Should felons be a "protected class"?

[Sunni Man]

I can't believe how prejudiced some of you people are.

We need convicted felons to help in our goal of total diversity within America.

 

[percysunshine]

We need felons to run the government. Who else can we trust?

 

[Contumacious]

A legislative proposal in San Francisco seeks to make ex-cons and felons a protected class, along with existing categories of residents like African-Americans, people with disabilities and pregnant women. If passed by city supervisors, landlords and employers would be prohibited from asking applicants about their criminal past.:

Yes, under the circumstances.

The Prison Industrial Complex has criminalized victimless crimes, not because they were crimes per se but in order for politicians to grandstand for powerful political factions and to assist the poor counties where the prisons are located.

.

 

[Moonglow]

once you have paid your debt to society you should be free to live your life unhibited.

 

[rdean]

Should felons be a "protected class"?

Yes. We should be protected from felons.

The Republican's idea was to put them in the military. Another disastrous policy. And before you scream "lie", you right wingers better go do a Google search on "felons in the military".

Well to be fair..it was to keep their own kids from getting chopped up in the meat grinder known as Vietnam.

A war they fully supported but didn't want any real part of..

I was talking about Iraq. The Bush administration raised the age to be a "private" to 40 years old. Dropped the need for a HS Diploma or GED, and welcomed "felons". He needed cannon fodder.

 

[turtledude]

A legislative proposal in San Francisco seeks to make ex-cons and felons a protected class, along with existing categories of residents like African-Americans, people with disabilities and pregnant women. If passed by city supervisors, landlords and employers would be prohibited from asking applicants about their criminal past.

Supporters say it's an effort to help former offenders get back on their feet, but critics call the concept a crime in itself.



San Francisco...

Do you mean there should be a bag limit on them like say deer or rabbits?

 

[whitehall]

A legislative proposal in San Francisco seeks to make ex-cons and felons a protected class, along with existing categories of residents like African-Americans, people with disabilities and pregnant women. If passed by city supervisors, landlords and employers would be prohibited from asking applicants about their criminal past.

Supporters say it's an effort to help former offenders get back on their feet, but critics call the concept a crime in itself.

Read more: San Francisco Considers Legal Protection for Criminals - FoxNews.com

San Francisco...

Leave it to the peoples Republik of San Fran. While felons are forced to register in data bases in local neighborhoods in the rest of the Country the poor citizens in the City by the Bay go to jail for checking on criminal files.

 

[DiAnna]

San Francisco... we're talking about a city that has banned the sale of all pets, banned happy meal toys, and is trying to ban circumcision. This is not a city that should be taken seriously enough to be the topic of a thread, lol!

Just sayin'.

 

[diehard25fl]

Unfortunately people classified as "sex offenders" have no opportunity for jobs in this country. Everyone is concerned about the safety of children but when a person has not re-offended in a reasonable amount of time he should be able to get his life back and work anywhere he wants to. There are 747,000 people stuck on the registry now and they have no way to earn a living. And not every person on the registry raped a nine year old and buried her alive. a lot of crimes are consensual sex except age or other mitigating circumstances and the crime wasn't as severe as the kidnapping of Lindburgh's child and so on. the problem is that some people have reformed their ways and our denied all opportunities in our current system to get ahead financially. We have a society that puts 12 yr old kids on the registry as well as people who urinated in the bushes. Do these people really deserve to be excluded from employment opportunities for life? How our children protected by making a large class of people unemployed, homeless, and without opportunity and resources if they have improved themselves?

 

[FA_Q2]

At a public hearing at San Francisco's City Hall this week, some landlords worried that if the policy passes here, they'll face a barrage of lawsuits from unscrupulous convicts.

"Some ex-cons will probably make this a business, going from apartment complex to apartment complex, getting denied for whatever reason, and then filing a nuisance lawsuit," Long said.

Read more: San Francisco Considers Legal Protection for Criminals - FoxNews.com

An employer has the right to know if someone is an ex-con. Should a thief be working a cash register? Should sex offenders be working at pre-schools? Should they be able to sue if denied the job?

It is an interesting question but for the most part, yes I think they should be 'protected' though I think the wording of that is rather incorrect. It should simply be a matter of not requiring the release of that information and not making it available to the prospective employer.


The fact remains that after you have done your time you have paid your debt and there is no reason that the government or anyone else has a right to question that. You are not a criminal any longer but a free man.

The real question is whether or not you think you have a right to infringe on another based on a past that has already been paid for. How long do you expect someone to pay for a petty theft or other crime? Must they pay their entire lives because you have unfounded fears....

 

[chanel]

Unfounded fears? How about rapists or someone who knocked his wife's teeth out in a fit of rage? These questions do not disqualify anyone, they just test their honesty.

Does someone's education give employers a better idea of who they are hiring? Would asking about that qualify as discrimination?

