Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy


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

Debating with the enemy


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-13-2011, 08:58 PM   #1
Pro Bowl
 
SirClintonPortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,052
S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs

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

Enjoy. And some people really think its a good idea.
__________________
Analysis using datasets (aka stats) is an attempt at reverse-engineering a player's "goodness".

Virtuosity remembered, douchebaggery forgotten.

The ideal character profile shoved down modern Western men and women's throats is Don Juan.
SirClintonPortis is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 07-14-2011, 02:04 PM   #2
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 31
Posts: 8,260
Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs

I don't think this is a bad idea. We know that our current "rehabilitation" programs fail miserably. A lot of people that get out of jail are discriminated against, unable to find jobs/etc, and turn to crime to try to stay afloat.

I love how the apartment leaser tries to frame it as a financial issue. If you had adequate financial data you wouldn't NEED to see their criminal report. Financial data and ability to make rent shouldn't have anything to do with convictions. As they said in the article, violent criminals and sex offenders aren't covered for this, just the guys in jail for non-violent crimes.
__________________
Best. Player. Available.
Daseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2011, 11:41 AM   #3
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs

The supreme court of united states released 30,000 california inmates and they're all going to need halfway houses in jobs. Everyone deserves a second.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2011, 12:17 PM   #4
Swearinger
 
GMScud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 36
Posts: 12,623
Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs

A provision in this law makes it illegal to ask someone about their criminal history in a job application... Really? That's stupid. If I'm managing a bank, what if I end up hiring someone who has a background of financial crimes just because I can't ask? Hopefully this law doesn't forbid background checks.

I don't think ex-felons should be given any extra benefits, aside from transitional housing. Sorry, you're the one that committed the felony to begin with. If that makes life tough for you, too bad. Next time try not being a felon.
__________________
Insert witty signature here
GMScud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2011, 03:54 PM   #5
Naega jeil jal naga
 
Dirtbag59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland
Age: 29
Posts: 14,750
Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
The supreme court of united states released 30,000 california inmates and they're all going to need halfway houses in jobs. Everyone deserves a second.
Nooooooooooooo nooooooo noooooooo noooooooooooo...............no.

There is a very specific type of convict that even convicts go after. These types of cons don't deserve anything.

Still I've had some pretty crappy neighbors in college, I can't imagine how bad it would be living next to an ex-con.
__________________
"It's nice to be important, but its more important to be nice."
- Scooter

"I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now."
- FRPLG
Dirtbag59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 10:37 AM   #6
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,471
Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs

We should broaden the death penalty to include misdemeanors. Problem solved.
NC_Skins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 10:50 AM   #7
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,114
Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal View Post
I don't think this is a bad idea. We know that our current "rehabilitation" programs fail miserably. A lot of people that get out of jail are discriminated against, unable to find jobs/etc, and turn to crime to try to stay afloat.

I love how the apartment leaser tries to frame it as a financial issue. If you had adequate financial data you wouldn't NEED to see their criminal report. Financial data and ability to make rent shouldn't have anything to do with convictions. As they said in the article, violent criminals and sex offenders aren't covered for this, just the guys in jail for non-violent crimes.
Sorry, gotta disagree. The only thing that makes renting a viable option for small time renters (not complexes or such) is a good tenant and being a good tenant requires more than the mere abiltiy to pay the rent. It means someone who can be trusted to reliably pay timely and who will treat property respectfully and not use it for criminal activities.

Past criminal (even non-violent) behavior is important to me. You have six arrests for possesion, I want proof you have properly rehabilitated before I let you take control of my property. Otherwise, I risk damage ot the property that more than likely will not be covered by the security deposit - unless I make the security deposit prohibitive. Alternatively, I risk missed rent as you pay for bail on your seventh arrest. Further, if I am renting a room in my house, I want to know who is in it.

Before I let someone onto my property or turn over immediate control of that valuable property to them, I want to know all about those things that reflect on how they may use that property as well as if they can pay for it.

Making ex criminals a "protected class" for civil rights issues confers wayyyy too many benefits upon them. Sorry, if they have suffered discrimanation it is b/c of their past actions/decisions not b/c of some immutable characteristic such as race or gender.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 10:58 AM   #8
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,114
Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins View Post
We should broaden the death penalty to include misdemeanors. Problem solved.
Wow... nice hyperbole (yes, I get the sarcasm). Irrelevant to the point at hand and proof of nothing, but nice hyperbole nonetheless.

