S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/12/BA161K9LGE.DTL&type=politics]S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs[/url]

Enjoy. And some people really think its a good idea.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

Funny how the left loves to tell everyone what they can a cannot do with their property and business. If the left is so worried about these issue then buy your own apt buildings and rent to who ever you want. When it comes to business they bitch and moan about how unfair corporations and businesses are so why not open your own Fing business and run it the way you think it should be run.

Here in Va we have those cash checking places that charge high interest and there is a group saying its not fair and they charge too much interest and prey on the poor. Well if they think its so wrong why not open your own check cashing service and charge those low rates and you should have plenty of business.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

I don't think this is a bad idea. We know that our current "rehabilitation" programs fail miserably. A lot of people that get out of jail are discriminated against, unable to find jobs/etc, and turn to crime to try to stay afloat.

I love how the apartment leaser tries to frame it as a financial issue. If you had adequate financial data you wouldn't NEED to see their criminal report. Financial data and ability to make rent shouldn't have anything to do with convictions. As they said in the article, violent criminals and sex offenders aren't covered for this, just the guys in jail for non-violent crimes.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

The supreme court of united states released 30,000 california inmates and they're all going to need halfway houses in jobs. Everyone deserves a second.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

A provision in this law makes it illegal to ask someone about their criminal history in a job application... Really? That's stupid. If I'm managing a bank, what if I end up hiring someone who has a background of financial crimes just because I can't ask? Hopefully this law doesn't forbid background checks.

I don't think ex-felons should be given any extra benefits, aside from transitional housing. Sorry, you're the one that committed the felony to begin with. If that makes life tough for you, too bad. Next time try not being a felon.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=saden1;811121]The supreme court of united states released 30,000 california inmates and they're all going to need halfway houses in jobs. [B]Everyone deserves a second.[/B][/quote]

Nooooooooooooo nooooooo noooooooo noooooooooooo...............no.

There is a very specific type of convict that even convicts go after. These types of cons don't deserve anything.

Still I've had some pretty crappy neighbors in college, I can't imagine how bad it would be living next to an ex-con.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

We should broaden the death penalty to include misdemeanors. Problem solved.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=Daseal;810799]I don't think this is a bad idea. We know that our current "rehabilitation" programs fail miserably. A lot of people that get out of jail are discriminated against, unable to find jobs/etc, and turn to crime to try to stay afloat.

I love how the apartment leaser tries to frame it as a financial issue. If you had adequate financial data you wouldn't NEED to see their criminal report. Financial data and ability to make rent shouldn't have anything to do with convictions. As they said in the article, violent criminals and sex offenders aren't covered for this, just the guys in jail for non-violent crimes.[/quote]

Sorry, gotta disagree. The only thing that makes renting a viable option for small time renters (not complexes or such) is a good tenant and being a good tenant requires more than the mere abiltiy to pay the rent. It means someone who can be trusted to reliably pay timely and who will treat property respectfully and not use it for criminal activities.

Past criminal (even non-violent) behavior is important to me. You have six arrests for possesion, I want proof you have properly rehabilitated before I let you take control of my property. Otherwise, I risk damage ot the property that more than likely will not be covered by the security deposit - unless I make the security deposit prohibitive. Alternatively, I risk missed rent as you pay for bail on your seventh arrest. Further, if I am renting a room in my house, I want to know who is in it.

Before I let someone onto my property or turn over immediate control of that valuable property to them, I want to know all about those things that reflect on how they may [I]use[/I] that property [I]as well as[/I] if they can pay for it.

Making ex criminals a "protected class" for civil rights issues confers wayyyy too many benefits upon them. Sorry, if they have suffered discrimanation it is b/c of their past actions/decisions [I]not[/I] b/c of some immutable characteristic such as race or gender.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=NC_Skins;811187]We should broaden the death penalty to include misdemeanors. Problem solved.[/quote]

Wow... nice hyperbole (yes, I get the sarcasm). Irrelevant to the point at hand and proof of nothing, but nice hyperbole nonetheless.

