Do the time, paid for the crime, welcome back to all Social rights?

This poll is raised to address an issue of concern after noting replies in a recent thread about a California city passing a law making it illegal for landlords to do a criminal background check before renting to a potential resident.

I have seen other issues at various times concerning how Society should deal with people who have been convicted of various crimes, served their punishment, and been released back into society.

Most often, after claiming agreement with the thread title, the actual reaction is to support restrictions, impediments, and otherwise act in ways designed to continue to punish after release. Thus a criminal record becomes a sort of scarlet letter, once noted imbues pariah status on the individual.

Briefly, an individual who is convicted of a crime faces roadblocks in housing and employment when released. Housing and employment are the mainstays of a successful life. They lend stability, improve and maintain self-confidence, and encourage good social behavior.

But many people, out of fear, distrust, or a sense of social retribution, act to discourage reintegration into society. Jobs are denied, housing refused, leaving few options but homelessness and/or a return to criminal behaviors.

IMO this is wrong-headed, and detrimental to both the individual involved and Society as a whole. It acts to encourage a cycle of criminal recidivism, until there is nothing left to do but permanent incarceration at our expense.

Thus the question: Do you believe in, and advocate “Commit the crime, pay the time, WELCOME back to ALL Societal rights and privileges?”

Yes,

No,

Other, explain.

Full disclosure: MY vote is YES, because I've seen this cycle acted out in my neighborhoods, and in my professional experience. I know that desperate people will act out in desperate ways, unless they see some kind of light at the end of the tunnel.

Does the OP own any rental real estate?

I answer a flat NO.

As a landlord, if I own a duplex or a four-plex, I should not be forced to rent my unit to a convicted rapist or barred from finding out if a potential tenant is a rapist even if he has paid his debt to society, especially if my tenant in the next door unit has a young daughter. Or for that matter if the potential tenant was prosecuted and convicted for property destruction and theft of copper wiring of a prior rental home. That might be pertinent.

As an employer at a business that deals frequently with cash-paying clientele, I should not be barred from finding out whether my potential employee was convicted of theft or embezzlement from a prior employer. Or if the potential employee was convicted of criminal sexual harassment at a prior job, for that matter.

There is no right as an adult person to have your past hidden from any scrutiny. The only people we grant that right to is children without full capacity to make informed decisions. I do not think we should extend that right to otherwise-competent adults.

Sometimes you really screw the pooch. It is not on the rest of society to make life easier for criminals and help keep their pasts hidden. If a landlord or an employer wants to look past a person's prior criminal behavior and give the former convict a chance, it should be their freedom to do so. But the rest of us should not be forced to be kept in the dark, especially when doing so can lead to further harm if and when a former criminal decides to re-offend.

Felis Leo said:

I answer a flat NO.

As a landlord, if I own a duplex or a four-plex, I should not be forced to rent my unit to a convicted rapist even if he has paid his debt to society, especially if my tenant in the next door unit has a young daughter.

Click to expand...

In answer to this example, most States have some form of sex offender registration requirement, as well as zoning restrictions preventing residence close to schools, etc.. This system is usually accessible to the general public. So in this instance, you could check the registry before renting, but IMHO only IF you meet one of the zone restriction requirements.

Felis Leo said:

...Or for that matter if the potential tenant was prosecuted and convicted for property destruction and theft of copper wiring of a prior rental home. That might be pertinent.

Click to expand...

In this case, checking prior residential references is not an unreasonable action, whether you suspect a person has a criminal record or not.

Felis Leo said:

As an employer at a business that deals frequently with cash-paying, I should not be barred from finding out whether my potential employee was convicted of theft or embezzlement from a prior employer.

Click to expand...

I can understand your concern, but you do realize that those people did not have such a record when they first perpetrated such crimes, right? That means the mere fact someone doesn't have a record is no guarantee they won't try to steal from you.

IMO you should already have mechanisms in place to monitor cash handling, and my understanding is most businesses of any size do have methods to validate cash handling and property inventory.