The appropriate hyperbole would be - Let's just forbid any background checks or requests for references and require everyone with property, investments or employment opportunities to just pick randomly from applicants and trust their economic fortunes to luck. [Because to do so anyother way allows someone to make a choice and, therefore, discriminate and, if they discriminate, they may, possibly, do so in a way that a lot of other people think isn't nice]
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 11:08 AM   #9
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,114
Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
The supreme court of united states released 30,000 california inmates and they're all going to need halfway houses in jobs. Everyone deserves a second.
I agree, the vast majority of inmates deserve a second chance. If we as a society want to create "second chance opportunities" through which we, as a whole, bear the risk - fine. If individuals offer such second chances, great, that should be governmentally encouraged. However, individuals shouldn't be forced to bear that risk with their property or businesses. This law would foist a societal risk upon individuals.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2011, 10:55 AM   #10
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
I agree, the vast majority of inmates deserve a second chance. If we as a society want to create "second chance opportunities" through which we, as a whole, bear the risk - fine. If individuals offer such second chances, great, that should be governmentally encouraged. However, individuals shouldn't be forced to bear that risk with their property or businesses. This law would foist a societal risk upon individuals.
Quote:
Sex offenders and perpetrators of some violent crimes would not be covered.
These are petty and drug crime inmates. If we can take away thier right to vote we can codify thier ability to get jobs without being discriminated against on first check.

The europeans do this because it minimize thier recidivism rate.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2011, 01:29 PM   #11
MVP
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 10,031
Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
These are petty and drug crime inmates. If we can take away thier right to vote we can codify thier ability to get jobs without being discriminated against on first check.

The europeans do this because it minimize thier recidivism rate.
Why shouldn't they be discriminated against? Forget recidivism. That's an ambiguous reason anyway. Joe makes a good point that individuals shouldn't be forced to shoulder the risks of society. If someone doesn't want to hire someone because they're a convicted criminal I see no problem with it.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2011, 02:19 PM   #12
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
Why shouldn't they be discriminated against? Forget recidivism. That's an ambiguous reason anyway. Joe makes a good point that individuals shouldn't be forced to shoulder the risks of society. If someone doesn't want to hire someone because they're a convicted criminal I see no problem with it.
Paying for your crimes shouldn't be indefinite. If you can't get a job or housing after you did your time what is the point of being released? We have laws that protect disable people and their ability find jobs and adequateness housing and this is no different from legal prospective.

Anyone can be a criminal even if they have yet to commit a crime and nothing good can come from society at large cornering former inmates.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2011, 02:51 PM   #13
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,114
Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
Paying for your crimes shouldn't be indefinite. If you can't get a job or housing after you did your time what is the point of being released? We have laws that protect disable people and their ability find jobs and adequateness housing and this is no different from legal prospective.

Anyone can be a criminal even if they have yet to commit a crime and nothing good can come from society at large cornering former inmates.
You have paid your debt to society when you complete your sentence, you owe nothing more to society as a whole. As an individual, however, I am free to judge you based on past conduct. I wouldn't rent to someone who credit report shows that they are constantly late on payments even if they are not currently in debt (i.e - you've paid your debt in the most literal sense).

Just b/c your not currently in jail doesn't mean your past choices won't affect how you use my property in the future. Sorry, incentivize all you want to, assist people honestly trying to rehabilitate themselves - provide tax breaks to people who rent to them, etc. - or create government housing, but don't force me to risk my economic prospects on someone who has exhibited criminal behavior in the past. Again, on a more basic level, and to me, it is just wrong to extend constitutionally "protected class" status to something that is not an immutable characteristic or an exercise of 1st amendment rights (i.e. religion).

Explain to me how a disabled person is the same as a former convict. I see some very distinct differences (one acted in a criminal manner, the other did not neccessarily do so).
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2011, 03:27 PM   #14
MVP
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 10,031
Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs

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.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2011, 03:35 PM   #15
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
You have paid your debt to society when you complete your sentence, you owe nothing more to society as a whole. As an individual, however, I am free to judge you based on past conduct. I wouldn't rent to someone who credit report shows that they are constantly late on payments even if they are not currently in debt (i.e - you've paid your debt in the most literal sense).

Just b/c your not currently in jail doesn't mean your past choices won't affect how you use my property in the future. Sorry, incentivize all you want to, assist people honestly trying to rehabilitate themselves - provide tax breaks to people who rent to them, etc. - or create government housing, but don't force me to risk my economic prospects on someone who has exhibited criminal behavior in the past. Again, on a more basic level, and to me, it is just wrong to extend constitutionally "protected class" status to something that is not an immutable characteristic or an exercise of 1st amendment rights (i.e. religion).
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
Explain to me how a disabled person is the same as a former convict. I see some very distinct differences (one acted in a criminal manner, the other did not neccessarily do so).
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.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.33207 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25