Explore BrainMass

Criminal Law and Employment

There are four individuals interviewing for an assembly line position. All candidates have the necessary skills and experience for the position but have all indicated prior criminal records on their application.

They are the following:

Candidate #1 was arrested and convicted of breaking and entering. He has recently been released after serving a 6 month sentence.

Candidate #2 was arrested as a teenager for spraying graffiti on a school and convicted of criminal mischief. He was fined $500 and performed 80 hours of community service.

Candidate #3 was recently arrested and charged with possession of several ounces of marijuana (a Class B misdemeanor). He is awaiting trial.

Candidate #4 has had her license revoked for repeated DWIs. However, she says she can get a ride to work from a friend who works at the plant.

Candidate #5 was convicted of credit card fraud and served a 1 year prison term. He has been out of prison for four years, has held a job, and has recently married.

What legal advice would you provide in response to choice of hiring and which two do you feel would bring an acceptable risk to the company?

**I would feel that candidate #2 and #5 would bring the most acceptable risks as they are rehabilitated and have held employment within the workforce. Yes, #5's crime is more severe than say #3 but that candidate is still awaiting trial so he/she does not display signs of rehabilitation or valid work experience since their arrest or incarceration.

I am looking for an opinion on the matter - as I am just a student still learning so in turn I have limited knowledge of the legal field.

Solution Preview


On candidate convicted of breaking and entering:

Breaking and entering basically is a criminal act of entering some enclosed property or someone's residence by using the slightest amount of force. It can simply be pushing open a door and entering without permission. The category of crime is misdemeanor and amounts to illegal trespass. The critical point is that if there was any intention to commit crime it would have been burglary. So, in case of candidate number 1 even though he has been convicted of breaking and entering and has served a jail term, his intention to commit crime of any type has not been proved.


On candidate arrested as a teenager convicted of criminal mischief.

Spraying graffiti on a school amounts to purposefully and knowingly damaging the property of another and so amounts to criminal mischief. We are told the fine imposed on him but we are not told the aggregate damage to the school property that was assessed. For example, if the damage that he did were assessed to be less than $100 it would be a class 3 misdemeanor. If the damages were assessed to be between $100 and $500 it would be a class 2 misdemeanor and so on. The ...

Solution Summary

Criminal Law and employment is discussed in great detail in this solution.