The Glade 4.0

Felons never have families?

If we aren't anywhere near this point, I don't see any merit in addressing the hypothetical.



We don't actually know that felons having a hard time contributes to higher recidivism rates than felons being able to hide their past from the unsuspecting.

As I posted, crime is on a downward trend and has been for a long time. I don't see that there's any current problem.

As for there being other options, what are they? The OP is precisely about legislating that people associate with felons by making it illegal to refuse to do business with them ont hat basis.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye, the whole point of a hypothetical like that is to see what kind of principles you're using to judge the current situation. You think the current situation is fine with crime rates going down and don't see a problem with the way felons are treated right now. That's fine, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. We have a different interpretation of the state of things, but I'm far from an expert on the situation and I don't think I possess the level of knowledge and facts to convince you otherwise. In any case, I also don't want to get into one of those threads where we debate a bunch of different sources and all that.

I just wish more people would consider reforms if evidence suggests they could help reduce crime and recidivism rates. I simply think a lot of people are against any reforms that "help out" convicts because they are too focused on vengeance and people suffering for their crimes. A good example of this would be Florida drug testing welfare recipients. It's been shown that the drug tests themselves are costing more money than the program is saving by preventing those on drugs receiving aid, but people would rather have "druggies" suffer even if it costs more.

That's the point of my hypothetical, to see if you would ever even consider helping out convicts if you thought it would help them re-integrate into society and reduce crime rates. Here's a simple one: If giving $3,000 in aid to newly released convicts (maybe in the form of helping them find good housing, or as a tax break for an employer willing to hire them, or maybe even just giving them straight up cash) was proven to reduce their recidivism rate by 30%, and it was found that this reduced rate saved taxpayers an average of $10,000 per convict because our prisons are less crowded, would you support it? I'm not saying these programs exist, or that they work the way I'm describing. We could argue about that all day long and I don't think we would get anywhere. I just want to know if that were the case, would you even consider it? Because it seems to me a lot of people wouldn't.

Your point about crime rates going down is a good one. But how does that mesh with incarceration rates going up? What I've read on the issue suggests that it isn't just a case of would-be-criminals being locked away in prison, unable to commit crimes. Other countries have similar crime rates to the US, or at least similar violent crime rates, with 1/3-1/4 of the incarceration rate. I think we could achieve similar reductions in crime rates, or probably even better reductions, while spending less time and money imprisoning people, and maybe spending a little more time and money on rehabilitation programs and programs to help re-integrate released convicts back into society. I don't really feel like getting into a huge debate about this point, just stating my opinion.

Oh, and as for what else can be done besides restricting free association, there's lots of options. There's a shitload of research on different rehabilitation programs and the like. An example of something the government could do would be tax breaks for people who hire convicts. It doesn't even have to come from the government. More charities dedicated to helping convicts get back on their feet and live a normal life could also help. There's lots of options out there.

I suppose it's true we don't "know" that for sure, but most everything I've seen on the subject (which is obviously not comprehensive) suggests that making it easier for ex-cons to reintegrate into society reduces the recidivism rate. Overall crime rates are going down, but the recidivism rate in the US hasn't decreased by nearly as much. Other countries, however, which focus more on rehabilitation and re-integration, have significantly lower recidivism rates.

If there is to be a criminal record that may be used in perpetuity as the basis to refuse employment or housing, then the convict has received a life sentence. Period.

Now, not all crimes are equally severe. Not all crimes merit a life sentence. The whole of human society throughout recorded history has functioned off of those two basic concepts.

If a crime does not merit a life sentence, we must prevent landlords and employers from accessing records of crimes for which the sentence has been served to completion. To do otherwise is to pass a life sentence, which legal precedent holds as excessive for the majority of criminal activity, and is therefore explicitly forbidden by the United States Constitution.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

A life sentence to people knowing they are a felon. This is not the customary use of "life sentence".



Not all crimes merit a life prison sentence. You are using the customary shortening of "life prison sentence" to "life sentence" to say that because not all crimes merit life in prison, that somehow means they don't merit a lifelong record. The two are not equivalent.

Furthermore, we are talking about felonies, not all crimes.



Except that it is not. A life prison sentence has been held to be excessive for most crimes. A lifetime record

Furthermore, trials are public in this record, which is also mandated by the Constitution. Therefore, their records must be also. To hold that allowing people to access those records somehow constitutes a sentence equivalent to a life prison sentence and therefore is forbidden requires violating another part of the Constitution.

The position that a "life sentence" to people being able to access your records is cruel and unusual punishment fails Constitutionally. The idea that it's the equivalent of a prison sentence fails the logic test and the laugh test.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Again, these other countries also have other numerous social differences. We do not, in fact, know that making re-integration easier makes recidivism lower. Even if we did, that would not be an argument for protected status for felons.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Isn't this the same back and forth that people have over sex offender registries?

_________________

Sort of. The difference is that sex offender registries separate sex offenses out and make them a crime that gets special treatment above and apart from other felonies.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't understand what is so controversial about letting free society handle the way convicted felons are dealt with after they serve. People have the right to free association. Criminal record is public. If a convicted felon has the value to an employer to hire him, then the employer should be free to do so.

