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

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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 after 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 a given 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.

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Sure, the state can say you can't unreasonably discriminate against someone based on an immutable characteristic and you cannot practice de facto 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.