San Francisco Considers Legal Protection for Crimi

[cme1201]

Something really wrong with labeling a Felon as a protected class.

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.

www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/26/san-francisco-considers-legal-protection-for-criminals/?test=latestnews

Seems to be just another way of excusing someone of the mistakes they have made, no more responsibility for personal actions.

California, the funnier it gets the sadder it becomes.

[ugonow]

Sad to say,but I do see the logic behind it. Awfully hard to return to society and not be a begger or thief if you can not get a job because of that check mark.

[EVT1]

It sure isn't the best answer but I agree with the point- once someone has repaid their debt to society, what the hell do you expect them to do if they are denied employment or a place to live? A lot of it depends on the crime- I can understand not hiring a rapist to work at a women's shelter, but a lot of the non-violent first time offenders shouldn't be denied an apartment or entry level job- you are just asking for recidivism or a life on welfare. So where is the bending point for a tough on crime republican that doesn't like welfare? What would be your answer to these people?

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I understand the logic because you are making career criminals out of people if they can't get a job or a place to live.

I agree with evt1 there are some people who commit certain crimes that should not be in a job. Like here they ask if you have ever been convicted of elder/child/spousal abuse and if you have you can't work with patients.

But to have to check the box if you are applying to be a grocery clerk making minimum wage?

[kent]

Thanks for posting this CME, I've been patiently waiting.

"Something really wrong with labeling a Felon as a protected class."

Doing so will create a real mess down the road as one felon after another tries to scream discrimination if they don't get the job, credit, apartment, or whatever they want.

On the other hand, I can actually see a "touch" of reason in the proposal. If a person has done their time, the debt to society has been paid and they should not be subjected to double jeopardy.

That said, I have hired several ex-cons and not one of them worked out. My favorite guy was released from San Quentin on a work furlough program. He worked like a dog, got promoted and was making very good money (lot's of overtime), got married and had a baby. I come to work one day and was asked if I had heard the latest on him. It turns out that over the weekend he walked into a store with a shotgun and held the place up. Back to prison - it was sad.

[henryclay]

landlords and employers would be prohibited from asking applicants about their criminal past.

I disagree in spades, with one cavest: To say a landlord or an emplooyer doesn't have a right to ask is a violation of rights in and of itself.

They might have a better chance of it working if they just said there was no more right to deny a felon a place to live or a job than the federal government or the state has. And every governent in the US has the right to refuse convicted felons of employment and/or social benefits, including student loans and entry into the military services.

[ed1066]

I think this is perfect for San Francisco. If you haven't been there lately, it's one of the filthiest cities in America. Much of San Francisco looks like the third world cesspools you see on TV after a disaster (i.e. Haiti or Rwanda). Most of the city is unsafe after dark, the public schools are abysmal, there are homeless people literally everywhere, the sidewalks are caked with vomit, feces and urine. You can't walk more than 50 feet without being accosted by a beggar or a soliciter. But, by all means, they should plow ahead in their endless quest for "social justice" to create the paradise we know San Francisco will be...LOL!

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

I have never been asked about a criminal past on any rental application.

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

That's why I call it San Francesspool.

[flopsy]

there are legit concerns in many types of work and for landlords regarding convicted criminals so they need to be able to ask. if these people really want to help convicts then they should fund work programs and housing for those reentering society. because this is San Francisco we're talking about i am sure felons will end up being a protected class.

[ed1066]

Jul 26, 2011 14:48:31 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Jul 26, 2011 14:44:15 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

I think this is perfect for San Francisco. If you haven't been there lately, it's one of the filthiest cities in America. Much of San Francisco looks like the third world cesspools you see on TV after a disaster (i.e. Haiti or Rwanda). Most of the city is unsafe after dark, the public schools are abysmal, there are homeless people literally everywhere, the sidewalks are caked with vomit, feces and urine. You can't walk more than 50 feet without being accosted by a beggar or a soliciter. But, by all means, they should plow ahead in their endless quest for "social justice" to create the paradise we know San Francisco will be...LOL!

I agree about it turning into a cesspool. The last time I was there, I swore I'd never return.

