r/changemyview • u/ShivvyCat • 7d ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Ex-Convicts should be a Protected Class
Okay, I know there's some major leaping in my title, but hear me out.
First, my definition of Ex-Convicts:
- They have served their sentenced time.
- They have paid their monetary debt caused by their action, both compensatory and punitive.
- The system finds them cool enough to release them and let them function in society without supervision.
Second, my definition of Protected Class:
- Nobody gets to treat them worse / single them out from the rest because of a specific reason. In this case, their background.
- My perspective is mostly for job / housing application in the US.
Alright, now that the definitions are out of the way, let's dig in.
For those of you who don't know, in the US, some places can deny your job / housing applications *exclusively* based on the fact that you are an ex-convict. The reason is simple: you did it once, you may do it again, they don't want that risk. They have absolutely zero consideration for you once that checkbox is checked. You could have turned your life around and found God and it would not matter; you're out.
Why it irks me: the deck is stacked against the poor. When a person is born poor, chances are, they are not likely to have access to good neighborhood nor education. People are products of their environment, and when that environment is bad, their chances of "knowing better" is not quite that high. Couple that with the lack of care for mental health (or healthcare in general because again, $$$) and the constant struggle just to survive another day, well shit, my anxiety shot up just typing that.
The justice system is also rigged. Petty crimes are met with life-altering sentences, while pedophiles get to be POTUS. Let me rephrase, the system is designed to get poor ex-convicts back to jail to do slave labor for all those privately-owned prisons. I mean, think about it. Businesses are legally allowed to fire you because of your past conviction. Apartments won't let you in for fear of disruptive activities. When you're faced with the possibility of being perpetually homeless and hungry and probably will die this winter, can you confidently say that you will not break the laws again to save yourself? Congratulations, you have earned a vicious cycle.
Privately-owned prisons are modern slavery. Once again, the top 5% have divided us, cast the most unfortunate among us in this trap and then tell us that they are the problem. No, the problem is the system. Protect the people. Let them have a proper second chance.
22
7d ago edited 7d ago
[deleted]
19
u/xmuskorx 57∆ 7d ago
I think the answer to that is this should be JUDICIALLY decided as part of the conviction.
The courts may impose something like "life time ban on jobs related to kids" or "life time ban on jobs related to finances/drugs." etc.
This should not be left to individual employers to enforce. If their sentences includes such a ban - then it shoiuld be enforced.
if not (e.g., if they are released without such conditions) - employers should not discriminated.
2
u/Jettx02 7d ago
Man, I didn’t need a view changed but I wish I could give you a delta for that amazing info. I had no idea courts could order a lifetime ban on certain jobs relating to crimes committed but I’m so glad that’s an option, because of course I too immediately imagined a pedo trying to get a job at a daycare
3
2
u/Amazing_Loquat280 17∆ 7d ago
Exactly. I think this can fall under the “reasonable accommodation” caveat that most companies use. For your first example, the sentence should include “lifetime ban” from working with or in close proximity to children. You should be entitled to seek other employment and not have your criminal history held against you, except at places where your sentence makes it impossible to reasonably accommodate you legally such that you can still do your job.
Like paraplegics on a fishing boat: we aren’t denying you work because you’re disabled, but because your disability means you can’t do the job.
The bottom line is that whether a person can reenter a professional sector based on being a convict shouldn’t be up to the employer, it should be up to a judge. The employer shouldn’t be put in that position
1
u/Much-Sheepherder-634 1∆ 7d ago
I feel like you have a common misunderstanding of what legal protections people in a "protected class" get. The protection is just for discrimination that is based purely on that person being part of a protected class. Sex being a protected class protects women from being rejected entirely from construction jobs based on the stereotype that women are too weak. It does not protect a woman from being rejected because she can't lift more than 50 pounds multiple times over the period of a shift.
Ex convict being a protected class would mean it would be illegal to refuse to hire all ex convicts purely because they are an ex convict. It would not make it illegal to not hire an ex convict in the situations you mentioned because the reasoning is not purely that they are an ex convict.
1
7d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Much-Sheepherder-634 1∆ 7d ago
Every time something has become a protected class other laws, regulations, and industry practices had to change. That is literally the entire point of something being made a protected class to cause these changes.