The appropriate hyperbole would be - Let's just forbid [I]any[/I] background checks or requests for references and require everyone with property, investments or employment opportunities to just pick randomly from applicants and trust their economic fortunes to luck. [Because to do so anyother way allows someone to make a choice and, therefore, discriminate and, if they discriminate, they may, possibly, do so in a way that a lot of other people think isn't nice]

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=saden1;811121]The supreme court of united states released 30,000 california inmates and they're all going to need halfway houses in jobs. Everyone deserves a second.[/quote]

I agree, the vast majority of inmates deserve a second chance. If we as a society want to create "second chance opportunities" through which we, as a whole, bear the risk - fine. If individuals offer such second chances, great, that should be governmentally encouraged. However, individuals shouldn't be [I]forced[/I] to bear that risk with their property or businesses. This law would foist a societal risk upon individuals.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;811194]I agree, the vast majority of inmates deserve a second chance. If we as a society want to create "second chance opportunities" through which we, as a whole, bear the risk - fine. If individuals offer such second chances, great, that should be governmentally encouraged. However, individuals shouldn't be [I]forced[/I] to bear that risk with their property or businesses. This law would foist a societal risk upon individuals.[/quote]

edit

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;811194]I agree, the vast majority of inmates deserve a second chance. If we as a society want to create "second chance opportunities" through which we, as a whole, bear the risk - fine. If individuals offer such second chances, great, that should be governmentally encouraged. However, individuals shouldn't be [I]forced[/I] to bear that risk with their property or businesses. This law would foist a societal risk upon individuals.[/quote]

[quote]Sex offenders and perpetrators of some violent crimes would not be covered.[/quote]

These are petty and drug crime inmates. If we can take away thier right to vote we can codify thier ability to get jobs without being discriminated against on first check.

The europeans do this because it minimize thier recidivism rate.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=saden1;811290]These are petty and drug crime inmates. If we can take away thier right to vote we can codify thier ability to get jobs without being discriminated against on first check.

The europeans do this because it minimize thier recidivism rate.[/quote]

Sex offenders and perpetrators of [B]some[/B] violent crimes would not be covered.

That says some not all and I did not see anything saying this was only for petty and drug crime inmates.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=saden1;811290]These are petty and drug crime inmates. If we can take away thier right to vote we can codify thier ability to get jobs without being discriminated against on first check.

The europeans do this because it minimize thier recidivism rate.[/quote]

Why shouldn't they be discriminated against? Forget recidivism. That's an ambiguous reason anyway. Joe makes a good point that individuals shouldn't be forced to shoulder the risks of society. If someone doesn't want to hire someone because they're a convicted criminal I see no problem with it.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

For the record I believe they do need a second chance but they have to earn back the trust for the second chance not just be given the trust by a stupid law. I personally would not hire someone just out of jail but I would hire someone who has been out of jail for some time and have a clean record.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=FRPLG;811346]Why shouldn't they be discriminated against? Forget recidivism. That's an ambiguous reason anyway. Joe makes a good point that individuals shouldn't be forced to shoulder the risks of society. If someone doesn't want to hire someone because they're a convicted criminal I see no problem with it.[/quote]

Paying for your crimes shouldn't be indefinite. If you can't get a job or housing after you did your time what is the point of being released? We have laws that protect disable people and their ability find jobs and adequateness housing and this is no different from legal prospective.

Anyone can be a criminal even if they have yet to commit a crime and nothing good can come from society at large cornering former inmates.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=saden1;811358]Paying for your crimes shouldn't be indefinite. If you can't get a job or housing after you did your time what is the point of being released? We have laws that protect disable people and their ability find jobs and adequateness housing and this is no different from legal prospective.

Anyone can be a criminal even if they have yet to commit a crime and nothing good can come from society at large cornering former inmates.[/quote]

You have paid your debt to society when you complete your sentence, you owe nothing more to society as a whole. As an individual, however, I am free to judge you based on past conduct. I wouldn't rent to someone who credit report shows that they are constantly late on payments even if they are not currently in debt (i.e - you've paid your debt in the most literal sense).

Just b/c your not currently in jail doesn't mean your past choices won't affect how you use my property in the future. Sorry, incentivize all you want to, assist people honestly trying to rehabilitate themselves - provide tax breaks to people who rent to them, etc. - or create government housing, but don't [I]force[/I] me to risk my economic prospects on someone who has exhibited criminal behavior in the past. Again, on a more basic level, and to me, it is just wrong to extend constitutionally "protected class" status to something that is not an immutable characteristic or an exercise of 1st amendment rights (i.e. religion).

Explain to me how a disabled person is the same as a former convict. I see some very distinct differences (one acted in a criminal manner, the other did not neccessarily do so).