This happens in professional sports all the time. Lots of NFL prospects who are monstrously talented don't get picked up or get drafted lower with a worse contract than their skill would otherwise command because they've been known troublemakers. Hence my reservations for the Chiefs picking Jonathan Baldwin but eh.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

You know, it occurs to me that sealing criminal records after a certain number of years without reoffending might actually help reduce recidivism in two ways: (i) by making it easier for ex-cons to reintegrate once the records have been sealed, and (ii) by providing an extra incentive to stay clean in the interim so they can get their record sealed.

And like others have suggested, we could tailor the length of time that the record is publicly available to the nature and severity of the crime. Stole a bike? One year on the public record. Mugged someone? Five years on the public record. Molested a kid? Lifetime on the public record. And so on. We could even make exceptions for specific background checks. Applying to rent an apartment? Background check doesn't have access to sealed records. Applying to work as a daycare worker? Background check does have access to sealed records with respect to child abuse / sexual abuse offenses. And so on.

Really? If X reduces recidivism, you don't think that's an argument in favor of X?

This conversation is about whether to give "Felon" a protected status similar to race, religion, gender, etc.... i.e. you cannot discriminate against someone based on their status as a Felon.

I think this is a very bad idea, and will just lead us down the 'slippery slope'...

Absolutely not. Freedomof association is more important, as is the protection of the concept of a public trial. It is absolutely fantastic to suggest that justice is served by creating a reason for the government to make heretofore public records private. Public trial is a guaranteed right and protection, and is not served if that trial ceases to be public simply because a jail term is up.

There's also the fact that this would make people whose crime caught the attention of the press into a different class of known felons vs unknown. Unless you want to suggest press reporting and past press records of crime stories be suppressed.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Ah, gotcha. I was riffing off the broader point about recidivism and re-integration generally. I definitely agree that making "felon" a "protected class" for discrimination law purposes is nuts.

umm... if we make felons a "Protected Class" what is to stop people from committing felonies to get special treatment?

For example a poor loser who dropped out of high school, has shitty credit, tough luck sob story. Assault with a deadly weapon, out in 6 months and can now live anywhere (despite shitty credit), can work anywhere (for fear of playing the... "felon" card?).

All other protected classes are not (or at least can be reasonably argued not) a choice.

_________________

The article I linked in the original post deals with a Seattle City Councilperson proposing legislature to give Felon's protected status so they cannot be discriminated against when applying for rental housing, or jobs...

They cited an individual who had a long criminal history, and while in prison, studied law, got a conviction overturned, and when he was released, went to work as a paralegal.... And is complaining that he can't get anyone to rent to him...

I feel sorry for him, and am glad he turned his life around, but I'm not willing to accept that the solution is to legally make "Felon" a protected status...

I'm not saying the proposed Seattle legislation is the right way to go about it. I haven't read it. But you admit that the felon in question has, so far, proven sincere in his desire to be a member of society, but that society won't let him. Isn't that a problem?

_________________

It won't? Evidently he got a job as a paralegal. I do not buy the assertions of ex cons as to how tough they have it without corrobboration.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Evidently he can't find housing, even when offering half a year's rent.

_________________

It's certainly a bad situation. You cannot, of course, force people to associate with people. However, it does no good to put up barricades between at-risk individuals and a law-abiding existence.

The free association thing makes a nice soundbite, but businesses are not people.

_________________

The problem with making "Felon" a protected status.. It creates far more problems than it solves. It's just asking to fill the courts with liability claims, discrimination claims, etc...

There is nothing on the books now that says a landlord CAN'T rent to a felon. Just like they can decide to accept poor credit history risk on a case by case basis, that can do the same for poor criminal history risk.

In other words, felons already CAN get a job and rent a apartment, if they can get an employer or landlord to accept their risk.

Telling employers or landlords that they must not consider criminal history when making decisions about who they employ/rent to is fraught with peril....

I would like to know more about the case referenced in the article. I suspect it's probably not a matter of the felon not being able to find 'any' housing, but probably a case where he can't find 'preferred' housing. I'm pretty sure if he looked hard enough, he would be able to find an apartment somewhere. It just might not be the exact place he prefers.

I understand the 'barricade' issue. I just don't think forcing landlords to accept every felon that applies, which is what this amounts to, is the right way to go about it.

If they are corporations they are, if they aren't corporations they are.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

The problem here isn't that they can't get a job or a rental property, it's that they lack the competitiveness in order to get one.

Most landlords have a rental property as extra income. Every week it sits un-rented affects their income, so it would not make logical sense not to rent it, even if it to someone previous convicted. The problem arises however when there is more than 1 person interested in the property, their previous charecter then is the deciding factor in this case.

Jobs are very much similar, especially with the high jobless rate atm, it would be madness to think their previous records would make them competitive in any way.

What does this mean? Businesses are made of people. Are you suggesting that businesses are not to make any determinations who they enter business with?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones