Should a conviction still be allowed to hold ex-felons back?
 

You guys have probably covered this within other threads but I thought I would bring this up because of this article in which former former felons are seeking to get D.C. to disallow applications which ask about their conviction.

Here is an excerpt:

A primary goal is to "Ban the Box" -- eliminate the box on housing, employment and social service forms that asks whether the applicant has a criminal conviction or criminal record.

Merely asking the question violates the U.S. Constitution and opens the door for discrimination, former offenders say.

They also say it hurts ex-felons and their families because checking the box means potential employers will automatically throw the application in the trash and, when it comes to housing, former felons can easily be denied the opportunity to reunite with their families.

So, how do you feel about this? Should employers and government agencies still be allowed to use criminal records to determine if a person qualifies for employment or is it really unconstitutional to continue to persecute someone after they have served their time?


Is there any correlation that a felon who is not given the opportunity to change their life will return to crime and thusly back in prison?

If government officials, athletes and celebrities are allowed a 2nd chance with little to no repercussion, shouldn't the average citizen have that too?

Yes and that's also what the research shows.

Guud mawnin' Phil!:)

Yes I agree and you really don't need research. If you meet enough people or watch around long enough we always tend to see someone who wasn't given the right opportunities to move ahead, so how do yuo propose that ex felons be given enough of a chance to move ahead...or should they even be given a chance at all?

That is a form of qualitative research. Research is necessary. Everyone thinks their personal experience and opinion is unique and should make the world go 'round. Personal experiences and opinions mean nothing to me unless I see the macro patterns that surpass the micro (personal).

Ideally, felons should be given a second chance and the who, what, when, and how of that matters more than just thinking felons should (or should not) be given a second chance. And, no, I probably won't feel like outlining all of that in this thread.

Hey look, that's what my new job is all about. We have a list of places in town that DO hire felons. I don't know for sure about my answer as far as having the information on an application as it is.

But we work primarily with repeat offenders.

Are you baiting madmax to make Friday interesting or something?

yeah...how 'bout that? :D:)

But here is the simple common sense of it all: felons come in all shapes sizes ages and colors.

Well no joke but you post anything about criminals and it's a madmax Bat Signal. He has lots to say on the topic!

Mad at the Bat Signal....LOL

That's very "we are the (prison) world" and it's comparable to saying "always lock your doors because you never know who is going to get you." That's wonderful and smart advice.

But, it doesn't erase the fact that there are demographic trends in the population of felony offenders just as there are trends in the types of offenses committed, where they are committed, and who the victims are for the victim-based offenses (routine activities-based).

The above fact is another reason why research is important. "Common sense" means very little and people's "common sense" often doesn't reflect reality.

Yeah...case in point...one of my female co workers got a ride from a stranger into work @ 530am this morning...why? Because he 'looked nice" and her shoe broke and she wasn't 6 blocks with a broken shoe.

In a previous position, I was responsible for preparing exoffenders for employment reentry. I also worked with employers to convince them to give these folks a chance.

My take is this. Take questions about convictions off applications. They serve no purpose but to facilitate immediate discrimination. After the interview, I don't have a problem with employers doing background checks on people.

I always advise ex-offenders to be open and honest about their past during the interview.

She's dumb. It reminds me of the woman in the news this morning who let a homeless man borrow her Platinum card. LUCKILY (and surprisingly), he brought her card back after he bought some vitamin water and cigarettes. If he had not brought it back, the whole world would laugh at her as she calls the police and contacts her bank. There would be no sympathy for an idiot (good samaritan and generosity should never be confused with dumb).

Now that the tangent is over, LOL, I was moreso talking about people who base "common sense" on what they see in their day to day lives or things that they think about. It doesn't exist if they don't see it/know about it/think about it. For example, many people's "common sense" tells them that newer and "nicer" vehicles are the ones that are stolen when instead older models are more frequently stolen or have things stolen from them. So, people will leave older cars unguarded and also do things like leave their navigation systems on the windshield all of the time. People need to be smart and realize that the things that they assume based on "common sense" aren't always the case.