Meanwhile you are assuming that once done, then even after paying for the crime you expect them to do it again. Well, maybe this "expectation" encourages return to bad behaviors?

Felis Leo said:

Or someone convicted of criminal sexual harassment at a prior job, for that matter.

Click to expand...

In the first case, see the point about sex offender registration. As for sexual harassment in a prior workplace? Don't you do an employer reference check when you hire?

Felis Leo said:

There is no right as an adult person to have your past hidden from any scrutiny.

Click to expand...

Really, so you don't believe people have a right to privacy? Or is it only when it is YOUR privacy involved?

Felis Leo said:

The only people we grant that right to is children.

Click to expand...

I could ask "why so?" but that is not the purpose of this thread.

Felis Leo said:

Sometimes you really screw the pooch. It is not on the rest of society to make life easier for criminals and help keep their pasts hidden.

Click to expand...

Nor is it up to the "rest of society" to make it HARDER on them either.

The idea that once an error is made, and restitution in paid, there is no acceptance if not actual forgiveness is IMHO the root cause of recidivism and worse.

Yes, generally but that is with the assumption that exceptions can be made legally. In other words, I would not favor a law that elevates convicted violent felons to a "protected class". I find it to be ridiculous that a felony DUI/DWI conviction is used to deny someone's 2A rights for life.

Felis Leo said:

I answer a flat NO.

As a landlord, if I own a duplex or a four-plex, I should not be forced to rent my unit to a convicted rapist or barred from finding out if a potential tenant is a rapist even if he has paid his debt to society, especially if my tenant in the next door unit has a young daughter. Or for that matter if the potential tenant was prosecuted and convicted for property destruction and theft of copper wiring of a prior rental home. That might be pertinent.

As an employer at a business that deals frequently with cash-paying clientele, I should not be barred from finding out whether my potential employee was convicted of theft or embezzlement from a prior employer. Or if the potential employee was convicted of criminal sexual harassment at a prior job, for that matter.

There is no right as an adult person to have your past hidden from any scrutiny. The only people we grant that right to is children without full capacity to make informed decisions. I do not think we should extend that right to otherwise-competent adults.

Sometimes you really screw the pooch. It is not on the rest of society to make life easier for criminals and help keep their pasts hidden. If a landlord or an employer wants to look past a person's prior criminal behavior and give the former convict a chance, it should be their freedom to do so. But the rest of us should not be forced to be kept in the dark, especially when doing so can lead to further harm if and when a former criminal decides to re-offend.

Click to expand...

This.



Ironically, for the OP, I will point out - typically when we put into place measures that try to force people not to make economically rational decisions regarding risk, all we do is screw over a larger populace. Others will suffer for your well-meaning interference, including the felons you want to help.

I was raised in a time where it was understood that a felonious convict had to carry that scarlet letter for the rest of their natural born lives. You did the crime, you did the time, you don't get to vote anymore and you can't have a gun. That was the deal. Criminals knew that going in and it was their decision whether to proceed to commit crime. They made their bed and now I have no sympathy for them having to bear that weight. I'm sure there are exceptions. I am just speaking in general terms.

Perhaps, with the trend to decriminalize certain vices the population particular enjoys, room might be made for REAL people that should be in cages and kept there.

Have a nice weekend y'all. Don't commit any crimes.

No. Just because they “did the time” doesn’t mean they have demonstrated a willingness to be civil. All of the scrutiny they face after incarceration is justified and necessary. It’s about them. It’s about the rest of us who aren’t criminals.

Captain Adverse said:

This poll is raised to address an issue of concern after noting replies in a recent thread about a California city passing a law making it illegal for landlords to do a criminal background check before renting to a potential resident.

I have seen other issues at various times concerning how Society should deal with people who have been convicted of various crimes, served their punishment, and been released back into society.

Most often, after claiming agreement with the thread title, the actual reaction is to support restrictions, impediments, and otherwise act in ways designed to continue to punish after release. Thus a criminal record becomes a sort of scarlet letter, once noted imbues pariah status on the individual.