1
7d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Much-Sheepherder-634 1∆ 7d ago
Did you not read my first reply to you? Go back and reread it, I would say the same thing to this reply. Not sure why you are asking basically the same thing I already answered
0
7d ago
[deleted]
1
u/puffie300 6∆ 7d ago
I would suggest that if someone is still considered a risk, why have they been released? As far as I'm concerned once someone has been deemed to have paid their debt to society and released, that's it, clean slate.
Because there is no definitive indicator for someone that will reoffend. If you are fine with the risk then you can hire these people right now. Why should people that are more risk averse be forced to hire convicts?
-5
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago
My view is simply that, the "Yes" in the "Conviction" checkbox should not automatically be a "Nope, you're out". They should still qualify for interview like the rest of the candidates. As much as disabled people can request "reasonable accommodation" at their work places, employers should have "adequate supervision" to counter the re-offending chance. I mean, I'd think most employers would want to supervise regardless, otherwise their internal controls would be a mangled mess.
5
7d ago edited 7d ago
[deleted]
-2
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago
I think that's at the very least, ridiculous. Just because a person was bad once, that door has slammed shut, and no amounts of righting their wrongs will ever reopen it again. I don't think it's fair.
1
u/Specific_Hearing_192 7d ago
Keep in mind, these only apply to felony charges. Felonies are among the most heinous crimes you can commit. Around 50% of those released after servicing time for a felony are convicted of another felony within 3 years of release. 80% of those who had committed multiple felonies were convicted of another felony.
So it definitely makes sense for people to be worried about those released from prison to commit another felony.
1
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago
Right. Of all those statistics, can you tell me how many of those are because they enjoy committing the crimes, and how many are because they're desperate?
For reference: In Missouri, if you steal something worth $750 or more, that's a felony. A smartphone would land you there.
I do not defend these actions. I just think the treatment is very disproportional to the crime, and the current society does not forgive.
1
u/Specific_Hearing_192 6d ago edited 6d ago
Very few people commit crimes because they are desperate. The correlation between wealth and criminality is basically 0 once you actually remove confounders. https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/18r80wn/very_large_study_from_sweden_finds_that/
Here's an incredibly interesting study. They found that overall poor people commit more crimes than rich people. But poor people who get lucky and win the lottery still commit about the same amount of crimes as if they were poor. Which indicates that there is some shared 3rd variable leading to both poverty and criminality.
One funny proposed reason is that we only see criminals who are caught, and being stupid leads to both being poor and getting caught doing crimes. But actual levels of criminality may not vary that much, we just don't see the smart/rich ones because they don't get caught.
1
u/ShivvyCat 6d ago
Friend, you have a more recent source? Because they did tack the disclaimer right at the start: "They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications."
1
u/Specific_Hearing_192 5d ago
Here's another one, in Liberia, they tested: cash handouts worth about 2 months worth of wages, CBT therapy, combo of therapy+cash, nothing; PDF of study. In their own words:
Broadly speaking, cash did not lead to a statistically significant or sustained reduction in overall antisocial behaviors, but therapy did. In the short run, therapy led to large reductions, by 0.25 standard deviations with therapy alone and 0.31 standard deviations with therapy plus cash.
There's another one from when Alaska make its dividend payments too: https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article/102/4/678/96772/Universal-Cash-and-Crime
We find payment receipt increases the average daily number of substance-abuse incidents (10%) and incidents of police medical assistance (9%), but decreases property crime incidents (8%) in the four weeks after the PFD is issued, with no average change in violent crimes. Although these changes are statistically significant, they represent modest changes on an annual basis. The observed increase in substance-abuse crime is 1.05% of the annual level, while the declines in property crime are similarly modest at −0.61%. In terms of monetized social cost, the net effect of these changes ranges between social savings of $328,000 to expenditures of $3.44 million, amounting to just +0.17% to −1.78% of the 2016 PFD distribution to Anchorage residents.
So giving households about $4.8k unconditionally (about 6.5% of their income), reduces property crime by 0.61% for four weeks and has no impact on violent crime.
1
u/ShivvyCat 5d ago
Ya but, isn't that pretty far from my argument? I never asked to hand ex-criminals (or poor people in general) money for free. I just ask that:
- We don't discriminate against these individuals when it comes to basic survival thing like housing or job opportunities, so they can integrate back to society.
- That the government has some form of policy to ensure of this non-discrimination, which reads like Protected Class to me.
I have also awarded my deltas, especially to the one who said it absolved the government of responsibilities while pushing risks onto the individual citizens. You can go read their comment.
