PDA

View Full Version : San Francisco Considers Legal Protection for Criminals.



Ponce
25th July 2011, 10:49 AM
How to be protectec in America = be an illegal black on welfare with only one legg and a homo and a felon....add your own to this list........
================================================== ==


San Francisco Considers Legal Protection for Criminals.

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.

"My mother is an immigrant, my mother-in-law is a Jew and I'm a gay man. Those are all protected categories, but you're going to put a felon in there as a protected category? That's not right," said Andrew Long, a board member of the San Francisco Apartment Association.

But ex-cons contend they're immediately disqualified by employers and landlords reluctant to trust anyone with a rap sheet.

"People don't want to hire felons," says Monique Love, who served time five years ago on a drug offense. Clean and sober now, she says boxes on application forms asking about criminal history unfairly discriminate against her. At one recent interview, Monique says she never got the chance to tell her story of recovery and rehabilitation.

"I didn't get a shot. Not a shot," she says. "As soon as he saw that box was checked, the boss was like, 'I'm sorry, we can't help you.'"

According to The City's Human Rights Commission, San Francisco has the highest recidivism rate of any big city in California, almost 80 percent. With an influx of new prisoners set to be released because of the state's budget crisis, supporters argue felons need legal protections before they're disqualified simply because of their record, which could be decades old and for crimes that have nothing to do with the job they're hoping to get.

Commission Director Teresa Sparks calls it a public safety issue.

"Without housing, it's hard to keep a steady job, and many times because of that, people recommit," Sparks said. She argues a criminal history shouldn't be the only reason someone is denied housing or work.

"All we're saying is get a chance to know them, see if they're qualified otherwise, before you use that as a criteria for taking them out," she said.

Hawaii, New York and Philadelphia have enacted similar policies to prevent blanket discrimination against felons in the private job market, and some cities in Illinois and Wisconsin have imposed such restrictions on rental property owners.

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.

Sparks says rental property owners could turn away sex offenders and people who've committed some violent crimes, like murder. Employers could also reject job applicants if their crimes are "significantly related" to the position they are seeking, but they could only inquire about the applicants' criminal past at the end of the interview process.

That doesn't sit well with Gary Bauer, owner of Bauer's Intelligent Transportation, one of San Francisco's biggest transportation companies. He says he needs to know about an applicants criminal history right up front.

"We won't discriminate against anyone, but we need to know what we're looking at. What is their background? Is it grand auto theft? We're running transportation," Bauer said, adding, "Being in California, and in San Francisco, it gets tougher and tougher every year ... when they come down with these things."

Public hearings continue to formalize the legislation, with lawsuits sure to follow, if San Francisco gives legal protections to people who broke the law.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/22/san-francisco-considers-legal-protection-for-criminals/#ixzz1T81aPPC0

Dogman
25th July 2011, 10:56 AM
Seeing that over 50% are returned to prison for committing new crimes, I can not blame people not wanting to hire or be around them.

Joe King
25th July 2011, 11:03 AM
Seeing that over 50% are returned to prison for committing new crimes, I can not blame people not wanting to hire or be around them.If, after having paid their debt to society, people are denied the ability to even have a means of supporting themselves, crime is one of the few options avaliable.

Dogman
25th July 2011, 11:07 AM
Don't allow them out alive.

Problem solved

For some crimes, I do agree! Others am thinking what was the crime committed would go along way in determine if worth giving another chance. The ones that have a rap sheet that is several pages long, not a chance. For the ones that may have fucked up only once or twice, maybe. It depends on what they did.

solid
25th July 2011, 11:10 AM
If, after having paid their debt to society, people are denied the ability to even have a means of supporting themselves, crime is one of the few options avaliable.

In some ways, this bill actually encourages crime. If criminals know that if they get caught, they are protected in the future. Take grand theft auto..in the past, if a man stole another man's horse it was a hanging crime. Today's horse, is a car, so if a man knows that he can steal a car and just receive a couple years in prison, and a fresh opportunity upon release. Why not? With the lack of jobs, it may actually be a tempting option for some. Just like the guy who robbed a bank to get healthcare, because he needed it.

Perhaps the answer to this is to break down this bill by types of crimes. If it's a crime that has no victim, such as drug abuse, that should be protected. Yet, if it's a crime that intentially harmed another individual of property or health, that should be on the books for employer to do what's best for them, and their company.

po boy
25th July 2011, 11:21 AM
Don't allow them out alive.

Problem solved

no, just more created.

What your suggesting will create more violence.

Do you want to pay for that?

Some reading if you so choose.http://educate-yourself.org/cn/prisonersfundamerica03oct04.shtml

Joe King
25th July 2011, 11:28 AM
So then the best answer is to get rid of all laws that create victimless crimes?

I can go with that, but I can still see the plight of someone who is actually trying to get their life straight after prison but can't because of no one wanting to give them a chance to do so.
It just seems to me that to judge someone forever by the worst thing they ever did and then denying them a way to get ahead via honest work, does nothing other than to create an enviroment that encourages recidivism.

Perhaps it could depend on the job in question.
Job handling "money"? I could see how you wouldn't want someone convicted of stealing "money" to have that job.
Or a taxi driver job might not be a good match for someone convicted of road rage deaths.
Etc.