Briefly, an individual who is convicted of a crime faces roadblocks in housing and employment when released. Housing and employment are the mainstays of a successful life. They lend stability, improve and maintain self-confidence, and encourage good social behavior.

But many people, out of fear, distrust, or a sense of social retribution, act to discourage reintegration into society. Jobs are denied, housing refused, leaving few options but homelessness and/or a return to criminal behaviors.

IMO this is wrong-headed, and detrimental to both the individual involved and Society as a whole. It acts to encourage a cycle of criminal recidivism, until there is nothing left to do but permanent incarceration at our expense.

Thus the question: Do you believe in, and advocate “Commit the crime, pay the time, WELCOME back to ALL Societal rights and privileges?”

Yes,

No,

Other, explain.

Full disclosure: MY vote is YES, because I've seen this cycle acted out in my neighborhoods, and in my professional experience. I know that desperate people will act out in desperate ways, unless they see some kind of light at the end of the tunnel.

Click to expand...

They have to live somewhere, or else they'll be homeless and then the chances of them resorting to crime to feed themselves goes up drastically. We can't blackball them from work and shelter and then complain when they resort to the rule of the jungle to survive.

Sex offenses are different, but even then there needs to be something that is available for them to provide a foundation for a law abiding life.

ttwtt78640 said:

Yes, generally but that is with the assumption that exceptions can be made legally. In other words, I would not favor a law that elevates convicted violent felons to a "protected class". I find it to be ridiculous that a felony DUI/DWI conviction is used to deny someone's 2A rights for life.

Click to expand...

I think someone who has demonstrated such poor decision making with a deadly vehicle is not likely to make better decisions with a firearm.

Pulling out what I think are a couple of key points:

Captain Adverse said:

Nor is it up to the "rest of society" to make it HARDER on them either.

Click to expand...

You are insisting that they be allowed to transfer the risk to others against their will - to make it harder on the innocent. That is certainly unjust, and more unjust, frankly, than the existence of stigma for released criminals.

Really, so you don't believe people have a right to privacy? Or is it only when it is YOUR privacy involved?

Click to expand...

Please tell me where you can get a job or rent an apartment without providing personal information. I'll wait.

You aren't insisting on privacy - you are insisting that certain highly relevant areas of information be forbidden as part of an exchange because you think those areas of information will harm a portion of the populace you want to help. That's not privacy, that's just enabling.

Privacy is maintained. I have no right to walk up to any person and demand that - and enforce the demand that - they provide me with a work history to include any criminal past. I sure as heck, however, have the right to require provision of that history as a condition of me hiring you to represent me and take my money.

The idea that once an error is made, and restitution in paid, there is no acceptance if not actual forgiveness is IMHO the root cause of recidivism and worse.

Click to expand...

It's part of it, I certainly agree; and I'm a major fan of programs that try to put this portion of the populace into work and communities. But, as you pointed out - they had no record when they committed the crime, so, clearly the presence of a record isn't what drove them to it, but rather their own inclinations. Decisions such as the ones you are addressing here should be made by the individual assessment by the provider of the degree to which they have altered - or not altered - those inclinations. That is why the most successful reintegration programs also carefully screen who they bring in.

Captain Adverse said:

This poll is raised to address an issue of concern after noting replies in a recent thread about a California city passing a law making it illegal for landlords to do a criminal background check before renting to a potential resident.

I have seen other issues at various times concerning how Society should deal with people who have been convicted of various crimes, served their punishment, and been released back into society.

Most often, after claiming agreement with the thread title, the actual reaction is to support restrictions, impediments, and otherwise act in ways designed to continue to punish after release. Thus a criminal record becomes a sort of scarlet letter, once noted imbues pariah status on the individual.

Briefly, an individual who is convicted of a crime faces roadblocks in housing and employment when released. Housing and employment are the mainstays of a successful life. They lend stability, improve and maintain self-confidence, and encourage good social behavior.

But many people, out of fear, distrust, or a sense of social retribution, act to discourage reintegration into society. Jobs are denied, housing refused, leaving few options but homelessness and/or a return to criminal behaviors.

