- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 11,007
- Reaction score
- 5,434
- Location
- Southeast Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Should employers & landlords be prohibited from asking applicants if they have a criminal record/past?
Employers and landlords should not be banned from asking about any criminal history.
Employees and landlords should be banned from asking about any criminal history.
Only employers should be banned from asking about any criminal history.
Only landlords should be banned from asking about any criminal history.
Employers should be allowed to ask about crimes are "significantly related".For example a bank asking if the applicant if they been convicted of armed robbery, theft or embezzlement or a Daycare asking the applicant if they have been convicted of child molestation,rape or abuse.
Landlords should be allowed to ask about crimes that are "significantly related".For example a landlord asking the applicant if they are a convicted sex offender or if they have been convicted of making meth.
Both should be allowed to ask about crimes that are "significantly related.
I do not know.
I think limiting an employer or landlord to what questions they can ask is the best solution. This still allowed employers and landlords to weed out potential threats while at the same time preventing someone who was convicted of a unrelated offense from being discriminated against.
It varies from state-to-state, and sometimes even county-to-county. I couldn't say for sure that there's not a national database. I know I have had access to one, but that was about ten years ago and I honestly can't remember the specifics.
If laws are important enough to receive government action, prosection, and conviction on, they are important enough for me to be aware of. Up to me if it's relevant.
As someone else noted, you could also have a third party do the legal evaluation and just give red or green light, so history is preserved. Costs money though, let me guess who pays....
for many, many employers that would be an automatic disqualification. i don't know what the answer is, but ex-cons need to have jobs.
Landlords should mind they own. As long they getting paid why worry over it:lol:
Because the last thing I want is someone who is a convicted criminal (especially sex offender) living in the building where my daughters are also living...
In my opinion Employers and Landlords have every right to do a background check on potential employees and renters...they are entitled to protect their business and property
If you keep the sex offenders busy, they won't give a f*ck about your daughters since they can go get more legitimate fun. The more you antagonize them, the more likely they are to retaliate by raping. It gives them a sense of control over their lives when you deny them it. If you give them a job, encourage them to spend their money in ways that make them happy with life, and generally give them ways they can regain their own sense of control over their destiny, I don't think you will see them raping too many women. But then again- that would require actually spending your time and efforts to help them, and unfortunately not too many people are willing to do that. We're so scared that their past will define their future, we never give them an opportunity to change.
I'm sorry, but you obviously know nothing about pedophiles or serial rapists. Keeping them "busy" doesn't satisfy the urges they develop to do the things they do. That's why they're SERIAL.
In other words, "once a criminal. always a criminal."If I am hiring someone, or renting an apartment out to them, I have the right to know if they have engaged in criminal activity. What would even qualify as an unrelated offence?
Pedophiles and serial rapists are entirely different, for one thing. Serial rapists are in jail- it's a life sentence. So they must have been acquitted, in which case as far as I'm concerned they didn't do it. There's a lot of work right now in the legal fields towards getting the pedophile sentence extended to life as well, which seems logical to me. But from my experience, many "sex offenders" committed maybe one, two rapes, faced a ton of jail time and a fee and suffered for their illegal decisions, and are now released to the general public, if not guilty over what they did at least aware of what the result is of doing it again. Also, I am not strongly against a sex offender registry. I am also not against personality tests- if someone tests in as a kleptomaniac, I can understand not wanting them in your house. Again, I have no problem with them being in mine because I honestly don't give a sh*t if they take anything, but I can understand other people being more attached to their belongings. I think it's reasonable to want to know the personality of the person, since they might be a party person when you like a quiet house, or an pet-lover when you don't like animals. In those cases I can understand advising the person not to come based on limitations you put on your tenants. But if they just stole something, or did some other petty crime years back and served their sentence, I think it's unfair for people to judge them based on that. The employers or landlords shouldn't be able to see what they did, but rather, using the personality tests, they can decide what the risk is of them doing something in the future, and based on that make their decision. Once again, I am not strongly against sex offender directories- you are correct that there are people whose urges won't be satisfied without illegal activity, and who can't resist those urges forever, and in those cases I am sorry for those people. But that is a small sex offenders, an even smaller percent of people, and I don't think that that alone merits a criminal record check.
I'm sorry, that's ridiculous. They may be trying to extend the MAXIMUM sentence to life, but that doesn't mean they'll get it, or that they won't be paroled. What a silly argument.
