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

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by sweetmagnolia

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

I think felons should be able to vote after they've served their time.

Originally Posted by 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.

I want to talk to you! My new job is as a case manager with parolees, with the goal of reducing recidivism and getting them employment/housing/etc.

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

When does it end or should we just tattoo them with a scarlet F for the rest of their lives?

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.

Creating any legalized sub-class creates the ultimate no-taxation-without-representation pitfall. Keeping them a sub-class, after they've done prison time, parole, and/or probation is inhumane. What would you want them to do? Work under the table? Live on public aid? Starve? Sell more drugs for more money? Most of the guys I work with could make more money over lunch than I will all month. Until they get arrested again and then tax payers pay one more time.

Felons are more likely to steal and get an employer sued, so a smart employer absolutely will discriminate here.

Citation needed.

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.

Or who had the money to get out of it. You've just admitted that the "straight" man has no moral superiority, so why make the distinction?

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.)

Abortion is birth control. Not policing women's bodies means not policing their bodies. Shaming someone for having 6 abortions is the same as shaming someone for having one. If it's her body then it's her body.

Originally Posted by Kevin

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

You are talking about people who are linear, concrete thinkers and frequently do not connect actions with consequences. My agency provides cognitive behavioral therapy based on this, and having been trained in it this week, it's backed up by evidence based-practices.

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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?

I don't like it. We're not good at predicting who will reoffend and who won't. And the lists that basically prohibit offenders from living anywhere in town, and require 18 year old streakers to register for life are very very broken. We need reform here.

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

Or private agencies are contracted (mine) and the state does it because it saves money in the end.

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.

The desire to change has to come first.

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.

I'm assuming you speed right? Ever gotten caught speeding? Is your response "oh gee, my bad" or "That cop's an asshole, why wasn't he out catching real criminals." It's the same minimization and justification that felons do, just on a different scale.

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

They're only a criminal class as long as they're kept that way.

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?

What are the statistics on that?

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

McDs doesn't hire felons anymore. At least not around here.

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.

It would depend on the person. Particularly if I was in the position to be hiring a receptionist in the first place. Again, citation needed.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

You are killing me with this whole sex offender thing...

A pedophile wouldn't be interested in a teenage girl anyway.