hiring Caroline for a finance role does not strike me as the best decision
Optics aside, I do not personally find the decision objectionable. When someone has been found guilty of violating a norm, it is not immediately obvious whether they should be considered more or less likely to violate it again. On the one hand, the specific violation is evidence of a general disposition toward that kind of transgression. On the other hand, being caught and held accountable can leave an indelible mark, and prompt serious self-reflection and self-improvement. On priors, I’m not sure which effect dominates. But in Caroline’s case, it seems reasonably clear to me—given my knowledge of her background, court transcripts, and existing incentives—that she is very, very unlikely to engage in anything remotely resembling financial fraud ever again.
I agree with your approach to reasoning about the chance of recidivism, and had been mulling it over much the same way when I wrote my above comment. My uninformed prior for the average ex-con recently released from prison would be cautious, just because my understanding of the literature on recidivism rates tells me that for the average person, the tendency to violate further seems to be stronger than the mark of having been held accountable.
Of course, every individual is different. If you know Caroline well enough, have done deeper research into her case, and feel you’re able to be objective about the matter, it might be completely reasonable for you to be fine with hiring her for a finance role. Given that I don’t know Caroline personally, nor have I dived deep into the particulars of her situation or her public statements, I currently lean towards greater caution. (In my personal experience, I’ve been burned by people enough times that I’m sadly in general less trusting than I was, which might play a part in this too.)
Over the next few years, if Caroline continues on a better path, I am hopeful that she will earn our trust once again.
Thank you for writing this comment.
Optics aside, I do not personally find the decision objectionable. When someone has been found guilty of violating a norm, it is not immediately obvious whether they should be considered more or less likely to violate it again. On the one hand, the specific violation is evidence of a general disposition toward that kind of transgression. On the other hand, being caught and held accountable can leave an indelible mark, and prompt serious self-reflection and self-improvement. On priors, I’m not sure which effect dominates. But in Caroline’s case, it seems reasonably clear to me—given my knowledge of her background, court transcripts, and existing incentives—that she is very, very unlikely to engage in anything remotely resembling financial fraud ever again.
I agree with your approach to reasoning about the chance of recidivism, and had been mulling it over much the same way when I wrote my above comment. My uninformed prior for the average ex-con recently released from prison would be cautious, just because my understanding of the literature on recidivism rates tells me that for the average person, the tendency to violate further seems to be stronger than the mark of having been held accountable.
Of course, every individual is different. If you know Caroline well enough, have done deeper research into her case, and feel you’re able to be objective about the matter, it might be completely reasonable for you to be fine with hiring her for a finance role. Given that I don’t know Caroline personally, nor have I dived deep into the particulars of her situation or her public statements, I currently lean towards greater caution. (In my personal experience, I’ve been burned by people enough times that I’m sadly in general less trusting than I was, which might play a part in this too.)
Over the next few years, if Caroline continues on a better path, I am hopeful that she will earn our trust once again.