ASS U ME

hehehe

This.

I don't want to throw a complete monkey wrench in the initial topic of this thread, but I think this is related (tangential, yes, but still related)- do you guys think that ex-felons should be allowed to vote? (Not being able to vote, imo, is holding people back).

From the Washington Post

Again, (shocker) I am going to take the minority position here, which is more than likely the majority position outside of GC.

Felons are felons for a reason. They did something bad and are branded as felons--something which is a part of their paying a debt to society.

As for voting, I have no problem discriminating against felons. By committing a felony, they forfeit their right to participate fully in it. They get no sympathy from me. How not being able to vote holds them back as some have suggested is an interesting concept. How does that hold them back? By creating a sub-class which doesn't have to be pandered to by politicians? Do you want your politicians pandering to felons? Not me.

As far as hiring practices go, every employer who places an employee into a situation where trust is a factor has a strong interest in knowing that individual's background. To that end, that employer needs to be able to know whether it's hiring former felons. Felons are more likely to steal and get an employer sued, so a smart employer absolutely will discriminate here. It's a matter of self-preservation. For a small business, if you hire a known violent felon who then assaults and injures a customer, that could very easily mean bankruptcy.

And for every felon who is discriminated against, a non-felon gets that job--someone who hasn't strayed from the straight and narrow, or at least hasn't been caught.

Well, if we're going to start saying who does and doesn't have the right to vote, I say we keep the idiotic women who use abortion as birth control out of the voting booth. They're not smart enough to take a pill or stick a diaphragm in, why on earth should they have the right to vote? (No, I don't mean women who have an abortion because of an unplanned pregnancy, I mean those who get abortions over and over again and NEVER use birth control.)

Obviously this will never happen, but that's how silly the not-being-allowed-to-vote thing sounds to me. I honestly never knew that, and think it's ridiculous. If you've done your time and paid your debt, you should be allowed to vote. (Not to mention I'm going to wager that there are former prisoners who are HELLA more informed about the issues/candidates up for election than the average voter.)

If you're going to make a person keep paying and keep paying even after they finish a sentence that society has deemed "payment" why even let them out of jail in the first place? The reason the recidivism rate is so high is because we make it so hard for convicts to reassimilate into society. If we as a society don't believe that people can be "rehabilitated" we should probably stop playing that we do.

You think it's society's fault that criminals reoffend? Do they lack free will or something?

As for Kevin's first post:
That's because the criminal justice system and general public are incapacitation and retribution oriented and not rehabilitation and reintegration oriented. There are pros and cons in the incapacitation and retribution approaches.

Societies should punish the offenders but think about what happens when they are released from prison. Who will they be around and what will they be doing? It's wiser to offer counseling for those who need it, intervention, job training, educational assistance. Those are all worthy investments if you're interested in slowing the revolving door of the prison system. There will ALWAYS be crime and inmates so the prison system will never lose customers and money in that regard. We simply don't need to waste money and resources on the same inmates over and over again; and we don't need the age, race, and socioeconomic demographic that is largely represented in the prison system. Society doesn't want to address the socioeconomic issues that lead some to commit instrumental crimes to make money in the first place, and Americans don't want to address how to reintegrate people into society and reduce recidivism. You either have to address the issue beforehand, during, or afterwards. You can't escape the issue and pretend that you can lock people up with no thought to what happens after sentencing.

A smart America would see how investing in OUR future isn't synonymous with giving offenders a free ride. They repay their debt to society while incarcerated (well, actually, the majority of offenders create their own society, smuggle contraband, and learn how to become a "better criminal"--these people are also more likely to reoffend) and they will continue to repay their debt IF they get jobs and pay taxes.

Dammit.