 

[Katzndogz]

No matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, or how high the recidivism rate is, a gullible public will still believe that "paying for one's crime" means it never happened. What the term "free man" means is that the person is free of the system's jurisdiction. Although, many times a man walking the street is not really free but a probationer or parolee.

Would you be inclined to let a three times convicted rapist who beat his women senseless date your daughter because he is now a "free man" who paid for each of his crimes?

 

[Zoom-boing]

At a public hearing at San Francisco's City Hall this week, some landlords worried that if the policy passes here, they'll face a barrage of lawsuits from unscrupulous convicts.

"Some ex-cons will probably make this a business, going from apartment complex to apartment complex, getting denied for whatever reason, and then filing a nuisance lawsuit," Long said.

Read more: San Francisco Considers Legal Protection for Criminals - FoxNews.com

This scam is done a la the 'disabled'. Just saw something the other week on tv about it.

 

[George Costanza]

A legislative proposal in San Francisco seeks to make ex-cons and felons a protected class, along with existing categories of residents like African-Americans, people with disabilities and pregnant women. If passed by city supervisors, landlords and employers would be prohibited from asking applicants about their criminal past.

Supporters say it's an effort to help former offenders get back on their feet, but critics call the concept a crime in itself.

Read more: San Francisco Considers Legal Protection for Criminals - FoxNews.com

San Francisco...

Authoritarians would probably seek to classify this as creating a "protected class." How about this - they have paid their debt to society. Why punish them further by preventing them from being able to integrate back into society and become a useful member of it?

One would almost think that those opposed to this legislation are cruel, unforgiving people who get off on shoving other people under.

 

[LAfrique]

A legislative proposal in San Francisco seeks to make ex-cons and felons a protected class, along with existing categories of residents like African-Americans, people with disabilities and pregnant women. If passed by city supervisors, landlords and employers would be prohibited from asking applicants about their criminal past.

Supporters say it's an effort to help former offenders get back on their feet, but critics call the concept a crime in itself.

Read more: San Francisco Considers Legal Protection for Criminals - FoxNews.com

San Francisco...

When a person has done time or paid debt to crime, then I think the person should get a fresh start to life. A lot of repeat criminals, and most of the worst kind, are never caught.

I think the criminal history of a person should be sealed; unless, of course, a person is getting into activity directly of nature of past criminal acts. I have seen very industrious people prevented from gainful employment because of criminal record that has nothing whatsoever to do with sought after work. In this respect, it may be necessary to protect ex-cons against unnecessary discrimination: If people who can work cannot work because of past mistakes irrelevant to work sought, then they become desperate and eventually become a burden to rest of taxpayers.

 

[FA_Q2]

Unfounded fears? How about rapists or someone who knocked his wife's teeth out in a fit of rage? These questions do not disqualify anyone, they just test their honesty.

Does someone's education give employers a better idea of who they are hiring? Would asking about that qualify as discrimination?

Don't disqualify people? Sure it does, that's why they are asked in the first place. And, yes, your fears are unfounded.

What about they have paid their time do you and others not seem to understand. Exactly when is punishment enough? Does no one ever get a reprieve for actions already atoned for?


Education is about qualifications. Past crimes have nothing to do with qualifications.

 

[High_Gravity]

A legislative proposal in San Francisco seeks to make ex-cons and felons a protected class, along with existing categories of residents like African-Americans, people with disabilities and pregnant women. If passed by city supervisors, landlords and employers would be prohibited from asking applicants about their criminal past.

Supporters say it's an effort to help former offenders get back on their feet, but critics call the concept a crime in itself.

Read more: San Francisco Considers Legal Protection for Criminals - FoxNews.com

San Francisco...

They shouldn't be but with our large prison population it will probably happen eventually.

 

[konradv]

Wall Street is already a protected class.

At least they purchase theirs.

But they also steal a lot more.

 

[chanel]

Unfounded fears? How about rapists or someone who knocked his wife's teeth out in a fit of rage? These questions do not disqualify anyone, they just test their honesty.

Does someone's education give employers a better idea of who they are hiring? Would asking about that qualify as discrimination?

Don't disqualify people? Sure it does, that's why they are asked in the first place. And, yes, your fears are unfounded.

What about they have paid their time do you and others not seem to understand. Exactly when is punishment enough? Does no one ever get a reprieve for actions already atoned for?


Education is about qualifications. Past crimes have nothing to do with qualifications.

Past crimes absolutely have to do with qualifications. A rapist should not be working in a women's shelter. A drug dealer should not be working in a pharmacy.

My husband has hired plenty of guys who have fucked up in the past. But it has to do with the nature of the crime. Without asking, or running a background check, how could one know?

We have millions of decent, law abiding people unemployed right now. They deserve an advantage. They've earned it.

 

[Katzndogz]

This kind of legislation would go a lot further if landlords and employers were given immunity for crimes committed by criminals they have rented apartments to, or hired.