Thanks giving it such excellent criticism...I'm glad to know that the end of the day, people like you will be there to tell me I have silly arguments. Getting to the actual point, I actually realize that. I don't know if you noticed, but that's why I said having a combination of a sex offender directory and a personality test. My point is that you shouldn't just classify them as sex offenders for the rest of their life, that fact shouldn't limit everything they can do anymore than a love of pornographic material or violent movies. Addictions might limit their social abilities or force them to go to some kind of rehab to regain control over their lives, but it doesn't give you or me the right to judge them for it. I understand if you don't want to have someone whose personality test shows that they have a strong chance of going out on a raping quest in a week- I just don't understand why because they've had sex with a child in the past you immediately assume they can't control themselves enough not to do it again. They serve their punishment, the state deems them ready to go- and I won't argue with it. They're the ones with Ph.D's in criminal psychology, not me.
Do they also have a right to look into their medical history, into their friendship circle, and into their daily habits? Everything a person does can effect their employment and what they do in the place they live in. Checking their criminal history to see if they have ever committed a crime is no different from checking their medical history to see if they have a history of drunkards...it's just as likely to affect their current life practices, and I find it just as ridiculous. Peoples' past habits do not define their present actions. The sooner we as a people figure that out and stop judging people based on mistakes they made previous, the better.
Yep, I guess so. If I stop responding suddenly in about a month, it means the latest kid I'm taking in raped me then killed me in my sleep, and you're proven correct.*shrugs* Can't win 'em all, I guess. Glad to know you'll be the one employing/housing them so I don't have make that complicated, difficult, and risky decision on a recently released convict.
No and I didnt say they did...but they do have every right to do a criminal back ground check and a credit check
Yep, I guess so. If I stop responding suddenly in about a month, it means the latest kid I'm taking in raped me then killed me in my sleep, and you're proven correct.
A credit check? So now we're checking to see if they even spend correctly? What are you going to do next, investigate their dating background and give them a blood test for terminal diseases? I don't see where the line is here. It seems like people can just keep getting more and more personal. What makes what you're doing right and checking for race, gender, or musical preference wrong? I'm not saying you can't go to the police and ask for a criminal record check...I'm just saying that I should have the right to say that you can't have it. If you deny me based on that ground then whatever, I don't care- it's your loss of business, I can just go to a different place that does let me in.
Do they also have a right to look into their medical history, into their friendship circle, and into their daily habits?
Belgrath you seem to have an emotional problem over this....I gave you my opinion and you want to make wild assumptions about what I meant....now im going to try this just once more ok
An employer and a landlord who may be responsible for other tenants in the building have every right to know the criminal history of those they are dealing with. They have every right to check their credit history for employers because individuals with bad credit are proven to be more of a loss risk than those with good credit...a landlord has the right to know a prospective tenants credit history to see if they have been evicted from other residences for not paying etc....
I have not yet made any wild assumptions, and I don't have an emotional problem regarding this. I will repeat, I have no problem with you making the checks- I just have a problem with not having control over my own record. For the sake of the argument, pretend that I committed a theft 10 years ago. I was caught. I served my time, and I'm ready to deal with the real world again. The last thing I need is everyone denying me tenancy because of that mistake 10 years ago. I want to restrict access to my criminal record so people deal with me as I am now, not then. I don't care if you deny me residence based on my refusal to release my record- I just have a problem with you having unrestricted access to my record. With all those other matters, it's the same thing- I don't care if you deny me residence for refusing to release what I've done, but I do have a problem with not being able to block you from having access to that material.Belgrath you seem to have an emotional problem over this....I gave you my opinion and you want to make wild assumptions about what I meant....now im going to try this just once more ok
An employer and a landlord who may be responsible for other tenants in the building have every right to know the criminal history of those they are dealing with. They have every right to check their credit history for employers because individuals with bad credit are proven to be more of a loss risk than those with good credit...a landlord has the right to know a prospective tenants credit history to see if they have been evicted from other residences for not paying etc....
When I applied to work for Pete Lien and Sons in SD, they didn't just do a medical history, you had to get a physical. You were not allowed to smoke while employed with them, even on your own time, and yes they did ask about tattoos, piercings, drinking, and other things a such are markers of certain character types which are prone to irresponsible behavior.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?