As for Kevins second post:
I believe in free will combined with social factors. Life is too complex to pretend as though it is one or the other. Having free will doesn't mean there aren't contexts more conducive to certain types of offenses. Social factors don't mean that everyone who is poor, for instance, becomes an offender--most poor people aren't offenders.

If every place you went to get a job immediately trashed your application, don't you think that would make you inclined to just say "fuck it" and find food/clothing/$$/shelter by any means necessary?

Oh, but that will NEVER happen to you, so it's a moot point.

It holds them back because they have no say in how their county, state or country is governed. It'd be one thing if this was the case of a single man, or a handful of ex-felons, but the amount of ex-felons in a state like California or New York could change the outcome of elections.

Again, from the Washington Post article:

"...last year Alabama Republican Party Chairman Marty Connors stated a bald truth: "As frank as I can be," he said, "we're opposed to [restoring voting rights] because felons don't tend to vote Republican." He is right: People with low incomes, low education or minority status -- all benchmarks of convict populations -- vote Democratic 65 to 90 percent of the time.

Another bald fact: Many disenfranchisement laws trace to the mid-1800s, when they were crafted to bar blacks with even minor criminal records from polls. Today this poisonous legal lineage tells not only in the South, which retains the most repressive statutes, but in states such as New York, where ex-parolees theoretically get their rights back but in reality encounter local election officials who demand discharge papers that don't exist, give misleading information and find other reasons to turn them away. A class-action lawsuit in New York charges that this system bars so many voters in high-crime neighborhoods that the districts effectively have lost their voice. In Florida, where many felons are barred forever unless the governor personally decides otherwise, 8 percent of adults cannot vote -- including one in four black men."

That's what background checks are for. There's no need to ask for this kind of information on the application though.

Show me the stats. I would have agreed with you if you had said felons who are not gainfully employed are more likely to steal and so forth.

I dedicate my next five heartbeats to you. You're awesome.

Of course, because only guilty people go to prison. Oh...wait.

Thumbs up.

If you have been deemed reformed by the system, why should it matter? If, say a bank robbery took place 30 years ago and that person has lived an upright life since, should that person be chained to that? Or...Should there be a statute of limitations to how long a person should still be held accountable for a crime?

HMmm

I'm half and half on this issue. Would I want to work next to a rapist? No. Do I think "CERTAIN" convictions deserve a second chance? Yes. I work with people (Patients) who may possibly have drug convictions. It's heartbreaking to me to see some young kids/ adults come out of prison for selling marijuana and now they can't find a job. It sucks for them. Sure, they made a mistake but, if we are going to try and help them, let them work. I have a strong belief that we should help rehabilitate people before just turning them away or locking them up...for "CERTAIN" offenses. Sex offenders, now that is a different story.

Problem with sex offenders is this:

To what degree are you talking? You have people that may have some naked pics on their phone and get labeled and lumped in right along with people who are out and out bonafide pedophiles...so how do you make the distinction?

Interesting you bring this up. For those who believe that it's unconstitutional to ask applicants if they've had prior convictions, how do you feel about sex offenders having to register as such?

Oh, no...I agree with that. There is a difference between a guy who is a complete pedophile and a kid who got in trouble for dating a 16 year-old girl, when he was 18 years-old because the girl's mom and dad didn't like him very much. If you are a Megan's Offender, which is the harshest of the harsh sex offenders, then in my eyes, you shouldn't leave prison. I have little tolerance for sex offenders.

As far as some young kid who got mixed up with the wrong crowd and sold drugs, I think he (or she, I'm not stereotyping) should get a second chance.

That's why there's a problem with the designation "felons" in general. There are things considered felonies that would give someone pause about their safety, and there are things, like embezzlement, that the person who did them might not be the least bit violent.

