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.
When I first was released, the only job I could get was day labor through places such as Hire Quest, People Ready and PaceSetter. Every other place I tried to apply to almost always required an on-line application, when you are prohibited from using the internet, that becomes an insurmountable barrier to employment. Temp agencies would allow me to apply in person, and if available, I was allowed by my probation officer to use the computer in companies’ office to fill out the application on site. As soon as they did their background check, I was told none of their clients would want me as a temp. One when so far as to tell me never to return to their office or they would call the police and have me arrested for trespassing.
Eventually, I was able to find a second chance company and was able to apply online with the help of my recovery sponsor. I’ve been working there for the past two and half years. It’s not my trained career field, but I have full-time employment. For that I am grateful and fortunate. I needed to be persistent and creative in working a solution and of course, I had to endure a lot of no’s before I finally got a yes.
As a side story… About nine months ago there was a plant wide meeting, we were told a supervisor, and several employees were fired that day and not allow them into the building. Shortly after the announcement, I was called in to the HR office and was told an investigation had been conducted and I was mentioned during that investigation. The fired supervisor had looked me up and told several employees of my registration status and my charges. They subsequently shared with other employees until one of my coworkers heard about it and reported it situation to management. HR wanted to know if I felt I had been directly harassed by anyone regarding my past. It was not the first time I had heard about it, I didn’t have any overt harassment, I did have some side-glances in the breakroom on occasion which I could not be sure of but I was surprised management took it so seriously. This company fired a well-liked supervisor and good producing employees, some of which had been with the company for over fifteen years. Some companies say they are a second chance company until they find out what you did, and others truly do give you a second chance. Again, I count myself as fortunate and grateful.
That is truly a blessing, and a model for other companies to follow. Christian businesses should be leading the way in this regard, but sadly many are in name only.
I work for a company like yours, with most employees coming from a second chance prison reentry program, and we have grown 20X in revenue since I first started. Business owners, let that sink in! Some of the hardest working, most loyal, untapped talent lies waiting for their chance to shine, but who will give them a chance?
May God bless you and your employer for putting actions behind their words.
These gents are being continually punished for wrongs as defined below:
Acccording to Merriam-Webster dictionary, PFRs and the community are using the word Punishment wrong when it is continually thought of as a “legal” definition #1 (below) or #2b (below) when it needs to be classified under #3 (below) for the registry and its outgrowth by the government’s and society’s use of the registry concept (which is extended under Punish #2a (below).
This is what RBG, Judge Matsch, et al have alluded to but others won’t hear of it as they stay within the legal lane of thought on it. IMO, the argument needs to be moved from a legal point and to a personal action by others, e.g., treatment is not a medial treatment, but an overall treatment of the person by other’s and their actions.
Punishment (noun)
1: the act of punishing
2a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
b: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment
Punish (verb)
punished; punishing; punishes
transitive verb
1a: to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation
b: to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation
2a: to deal with roughly or harshly
b: to inflict injury on : hurt
I hope the forum can see the analogy I am presenting and it is applied by others who deem people need to be continually punished for wrongs that have long been adjudicated already.
You know, I’ve been on the Florida registry since Day 1 of its creation back in 1997. What people forget is that back then, the internet was in its infancy and the registry was mostly invisible to the general public. Finding a normal job wasn’t impossible.
I’ve never actually been convicted of a felony—I had an adjudication of guilt withheld. I did everything I was supposed to, successfully completing counseling and probation by 2002 with zero violations ever since.
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, everything changed. Background checks got real, and all of a sudden, my registry status became an issue in ways I never expected. Even though I managed to land a few good jobs through the 2000s, a disturbing trend kept emerging. By around 2005, I realized I had to pivot to self-employment just to survive. I started working as a handyman, and these days I mostly remove scrap metal.
Looking back, I estimate being on the registry has slashed my lifetime earnings by 50% to 75%, and that’s while working entirely without benefits. And look, I know I’m one of the “lucky ones”—we count our blessings often.
