If we truly believe that the penal system and restorative justice works, at what level should a criminal who has "paid back" be allowed to
contribute to society again by having full rights, like the right to re-enter their profession, vote etc.
I was interviewing teachers for a post in our school. The interview was in two parts > an observed lesson followed by a 4 question interview where the responses were expected to be about 10 minutes long each.
The one who had taught the best lesson and given a reasonable set of responses also disclosed that they had a conviction for drunk driving. They no longer have a licence so use public transport and have alcohol counselling and are currently clean and sober. I was minded to take a punt and give them a chance of a temporary contract to see how it went. The rest of the panel thought the candidate should not be considered. Their argument was that we might be putting a young person at risk if we knowingly employ someone who has drunk too much in the past.
I don't think a conviction for drunk driving itself should be a problem. Child abuse would be. For a teaching job, anyway. I suppose it depends on the crime and the job applied for.
If he is a recovering alcoholic, what is the problem? If he still drinks, then, of course consideration must be taken. We all make mistakes, and even rapist/ murderers deserve a second chance. Of course, they may be placed on probation to ensure that there is no relapse. If he lost his license for drunk driving, was it his first offence or is it as a result of recidivism? Some people tend to be a little more judgemental than others so, only you and the panel can make a judgement call in this case. FWIW I'm with you, Mary.