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

[SirClintonPortis]

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

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

[firstdown]

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.

[Daseal]

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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.

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 use that property as well as 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 not b/c of some immutable characteristic such as race or gender.

[saden1]

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.

[GMScud]

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.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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.

[NC_Skins]

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

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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

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 any 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]

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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 forced to bear that risk with their property or businesses. This law would foist a societal risk upon individuals.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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 forced to bear that risk with their property or businesses. This law would foist a societal risk upon individuals.

edit

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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 forced to bear that risk with their property or businesses. This law would foist a societal risk upon individuals.

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

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Sex offenders and perpetrators of some 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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

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.