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

I find no parallels between disabled persons, minorities, and/or any other protected class of people who have not chosen their lot in life. Criminals on the other hand are not born criminals. I don't think many disagree that we need to, as a society, treat non-violent criminals who've made the efforts to straighten their lives out properly and give them the opportunities to lead successful and contributing lives. I just have a problem with the gov't requiring it. If I don't want to hire someone or rent to them because they stole $3 in gum when they were 16 then that should be my choice. My judgement of their character however in that case is based on empirical data that reasonably leads one to a rational conclusion. In the case of of currently protected persons the goal was to protect against irrational conclusions based on perceptions and biases.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;811365]You have paid your debt to society when you complete your sentence, you owe nothing more to society as a whole. As an individual, however, I am free to judge you based on past conduct. I wouldn't rent to someone who credit report shows that they are constantly late on payments even if they are not currently in debt (i.e - you've paid your debt in the most literal sense).

Just b/c your not currently in jail doesn't mean your past choices won't affect how you use my property in the future. Sorry, incentivize all you want to, assist people honestly trying to rehabilitate themselves - provide tax breaks to people who rent to them, etc. - or create government housing, but don't [I]force[/I] me to risk my economic prospects on someone who has exhibited criminal behavior in the past. Again, on a more basic level, and to me, it is just wrong to extend constitutionally "protected class" status to something that is not an immutable characteristic or an exercise of 1st amendment rights (i.e. religion).[/quote]

The moral hazard in your argument is that even though they have paid their debt you should be free to discriminate against them and inevitably will. This hidden cost is not beneficial to society or the individual being discriminated against. The world is not limited to just your freedom and exercise of and the question is how do you find balance.

[quote=JoeRedskin;811365]Explain to me how a disabled person is the same as a former convict. I see some very distinct differences (one acted in a criminal manner, the other did not neccessarily do so).[/quote]

Suppose I don't want to go through the trouble of building accessible entry/stairways/bathrooms and don't want to rent to disabled people and don't want to hire a disabled person due to medical care costs? Well, you can't. The law says you can not discriminate against disabled people AND you must provide them with accessible amenities. If such law can exist on the books then so can these laws proposed in San Fran. There is precedence and the claim of financial harm or the potential of is immaterial.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=FRPLG;811372]I find no parallels between disabled persons, minorities, and/or any other protected class of people who have not chosen their lot in life. [B]Criminals on the other hand are not born criminals. [/B] I don't think many disagree that we need to, as a society, treat non-violent criminals who've made the efforts to straighten their lives out properly and give them the opportunities to lead successful and contributing lives. I just have a problem with the gov't requiring it. If I don't want to hire someone or rent to them because they stole $3 in gum when they were 16 then that should be my choice. My judgement of their character however in that case is based on empirical data that reasonably leads one to a rational conclusion. In the case of of currently protected persons the goal was to protect against irrational conclusions based on perceptions and biases.[/quote]


I am not making a correlation between disabled people and criminals, I am pointing out viability and validity of the law proposed by San Fran. As for your take on criminals, they are a product of their environment. If a child is surrounded by crime and criminal activity chances are they will pick up the habit turn to a life of crime (see the Gotti family).

The goal is to rehabilitate these criminals and free form discrimination on the part of society is not going to further this goal.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=saden1;811381]I am not making a correlation between disabled people and criminals, I am pointing out viability and validity of the law proposed by San Fran. As for your take on criminals, they are a product of their environment. If a child is surrounded by crime and criminal activity chances are they will pick up the habit turn to a life of crime (see the Gotti family).

The goal is to rehabilitate these criminals and free form discrimination on the part of society is not going to further this goal.[/quote]

In such a liberal state there should be no need for this law and all the liberal bosses would just be hiring with no standars at all so not to discriminate against anyone. Who cares if a women has a 25 years of perfect child care they should just hire the perv who got out of jail for selling kitty porn.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=firstdown;811387]In such a liberal state there should be no need for this law and all the liberal bosses would just be hiring with no standars at all so not to discriminate against anyone. Who cares if a women has a 25 years of perfect child care they should just hire the perv who got out of jail for selling [B]kitty porn[/B].[/quote]


Firstdown... you just made my day at the end of a very long one... Come on meow, you must be doing this on purpose!

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

Saden1 when you and your wife have children she could make the perfect child care provider. After all she only lied to polic. LOL

[IMG]http://buzzreport.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Casey-Anthony-Cigar-Smoking.jpg[/IMG]

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=Daseal;811388]Firstdown... you just made my day at the end of a very long one... Come on meow, you must be doing this on purpose![/quote]
[IMG]http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/page/kittyporn-35260.jpg[/IMG]

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=firstdown;811387]In such a liberal state there should be no need for this law and all the liberal bosses would just be hiring with no standars at all so not to discriminate against anyone. Who cares if a women has a 25 years of perfect child care they should just hire the perv who got out of jail for selling kitty porn.[/quote]

I guess you don't equate liberalism with finding a balance between liberty and equal rights.

