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

[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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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 force 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).

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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 force 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).

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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).

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.