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

[DaemonSeid]

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?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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?

Yes and that's also what the research shows.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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....

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.

[Drolefille]

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.

[Lil' Hannah]

Are you baiting madmax to make Friday interesting or something?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Lil' Hannah

Are you baiting madmax to make Friday interesting or something?

yeah...how 'bout that?

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

[Lil' Hannah]

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

[DaemonSeid]

Mad at the Bat Signal....LOL

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

yeah...how 'bout that?

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

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

[preciousjeni]

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

[sweetmagnolia]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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.

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

On Election Day it will not matter to some 4.7 million Americans whether they are Republicans, Democrats, independents or whether they have an opinion on anything at all. Under various state laws, they are barred from voting because they have felony records. This includes not just prison inmates (48 states), parolees (33 states) and probationers (29 states) but also a large number of people -- one third of the disenfranchised in all -- who are off parole and "free." Minorities are hit particularly hard by these state laws: They deny 13 percent of African American men the vote.