Don't forget to raise you head above the sand now and then to breath.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=firstdown;811389]Saden1 when you and your wife have children she could make the perfect child care provider. After all she only lied to polic. LOL

[IMG]http://buzzreport.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Casey-Anthony-Cigar-Smoking.jpg[/IMG][/quote]

We have no need for her services. My wife will be staying at home to take care of our children and my mother has volunteered to help out.

BTW, did you read the article?

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=saden1;811391]I guess you don't equate liberalism with finding a balance between liberty and equal rights.

Don't forget to raise you head above the sand now and then to breath.[/quote]

I prefer my head in the sand because that means I'm at the beach and not working probably with a cold beer in hand.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=saden1;811375]The moral hazard in your argument is that even though they have paid their debt you should be free to discriminate against them and inevitably will. This hidden cost is not beneficial to society or the individual being discriminated against. The world is not limited to just your freedom and exercise of and the question is how do you find balance.[/quote]

The fundamental difference is that I don't believe, when making economic decisions, discriminating against individuals who have shown themselves in the past to be criminals is, at its core, unreasonable. Very simply, once you have committed a criminal act, rehabilitation starts [I]after[/I] the debt is paid. Essentially, "doing your time" is the first step towards proof of rehabilitation, not proof in and of itself. Further, I don't see this as the "moral hazard" you do b/c it is not [I]a given[/I] that all will discriminate based on a criminal past - would you? Some will, some won't, Some who would initially, will not later.

Obviously, it is not beneficial to those who are discriminated against - but that is true of any discrimination reasonable or unreasonable. To say it is not beneficial to society is a point we will have to disagree on. My right to say no encourages me to invest in property and open up employment and living opportunities. As a benefit to society, I think this outweighs the cost to society of allowing discrimination against former criminals in employment opportunities or rental issues.

You're right it is a question of balance. In this instance, for this issue, I think the balance is to allow individuals the right to choose to whom they rent or whom to employ and then for the state to create incentives through tax breaks and other financial measures to encourage people to employ/lease to individuals with criminal backgrounds.

[quote=saden1;811375]Suppose I don't want to go through the trouble of building accessible entry/stairways/bathrooms and don't want to rent to disabled people and don't want to hire a disabled person due to medical care costs? Well, you can't. The law says you can not discriminate against disabled people AND you must provide them with accessible amenities. If such law can exist on the books then so can these laws proposed in San Fran. There is precedence and the claim of financial harm or the potential of is immaterial.[/quote]

Sure, the state can say you can't unreasonably discriminate against someone based on an immutable characteristic [I]and[/I] you cannot practice [I]de facto[/I] discrimination by failing to provide the proper amenities (although variances can be had). The difference between the disabled person and the former criminal, however, is that (1) generally, the disability did not arise out of a choice or illegal course of conduct (yes, I know this is not true in all cases); and (2) the disabled person cannot "rehabilitate" their character as a former criminal can. The question is not whether society could make such a law, but whether it should - In our society, is it reasonable for one individual to judge and choose whom to employ or to whom to rent property (i.e. to discriminate between applicants) based on a particular applicant's past choices and/or behaviour. I think that it is both reasonable and a benefit to society to allow such choices.

Again, there are so many options short creating yet another constitutionally "protected class" that I just don't see this as something either necessary or appropriate.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

Hey, look, it's training camp and saden1 and I are having a nice lengthy philosophical disagreement (I think). What a shocker. lol.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=saden1;811393]We have no need for her services. My wife will be staying at home to take care of our children and my mother has volunteered to help out.

[B]BTW, did you read the article?[/B][/quote]

"Sex offenders and perpetrators of some violent crimes would not be covered."

Anthony was convicted of three counts of providing false information to the police - not a sex offense or violent crime. Apparently, under the law as proposed, she would not need to disclose that. Sorry, she is a perfect example of why I should be able to say "Nope".

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;811402]"Sex offenders and perpetrators of some violent crimes would not be covered."