And on top of that, the city looks like South Africa during apartheid. The rich white liberal elites who love to lecture us about "diversity" all live in lily white communities like Seacliff, Tiburon and Piedmont (yes I'm including Oakland now), while all the poor blacks and hispanics live like rats in the Tenderloin and East Oakland.

But the white liberal elites love to tell the rest of us that we need "inclusive" housing and employment to "level the playing field" and "spread the wealth". What a joke! If Nancy Pelosi would move to the Tenderloin or sell her mansion in Pacific Heights to a low income family for $80,000, maybe the hypocrisy wouldn't be so damning...

[EVT1]

So what's the answer- make every felony automatic life without parole? It ends up being the case for a lot of them anyway because without options why not go back to crime? Worst case you go back in, get food, shelter and medical care.

I would rather go the route of not allowing background checks to reveal non-violent crimes in jobs where it isn't an issue- think manual labor.

I would push very hard to eliminate the reporting of or asking about misdemeanors at all- nothing like someone having to check that box for a little weed they had in college 25 years ago and maybe have their application tossed in the automatic 'no' pile before it is even evaluated.

[Angel!]

Jul 26, 2011 14:47:43 GMT -5 Mad Dawg Wiccan said:

I have never been asked about a criminal past on any rental application.

I don't remember ever being asked that either, but I pulled up a application for a random apt in my city & it asked if you had ever been convicted of a felony, so at least some definitely ask this question.

[EVT1]

So once a thief always a thief? That's the problem with that line of thinking- you give them no options and you can just about be sure they they are going to steal again. And why is it a 'him'? Women don't steal?

News alert- you already have thieves and worse living in your apartment complexes- they don't automatically come with records.

[cme1201]

I have ZERO NADA NONE NO tolerance for people who knowingly violate the law, get caught being protected. You know the rules of the game, I have watched what my brother goes through being a convicted felon, the limits that it places on a person, if you make a stupid decision it should hurt long and loud.

[cme1201]

Jul 26, 2011 14:56:43 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

So what's the answer- make every felony automatic life without parole? It ends up being the case for a lot of them anyway because without options why not go back to crime? Worst case you go back in, get food, shelter and medical care.

I would rather go the route of not allowing background checks to reveal non-violent crimes in jobs where it isn't an issue- think manual labor.

I would push very hard to eliminate the reporting of or asking about misdemeanors at all- nothing like someone having to check that box for a little weed they had in college 25 years ago and maybe have their application tossed in the automatic 'no' pile before it is even evaluated.

No Do your time come out of Prison/Jail/Half-Way house knowing that the only pperson on the social ladder lower than you is the fresh Illegal, You have violated the trust of society now you need to try and re-earn it.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...I smell a lot of future liability coming on... if I'm working the closing shift with a former felon who does me and the store wrong... and then find out that my boss knew my coworker had demonstrated a pattern of doing "me" and "stores" wrong... I'd more than likely sue...

[cme1201]

Jul 26, 2011 16:05:07 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...I smell a lot of future liability coming on... if I'm working the closing shift with a former felon who does me and the store wrong... and then find out that my boss knew my coworker had demonstrated a pattern of doing "me" and "stores" wrong... I'd more than likely sue...

From the Quote in first post

If passed by city supervisors, landlords and employers would be prohibited from asking applicants about their criminal past.

Your boss wouldn't even know as it would not be allowed for him/her to even ask.

Think about a woman who is on night duty with a convicted sex offender, a person who had surgery and has pills not knowing that the guy in the back was arrested and served time for illegal pill sales, the Garbage truck driver who has his 3rd DUI, etc.

They don't won't to tell anyone I f****d up, if they are not allowed to ask then I can get by on omission of fact, if they ask I have to 1. Answer honestly 2. Lie and hope that a BGC isn't performed 3. leave.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...well, a BGC is going to be performed at some point in many workplaces... so while it may not be asked at the interview, it will be known... and I won't be suing the night manager at McDonald's... I'll be suing McDonald's corporate... they had the information and the means to not schedule me to work the closing shift with a former felon who had demonstrated a pattern of "x, y, z."

...a civil case may gum up the courts for awhile, but they'd have a case...

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...having said that, maybe they'll provide better security for the closing shifts, and then that will be enough to "protect" them, if not me...