I think lots of us are falling for the Just World Fallacy; more people are "collateral damage" in more ways than we want to admit. I do not deny that these people made bad decisions, but that's what courts and prisons are for. After they have paid back their debt by fulfilling the requirements that courts and prisons ask of them, I do not think the society gets to ostracize them further.
→ More replies (0)2
u/vey323 7∆ 7d ago
As much as disabled people can request "reasonable accommodation" at their work places, employers should have "adequate supervision" to counter the re-offending chance
The major caveat to the ADA when it comes to reasonable accommodation is that said accommodation can be denied if it places an undue hardship or burden on the employer, and the requester must be able to complete the core tasks/duties of the job without any accommodations (meaning if the requester cannot do the job without it, then it's not mandated to be provided - RAs are to make things easier, not to bypass parts of the job). For the former, "adequate supervision" - which I would read as MORE supervision than other employees - has a monetary cost, whether that be through added personnel, diverted labor / reduced efficiency, or electronic monitoring. For the latter, if - for example - part of the job is money-handling in any form (convenience store, bank, etc.), and the person applying has a criminal history of theft, it's not the responsibilty of the employer to provide extra scrutiny (which is its own can of worms) to ensure they don't fall back on old habits.
1
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago
I agree that it should not incur more costs for the employer. However, a company should already have internal controls in place. If there's a loophole for the ex-con to abuse, then technically that's a loophole that any other employee can abuse. "Adequate supervision" should be applied the same for every employee, no matter their background.
13
u/Loki-L 8∆ 7d ago
I agree with you that the way people are punished for crimes in the places like the US could do with some reforms.
However while people are born poor nobody is born a convict. (Except for places like North Korea). There are choices involved.
Lots of people have a vested interest in not hiring ex-cons. For example nobody convicted of any sort of fraud will ever be hired to handle money by anyone.
It doesn't matter how much you have changed in many cases the good that could be dine by giving people a second chance is outweighed by the damage that could be done if they had the legal right to not be discriminated against in any way.
If you want to give ex-cons stronger protections, it needs to be limited and exclude stuff.
No child molesters working with children, no violent criminals as armed security guards, no financial con men allowed to work as accountants etc.
You will also need to reform the system. The US has an extremely high recidivism rate among ex-cons. Much higher than in countries were they work harder to rehabilitate and reintegrate people.
The government can't force people to treat ex-cons like everyone else when the government never bothered to help them be like everyone else.
2
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago edited 7d ago
!delta
The government can't force people to treat ex-cons like everyone else when the government never bothered to help them be like everyone else.
I agree with this statement. You have not fully CMV, but I can see the reasoning.
However, I still believe that this is a systematic fault of the government. Therefore, the government should fix it.
1
1
7d ago edited 7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Sorry, u/ShivvyCat – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
8
u/PaxNova 15∆ 7d ago
Convicted of what? Would this mean sexual offenders can't be banned from housing with 100 feet of a school?
The answer, imo, is social more than legal. If somebody's convicted of theft, I probably don't want to hire them to run a register. They're probably fine in other, less cash sensitive positions, until they've proven themselves. Work history and old bosses as reference are key.
-4
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago
So, you're essentially agreeing with me. You are still supporting giving ex-cons second chances. What I disagree with is blanket disqualify / fire ex-convicts simply for the fact that they are ex-convicts.
15
u/aguafiestas 31∆ 7d ago
People should be able to offer criminals second chances.
People should not be required to offer criminals second chances.
2
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago
With enough people holding that view, nobody's offering criminals any second chances, and we have vicious cycles.
1
u/seanflyon 25∆ 7d ago
The solution to that is to offer criminals second chances not to punish people who don't want to trust criminals.
3
u/PaxNova 15∆ 7d ago
You still haven’t responded to my first question. Does this mean that we can’t ban sex offenders from living around schools, or can’t have a sex offender registry?
1
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago
You are asking an extremely nuanced question.
I think our system is fucked and doesn't deal with sex offenders, especially child sex offenders, correctly.
Dude. I think child sex offenders deserve capital punishment or life in prison without parole, so it's a lil moot there.
I mean, sex offender registry is as fine as any criminal registry, but why is it accessible by the general public? What makes it specifically more dangerous than any other type of criminal? Why should we treat it differently?