Sorry, I didn't see this until later. I don't think it is unconstitutional to want to know someone's past. I think that getting a background check on someone should be standard. If you are afraid of what might come up, then maybe you shouldn't be hired. As former military with a Top Secret/ SCI clearance, I have nothing in my past to be afraid to share. I think they should do background checks on people working from McDonald's all the way up the chain to other Corporate careers. I don't have children but, I'd be pretty upset if my teenage daughter was flipping burgers after school, right next to a sex offender. No thanks!

I think what happens in some cases is if there are lots of applicants, the hirer just breezes through and sees if that box is checked "yes" or "no." If it's yes - file 13.

[QUOTE=PiKA2001;1968126]I don't really think we should leave it up to just someone checking a box. Some people may be afraid of the outcome and check "NO" while the supervisor doesn't even do a background check. I think that a background check should be done, with the person's permission. If the person automatically denies wanting to have a background check done, then that should be a red flag. If you're a Megan's offender, the answer for me hiring you would be NO!

If I'm honest, I probably would. I hope I would try my damndest to scrape by legally, but if I spent months/years unable to get a job, have healthcare, feed myself, etc. I can't KNOW I wouldn't find a way, legal or not, to take care of myself.

That's my problem with the issue. If I were an employer I would have a problem hiring someone who had committed murder, been a rapist, or abused (sexually or otherwise) a child. Those crimes aren't just mistakes. But someone who went to prison on possession? That really could just be a mistake. Getting out doesn't mean they'll stay clean, I know that, but what's the point in letting them out if the pickings are slim to none when it comes to legal employment?

*Most* cases.

I think it's this sort of thought thats keeping people with prior convictions down. Just because someone committed a crime in the past doesn't mean he hasn't reformed or is going to rape all his co-workers and steal from his employer. AND THEY HAVE TO WORK SOMEWHERE!

Or we could put them on public assistance if that works for everyone. :)

Someone who was in a sketchy possible date rape situation might be ok with me 15 years later. (As in, to work next to...I could probably be convinced that they won't repeat.) Someone who violently raped a woman in an alley, different story...call me judgmental, fine. Or someone who sexually abused a child. IMO they shouldn't come out.

I don't think you're being judgmental at all because it's a legitimate concern. MAintaining a safe environment for your employees should be a top priority for employers.

I'm well aware of these arguments and have seen decent success, although the cost-justification is questionable with certain drug court programs. The big problem with all of what you said is that especially these days, the state's resources, particularly in the area of corrections are very tight. The startup cost is high for these programs and the retention of the sort of skilled state employees needed for these programs is a highly significant cost. It is very questionable here whether the cost of a straight retributive system is more than a rehabilitative one. What is not questionable is whether the states our the feds have the resources right now to significantly change the corrections system in any meaningful way.

It's always been as simple as just not committing felonies. No need for naval gazing and contemplating life's complexities. Just don't commit felonies and you are far less likely to go to the pokey.

As far as what everyone's saying about different tiers of offenders, I suppose I can agree with that to a point.

As for certain sex crimes, let's face it, our legislatures' efforts haven't yet caught up to the times. It's a damn shame really. Lots of lives destroyed.

As for having tiered felonies, I'm in favor of something to that effect. I still agree with political disenfranchisement because I don't want a criminal class as a political constituency. That can't ever be a good thing.

As for not having it on work applications? Why does an employer not have a strong interest in knowing that information? No one has answered me. You do know that if an employer hires an ex-felon and that felon does something to hurt someone that the employer can be sued for negligent hiring, right?

As far as background checks go, does anyone expect McDonald's to perform background checks on every single one of its applicants?

Even "the kid who got mixed up with the wrong crowd" is a lot more likely to steal from his employer than someone who never sold drugs. It's a legitimate concern for employers. Imagine if you were in my shoes, would you hire a receptionist who had a felony drug distribution conviction? Someone who would be taking payments for you, handing confidential and potentially damaging information? Hell no you wouldn't.

Only bad people commit felonies. Bad people do bad time. I sound like a 2nd grader.