Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unless you are a woman alone in a home or a mother who has young children in the home, you can't possibly understand the vulnerability involved due to a ban the box law, firebird.
Most people want to give ex-cons a second chance for a good life and legal employment. but, if that employment involves working in my private home and potentially risking the safety of my children or my safety, it is an unreasonable request to ask me to just trust the employee doesn't have a history of being a violent felon or does and is no longer a threat. I won't change my mind as long as the ban the box law remains in place.
if i'm at an oil change public business, I don't care what prison history the person has that changes my oil. I'm never alone in my home with that employee.
Dear,
Relax because the person -who I pray never gets near you, or your family - could be a crazy drug fiend who has never been in the system that breaks into your home. You think can control crime by a background check that only goes back 7 years ? Everyday there are millions born, not all are nice people. I know preachers been in jail in their youth ! And they are not exempt for running in public office. So, If you feel so unsafe, maybe need see why.
For me it depends upon the crime.
Sex offenders, like rapists and pedophiles? Who wants such as they working in a school?
Road rage turned manslaughter? Yeah we want that guy working as a gym teacher.
Violent offenders need to be outed.
Non-violent like that guy caught selling hash? It's the past.
How about warmongers that secretly wish to glass other countries?
I have seen so many of these type lately with the Iran Fiasco.
How many children and women would be killed from their fantasies?
at least they can still potentially weed them out with background checks. so what exactly does loopy lujan-grisham think she's accomplished besides making employers spend more money?
That's a little odd. Some crimes are specifically relevant. It may just be that the law decrees that you can't have a yes-no checkbox on the initial application asking if the person has ever been arrested. I think there's something like that in New York. The purpose is to keep employers from immediately unfairly excluding people for inadequate reasons. For instance, a person might have been arrested at a political protest when 19, and now at 32 is applying for a job as an accountant.
The gov can easily solve this, just delete the criminal record of the person, officially declare the person not a criminal nor having a criminal past.
Ideally, that is whats supposed to happen after a person has paid their debt off to society, not sure how we allowed it to get to the point it is today though.
Dear,
Relax because the person -who I pray never gets near you, or your family - could be a crazy drug fiend who has never been in the system that breaks into your home. You think can control crime by a background check that only goes back 7 years ? Everyday there are millions born, not all are nice people. I know preachers been in jail in their youth ! And they are not exempt for running in public office. So, If you feel so unsafe, maybe need see why.
Ive said the same thing about BG checks in the past too, 50% of the time, they are not even effective!
I see this as discriminatory against noncriminals. I believe non-criminals need protection because employers will be attracted to criminals if they don't know their history. Criminals have dark triad qualities that the world loves.
The real answer from their side which they never admit, because it's so abhorrent, is that once someone is an ex con, they should be segregated from society for life and either starve to death or kill themselves. That's the real answer.....
Except both are unlikely, because ex-cons would be more than willing to commit crimes in order to survive.
Why are we making it difficult for the ones who actually WANT to reintegrate into society and live a law-abiding life?
If someone is so dangerous that their past needs to be forever disclosed to employers and landlords, then maybe they shouldn't have even been released?
Otherwise, they've fulfilled their punishment. Let them move on so they're not cornered into returning to a life of crime out of necessity.
Plus, selfish motive here: I really DON'T want to have to pay for welfare for them with my tax dollars.
I see this as discriminatory against noncriminals. I believe non-criminals need protection because employers will be attracted to criminals if they don't know their history. Criminals have dark triad qualities that the world loves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