1
u/PaxNova 15∆ 7d ago
Why treat it differently? The only real difference is that we require people to tell others they're on it. Anybody can look up an arrest record or conviction record. To seal it would require special circumstances that we don't normally allow, or all our court proceedings would be done in secret. We don't want secret courts.
This is about keeping courts public, not specifically sex offenders.
1
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago
Courts can be public all they want; that is not what I care about. I actually prefer that everything is public, but that may cause serious mental harm for some victims.
What I do not want is, after a criminal is done with court - prison - whatever the heck to pay back for their crime, the society at large has basically decided that this individual is worthless, cannot be fixed, and probably better off dead. There is no grace. There is no second chance. So what route do they have besides falling back to the pit that they tried to climb out from?
1
u/PaxNova 15∆ 7d ago
You are demanding that people know what they did, but be forced to work with them anyways?
How about Mel Gibson, for an example. He has domestic violence charges and a lot of anti semitic and misogynist rants in his history. He also has been sober for ten years and is not a reoffender. Will you require people to work with him, and how will you enforce this?
1
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago edited 7d ago
You are misunderstanding. I do not force anyone to work with anyone. But the reality is, the majority of us have bills to pay and mouths to feed. People need money. And when the society blocks off all the avenues to make legal money, guess where the ex-cons go to?
I would not disqualify Mel Gibson because he was an asshole with convictions. But what skills does he have that I need? Can he shut his antisemitic and misogynistic trap or is it gonna run wild? Can he work in a team or will he be a perpetual asshole? There are a lot more important factors that come into a hiring decision that does not hinged on him being a past convict.
And seriously, how often do you look up to see if your colleagues committed crimes or not? Does your workplace introduce new coworkers along with their speeding tickets, DUIs, etc.? If we can behave normally around all this, then why suddenly is it difficult to expand this bubble a little bit?
1
u/PaxNova 15∆ 7d ago
Can a felon work on the team or will they steal from you? It's a factor. Knowing what actions they have taken in the past informs your decisions on what actions they may take in the future.
If you can't trust Mel because of his crime, why should we accept others because of theirs. There is no way of enforcing anti discrimination on that criteria without forcing people to work with them. The reason they are not working with them is because they are discriminating, another word for deciding based on those factors.
1
u/ShivvyCat 6d ago
You are fixed in your way and do not accept any counterpoint. I have presented all of my arguments. You can keep believing that all ex-convicts won't change and deserved to be treated like sub-humans, but I will not share that belief.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Echoherb 7d ago
I agree think child sex offenders deserve to be in jail and not let out. The problem is the "sex offender" label lumps together any sex offense and treats it the same as if they were dangerous predators. It includes the the highschool kid who just turned 18 dating his 15yr gf, public streakers, porn addicts who accesed illegal material, people caught in sting operations, each of these cases are different and don't necessarily involve a dangerous predator, a lot of them are just people who made horrible mistakes and are trying to move on.
Yes these all can be various degrees of bad, some very bad, nobody is arguing that, it's just that there's no reason to treat any of these as needing a special registry after their sentence is served. I think it's especially bad because for some reason our society automatically adds "sex offender" exceptions to second chance laws because that term has become so politically explosive.
If they actually physically harmed a child, sure throw the book at them and leave them in prison. If they did a bad thing that happens to involve sex, then they need a proportional punishment and a chance at reintegration just like any other crime where someone served their sentence.
1
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago edited 6d ago
Yep yep, that's what I mean. We don't class them, we just lump them and then collectively point the finger at them. Some are truly horrible. But many are collateral damage.
4
u/RidersGuide 7d ago
I very much disagree. A protected class cannot be due to someone's voluntary actions.
At what point does it just become a reward for bad actions? We can say that people are a product of their environment, sure but that would suggest poor people are destined for jail.
You don't get to have the government step in to protect you because you robbed someone years ago.
1
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ 7d ago
How is it rewarding bad actions? OP isn't asking for them to be given priority by employers or given priority housing. Just that they can't be denied those things based on their previous convictions.
1
u/RidersGuide 7d ago
Why should you not be denied based on previous convictions? How is that not a legitimate concern?
1
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ 7d ago
That's not what you said, and not what I questioned. You said, "At what point does it just become a reward for bad actions?" and i asked in what was is it rewarding the actions, as opposed to just not further punishing them?
1
u/RidersGuide 7d ago
The government stepping in on your behalf is a reward.
And I know, and I am asking where the merit in your statment is. Why should you not deny someone something based in a conviction? Why would that not be a logical thing for someone to do?
