>Is it possible that you consider the flaw in the process to be of a different nature? Such as that there should under no circumstances be any interest in a person's criminal history in any hiring process?
Yes. If, as you say, criminal history was not a bar to employment, why ask the question at all if you are going to run a background check anyhow? You contradict yourself by stating that "criminal history was not an bar to employment" but also that "The nature of the roles in question [...] required us to care about the pasts of the candidates." so it's difficult to understand why you are so firm on this point. Anyhow, there are plenty of protected groups of people that a prospective employer can't legally discriminate against, yet the discrimination still happens.
The applicant has to take a calculated risk when deciding whether to answer the question about criminal history honestly. Maybe a better question on the application, rather than asking outright about criminal history and discarding an applicant when you catch them in a lie, is asking about relevant convictions that might have some implications about whether that person has a history of violations in your area of practice, or present a conflict to your customers.
> You contradict yourself by stating that "criminal history was not an bar to employment" but also that "The nature of the roles in question [...] required us to care about the pasts of the candidates."
I understand why you feel that way. Your heart is in the right place, and you care deeply about those suffering at the hands of a heartless society. Your blossoming of pure compassion is wonderful!
Yet, it's possible that you have not caught me in a contradiction. We would not have cared about, say, a past conviction for handling marijuana or anything vehicle related. We might have cared about a recent conviction for fraud. Honesty was paramount for that position, and choosing to lie to us was definitely a bar.
You're absolutely right that the applicant took a calculated risk and opted to lie. And we took a calculated risk by trusting their initial response. After that, we were much more cautious about waiting for background-check results.
I understand why you believe the question as you phrased it is better. It defers to the candidate's judgment and allows them to offer only the narrow bits of information that they think could be relevant. It maximizes their discretion and minimizes the risk of being discriminated against for a history that's over. It is, however, just possible that some might prefer to allow candidates the opportunity to be forthright, honest, and transparent?
Yes. If, as you say, criminal history was not a bar to employment, why ask the question at all if you are going to run a background check anyhow? You contradict yourself by stating that "criminal history was not an bar to employment" but also that "The nature of the roles in question [...] required us to care about the pasts of the candidates." so it's difficult to understand why you are so firm on this point. Anyhow, there are plenty of protected groups of people that a prospective employer can't legally discriminate against, yet the discrimination still happens.
The applicant has to take a calculated risk when deciding whether to answer the question about criminal history honestly. Maybe a better question on the application, rather than asking outright about criminal history and discarding an applicant when you catch them in a lie, is asking about relevant convictions that might have some implications about whether that person has a history of violations in your area of practice, or present a conflict to your customers.