whether to answer yes or no.

Opinion is not fact so is there anyone out there who can actually come up with a LEGAL answer to this question?

Generally speaking, if you lie and say NO on an application and they find out, it can be grounds for immediate termination or denial of the application (which is usually the case).

Most of the time, an employer will not look at the circumstances of the conviction or the reason the person may have had to commit it. All they see is "Convicted" and "Felony" and the application goes in the trash or to the bottom of the pile.

On the other hand, if you answer YES, it is usually the personal opinion of the employer that you would possibly do something illegal on the job and therefore, your application is refused or trashed anyway.

If you try to say they "Discriminated" based on the employer not hiring you because of being a felon, they can get around that by making up a legitimate "Story" that you were under qualified, over qualified, or for some other reason.

Personally, I feel that this question on an application is a form of discrimination and really should be "Job Specific":
Example:
For a job involving handling m you ever been convicted of a felony crime of fraud, theft, embezzlement, etc.?
For a job involving handling medication such as a clinic or pharmacy = Have you ever been convicted of a felony crime related to drugs, drug use, trafficking, etc.?

Lets say for example you have a conviction of Burglary. Burglary can be as simple as just going into a house uninvited to actually stealing things from it. A crime of that nature does not prove an inability to perform as a carpenter or laborer.
Lets say you killed someone in self defense and they convicted you of Involuntary Manslaughter. You had legitimate reason to defend yourself but all they see is that you killed someone and they are now in fear of you.

This is a very touchy thing and laws should be made that make this question only required for the position you are being hired for and Job Specific.

Having a felony conviction of any kind, as it stands, is a MAJOR setback to finding a job.

For what I do know about the law, if someone is a minor then their record is usually sealed and/or expunged automatically once they reach legal age. On the other hand, if they are a minor but convicted as an adult then that record follows them the rest of their lives or until they can have it expunged which costs money unless they can get a Government ORder of Executive Clemency and petition the court for expungement.

The old saying goes: "If you do the crime, you do the time". The only problem is that once you have paid for it and have been rehabilitated, you are supposed to be able to have consideration or equal opportunity BUT you still face having to "Pay" for it for the rest of your life...
And THAT, my friends is WRONG, in a Country that claims it believes in "Equal Opportunity" and "Equal Rights".

It seems like once you have a felony, it doesn't matter if you have been rehabilitated. You are now a citizen but can't even vote for the President that you have to live under. You have no right to protect yourself anymore. You can't even open a Bar if you want because a felon cannot obtain a Federal Alcohol Permit. You have a hard time finding a home because most Federal Agencies won't help fund a place to live for a felon. And that doesn't even begin to cover how it affects your future life.

You have done the crime, paid the price... yet you will keep paying forever and ever because the idea of rehabilitation, equal opportunity, and Freedom is nothing more than an ILLUSION.

On hand you pretty much demand a LEGAL answer (your caps), not "simply opinions and split between whether to answer yes and no." For that you need to retain an Attorney. In the meantime, several people DID post a legal opinion. It may be YOUR (my caps) opinion that it is a matter not of "Have you been charged/convicted" but "have you ever been convicted of a felony." Apparently that's how it's stated on the thousands of applications you've seen.

That is NOT how the OP phrased it and that is NOT what the people on this thread answered. They answered the question "have you ever been charged/convicted ..." which is what the OP asked. She didn't ask for my opinion of the hiring process or, for that matter, your opinion of the hiring process. She asked one specific question under one particular set of circumstances.

My LEGAL answer is and was: Her son has to answer yes because he was CHARGED.

I don't know where you live but in my area employees most definitely do not pay for their own background checks. I also don't know how extensive or expensive background checks are in your area. I know what they cost in mine and it's not a deal breaker.

As far as the rest of your post - whether the USA should re-evaluate such things and come to a better solution because everyone has the right... " and so forth - those are political issues, perhaps philosophical issues. Maybe there's a "morals" thread - I don't know.

You wanted a LEGAL opinion and that's exactly what you got, several of them in fact.

It was your choice to go off on personal philosophies and muddy the waters.

[Fr_Chuck]

In the US, if the charge at 16 was in Juv court ( unless he was charged as a adult) the records seal at 18 and do not show up. Juv arrests and convictions do not show up on any background check.
** normally not even on the NCIC reports.

So at 18, they are allowed to say no, since no report will show up.

[jlew001]

On hand you pretty much demand a LEGAL answer (your caps), not "simply opinions and split between whether to answer yes and no." For that you need to retain an Attorney. In the meantime, several people DID post a legal opinion. It may be YOUR (my caps) opinion that it is a matter not of "Have you been charged/convicted" but "have you ever been convicted of a felony." Apparently that's how it's stated on the thousands of applications you've seen.

