Ask HN: Any felons successfully found IT work post-release?

Hacker News Discussion ↗

Formerly incarcerated technologists describe how felony records, especially for assault or drug-related offenses, make it extremely difficult to get or keep IT jobs, as background checks, Google searches, and HR risk aversion routinely override skills and experience. Commenters trade strategies and resources — from targeting small companies, contract work and LLCs to specialized “second chance” programs like Next Chapter, Checkr, and Justice Through Code — and debate whether to proactively disclose convictions or say nothing unless asked. Beneath the practical advice runs a broader critique of U.S. criminal justice and hiring practices, arguing that lifetime stigma undermines rehabilitation, pushes people into gray workarounds, and ultimately harms both workers and employers.

Legal Definitions and Nature of “Assault”

  • Multiple comments clarify that in many U.S. jurisdictions:
    • Assault = causing reasonable fear of imminent harm (no contact required).
    • Battery = actual physical contact/violence.
  • Others note some states lump everything under “assault” with degrees, and felony status often depends on weapons, injury, or protected victims.
  • Several posters admit initial confusion and emphasize that “assault” can be non‑physical but still career‑impacting.

Hiring Barriers and Lived Experiences

  • Numerous accounts of felons in IT describe:
    • Offers rescinded after background checks, sometimes the day before start.
    • Being fired months or years in once coworkers or HR discover records.
    • HR and large-company processes as near-automatic “no” for felonies.
  • Some have found stable roles after many years, often at small firms without formal checks or where leadership knowingly accepted the risk.
  • One particularly detailed story: a serious violent felony (domestic firearm assault) followed by 9 years in prison, then multiple roles at well-known tech companies, but repeated terminations once the past resurfaces.
  • Others report success after old DUIs or non-violent felonies once enough time passes and checks no longer surface them.

Strategies Suggested

  • Target small companies, startups, and contract/consulting work (LLC, 1099).
  • Focus on roles with no need for sensitive data access or formal checks (e.g., some pen-testing, external security consulting, indie dev).
  • Use “Fair chance” / “people with criminal records encouraged to apply” filters on job sites.
  • Leverage programs focused on formerly incarcerated in tech (e.g., Next Chapter, Justice Through Code, similar nonprofits).
  • Consider government/clearance roles where evaluation is done via structured frameworks rather than ad‑hoc recruiter fear.
  • Some suggest entrepreneurship (B2B services, IT for small orgs/nonprofits).

Disclosure, Honesty, and Law

  • Strong disagreement:
    • One camp: be upfront when it’s clearly going to appear; lying gets you fired later.
    • Another camp: never volunteer unless directly asked; honesty has repeatedly destroyed opportunities.
  • Nuanced position: don’t lie if asked directly, but don’t lead with your record.
  • Discussion of “Ban the Box” and fair‑chance laws:
    • Some say they help; others say employers ignore or work around them.
    • Enforcement via labor departments or civil-rights agencies is described as difficult, slow, or practically inaccessible without money.
  • Background checks are widely seen as overbroad and permanent; some argue for time-limited or role‑relevant reporting only.

Relocation, Name Changes, and Identity Workarounds

  • Moving abroad is frequently proposed but heavily contested:
    • Several say many countries won’t admit felons or will deport if records later surface.
    • Others report successful travel/employment abroad depending on offense and country.
  • Name changes and “synthetic identity” tactics are discussed:
    • Some view them as the only way to escape algorithmic docket-scrapers and Google.
    • Others warn of legal, ethical, and practical risks.

Criminal Justice, Discrimination, and Ethics

  • Many argue the U.S. system is punitive, not rehabilitative:
    • Long sentences and lifelong collateral consequences are seen as irrational and harmful.
    • Extended discussion that longer prison terms do not clearly reduce recidivism.
  • Concerns that background checks and “liability” rhetoric function as proxies for racial discrimination and maintaining a “second-class citizen” class.
  • Counterpoints:
    • Some employers feel a duty to protect staff and customers from people with histories of violence or sexual offenses.
    • Others insist they would hire capable felons and see rigid blanket bans as unjust and counterproductive.
  • Several emphasize the mental-health toll: repeated rejections, sudden firings, social ostracization, and suicidal ideation.

Overall Tone

  • Mixed but intense:
    • Significant pessimism from people repeatedly burned despite strong skills.
    • Some cautious optimism: examples of long‑term success, specialized programs, and small/employer‑driven paths.
    • Broad agreement that the status quo makes genuine “second chances” very hard, particularly in large, risk‑averse organizations.