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

[firstdown]

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.

[FRPLG]

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

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

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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.

[firstdown]

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

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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

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?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

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?

"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".

[JoeRedskin]

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

[Daseal]

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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.

Yup. Damn straight. You provide false info to the police? AND 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 have to 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.

[GMScud]

SF To Shutter Courtrooms; Lay Off 200 Workers - News Story - KTVU San Francisco

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