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.Okay. Let me see if I get this straight. Someone makes a conscious decision to break the law. San Francisco now wants to shield them from the consequences of that decision under the guise of "fairness"? Eventually everyone will fall into one "protected" class or another, and the word will cease to have any meaning - once every applicant is "protected", then businesses and landlords will be back to hiring or renting to whoever they feel like.
Supporters say it's an effort to help former offenders get back on their feet, but critics call the concept a crime in itself.
Without a hint of irony - nor explanation - the article mentions that San Fran has the highest rate of recidivism of any city in CA, almost 80%. This is supposed to be an argument FOR putting one's criminal history on the "protected" list - the thinking is that people go back to committing crimes because they can't get jobs. No one ever stopped to consider that maybe they can't get jobs because they insist on committing crimes.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised. This is a logical extension of the line of thinking that says no one is responsible for their actions. San Fran's just at the forefront of the push to shield us from every possible consequence. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, as valet services start hiring car thieves and credit card companies start hiring people who have be involved with identity theft. Right now they're claiming that businesses won't have to hire folks whose crimes are in the areas of the business, but what's the likelihood of that standing?
San Francisco: Proudly proving to the rest of the country that not all the stupidity in the US comes out of Beacon Hill...
That is all.
10 comments:
I don't think the idea behind this is bad, but I do think the way it will be implemented will be bad. I'm very much of the opinion that if you've served your time that should be the end of it, period. The fact that people go bat shit panic-y any time something like this is brought up is, however, proof positive that punishment for violent and/or property crime is nowhere near adequate.
And yet, Jay, what about people like this guy: "Eddie Leroy Anderson of Craigmont, Idaho, is a retired logger, a former science teacher and now a federal criminal thanks to his arrowhead-collecting hobby.
With the growing number of federal criminal statutes, it's become increasingly easy for Americans to end up on the wrong side of the law. Kelsey Hubbard talks with WSJ's Gary Fields about the impact.
In 2009, Mr. Anderson loaned his son some tools to dig for arrowheads near a favorite campground of theirs. Unfortunately, they were on federal land. Authorities "notified me to get a lawyer and a damn good one," Mr. Anderson recalls.
There is no evidence the Andersons intended to break the law, or even knew the law existed, according to court records and interviews. But the law, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, doesn't require criminal intent and makes it a felony punishable by up to two years in prison to attempt to take artifacts off federal land without a permit.
With the .gov making more and more things federal crimes, and prosecutors wanting to look "tough on crime", you're getting more people like this poor schnook who's only crime is not knowing the whole federal code by heart. So there IS some justification for this.
RTWT (but have some blood pressure medicine handy...): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703749504576172714184601654.html?KEYWORDS=federal+crimes
I don't say that it's a great law - there's a lot of people that I'm sure WON'T be following the straight & narrow even if they have served their time - but it's not without some benefits.
It's not as black and white as you may think.
My take on the story from San Fransisco comes down to this:
"Give me a job and I'll stop committing crimes"
Versus
"Stop committing crimes and I'll give you a job."
I'm of the opinion that if you've done your time and stayed out of trouble, then it's not an issue. If you've done 5 years and are still living like a thug, good luck getting a job.
Ross,
I understand what you're getting at, but really? What's the likelihood that people like Mr. Anderson are the ones being denied jobs?
Especially considering that the legislation is being considered in light of the 80% recidivism rate...
Typical liberal thinking, they don’t want any consequences for any actions.
I still think if we want to punish someone for the rest of their life we should leave them in prison that long.
Do your time, done. Return to society as a full member without sanction, or no return.
Keep a record though. Ratchet the sentences up for repeaters. Make that curve exponential.
I think that with this sort of system those who would be valuable members can do so and those who will not will be less and less likely to be a problem.
We may also want to consider allowing misdemeanors to be punished for longer than a year; I think that's why we have all these minor non-violent crimes as felonies. People want the guilty to be punished for more than a year.
We'd also have to have a good hard look at the harm done by some (many?) laws. The punishment should fit the crime and too many crimes are victimless; no harm no foul as it were.
Rule of unintended consequences applies: With no way to verify the quality and after-hours habits of prospective employees, it's going to be impossible for people who look different from getting a job.
Think on it: you've got 4 prospective employees interviewing for a job as a warehouse manager: a white guy with hand drawn tattoos on his neck and face, a black guy, a middle-aged hispanic man, and a 25 year old white guy. Guess who's getting that job.
Jay, I can give you an example of one person it's happened to. A friend of mine was accused of child abuse and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Why? Because the DA was running for office. He decided that while my friend's scumbag husband was busy having an affair with her 14 year old daughter she just had to know.
I know this woman. I've known her since she was 12 and I was 14 (that was some 30 years before this episode, BTW). There is NO. WAY. ON. THIS. EARTH. that she knew. 'Cause she'd have ripped the scumbag's nuts off first. She may have been clueless, but she's no abuser.
So what happened? Scumbag pleaded guilty (I didn't like him from the minute I met him - I wasn't surprised AT ALL when I heard what he'd done). My friend pleaded innocent. After 2+ years of motions and dragging out court appearances, running through over $60K in legal bills (her mother had to sell her house!), TWO YEARS when she couldn't talk to her daughter without supervision, couldn't even talk to her about the CASE, she gave up. She pled guilty to something she didn't do, got declared a felon... and was finally able to tell her daughter that no, she DIDN'T know.
And she couldn't find a job after that with that record. She moved to AZ (away from Inbred Acres, NJ, where this happened) and STILL couldn't get a job. She wound up scraping up the money after a couple of years to open a shoe & boot repair shop. She works for the only person who would hire her - herself.
Oh, and the daughter? Moved out to Arizona to live with her mother ON HER 18TH BIRTHDAY. That sound to you like the daughter thinks her mom knew? Yeah, I didn't think so either.
I wonder: if San Fran were to stop handing out cash to the "homeless" just for breathing San Fran air, what would happen to the crime rates? Do you suppose the need to "protect" convicted criminals from discrimination would remain? Anyone? Anyone? Beuller? Beuller?
LittleRed1
Oh, and the only people I see gaining from this are the lawyers. "You discriminated against my client. She could tell from the way you looked at her paperwork that you thought she was a convicted felon, so she's suing for emotional distress and discrimination."
LittleRed1
Post a Comment