San Francisco's Reentry Council considers legislation to aid re-entry of ex-con

[Dos Equis]

We've done the same thing here. 

San Francisco's Reentry Council considers legislation to aid re-entry of ex-cons
By: Dan Schreiber | Examiner Staff Writer | 07/18/11

Possible legislation under consideration in San Francisco would provide convicted felons with more rights to housing and jobs, perhaps affording them a protected-class status usually reserved for disadvantaged groups based on gender or ethnicity.

Landlords and employers could end up being required to look further into criminal histories before ruling out released convicts.

The idea came from The City’s Reentry Council, a 23-member body that includes representatives of the Mayor’s Office, Police and Sheriff’s departments, District Attorney and Public Defender’s offices, the Adult and Juvenile Probation departments, and a variety of other law enforcement and social services agencies. Policy Director Jessica Flintoft said the council unanimously recommended in March that such legislation be developed.

The City’s Human Rights Commission will explore the concept this month in two public meetings. The discussions will come as the state moves forward with a plan to release thousands of inmates from the overburdened prison system.

Human Rights Commission Director Theresa Sparks characterized the effort as a public safety issue and said more access for felons to mainstream society could cut the recidivism rate in half.

“If they cannot find housing and cannot find a job, they probably will recommit,” Sparks said.

Flintoft said any legislation would be unlikely to require landlords and employers to hire felons, but that ex-cons might be able to claim discrimination if they are ruled out based on a simple determination of their criminal history. She said hiring decisions should be based on whether the past crimes relate directly to housing or holding a job.

“They could still run a background check,” Flintoft said. “The difference is really to have them do much more, like the city of San Francisco has done for the last five years — not ask about criminal background up front.”

While reducing the recidivism rate is the primary concern of the idea’s supporters, that worries landlords, including Noni Richen, president of the Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute.

“It’s part of a person’s rent worthiness, and it’s not something innate to a person, like skin color or gender,” Richen said. “They made a choice to do something, and we as small-property owners can’t be made responsible for rehabilitating people.”

David Miree, policy coordinator for the Human Rights Commission, said the effort is still in the “embryonic development review stages.”

“They have paid their debt to society,” Miree said. “Yes, they have made a mistake, but here they are back in the general population. They will need housing and they will need jobs.”

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/07/san-franciscos-reentry-council-considers-legislation-aid-re-entry-ex-cons

[kcballer]

I like it.  The whole basis of our legal system is punishment for the crime along the lines of either probation or jail time.  If you have completed both of those why should you be discriminated against?  That is rubbing salt into the wounds and is a major reason for the high re-offending rates in this country.  There simply is no help for ex convicts once they are released. 

[240 is Back]

I bet most ex-cons vote dem, just as most pedophiles vote repub.

[Skip8282]

Always a tough call, especially given recidivism rates.  But maybe those rates are due in part to everybody making a convicted felon's life miserable after incarceration.

[Roger Bacon]

Dumb

We need less "protected-classes", not more... 

[Dos Equis]

I like it.  The whole basis of our legal system is punishment for the crime along the lines of either probation or jail time.  If you have completed both of those why should you be discriminated against?  That is rubbing salt into the wounds and is a major reason for the high re-offending rates in this country.  There simply is no help for ex convicts once they are released. 

Do you think a person convicted of theft should have the right to work as a bank teller? 

[Dos Equis]

Always a tough call, especially given recidivism rates.  But maybe those rates are due in part to everybody making a convicted felon's life miserable after incarceration.

The problem with creating these new protected classes of people is it never ends.  We've had "arrest and court record" as a protected class here for years.  We recently added credit report/credit history, "gender identity," and victims of domestic violence.  They tried to add pet ownership, but that hasn't passed.  Yet. 

[Roger Bacon]

The problem with creating these new protected classes of people is it never ends.  We've had "arrest and court record" as a protected class here for years.  We recently added credit report/credit history, "gender identity," and victims of domestic violence.  They tried to add pet ownership, but that hasn't passed.  Yet.  

Everyone's protected, given free food, healthcare, education...

Except evil white men like me!  

[Dos Equis]

Everyone's protected, given free food, healthcare, education...

Except evil white men like me!  

Not true.  Gender is a protected class.  So is race (all races). 

[Roger Bacon]

Not true.  Gender is a protected class.  So is race (all races). 

Yes, but as far as I know they don't enforce it if the person in question is a white male?

[kcballer]

Do you think a person convicted of theft should have the right to work as a bank teller? 

I think they would be better off in a well established bank than in a corner store with minimal monitoring.  Stealing from a bank is near impossible and if done will only happen once.  You do realize they count the tellers cash each day, have camera's every where and when a non balance comes through, stay until it is found or explained.

[Dos Equis]

I think they would be better off in a well established bank than in a corner store with minimal monitoring.  Stealing from a bank is near impossible and if done will only happen once.  You do realize they count the tellers cash each day, have camera's every where and when a non balance comes through, stay until it is found or explained.