Anthony was convicted of three counts of providing false information to the police - not a sex offense or violent crime. Apparently, under the law as proposed, she would not need to disclose that. Sorry, she is a perfect example of why I should be able to say "Nope".[/quote]

This.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

JoeRedskin -- Exactly. She was convicted of providing false information to the police. Is that enough of a crime for you to not rent your apartment? People give false information to the cops constantly. She was acquitted of other charges.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=Daseal;811415]JoeRedskin -- Exactly. She was convicted of providing false information to the police. Is that enough of a crime for you to not rent your apartment? People give false information to the cops constantly. She was acquitted of other charges.[/quote]

Yup. Damn straight. You provide false info to the police? [I]AND[/I] are convicted of it? You're someone who would risk jail time to tell a lie? How can I believe anything you say?

"People give false information to the cops constantly"?? And are convicted for it? So I should [I]have to[/I] do business with convicted liars? Sorry - I generally don't give false informatiion to the police. Do you? Further, I generally try not to hang out with/or around people that would put me in a situation that require me to lie to the police. When looking for people to do business with, I look for those same qualities.

You don't see the problem in doing business with people convicted of deceitful behavior?

You are free to employ her, rent to her or otherwise trust her to behave responsibly and reliably. I, however, believe I can find someone more trustworthy on whom to risk my and my family's economic well being.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[url=http://www.ktvu.com/news/28586520/detail.html]SF To Shutter Courtrooms; Lay Off 200 Workers - News Story - KTVU San Francisco[/url]

but hey, let's protect the ex-cons... :doh:

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;811418]Yup. Damn straight. You provide false info to the police? [I]AND[/I] are convicted of it? You're someone who would risk jail time to tell a lie? How can I believe anything you say?

"People give false information to the cops constantly"?? And are convicted for it? So I should [I]have to[/I] do business with convicted liars? Sorry - I generally don't give false informatiion to the police. Do you? Further, I generally try not to hang out with/or around people that would put me in a situation that require me to lie to the police. When looking for people to do business with, I look for those same qualities.

You don't see the problem in doing business with people convicted of deceitful behavior?

You are free to employ her, rent to her or otherwise trust her to behave responsibly and reliably. I, however, believe I can find someone more trustworthy on whom to risk my and my family's economic well being.[/quote]

Your action and that of many is nothing more than collusive mob justice. She has no choice but to leave the country.

Ultimately, whether through tax incentives or other means society will pay.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

Fine. Buy a house, rehab it, and rent it to her. I promise not to stop you.

Society "pays" for everything. Sometimes it gets a good return on its investment, sometimes not.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

This on the heels of a recent Supreme Court ruling that California must release some 30,000 prisoners within the next two years due to overcrowding. The court ruled the overcrowding constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

[url=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcolorlines.com%2Farchives%2F2011%2F05%2Fsupreme_court_demands_california_release_prisoners.html&ei=x-YlTuDOB-Wz0AGIifHFCg&usg=AFQjCNGyPXBtlfyXYwmAJGRS0QNgIgI6nw&sig2=96hbKgKrqK4jmA7x22ekIQ]Supreme Court Demands California Release 30,000 Inmates - COLORLINES[/url]

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

There is a problem with making people second class citizens. Where do they live? If they can't rent an apartment, they will probably move into some guys house in the suburbs....or worse, they will pitch a tent in the woods and operate off the grid. You can't constantly kick the can. Eventually, these people need homes and gainful employment.

As far as I'm concerned ether lock someone up, or let them be free. Don't make them live like an animal, otherwise they will act like one.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=polywog;832916]There is a problem with making people second class citizens. Where do they live? If they can't rent an apartment, they will probably move into some guys house in the suburbs....or worse, they will pitch a tent in the woods and operate off the grid. You can't constantly kick the can. Eventually, these people need homes and gainful employment.

As far as I'm concerned ether lock someone up, or let them be free. Don't make them live like an animal, otherwise they will act like one.[/quote]

I'm guessing you don't own rental property. I do and got tired of fixing up the apartments after some ass hole trashed MY property. I started doing back ground checks and things improved 100%. The people making out in my case are the lower income people who play by the rules but just don't make allot of money.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=polywog;832916]There is a problem with making people second class citizens. Where do they live? If they can't rent an apartment, they will probably move into some guys house in the suburbs....or worse, they will pitch a tent in the woods and operate off the grid. You can't constantly kick the can. Eventually, these people need homes and gainful employment.

As far as I'm concerned ether lock someone up, or let them be free. Don't make them live like an animal, otherwise they will act like one.[/quote]

If the government wants landlords to rent out rooms to felons, then they should be responsible for giving the landlords incentive to do such a thing. What landlords risk every time they rent out to a tenant is a "bad" tenant who does not pay or damages/destroys the property. Landlords want to minimize that risk and hence do credit checks and background checks.