Well, first, might I offer that in fact, no, not all of us have or have ever had hire/fire authority/responsibility. That said, unless the applicant was an egregious fraud ans well-practiced one at that, the responsibility falls on those in a position not only to successfully probe attitudes about work ethic, authority, moral ambiguity ("but ix was only a pen/stapler/etc") and judge his veracity in part by discerning for yourself the influence past employers'/other references' should have on your assessment of said applicant or hiree.
If there seems nothing particularly nefarious, then your decision is based on relevent work experience, and the not-as-common-as-one-might-assume ability to generalize certain *close* competencies to the specific needs/typically used skillset of the job for which you're hiring.
If this worker is a basically decent and hard-working individual, then *I* suuggest the more effecient, pragmatic, and just plain decent course of action is to closely monitor the worker, devise a specific training regimen and length thereof, and put THAT into action.
Above all, be "annoyingly" communicative and open with *all* your hires, and make it your common practice to repeatedly articulate your expectations, obtain (anonymously if that would extract more complete and frank answers to your concerns).
Again, unless it is a matter of criminal record, whoppers about specific skills and experiences, or the applicant's very skillfully concealed moral turpitude, or even motive for applying, it is YOUR job to identify those with apt skill and attitude, wirk ethic, and teach-/trainability, and to hire the best candidate for the job.