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

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.

edit

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.

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.

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.

Sex offenders and perpetrators of some violent crimes would not be covered.

That says some not all and I did not see anything saying this was only for petty and drug crime inmates.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.