IMO this is wrong-headed, and detrimental to both the individual involved and Society as a whole. It acts to encourage a cycle of criminal recidivism, until there is nothing left to do but permanent incarceration at our expense.

Thus the question: Do you believe in, and advocate “Commit the crime, pay the time, WELCOME back to ALL Societal rights and privileges?”

Yes,

No,

Other, explain.

Full disclosure: MY vote is YES, because I've seen this cycle acted out in my neighborhoods, and in my professional experience. I know that desperate people will act out in desperate ways, unless they see some kind of light at the end of the tunnel.

Click to expand...

The default should be yes, absolutely.

One of the keys to reintegration of someone who has done their time is to help them get their dignity back. It is important to help them transition to a self-sustaining life, which I believe is a critical factor for not reoffending. This is why I support the restoration of voting rights and programs that help get them jobs.

Unless the crime was a violent crime or a crime that could directly impact that business such as insider trading, or DUIs for jobs that require a lot of driving, I support restricting an employer's power to delve into one's criminal background. Why should a 40-year-old man have a harder time fighting a job if the only strike against him is simple assault when he was in his early 20s?

Now one of the points of contention is whether they should get their gun rights back. It's a fair question. My answer is: I'm fine with that, as long as their crime was not a violent crime. If they just did time for possessing weed (which shouldn't even be a crime in the first place) or insider trading, I don't automatically believe that they are any more dangerous with a firearm than the average citizen.

To address the obvious question that that raises--"Why single out guns?"--I offer this compromise: Someone who has served their time deserves to get their gun rights back if and only if they get their voting rights back. Both-and, not just one or the other. So if for whatever reason, it is lawfully deemed that their gun rights cannot be restored, neither will their voting rights be restored. Same goes the other way around. So both voting rights and gun rights activists get what they want, and many of the people who finish their sentence get more liberties after their release.

cpwill said:

Ironically, for the OP, I will point out - typically when we put into place measures that try to force people not to make economically rational decisions regarding risk, all we do is screw over a larger populace. Others will suffer for your well-meaning interference, including the felons you want to help.

Click to expand...

I am aware of "risk/benefit" analysis, but as I pointed out, when it comes to business and cash handling, criminal record or not, a business should already have systems in place to monitor and prevent theft, embezzlement, etc.. That should be the norm in any case.

As for housing? Do you think active rapists, thieves, serial killers don't exist outside criminal records? They had to start somewhere, and there is no guarantee "no criminal record" means the renter is any safer. You just presume/assume so.

Meanwhile, you presume/assume that once evidence shows such acts have been punished for, it follows the individual will continue such despite having been punished for it.

IMO if this is your assertion, and it is widely practiced in hiring and renting; then recidivism is bound to recur as soon as the individual realizes there is no "second chance."

Captain Adverse said:

In answer to this example, most States have some form of sex offender registration requirement, as well as zoning restrictions preventing residence close to schools, etc.. This system is usually accessible to the general public. So in this instance, you could check the registry before renting, but IMHO only IF you meet one of the zone restriction requirements.

Click to expand...

Well, I presumed that when you said ALL social rights, you meant ALL social rights, which includes not being placed a sex-offender registry after one has completed one's sentence.

Captain Adverse said:

In this case, checking prior residential references is not an unreasonable action, whether you suspect a person has a criminal record or not.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we have had prior landlords lie or were cut-outs; just friends or family members who gave glowing personal references but were utterly mendacious.

Captain Adverse said:

I can understand your concern, but you do realize that those people did not have such a record when they first perpetrated such crimes, right? IMO you should already have mechanisms in place to monitor cash handling, and my understanding is most businesses of any size do have methods to validate cash handling and property inventory.

Click to expand...

We do, but the point of a criminal background check is to determine who I can determine is worthy of my trust. A convicted perjurer or embezzler is per se not worthy of my trust. I do not think it is fair that I should expend further energy and resources to act as a commissar and treat all employees with the same distrustful scrutiny because I am no longer able to determine if a potential hire has a criminal past or not.