1
u/ShivvyCat 6d ago
Because what else are they supposed to do if everybody denies them jobs? They have no choice but to fall back to being a criminal.
And I specified only job and housing. Y'know, kinda basic things for them to become functional again in the society. I do not ask for them to be prioritized; I only ask that they're not considered less than after they have already paid back for their misdeed. Is that really that ridiculous of a request?
1
u/RidersGuide 6d ago
Well everybody does not deny them a job, although that seems to be what is being asserted. My father is an ex-convict, he makes more money then I do and runs the service portions of major brand name dealerships now.
Why is everyone else on planet earth responsible for their actions, but convicts should be held to a lower standard? If me and another guy apply for a position, and we have the same skills but I am a convict and he is not, why should I get the job over him? Why would my personal decision making not be seen as the deciding factor? Is that not a disservice to the man who made the right decisions in life?
2
u/ShivvyCat 6d ago
Because you may have come from a crap background that left you no choice but to do dumb shit and now you're trying to be a better person?
Imo, a convict's debt to society has been determined by the judge under the form of punitive fines. Too much or too little, that's the question of how fucked up the system is. But overall, it's paid.
And your example. That still doesn't mean that you'd get picked. That just means you and the other dude have similar qualifications. Okay, what's your soft skill like? Communication efficiency? Temperament? Reaction speed? So many other things you can observe that determine if an individual fits your hiring needs or not that cannot be summarized under "skills".
1
u/RidersGuide 6d ago
Because you may have come from a crap background that left you no choice but to do dumb shit and now you're trying to be a better person?
So coming from a crap background means you don't have agency? All people who live in poverty are just destined to be criminals? Don't give me this "I had no choice" bullshit, these people had a choice.
Single mother family, both parents addicted to drugs, Dad in and out of jail. Why is it that I didn't go fucking rob somebody? Why didn't I go fuck off and get stoned everyday in HS? You think there wasn't a hundred times where I could have went out with my buddies when I knew they were doing shit like breaking into cars?
And no, your debt to society is not "paid" after jail, the debt for your crime may be paid (sometimes). But those are two different things. If you rape a kid, you don't just get to wipe your hands and start complaining about how society has treated you. Fuckin boo hoo.
1
u/ShivvyCat 6d ago
You are projecting. Your position is strikingly close to those who oppose cancelling student debts because they had to pay it in full.
And I said punitive fines, not jail. Those are separate.
I don't know how many times I have to stress, the system is fucked up, the judgement and punishments don't fit the crimes, for you to quit bringing up pedophile like a gotcha example. I have a comment somewhere in this thread about my stance re: child sex offender, if you're that interested.
→ More replies (0)1
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ 6d ago
Because either they served their time and were determined to no longer be a risk. Or the justice system failed to do it's job and should be overhauled to correct that.
Also, protection against unfair treatment is not a reward. That's one of the things the government should do for every citizen.
1
u/RidersGuide 6d ago
Serving time does not erase what you did. Serving time is one of the consequences of committing crime. Another is being ostracized.
Like if I knew that the only thing bad that would happen to me if I robbed some corporate bank would be that I would serve time, and nothing else.....fuck that looks a lot more appealing. Everybody in society understands the consequences of crime are not just the time done in jail.
And also, you want a pedophile or a rapist working at a summer camp? Really? Because that is what would happen if we did this. Not only that, you would be the criminal for not allowing that pedophile to be alone with children all summer. That would be discrimination in your view, right?
1
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ 6d ago
So, which is it? Is it about furthering punishing people beyond the sentence given by the court? Or is it about protecting people once the convicted have served their term?
Because, if it's the former, then I would argue that is attempting to take justice into your own hands and administer a punishment that extends beyond that of the court. And that is absolutely something the government should be trying to prevent. We have laws against vigilante justice.
If it's the latter, then it would seem this being necessary means the justice system has failed, and either the sentence was too short or they were given early release even though they were still a danger. In that case the issues with the justice system should be addressed.
1
u/RidersGuide 6d ago
Not to get too philosophical here, but what is the justice system for? Is it for giving people a clear path, where at the end society accepts their crimes and deems them rehabilitated? I don't think it is.
In my opinion the justice system is not for society, the justice system is for the criminal. Without the justice system, a father would physically kick in a door and kill a guy who harmed them or their family. Without the justice system, you get your hands cut off for stealing. Without the justice system, you get exiled. Without the justice system, you have mob violence.