Yes banks have a number of protections in place to help prevent theft.  They don't always work.

I agree someone convicted of theft would be better off in an established bank than a small store, but do you think the convict should have the right to work at a bank?  

What about other jobs where prior criminal convictions might impact the person's ability to do his job?  For instance, someone convicted of child molestation working at an elementary school?  Or someone convicted of embezzlement working with money?  

[kcballer]

Yes banks have a number of protections in place to help prevent theft.  They don't always work.

I agree someone convicted of theft would be better off in an established bank than a small store, but do you think the convict should have the right to work at a bank?  

What about other jobs where prior criminal convictions might impact the person's ability to do his job?  For instance, someone convicted of child molestation working at an elementary school?  Or someone convicted of embezzlement working with money?  

You're asking stupid questions now.  The point of legislation like this is to allow a certain level of dignity and forgiveness to those who have committed crimes.  There is no chance of living a somewhat normal life when you can not get a job, or have little to no prospects of doing so. 

This is a chance to actually take the step that is missing and so badly needed in our justice system - re-integration. 

The high level of not only crime but re-offending should let everybody know the current system is failing.  Miserably.  3 strikes is the dumbest piece of vindictive legislation, and any way to help those who have served their time re-integrate is a great use of time and money.

We spend billions on locking people up and a pittance on keeping people out.  It's a backward cycle that allows very few the chance to legitimately escape from it's clutches. 

[Skip8282]

Yes banks have a number of protections in place to help prevent theft.  They don't always work.

I agree someone convicted of theft would be better off in an established bank than a small store, but do you think the convict should have the right to work at a bank? 

What about other jobs where prior criminal convictions might impact the person's ability to do his job?  For instance, someone convicted of child molestation working at an elementary school?  Or someone convicted of embezzlement working with money? 

Great questions.  Like I said it's a tough call.

I also seem to remember reading some stuff about employers being held liable when former felons fuck up.

I think I'd advocate some type of balancing where employers should consider the severity of the crime and make a judgment (provided we give them some liability protection too).

For example, was the child molestation an 18 yr old who fucked a 17 year old in HS?  Or was it a 36 yr old who diddled a 10 yr old?

But now are we putting too much of a burden on employers?  It's a vicious cycle.

[Dos Equis]

You're asking stupid questions now.  The point of legislation like this is to allow a certain level of dignity and forgiveness to those who have committed crimes.  There is no chance of living a somewhat normal life when you can not get a job, or have little to no prospects of doing so. 

This is a chance to actually take the step that is missing and so badly needed in our justice system - re-integration. 

The high level of not only crime but re-offending should let everybody know the current system is failing.  Miserably.  3 strikes is the dumbest piece of vindictive legislation, and any way to help those who have served their time re-integrate is a great use of time and money.

We spend billions on locking people up and a pittance on keeping people out.  It's a backward cycle that allows very few the chance to legitimately escape from it's clutches. 

You haven't really thought this through.  We've had "arrest and court record" as a protected class in Hawaii for years now.  The "stupid questions" I've asked you relate to the way our requirements are set up here.  A felon is a "protected class" in Hawaii, but they can still be denied employment if there is some reasonable connection between the conviction and the job.  That's why I asked about child molesters and elementary schools.  That's one of the exceptions here.  I do a lot of interviewing and hiring, so I (like every employer) need to know this.  I would imagine it will work the same way in California if they do this. 

I haven't seen any empirical research on what has happened to recidivism rates since we've made this a protected class, but I doubt they have changed much. 

I have no problems with three strikes laws, especially as they relate to violent crime. 

We could definitely improve our attempts to rehabilitate prisoners, but if you've ever taken a tour of a prison, we already provide lots of opportunities for them to get their acts together.  (BTW, I saw a clip of the "prison" in Norway, and it looked like a college campus.)     

[Dos Equis]

Great questions.  Like I said it's a tough call.

I also seem to remember reading some stuff about employers being held liable when former felons fuck up.

I think I'd advocate some type of balancing where employers should consider the severity of the crime and make a judgment (provided we give them some liability protection too).

For example, was the child molestation an 18 yr old who fucked a 17 year old in HS?  Or was it a 36 yr old who diddled a 10 yr old?

But now are we putting too much of a burden on employers?  It's a vicious cycle.

It's a huge burden on employers.  I have a whole list of areas I can't talk about during a job interview:  age, race, national origin, marital status, kids, disability, credit history, arrest and court record, etc., etc.  It's a minefield.  I was in an interview with a nonprofit board not too long ago trying to hire an officer, and one of the board members asked the interviewee how old he was.  It was an innocent question in the context in which it was asked, but some of the other board members almost had a heart attack.   

We do have a balancing test here and I imagine that's how it will work in California, but it still makes employers' jobs much harder.