So what do you do with these people? Condemned to life of homelessness? Which gets back to crime. ie Hungry desperate people will steal.

solid
25th July 2011, 11:33 AM
Good points Joe. However providing legal protection, not only encourages lawsuits but also that sense of entitlement that's been the downfall of our whole culture.

Take me and another man for example. We are both equally qualified for the job. The only difference is that I've lived my life of honor, and he's been convicted in the past of stealing catalytic converters off of cars. Are we equally qualified? People need to own their mistakes in life. There's no free ride, or there shouldn't be. If it makes life harder for criminals, that's the choice they made...not me. I don't want my tax dollars rewarding their failures even if on the books that seems "fair".

Joe King
25th July 2011, 12:02 PM
So how do you allow someone to get past, their past?
Assuming they want to, of course.
...and even I'll admit that in this discussion I'm more concerned about victimless crimes anyway.

Too many people have their lives ruined while never having actually hurt anyone themselves.

Joe King
25th July 2011, 12:10 PM
I doubt that death row inmates are those being referred to here.

What about all the victimless crimes that we have?

Just kill them, too?

::)

solid
25th July 2011, 12:17 PM
So how do you allow someone to get past, their past?
Assuming they want to, of course.
...and even I'll admit that in this discussion I'm more concerned about victimless crimes anyway.

Too many people have their lives ruined while never having actually hurt anyone themselves.

They get past their past through hard work. Even if it's harder for them once out than the rest of us, that's the price a person pays when they harm others. Discussing victimless crimes really should be another thread, I'm against victimless crimes so my points do not apply to them.

Look at it this way Joe...you don't fix one problem by creating other problems.

By protecting criminals, you actually give them a leg up against the rest of us. Consider this example at a very basic level...

Say me and converter stealing guy are both interviewing for a job. We'll call converter guy RB (rat bastard). So, we both get interviewed. Our qualifications are identical. During RB's interview, there's a gap in employment for 2 years. The employer asks about that. RB says he was in prison for those 2 years. Now, with this bill, the employer must shut up and not ask anymore questions.

So..the employer has to make a choice. He thinks.."Well, both solid and RB can do the job. Dang, guess I better hire RB over solid now, since I know about the prison thing. I don't want any lawsuits for discrimination against me. RB gets the job."

midnight rambler
25th July 2011, 12:24 PM
We are pussies when it comes to the justice system in this countryNo, more like you're completely ignorant when it comes to the justice system in this country. The 'criminal justice' system in this country has absolutely nothing to do with justice* and everything to do with control/extraction of human energy from human resources. By your own words your position is that of an unrepentant loud-mouthed statist.

*As a victim of violent crime I know the score - EVERYTHING flows to the state, fuck the victims

Joe King
25th July 2011, 12:28 PM
Solid, How they get around that is by not asking at all and just assuming they have something wrong with them, while hiring you instead. lol

Can't prove that someone discriminated against what they didn't "know" about, right? lol
ie selective ignorance.

I know that's not right either, but if this passes, that's probably how employers will come to get around it.
At the least, there needs to be a way to allow people who never actually hurt anyone, to be able to get on with their lives.

Gaillo
25th July 2011, 12:29 PM
Hey Cobalt,
I was once like you... death penalty all the way, dead offenders are never repeat offenders, etc.
What changed? I realized what an utterly CORRUPT, unjust, and tyrannical government we have. Am I willing to entrust those sick freaks with the power of life and death over what in all likelihood are people imprisoned for victimless or political "crimes"? Not on your, mine, or anyone else's life! :(

Ponce
25th July 2011, 12:31 PM
Fancy English word of the day "recidivism"......If I live to be 132 I'll never learn all the English words.......you only need 972 words to be able to hold a conversation with anyone.

mrnhtbr2232
25th July 2011, 01:35 PM
You want to fix the legal system overnight? Make it non-profit. Until then, every vulture with a briefcase will be making sure there is never an equitable solution. People seem to forget the law is the ultimate paradox. What everyone thinks is fair and just is actually a system designed to make some more powerful at the expense of others. If a guy comes out of prison and has served his time the old school says they reset and are afforded most of the privileges society gives others. But reality seems to use offenders as carrots to dangle in front of idiot mules that rely on feel-good legislation to be their blinders.

gunDriller
25th July 2011, 01:38 PM
in many cases, a Jew is just a felon who didn't get caught.

Hatha Sunahara
25th July 2011, 05:09 PM
Any loosening of the police state is OK with me.


Hatha

mick silver
25th July 2011, 05:15 PM
i think i am going to open a company there and call it rob the fucking banks

Joe King
25th July 2011, 06:08 PM
Fancy English word of the day "recidivism"......If I live to be 132 I'll never learn all the English words.......you only need 972 words to be able to hold a conversation with anyone.
But it is on the list of 972 words. I consulted it before making the post. It's not on yours? :confused:

See? {only listing the "R" section}

R
RACE RADIO RAN RANGE RATE RATHER REACHED REACTION READ READING READY REALLY REASON RECEIVED RECENT RECENTLY RECIDIVISM RECORD RED RELIGION RELIGIOUS REMEMBER REPORT REPORTED REQUIRED RESEARCH RESPECT RESPONSIBILITY REST RESULT RESULTS RETURN RETURNED RIGHT RIVER ROAD ROOM RUN RUNNING