Captain Adverse said:

In the first case, see the point about sex offender registration. As for sexual harassment in a prior workplace? Don't you do a reference check when you hire?

Click to expand...

Certainly. But we have had so-called "references" be business-owning family members or friends who are willing to outright lie for their friend, or a niece or nephew. The same goes for tenants.

Captain Adverse said:

Really, so you don't believe people have a right to privacy? Or is it only when it is YOUR privacy involved?

Click to expand...

Well, criminal cases are a part of the public record unless they are for juvenile defendants, which are typically sealed. To say that I should not be able to do a background check on a potential tenant or employee is literally telling me that I have no right to access public records of adult criminal defendants. I do not think the law-abiding should have their freedom of inquiry stripped for the benefit of the law-breaker.

Captain Adverse said:

I could ask "why so?" but that is not the purpose of this thread.

Click to expand...

No problem.

Captain Adverse said:

wNor is it up to the "rest of society" to make it HARDER on them either.

The idea that once an error is made, and restitution in paid, there is no acceptance if not actual forgiveness is IMHO the root cause of recidivism and worse.

Click to expand...

That is forgiveness by the State. I am not the State. I am simply an individual trying to run a small business, and it is not desire is not to make life harder for people, but to manage the risk to me, my family, my employees, and my clientele and my business. Additionally, because I am an attorney, I am liable for EVERYTHING that an employee does in my business and overseeing my employee's work. As a bankruptcy lawyer, my clients have to give me not only their cash, but also access to their most intimate personal details regarding their personal property (including jewelry, bank accounts with complete account and routing numbers), finances, and identification. My business is quite simply put, an embezzler's paradise, second perhaps only to a Certified Public Accountant's. Now perhaps you may tell me that under such a legal schema, I would be held blameless. I doubt my clientele would be that forgiving.

Aberration said:

I think someone who has demonstrated such poor decision making with a deadly vehicle is not likely to make better decisions with a firearm.

Click to expand...

IMHO, a life sentence is not warranted for such a crime. If anything, a felony DUI/DWI conviction could be cause for loss of driving privileges for life, yet that is not (normally) done.

Captain Adverse said:

I am aware of "risk/benefit" analysis, but as I pointed out, when it comes to business and cash handling, criminal record or not, a business should already have systems in place to monitor and prevent theft, embezzlement, etc.. That should be the norm in any case.

As for housing? Do you think active rapists, thieves, serial killers don't exist outside criminal records? They had to start somewhere, and there is no guarantee "no criminal record" means the renter is any safer. You just presume/assume so.

Meanwhile, you presume/assume that once evidence shows such acts have been punished for, it follows the individual will continue such despite having been punished for it.

IMO if this is your assertion, and it is widely practiced in hiring and renting; then recidivism is bound to recur as soon as the individual realizes there is no "second chance."

Click to expand...

You appear to be operating from an assumption that Risk is a binary question (that it absolutely exists or it absolutely doesn't), rather than a matter of degrees (that some things are inherently riskier than others). I find it almost impossible to believe that you actually apply that presupposition in your own life*, and ask why you want to force it on others.


*Examples:

- Driving carries with it inherent risk. Ergo, why not drive drunk, since driving was already a decision that created some measure of risk?
- Some people are child abusers before anyone knows about it. Why shouldn't courts and adoption agencies place children with child molesters?
- Leaving the house carries with it some measure of risk of being struck by lightning. Why not play with downed power lines?



That you refuse categorically to accept that you are demanding that others incur increased risk in order to benefit the populace you wish to help does not make your case stronger, and it does not make your argument more convincing. Respectfully, it instead indicates that you are unable or unwilling to admit to the costs your preferred policy would impose, suggesting that we should have zero trust in your ability or willingness to mitigate those costs.

Felis Leo said:

Well, I presumed that when you said ALL social rights, you meant ALL social rights, which includes not being placed a sex-offender registry after one has completed one's sentence.

Click to expand...