[ameiko]

Jul 26, 2011 14:28:34 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

I understand the logic because you are making career criminals out of people if they can't get a job or a place to live.

I agree with evt1 there are some people who commit certain crimes that should not be in a job. Like here they ask if you have ever been convicted of elder/child/spousal abuse and if you have you can't work with patients.

But to have to check the box if you are applying to be a grocery clerk making minimum wage?

I wonder if a woman would feel comfortable working with said felon if he convicted of a rape and now you were had to work with him... at night... alone?

I understand the rationale but we need to get rid of protected classes, not expand them. By protecting certain people, all you are really doing is discriminating against everyone else. What is next: "sorry Bob but you were more qualified for the job but Biff the Biker Felon is covered by affirmative action..."

Are there any businesses left in San Fran left?

[ameiko]

Jul 26, 2011 14:55:38 GMT -5 flopsy said:

there are legit concerns in many types of work and for landlords regarding convicted criminals so they need to be able to ask. if these people really want to help convicts then they should fund work programs and housing for those reentering society. because this is San Francisco we're talking about i am sure felons will end up being a protected class.

I owe you an exalt!

LOVE IT!!! If you think something should be done, DO IT YOURSELF!!!!

[ameiko]

Jul 26, 2011 14:56:00 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

Jul 26, 2011 14:48:31 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

I agree about it turning into a cesspool. The last time I was there, I swore I'd never return.

And on top of that, the city looks like South Africa during apartheid. The rich white liberal elites who love to lecture us about "diversity" all live in lily white communities like Seacliff, Tiburon and Piedmont (yes I'm including Oakland now), while all the poor blacks and hispanics live like rats in the Tenderloin and East Oakland.

But the white liberal elites love to tell the rest of us that we need "inclusive" housing and employment to "level the playing field" and "spread the wealth". What a joke! If Nancy Pelosi would move to the Tenderloin or sell her mansion in Pacific Heights to a low income family for $80,000, maybe the hypocrisy wouldn't be so damning...

Sorta like how Al Gore whines about global warming as he deplanes from his private jet, gets into the town car that was running on the tarmac that whisks him away to his energy hog home?

Or how John Edwards whines about Two Americas between 400 dollar haircuts and affairs? Although to be fair, if I had been married to that shrew (do not fall for the sympathy that her cancer stirred up- she was by all accounts a horrible person), *I* would cheat on her too!

[ameiko]

Jul 26, 2011 15:11:57 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

So once a thief always a thief? That's the problem with that line of thinking- you give them no options and you can just about be sure they they are going to steal again. And why is it a 'him'? Women don't steal?

News alert- you already have thieves and worse living in your apartment complexes- they don't automatically come with records.

Would you want your daughter dating a rapist? Or your child cared for by a pedophile? Or an embezzler running your accounts?

And if you do, good for you but I DO NOT! You and others may feel free to take your chances in the name of rehabilitating felons but I do not. At the very least, allow employers and landlords the knowledge so they can make an informed choice.

A lot of it depends on the crime- I can understand not hiring a rapist to work at a women's shelter

So once a thief not always a thief but once a rapist always a rapist? Why do women in a shelter get to be protected but not Joe Business owner or Jenny Tenant?

My business and my housing- my choice. Feel free to create your own business and buy an apartment complex if you feel the need to help criminals- do it on YOUR dime and YOUR risk!

[Deleted]

In todays society there are only 2 classes of people that have no one fighting for their rights. They are the innocent & the normal citizen.

I wouldn't be shocked if it 20 years someone could break into your house & rob you & you could be sued if you don't take them to the bank & empty your account for them plus buy them a meal on the way home. That's because Mr Average American is STUPID for putting up with these stupid laws & they are getting worse.

[Deleted]

Oh & San Francisco is the leader in stupid laws, stupid thoughts, & stupid actions.

[cme1201]

There have already been many suits brought by criminals against the citizens they have terrorized, and in many cases the criminal won.

