When the Sentence Ends but the Career Does Not Recover
When the Sentence Ends but the Career Does Not Recover
What Deadliest Catch Can Teach Us About Employment After Conviction
A criminal sentence can have a defined ending. The economic consequences often do not.
The Discovery series Deadliest Catch offers an unusual case study in how criminal history, publicity, the nature of an offense, and employer discretion can affect a person’s career long after a courtroom proceeding is over.
Three men associated with the program—Josh Harris, Edgar Hansen, and Sig Hansen—have each encountered the criminal justice system. Their cases are not equivalent, and they should not be treated as if they were. The allegations, offenses, ages of the people involved, timing, and legal outcomes were significantly different.
Their professional outcomes were also very different.
That difference raises an important question:
After a person has completed the punishment imposed by a court, how much influence should an old criminal record continue to have over that person’s ability to earn a living?
Josh Harris: Building a Career, Then Losing the Platform
Viewers watched Josh Harris develop professionally over many years.
He originally appeared on Deadliest Catch aboard the F/V Cornelia Marie with his father, Captain Phil Harris. After Phil’s death in 2010, Josh continued fishing and eventually took a larger role in the family business.
Discovery’s investment in Harris eventually went well beyond simply featuring him as a crew member.
In 2020, Discovery launched Deadliest Catch: Bloodline, a spinoff centered on Harris and fellow fisherman Casey McManus. Warner Bros. Discovery’s own announcement described Harris as a Deadliest Catch captain and explained that the series would follow him as he explored fishing grounds connected to charts left by his father.
Source: Warner Bros. Discovery
That is significant from an employment perspective.
Harris had moved from deckhand to established television personality and then to the central figure in his own television program. Bloodline ultimately ran for three seasons.
Then everything changed.
In 2022, information about a criminal case involving Harris from the late 1990s received renewed public attention. Reporting indicated that the underlying conduct occurred when Harris was a teenager and involved a very young child. Harris ultimately entered pleas to lesser offenses, and the criminal case had been resolved years before his television career developed.
When the case became widely publicized in 2022, Discovery announced that Harris would no longer appear in future episodes.
“We’ve been made aware of this issue. Josh will not appear in future episodes of this series.”
Harris subsequently disappeared from Deadliest Catch, and Bloodline did not continue beyond its third season.
The important point is not whether Discovery should or should not have continued employing Harris.
Discovery is a private company. It has legitimate business interests involving audiences, advertisers, reputation, and the people it chooses to feature on television.
The important point for a discussion about reentry is the timeline.
The criminal justice system had dealt with Harris’s case years earlier. He then worked. He developed professional skills. He built a career. He became a captain. He developed substantial name recognition. A major television network ultimately created a program around him.
Then the renewed visibility of an old criminal case changed his professional future.
Edgar Hansen: Losing the Camera, Not Necessarily the Occupation
Edgar Hansen provides a different example.
Edgar, the younger brother of Captain Sig Hansen, was a longtime member of the Northwestern crew and became a recognizable Deadliest Catch personality.
His criminal case occurred much later and under very different circumstances from Josh Harris’s.
In 2018, Edgar Hansen pleaded guilty to fourth-degree assault with sexual motivation involving a 16-year-old girl. CBS News reported that he received a 364-day suspended sentence, fines and fees, and requirements including evaluation, treatment, and providing a DNA sample.
Edgar subsequently disappeared from his former prominent role on Deadliest Catch.
There is an important distinction: losing one’s occupation is not necessarily the same thing as losing access to a particular employment opportunity.
Edgar Hansen possessed skills as a commercial fisherman, engineer, and crew member before his television appearances. Losing a featured television role would not necessarily prevent him from working aboard a fishing vessel.
But losing national television exposure is still an enormous professional consequence.
For someone whose income, reputation, and career had become intertwined with a television franchise, removal from the program represented a dramatic change.
That distinction matters outside television as well.
A person may technically remain capable of performing construction work, maintenance, transportation, food service, information technology, or another occupation while finding that individual employers will not hire them.
Being legally permitted to work and realistically being able to obtain work are not always the same thing.
Sig Hansen: A Criminal Case Without the End of a Television Career
Captain Sig Hansen provides the strongest contrast.
In 2017, Hansen was arrested following an encounter with an Uber driver in Seattle. Contemporary reporting stated that he was accused of spitting on the driver and damaging the driver’s vehicle following a dispute.
CBS later reported that Hansen was ordered to undergo alcohol treatment and received a year of probation.
His career, however, continued.
Sig remained one of the central figures on Deadliest Catch.
Discovery subsequently created Deadliest Catch: The Viking Returns, centered heavily on Sig and his family as they pursued a king-crab fishing operation in Norway.
The comparison continues today. Discovery’s current listings for Season 22 in 2026 continue to feature Sig Hansen and the Northwestern.
Three Cases — Three Different Career Outcomes
| Person | Criminal History | Television Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Josh Harris | Decades-old case resurfaced publicly in 2022 | Discovery relationship ended; Bloodline did not continue |
| Edgar Hansen | 2018 sexual-motivation assault conviction | No longer a regular featured personality |
| Sig Hansen | Non-sexual criminal case following 2017 incident | Career continued, including subsequent Discovery programming |
The Cases Are Not the Same
It would be misleading to imply that these men committed equivalent offenses and simply received different treatment.
They did not.
Sig Hansen’s case involved an adult Uber driver and was not a sexual offense.
Edgar Hansen’s case involved a 16-year-old and resulted in a guilty plea to assault with sexual motivation.
Josh Harris’s decades-old case involved allegations concerning a young child and conduct occurring while Harris himself was a teenager.
