Like most complex things, the answer is: it depends.
In this case, it’s mostly about what the alleged crime is and what the role is. If someone was convicted of sexual assault of a minor and I’m hiring for a daycare, possible licensing issues and laws aside, I’d probably pass on that person. If I’m hiring an auto mechanic and the person was convicted of smoking weed, I’m only going to care that they aren’t operating heavy equipment while intoxicated.
The other thing to consider is how much time has passed since the conviction. To use a real, related example, I knew a guy who held a US Government TS/SCI clearance and who had been through a full scope polygraph. For those unfamiliar, this basically means that he had access to highly classified material and he had also been through a multi-hour polygraph. And despite the dubious nature of those, they often winnow out a lot of people. He was also a major drug user in the 1970s and '80s. The list of drugs he didn’t do was probably short than the ones he had done. But, between being honest about it and the amount of time which had passed since he got clean, he had no trouble getting and maintaining that clearance. Who you were then and who you are now can be pretty radically different.
Like any hiring process, it’s going to be a case by case basis. I’m actually involved in interviewing people for my current employer and the selection process hinges on many little things. You can have someone who is great on paper, but they have the personality of a raging walrus and that just kills their chances. You can also have folks who just have an off day, but it kills trust in that individual on the part of the interviewers. Hell, I’ve interviewed folks and immediately thought, “they don’t fit this role, but goddamn I wish they had applied when we were looking for this other role six months ago.” Interviewing people is weird, but I haven’t seen a better solution for selecting a candidate for many roles.
Like most complex things, the answer is: it depends.
In this case, it’s mostly about what the alleged crime is and what the role is. If someone was convicted of sexual assault of a minor and I’m hiring for a daycare, possible licensing issues and laws aside, I’d probably pass on that person. If I’m hiring an auto mechanic and the person was convicted of smoking weed, I’m only going to care that they aren’t operating heavy equipment while intoxicated.
The other thing to consider is how much time has passed since the conviction. To use a real, related example, I knew a guy who held a US Government TS/SCI clearance and who had been through a full scope polygraph. For those unfamiliar, this basically means that he had access to highly classified material and he had also been through a multi-hour polygraph. And despite the dubious nature of those, they often winnow out a lot of people. He was also a major drug user in the 1970s and '80s. The list of drugs he didn’t do was probably short than the ones he had done. But, between being honest about it and the amount of time which had passed since he got clean, he had no trouble getting and maintaining that clearance. Who you were then and who you are now can be pretty radically different.
Like any hiring process, it’s going to be a case by case basis. I’m actually involved in interviewing people for my current employer and the selection process hinges on many little things. You can have someone who is great on paper, but they have the personality of a raging walrus and that just kills their chances. You can also have folks who just have an off day, but it kills trust in that individual on the part of the interviewers. Hell, I’ve interviewed folks and immediately thought, “they don’t fit this role, but goddamn I wish they had applied when we were looking for this other role six months ago.” Interviewing people is weird, but I haven’t seen a better solution for selecting a candidate for many roles.