Criminal Law According to EPAGLOa, the acceptable risk is defined as level of risk judged to be outweighed by corresponding benefits or one that is of such a degree that it is considered to pose minimal potential for adverse effects (US Environmental Protection Agency, n.p.).
Lets examine the potential risk for the employer based on the list of the following candidates: The candidate #1 was arrested and convicted of breaking and entering. He has recently been released after serving a 6 month sentence. The candidate #2 was arrested as a teenager for spraying graffiti on a school and convicted of criminal mischief. The candidate #3 was recently arrested and charged with possession of several ounces of marijuana and is awaiting trial. The candidate #4 has had her license revoked for repeated DWIs.
Candidate #5 was convicted of credit card fraud and served a 1 year prison term. He has been out of prison for 4 years, has held a job and has recently married. Taking into consideration the list of the candidates, the solution is as follows: As far as the candidate #1 was arrested and convicted of breaking and entering, the level of potential risk is quite high. According to the legislation currently in force, breaking and entering is defined as the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property without authorization (Dictionary Law, n.p.) Breaking and entering can have serious consequences and the person committed this act can be imprisoned for maximum of 10 years. The candidate #2 was accused of making graffiti as a teenager at school so the term of his punishment has already passed. Besides, although people caught causing graffiti can be punished according the Criminal Damage Act 1971, the graffiti offender is not as serious crime as breaking and entering. The candidate #2 was fined $500 and performed 80 hours of community service. The candidate #3 is currently awaiting trial being accused of possession of marijuana which is an addictive drug, the most-violence causing drug in the history of America.
The United States legislation is dealing with drug prohibition. According to The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, the act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of marijuana, but levied a tax equalling roughly one dollar on anyone who dealt commercially in marijuana. However, its penalty provisions were unusually severe–violations of proper procedure could result in a fine of up to $2000 and five years’ imprisonment (Wikipedia Website, n.p.).
The candidate #4 is accused of alcohol addiction. The potential worker can face various risks during the work and his attention will obviously be distracted from his tasks. Moreover, the majority of employment regulations claim that the persons under influence of alcohol and/or drugs shall not be permitted on the job. The level of risk is quite high that the potential candidate will perform his duties on the working place being in a state of alcohol intoxication. Finally, the candidate #5 was accused of credit card fraud, his crime record is quite old. According to the US legislation currently in force, the credit card fraud can be brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. Sec 1030) or as Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud cases (Credit Card Fraud, n.p.).
However, the candidate for employment has been out of prison for four years and has positive social reputation.
He is married and has held a job, and, therefore, can correspond to the level of acceptable risk. The prime objective of the employer is to reduce possible risk during the employment. Taking into consideration all data examined, the candidates #2 and #5 are the most suitable for the employment. Bibliography 1. Credit Card Fraud. Retrieved July 16, 2006, 2. US Environmental Protection Agency Website.
Acceptable Risk. Retrieved July 16, 2006, 3. Wikipedia Website. The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Retrieved July 16, 2006, .