Those distinctions matter.
Employers may consider the nature of conduct, the responsibilities associated with a job, public reaction, and potential business consequences.
The purpose of comparing these cases is therefore not to argue that Discovery should have treated all three individuals identically.
What Happens to the Ordinary Applicant?
Josh Harris was famous. He had professional connections, a recognizable name, and years of successful television work behind him.
Most people leaving the criminal justice system have none of those advantages.
Their version of losing a television contract may be much less visible:
- A warehouse application that goes unanswered.
- A maintenance position that disappears after a background check.
- An employer searching an applicant’s name online and choosing someone else.
- A commercial-driving opportunity that becomes unavailable.
- Housing near employment that cannot be obtained.
- Occupational or residency restrictions that make stable employment harder to maintain.
There will generally be no news story when that happens.
There will be no television network issuing a statement.
There may simply be another rejection.
That is why employment deserves serious attention in discussions about people forced to register.
Stable employment provides income, structure, housing stability, family support, and connection to the community. Policies that undermine those stabilizing factors deserve careful examination, particularly when restrictions extend for decades or life.
Accountability and Rehabilitation Can Exist Together
None of this requires minimizing victims or excusing criminal behavior.
People who commit crimes should be held accountable. Victims deserve recognition, support, and justice. Public safety is a legitimate government responsibility.
But accountability and rehabilitation do not have to be opposing ideas.
A justice system should also ask what happens after punishment.
If a person completes a sentence, participates in treatment when required, remains offense-free, works, supports a family, and becomes a productive member of society, should that progress ever matter?
The stories of Josh Harris, Edgar Hansen, and Sig Hansen do not answer that question for us.
They demonstrate how complicated the question actually is.
One man encountered the criminal justice system and continued building a major television career. Another disappeared from his featured role following a conviction. A third built a successful career long after his original case was resolved, only to lose his television platform when that history became widely publicized decades later.
For the millions of Americans who will never appear on television, the same underlying issue plays out much more quietly every day.
When does a criminal sentence end—and when should a person be allowed to demonstrate that their future can be more than their past?
Editorial Note: This article compares documented career outcomes and does not argue that the underlying cases were equivalent or that any private employer was legally required to retain a particular individual. The comparison is intended to examine the broader relationship between criminal history, rehabilitation, publicity, and long-term employment consequences.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Background checks do nothing to delineate between a possible employee’s potential to commit or recommit a crime of any kind. In fact, they are most likely losing out on those that could be good employees. Same with HR departments. That is a whole other ball of wax, but I digress. That is the sad part about background checks. Once government got involved, and created the false narrative that a background check was necessary to find a good employee it created more problems than eliminated them. I personally believe it is used as a tool of revenge and retribution if an employee has a grudge against another coworker instead of being mature about what is causing the difficulty and addressing it. Same with background checks for apartment complexes. Management companies have come to believe that background checks prevent crime. I bet there are many crimes being committed behind closed doors by supposedly “good residents”. Government has done nothing but hurt individuals who want and need second chances.
Everyone deserves a second chance. No one is as pristine as they pretend to be—least of all the lawmakers and moral preachers who condemn others most loudly.
Consider the case of Josh Harris. He was famous. He had professional connections, a recognizable name, and years of successful television work behind him. But then came the jealous competitor, the media outrage machine, and the manufactured scandal. Decades after the fact, they dredged up a youthful relationship with a teenage girl—a relationship that was likely consensual, and where she may well have misrepresented her age. For this, he must now be publicly shamed and stripped of everything he built?
Let us unpack that logic.
If Harris’s crime had been murder, drug trafficking, arson, drunk driving, or even vehicular manslaughter, he would have kept his career. He might even have been celebrated as a “tale of redemption,” his past transgressions forgiven in exchange for a compelling comeback narrative. But because his offense involved sex—and because society has been conditioned to treat sexuality as the ultimate taboo—he became unemployable.
The hypocrisy is staggering. Congress members who pay hush money for sex crimes using taxpayer funds remain in office. Clients of Maxwell and Epstein continue to walk free, their names protected, their careers intact. The rules apply selectively, and the public tolerates this disparity because they have been told whom to hate and whom to forgive.
This reveals an uncomfortable truth: most people do not care about justice. They care about their own position within the mob. They will gleefully participate in the destruction of others, provided the injustice keeps them safe from becoming the next target. It is a sad commentary on humanity—that we ignore systemic unfairness until it knocks on our own door.
Humanity has not evolved. We are de-evolving, and that is not opinion. That is fact.
I find myself in a difficult place here. I have been unusually lucky as I am in sales, and that industry is notorious for overlooking a past if you can sell, and I have been fortunate enough to have supervisors and owners that have looked at my accomplishments both pre and post offense, and decided to give me a chance. Granted, pre-offense I was running sales offices, and I had to start at the bottom of the barrel again and work my way up, but I have rebuilt my life. My greatest fear though is of speaking up and “they” find something I forgot- some business number or identifier I missed, and losing it all. Instead I donate and pray for the FAC case as much as I can, 20 years post-offense and 11 years post-probation going, but never a day I feel “Safe”
“Never feeling safe”. That is the best descriptor to concisely describe how my wife feels every day on the registry. No drive she takes, no time with grandkids anywhere but home, no trip to the doctor or outing with friends does she feel entirely safe from the what ifs. Mostly what if she fall prey to the traps of the laws and finds herself by no fault of her own someplace she is not supposed to be. Her anxiety is real and sometime palpable. Her PTSD is real. I hate it for her that she has to live this way. I hate it for everyone that has to suffer this indignity.