I'm not a complete fool. I am aware that some types of sex offenders are suffering from what I consider to be either a mental illness, or a severe lack of self-control and those after often prone to recidivism regardless of treatment. However, many others are people who may have made a mistake in law (ex. statutory rape), or other minor sex offense due to poor judgement, impaired judgement (intoxication), etc. and are not threat. For those our society has a system set up to be removed from registry. In which case there are no longer considered a threat, but might still have a criminal record accessible in a background check.

Felis Leo said:

Unfortunately, we have had prior landlords lie or were cut-outs; just friends or family members who gave glowing personal references but were utterly mendacious.

Click to expand...

Well, in that case you still wouldn't know if a non-criminal applicant was a bad choice, right?

Felis Leo said:

We do, but the point of a criminal background check is to determine who I can determine is worthy of my trust. A convicted perjurer or embezzler is per se not worthy of my trust. I do not think it is fair that I should expend further energy and resources to act as a commissar and treat all employees with the same distrustful scrutiny because I am no longer able to determine if a potential hire has a criminal past or not.

Click to expand...

So are you saying you would hire a person with a criminal background, as long as they were not convicted of "financial crimes?" :unsure13

Felis Leo said:

Certainly. But we have had so-called "references" be business-owning family members or friends who are willing to outright lie for their friend, or a niece or nephew. The same goes for tenants.

Click to expand...

Again, the same answer I gave regarding checking housing backgrounds. What difference between an employee who was a total tool at the last job, but you can't get info on it...and a person simply convicted of some crime who has done their time and now wants to get back to a decent life?

Felis Leo said:

Well, criminal cases are a part of the public record unless they are for juvenile defendants, which are typically sealed. To say that I should not be able to do a background check on a potential tenant or employee is literally telling me that I have no right to access public records of adult criminal defendants. I do not think the law-abiding should have their freedom of inquiry stripped for the benefit of the law-breaker.

Click to expand...

When the sole purpose of this "inquiry" is to deny a person housing or employment based on assumption bias, when the person who hasn't got a record might be the current Ted Bundy, or John Wayne Gacy?

Look, I understand where you are coming from. I really do. So perhaps to sweeten the pot, I would advocate government "insurance" programs designed to cover such concerns over damage caused by unprovoked recidivism. After all, IMO it would save the taxpayer money in the long run trying to re-arrest, try, and house repeat offenders. Would you consider this a reasonable option?

Captain Adverse said:

This poll is raised to address an issue of concern after noting replies in a recent thread about a California city passing a law making it illegal for landlords to do a criminal background check before renting to a potential resident.

I have seen other issues at various times concerning how Society should deal with people who have been convicted of various crimes, served their punishment, and been released back into society.

Most often, after claiming agreement with the thread title, the actual reaction is to support restrictions, impediments, and otherwise act in ways designed to continue to punish after release. Thus a criminal record becomes a sort of scarlet letter, once noted imbues pariah status on the individual.

Briefly, an individual who is convicted of a crime faces roadblocks in housing and employment when released. Housing and employment are the mainstays of a successful life. They lend stability, improve and maintain self-confidence, and encourage good social behavior.

But many people, out of fear, distrust, or a sense of social retribution, act to discourage reintegration into society. Jobs are denied, housing refused, leaving few options but homelessness and/or a return to criminal behaviors.

IMO this is wrong-headed, and detrimental to both the individual involved and Society as a whole. It acts to encourage a cycle of criminal recidivism, until there is nothing left to do but permanent incarceration at our expense.

Thus the question: Do you believe in, and advocate “Commit the crime, pay the time, WELCOME back to ALL Societal rights and privileges?”

Yes,

No,

Other, explain.

Full disclosure: MY vote is YES, because I've seen this cycle acted out in my neighborhoods, and in my professional experience. I know that desperate people will act out in desperate ways, unless they see some kind of light at the end of the tunnel.

Click to expand...

This is not about the right of ex cons to live where they want. This is about the right of property owners to screen potential tenants.

cpwill said:

You appear to be operating from an assumption that Risk is a binary question (that it absolutely exists or it absolutely doesn't), rather than a matter of degrees (that some things are inherently riskier than others). I find it almost impossible to believe that you actually apply that presupposition in your own life*, and ask why you want to force it on others.