AND

My LEGAL answer is and was: Her son has to answer yes because he was CHARGED.

Just goes to show exactly how ARROGANT (caps are also used for EMPHASIS which is
The context in which I wrote it) some people can be.

As for a LEGAL opinion... did you or anyone else in here go to LAW SCHOOL?
FYI there JKT... legal Opinions tend to be null and void if they are not from
Someone who is qualified to state such an opinion.
In fact, none of the Opinions (including mine) in this thread would hold up in an
Actual court because they are not of § LEGAL CITATION.
{Note the § which means Section (as it pertains to State and/or USC Code)

Furthermore, it does not always require a retainer as you seem to assume because
There are such things as Legal Aid Societies and some lawyers will answer simple
Questions (such as this one is) without charge.

I don't know where you live but in my area employees most definitely do not pay for their own background checks. I also don't know how extensive or expensive background checks are in your area. I know what they cost in mine and it's not a deal breaker.

Where you or I live is of no consequence because there are many large corporations all
Around that will have the checks done of their own accord (Wal Mart is just one
Example) so again, your arrogance prevails and precedes you.

Oh and for those who do have to pay for one, it is usually in the range of $ 5.00 to
$ 45.00 (generally) and dependent on whether it is a simple local check or an NCIC.

You wanted a LEGAL opinion and that's exactly what you got, several of them in fact.

Perhaps I did get answers but guess what...
They are opinions with no ;ega; background or citation thereby making them
useless considering the person who asked the question is probably seeking
A real legal answer...

"Fr_Chuck" is CORRECT and if you (JKT) would have paid better attention to my reply,
You would have seen that my reply is in fact answering the OP's question of HOW TO
ANSWER.

It was your choice to go off on personal philosophies and muddy the waters.

And I am guessing it was your choice to act like an *** without actually reading
and listening to HOW my answer was phrased or else you would know that CAPS
Aren't always a method of demanding anything, rather, they can be used to EMPHASIZE
A word or phrase.

It is no wonder I try to avoid forums of this nature... too many who think they know it
All and never use the powers of Google to actually do research before spouting off some
Answer that is merely an insufficient opinion... and there is always at least ONE person
In the bunch who just has to belittle someone else.

I am out of here... so post your reply (that I won't see) as if you think you
Are getting in a last word that matters :D

(now where is that smiley flipping the finger? )

[excon]

now where is that smiley flipping the finger?

Hello j:

Right here:


__/\__

Not being an artist (or a lawyer), that's the best I could do on short notice.

excon

[JudyKayTee]

Just goes to show exactly how ARROGANT (caps are also used for EMPHASIS which is
the context in which I wrote it) some people can be.

As for a LEGAL opinion... did you or anyone else in here go to LAW SCHOOL?
FYI there JKT... legal Opinions tend to be null and void if they are not from
someone who is qualified to state such an opinion.
In fact, none of the Opinions (including mine) in this thread would hold up in an
actual court because they are not of § LEGAL CITATION.
{Note the § which means Section (as it pertains to State and/or USC Code)

Furthermore, it does not always require a retainer as you seem to assume because
there are such things as Legal Aid Societies and some lawyers will answer simple
questions (such as this one is) without charge.


Where you or I live is of no consequence because there are many large corporations all
around that will have the checks done of their own accord (Wal Mart is just one
example) so again, your arrogance prevails and precedes you.

Oh and for those who do have to pay for one, it is usually in the range of $ 5.00 to
$ 45.00 (generally) and dependent on whether it is a simple local check or an NCIC.


Perhaps I did get answers but guess what...
They are opinions with no ;ega; background or citation thereby making them
useless considering the person who asked the question is probably seeking
a real legal answer ...

"Fr_Chuck" is CORRECT and if you (JKT) would have paid better attention to my reply,
you would have seen that my reply is in fact answering the OP's question of HOW TO
ANSWER.

And I am guessing it was your choice to act like an *** without actually reading
and listening to HOW my answer was phrased or else you would know that CAPS
aren't always a method of demanding anything, rather, they can be used to EMPHASIZE
a word or phrase.

It is no wonder I try to avoid forums of this nature... too many who think they know it
all and never use the powers of Google to actually do research before spouting off some
answer that is merely an insufficient opinion... and there is always at least ONE person
in the bunch who just has to belittle someone else.

I am out of here... so go ahead and post your reply (that I won't see) as if you think you
are getting in a last word that matters :D

(now where is that smiley flipping the finger? )

They are not "of legal citation?" Been watching Perry Mason again?

And, yes, several people on the Board have gone to Law School.

Ahh, too bad you're gone forever and it's not worth my time to let you know I see "more things legal" in one day than you have in a lifetime. That's why I don't have to give people the finger -

And let me know who is doing complete background checks for $5 to $45 because I definitely need to adjust MY rates... downward.