Back in 1999, a psychologist even designated me as low risk to reoffend. But all these years of relentless Florida heat and brutal manual labor have completely kicked my ass. I’m 55 and feel worn out. Despite years of successful living, quiet resilience, almost three decades of total sobriety, and trying to do everything right, the constant, low-grade survival mode eventually took a severe psychological toll, leading to me developing a serious form of Complex PTSD.
Between the trauma of lifelong and aggressive character assassination by the government, the physical wear and tear of endless hard jobs and heat, and the loss of friends and family relationships, I’ve essentially been given a life sentence of hard labor. Honestly, right now, things have never felt more restrictive, confusing, overwhelming, or threatening than they do right now today. This is has been one long crisis that gets worse every year.
Thats a perspective and research I am going to ressearch what changed and how after 9/11 federally. Very interesting
I remember it distinctively and it’s like somebody flipped a switch. It was the first significant step toward America becoming a paranoid police state that we find ourselves in now. The creation of the department of Homeland security and the Patriot act coupled with a technological revolution, that we’re still trying to figure out, changed America forever. Everything became digitized coupled with a slow erosion of constitutional rights. They have used the registry as an excuse to ignore the Constitution for decades now. The amount of money these various surveillance entities receive each year from the government is staggering. The pattern is there. The recent uproar about the flock cameras is just the tip of the iceberg. It’s the surveillance that people don’t see that is truly overwhelming and unacceptable. Good luck with your research!
I’m in the same boat. The PTSD I experienced this time around has taken a toll. I wasn’t prepared to lose everything and be retroactively forced to register: The healing process won’t kick in yet. Loss of income and sudden de socialization is punishment.
Death threats from neighbors who I don’t know in the dark. Who / how huh? It’s a hurricane of hate. I never imagined nor did the district attorney in the original case this would evolve into a hit list. It wasn’t what he wanted to happen. Wow.
I decided long ago to middle finger the rest of the world and keep going strong. Sure, I’ve faced moments of hopeless despair and anxiety, but that is common to every human; criminal conviction/no criminal conviction. It’s the perspective a person chooses to have that will determine how far, how high they’ll go. Attitude determines altitude!
When given lemons become bigger than Minute Maid. When thrown to the wolves come out wearing a fur coat.
Anger and adrenaline served me well for about 25 years! I can still tap into it and weild it accordingly. I have moved almost 4 million pounds of scrap metal over the past 20 years. That is not an exaggeration. Attacking jobs like a warrior has been the only path forward. Unfortunately, I have discovered there is an outer limit to this phenomenon of thinking and behaving. Staying amped up in survival mode for decades at a time eventually degrades the central nervous system in ways that are hard to describe. Check out allostatic load theory sometime. I feel blessed by having a fighting spirit but at a certain point, and I’m not sure what that point is, it becomes counterproductive. I pray that you find a great job to focus some of that energy on and make some good money!
Nearly a million people has tremendous economic leverage. The problem is we just don’t use it.
We fruitlessly look to others to serve, when we could collectively take our share of the economic pie. It’s doesn’t seem that very many of us want to lock arms with each other and combine talents to upset this unfair economic system.
Even if the general public doesn’t want to have anything to do with us, we could serve those within our community, keeping our wealth of talents and resources from being exploited to our detriment, or from being siphoned off and drained away.
Who has the drive and ambition to lead something like this?
I have personally experienced this issue. I was recently hired by a local Supermarket on a Sarurday afternoon. I told them up front that I was on parole. They showed me around, how things worked, shook my hand & gave me a schedule, I was starting Monday afternoon. Monday morning at 6:20a.m. I receieved a txt from the owners personal phone# saying “after further review we’re deciding not to proceed with your employment”. I requested a meeting w/him & during it he told me they are all about ” second chances…but…”, then agreed that it came down to public perception.