Bodine v. Enterprise High School

Ricky Bodine was a 19-year-old high-school graduate who, with three other friends (one of whom had a criminal record), decided the night of March 1, 1982, to steal a floodlight from the roof of the Enterprise High School gymnasium. Ricky climbed the roof, removed the floodlight, lowered it to the ground to his friends, and, as he was walking across the roof (perhaps to steal a second floodlight), he fell through the skylight. Bodine suffered terrible injuries to be sure, though one questions the relevance: if the school is legally responsible for burglars’ safety, it doesn’t matter whether Bodine stubbed a toe or, as actually happened, became a spastic quadriplegic. But I fail to see what it is that reformers are supposedly misrepresenting. A burglar fell through a skylight, and sued the owner of the skylight for his injuries. Bodine sued for $8 million (in 1984 dollars, about $16 million today) and settled for the nuisance sum of $260,000 plus $1200/month for life, about the equivalent of a million dollars in conservatively-estimated 2006 present value.

or this

An inmate in Florida (where else?) is suing the man he was convicted of burglarizing. Why? Because the burglar was "roughed up" by the the man he robbed and two other men. Are you kidding me? Here's how the whole thing played out:
Michael Dupree decided he needed to break into the van of Anthony McKoy and steal McKoy's bicycle. McKoy saw Dupree with the bicycle down the street a short time later, and so McKoy and a couple of his buddies placed Dupree under citizen's arrest. Dupree is claiming that McKoy and his pals were too rough on him because they pointed a gun at him, handcuffed him, and painfully placed a knee in his back. Is that all? For that, Dupree is seeking $500,000 for disabilities and distress suffered during the takedown. Not sure what "disabilities" he has suffered, and the "distress" part I suppose has to do with the fact that Dupree was pissed off he had been caught.
Michael Dupree, you should be lucky that Mr. McKoy and his friends didn't shoot you or at the very least kick your sorry ass into next week.
When McKoy was served with the lawsuit, he stated, "I thought it was a joke. I'm the victim."

www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/07/30/20100730inmate-sues-man-he-burglarized.html

Family members sueing Auto makers for Spouses Drunk Driving.

February 25-26 – “Drunken Driver’s Widow Wins Court’s OK To Sue Carmaker”. New York’s highest court has ruled that the widow of a Westchester County man killed in a crash of his VW Jetta with more than twice the legal amount of alcohol in his system can nonetheless sue the German automaker. In a 10-page dissent, Justice Albert Rosenblatt wrote that the “majority’s rationale … invites people injured as a result of their own seriously unlawful acts to blame others and recover damages previously prohibited”. (Kenneth Lovett, New York Post, Feb. 20).

And the cases go on and on and on. Some lose, yet more win than one would expect.

[cme1201]

Jul 28, 2011 7:57:49 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

Well, bearing in mind that there can be legitimate reasons not to employ someone such as no pedophiles in a school, no thieves in the diamond district, San Francisco also is faced with practical problems if all felons remain permanently unemployable and unhoused for all time. For example, they will be public charges or return to preying on the rest of us.

I have no problem if a felon has a chance to mop a floor or carry bricks so long as he is not in a high-risk category such as I have mentioned. Some "Felons" may have sold pot to the wrong person or shoplifted a few expensive items during the idiot phase of their youth. They may be quite employable in positions that don't involve exposure to the near occasions of sin.

I think the biggest riot of all is that we had a recent president who was an avowed coke user during his "youth" of 30.

Yeah, and we have one sitting now who did it also.

Obama has written about his drug use before in his memoir, "Dreams from My Father."

"Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final fatal role of the young would be black man," Obama wrote. Mostly he smoked marijuana and drank alcohol, Obama wrote, but occasionally he would snort cocaine when he could afford it.

[cme1201]

irrational discrimination

In what way is it irrational for a business or a private apartment complex to say I will not hire/rent a convicted felon?

Am I as a private business owner not allowed to have say in what I am willing or not willing to put up with?

Mistakes happen, I will give you that, that is why it is allowed for the Owner to ask questions, to determine if it was a simple mistake (I bought some grass from the wrong person) or something more, I was high and shot a man so I could go get drugs (Voluntary manslaughter charge).

Labeling them as protected means just that, they have more protection than the victim that they abused.

[cme1201]

Excuse, excuse, pardon, excuse.

Hold no one to the law. Poor poor prisoner, broke the law, now deals with the penalty that comes from losing the trust of society.