*Examples:

- Driving carries with it inherent risk. Ergo, why not drive drunk, since driving was already a decision that created some measure of risk?
- Some people are child abusers before anyone knows about it. Why shouldn't courts and adoption agencies place children with child molesters?
- Leaving the house carries with it some measure of risk of being struck by lightning. Why not play with downed power lines?



That you refuse categorically to accept that you are demanding that others incur increased risk in order to benefit the populace you wish to help does not make your case stronger, and it does not make your argument more convincing. Respectfully, it instead indicates that you are unable or unwilling to admit to the costs your preferred policy would impose, suggesting that we should have zero trust in your ability or willingness to mitigate those costs.

Click to expand...

Well I posited a suggestion to another member response. There are already expensive programs trying to house and monitor recently released felons.

So how about a government "insurance" program designed to cover such concerns over any "damage" caused by unprovoked recidivism. As I said elswhere IMO it would save the taxpayer money in the long run trying to re-arrest, try, and house repeat offenders. Would you consider this a reasonable option?

jimbo said:

This is not about the right of ex cons to live where they want. This is about the right of property owners to screen potential tenants.

Click to expand...

You are right. THIS thread is not about recently released persons "living wherever they want."

That is a discussion for the OTHER thread concerning that California law, which can be found here:

Oakland is the first California city to ban criminal background checks on renters

This thread is about giving "ex-cons" (as well as persons convicted of crimes who might never have been sent to prison) a reasonable option at a second chance.

To help reduce/prevent recidivism.

While it’s a noble position that society should forgive and forget, a landlord has the right to protect an asset and a duty to the neighbourhood.

If they believe the tenant is not trustworthy or likely to commit a similar crime again at the premises, or fail to pay the rent or damage the property or harm or threaten neighbors
or bring guests who might, they should have right of refusal.

That doesn’t of course mean saying no based on colour or creed, but a simple background check and decision based on that is not unreasonable. California should not strip that much protection from property owners.

Wow this one's good. Yes for the reasons you state and No because if I'm renting my home it's a investment and taking the chance it could turn out bad...especially do to this example being in California where people are crazy...your taking a gamble.

So to be fair I would say it depends on where my house was, and in a worse case sinario could I afford any issue that may arise?
But honestly I feel the government should have no right at all to tell me who I have to rent to. It's my house...

Sent from my G9 using Tapatalk

Captain Adverse said:

You are right. THIS thread is not about recently released persons "living wherever they want."

That is a discussion for the OTHER thread concerning that California law, which can be found here:

Oakland is the first California city to ban criminal background checks on renters

This thread is about giving "ex-cons" (as well as persons convicted of crimes who might never have been sent to prison) a reasonable option at a second chance.

To help reduce/prevent recidivism.

Click to expand...

It's about property owners managing their own property as they see fit. Instead being forced by government to let government manage as government sees fit.

Captain America said:

I was raised in a time where it was understood that a felonious convict had to carry that scarlet letter for the rest of their natural born lives. You did the crime, you did the time, you don't get to vote anymore and you can't have a gun. That was the deal. Criminals knew that going in and it was their decision whether to proceed to commit crime. They made their bed and now I have no sympathy for them having to bear that weight. I'm sure there are exceptions. I am just speaking in general terms.

Perhaps, with the trend to decriminalize certain vices the population particular enjoys, room might be made for REAL people that should be in cages and kept there.

Have a nice weekend y'all. Don't commit any crimes.

Click to expand...

The Constitution is the deal breaker. And yet the SCOTUS ignored it. Go figure.

Employers often get sued for NOT doing background checks and an employee harms someone.

Understand the Democrat's stance. If a potential tenant just was released from prison for the crime of arson at his last apartment complex, Democrats demand the landlord can not know this. If all the other tenants subsequently are burned to death? Oh well, at least the arsonist wasn't hurt again.

Is there any criminal the Democratic Party doesn't love and want to protect any possible way?