Criminals Shouldn't Be Protected From 'Discrimination'

on July 17, 2011 at 9:25 AM

jail cell San Francisco is just about as liberal as a city can get. Nancy Pelosi is it’s Representative, after all. She who said workers should pay more taxes to purchase health insurance so that twenty-somethings could ‘pursue their dreams’ as dancers or artists.

San Francisco has banned happy meals and attempted to ban goldfish and guppies. The latest move in its apparent War on Children is to propose that criminals be a “protected class” of citizens.

Say what now? According to the San Francisco Gate:

A proposal being circulated at City Hall would make it illegal for landlords and employers to discriminate against applicants solely because they were 'previously incarcerated.'

Sex offenders and perpetrators of some violent crimes would not be covered.

It would also be illegal to ask anyone about their criminal past on an initial job or housing application.

'The mechanics still need to be worked out,' said Supervisor and sheriff candidate Ross Mirkarimi.

That last statement by Mirkarimi is what is commonly referred to as an understatement. The proposal comes before many prisoners will be released in California due to overcrowding and budget issues. Apparently, releasing criminals back into the general public is a lot easier than figuring how to fix our $500 billion pension problem.

This is not a civil rights issue; it is completely bonkers. People don’t decide to be a certain ethnicity or gender (actually, this is San Francisco we’re talking about, so I’m sure there are many people that have decided their own gender), they are born that way. Felons? Felons decided to break the law. Maybe they’ve changed their ways, maybe not, but it should be up to private businesses to decide whether or not they want to hire them. Making it illegal to ask about past incarceration takes that right away from people.

Criminals are not a protected class of citizens; they are people that intentionally harmed others with violence, theft, vandalism, etc. If they don’t want to be treated as such, maybe they should stop breaking the law.

Image via Tim Pearce Los Gatos/Flickr

Filed Under: corporations, crime, human rights, law, politics

Like What You Just Read?

Click the "Like" button below to get Jenny Erikson's stories on Facebook.

Comments (42)

sooner_sara

on Jul 17, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Right on sister

Report this comment

1bluemonkey

I wonder if that law would apply to teachers? I mean, if they're thinking of forcing this onto the private sector, doesn't it seem like the government should follow its own laws? I can just see it now - a first grade teacher who is a convicted bank robber (such an ethical person to have in charge of 22 kids a year!)

LiberalK

on Jul 17, 2011 at 9:37 AM

I don't agree with your viewpoint at all! I think part of the reason that offenders reoffend is because they aren't given an opportunity to succeed once they're released from prison/jail. Of course there are going to be offenders who will never be productive members of society, but what about the offenders who HAVE changed. If they paid their debt to society shouldn't they be given the opportunity to be productive?

hoticedcoffee

on Jul 17, 2011 at 9:51 AM

Wow...go figure, reading the same comment three times didn't make the arguement any more solid, lol.

Seriously, Jenny, I don't know how you can take living in CA and not have a stroke with all the rampant Liberalism - it is INSANE.

As far as I'm concerned, criminals should be tagged permanently so everyone who crosses their path from the day they are released knows what kind of person you were (or are). If a criminal truly has changed, they won't have a problem finding work and a home. Certainly, the person who employs them or allows them residence should be able to make an informed decision.

RhondaVeggie

on Jul 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM

I think it very much depends in the crime. Obviously sex offenders need to be exempt because no place that has children around on a regular basis should hire them. Inmates who have a slim to nil chance of reoffending shouldn't have to disclose the information. I know a woman who went to prison for manslaughter after getting caught up in a bar fight and accidentally stabbing someone with a broken bottle. Poor judgement sure but should she carry that stain her whole life? It's not like she's going to be released from prison just itching to go stab someone else. How about someone who was involved in petty theft or prostitution as a desperate measure to support their family? I'm all for giving people like that a second chance if they're willing to make a go of it. Oftentimes people pick up useful skills in prison that make them productive members of society. Look at Handy Andy from Changing Rooms. he learned his carpentry skills in jail.

Zamaria

on Jul 17, 2011 at 10:00 AM

LiberalK, I have to disagree. My husband is a recovering alcoholic & addict, a felon, AND a black man. It was very hard for him to get a good job when he first decided to get it together. So he took any job he could get, and did his very best. Then he was able to get great references, which led to better job opportunities, which he did his best at, and now he owns his own business, and he still gets job offers frequently. My point is that no matter what a person's past is, if they truly want to make something of themselves, they can. It takes hard work, and it takes time. But it can be done. And he had to disclose his criminal history on every job application. He just didn't let it stop him.

miss_lisa

on Jul 17, 2011 at 10:04 AM

First, not all criminals are felons. Second, it's clear from the article you linked that violent offenders and sex offenders would be exempt from such a law. Third, it's still in the baby stages so it's kind of like throwing a fit over something that may never happen. Fourth, until the law becomes more specified most of your complaints may be completely invalid.

billsfan1104

on Jul 17, 2011 at 10:06 AM

How do you accidently stab someone with a broken bottle?? I think that if they are going to change about asking past incarceration, it should be dependent on what the job is. Like if you apply at a bank, you should be asked if you been convicted for any crimes dealing with money. Or if you are going to work with children, you should be asked if you been convicted of any cromes dealing with rape, incest, abuse etc etc. But I also believe that people should be given a second chance, depending on their crime. People are going to go back to their lifestyle of crime, if they cannont find a way out.

on Jul 17, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Wow HotIceCoffe, I apologized for the repost. No need to be nasty about my POV. That's rude. I think your mentality is part of the reason crime rates won't decrease. People like you obviously don't believe in second chances. That sounds insane to me.
Zamaria-I think it's great that your husband was able to get himself back together. But that situation isn't always the norm.

xtina6143

on Jul 17, 2011 at 10:15 AM

I agree with liberal k, it is very hard to find a decent job when you have to put down that you have a criminal record and it does lead people to reoffend because it becomes the only way they know how to survive not every one is a repeat offender some people do just make mistakes and they learn from them