Evidence of bias against people with criminal history

You may be familiar with the story of Mr. Beasley, a former X-ray technician at King Drew who was fired last year when the County discovered that he had an old rape conviction. Here is a story from Florida that is eerily similar to what happened to Mr. Beasley here in Los Angeles.

In both, we have a person convicted of a serious crime (a murder in the Florida story), who applies to a job with full disclosure of his criminal history. Then comes a long period of non-event. ("The custodian was never accused of doing anything inappropriate while he worked at the Palm Beach Gardens school.") Boring stuff, really. Just a guy doing his job, providing for his family, and living a life. Then comes the revelation that he has a conviction on his record.

At this point, both the LA Times (along with the County Board of Supervisors) and the Palm Beach Post.com saw a lucky break. "Oh, how lucky are we that this rapist/murdere didn't rape/kill again?" And "we shouldn't have let them work at the hospital/school in the first place!"

So they ignore the long period of non-event, where the guy just, you know, lived his life. That he did not kill or rape anyone isn't some luck or a coincidence or a mircale. It was his damn life for the past decade or two.

And this is the bias we have that eclipses everything else, including decades of a person's good life. The guy has moved on, but we are stuck in his past, judging him by it, from it. It's almost as if we want him to stay in it too.

UPDATE: A similar story from Oregon.