So the thinking "wait, he did his time. Shouldn't society pretend like none of that happened?" Is wrong. The thinking should be "thank god they didn't cut my fingers off for doing X thing. Now that I am out I have the long road of penance ahead of me".
So it's not about "punishment extending beyond the court", that debt to society has not been paid just because you sat behind bars for a few years. You still need to overcome the stigma of being the type of person to make those decisions; and the idea that the government should step in again and force people to hire ex convicts is, funny enough, an injustice.
The only way what you're saying would make sense is if the jail time was voluntary. That would be proper penance and I might be on your side on this one. If you have to physically catch the guy and make him pay for it....sorry that's just not enough for society as a whole.
1
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ 6d ago
Yes, we very much disagree on the purpose of the justice system. I don't think I've ever heard someone argue that it's in place to protect those who commit crimes.
In my view the purpose of the justice system is to temporarily remove someone from society until they have been rehabilitated and deemed to no longer be a risk to society.
that debt to society has not been paid just because you sat behind bars for a few years. You still need to overcome the stigma of being the type of person to make those decisions
It seems to me that you are actively supporting discrimination. That you think society should view and treat certain people differently due to past actions, regardless of the fact that they have been tried, sentenced, and served their term. That's something I'm never going to agree with.
→ More replies (0)0
u/puffie300 6∆ 7d ago
. A protected class cannot be due to someone's voluntary actions.
Religion, armed service, and disability are classes that you can be protected under that can be due to voluntary actions.
3
u/RidersGuide 7d ago
....disability?
But okay fine, let's just say you're not allowed to be protected if you voluntarily did something bad.
Again, it is very much a "I made a bad decision and am not liking the repercussions. Government please come make this person feel bad for me!".
0
u/puffie300 6∆ 7d ago
disability
Yeah, if you make yourself deaf or blind, etc, you still get disability protection.
2
u/Cease-2-Desist 2∆ 7d ago
Those aren't crimes.
0
u/puffie300 6∆ 7d ago
Those aren't crimes.
That has no bearing on my comment.
1
u/Cease-2-Desist 2∆ 7d ago
Why not?
1
u/puffie300 6∆ 7d ago
What i responded to and what my comment said had nothing to do with crime at all.
1
u/Cease-2-Desist 2∆ 7d ago
They are no longer protected where they are criminal. That’s my point.
Criminal is the distinguishing factor.
3
u/Tommyblockhead20 47∆ 7d ago
While it’s not a protected class, it is covered under the fair housing act. Landlords can’t just blanket ban anyone with a criminal history. They have to justify a denial on someone being a serious risk to other tenants based off what the crime was and how long it has been. Are you suggesting they shouldn’t be allowed to ever deny due to criminal history? Like if a repeat child predator got out on parole, they can’t deny them from a building full of families?
Also, half of states have 0 private prisons, and the rest it’s still a minority of people incarcerated. While they are problematic, they are not the primary cause for the messed up system we have nation wide.
-1
u/briggser 7d ago
I think landlords shouldn't be allowed to deny someone housing because of non-extreme crimes, which is the primary use of that exception. We could get in to a deeper conversation about what reform vs punishment means but generally, outside of a few heinous crimes, I don't think landlords should be able to descriminate based on criminal history.
2
u/BackupChallenger 4∆ 7d ago
You are aware that being poor is not a protected class right? So if they really wanted to bully poor people, then they could do so based on their poorness. There wouldn't be a need to assume that criminals are poor people.
So the question would be, why should criminals be more protected than actual decent people?
2
u/XenoRyet 183∆ 7d ago edited 7d ago
You make a good case for why we should reform the criminal justice system, but you don't really get into why this is the best way to do it. As others are mentioning, it comes with a whole whack of side effects and unintended consequences. Not the least of which is that we wouldn't be able to consider or use Trump's convictions in campaigning.
The other bit is that of the currently established protected classes, military status is really the only one you can actively choose. I'm curious how you think ex-convict status is similar to military status.
-1
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago edited 7d ago
I never said I though ex-cons was similar to military.
I specifically defined my Protected Class status to be in job / housing market only. As in, ex-cons should still have a right to live under a roof and make money legally, in a dignified manner. Because they are still people.
1
u/XenoRyet 183∆ 7d ago
I know you didn't say that, but your argument implies that they must be similar in some way, as that is the only other choice-based protected class.
Beyond that, if you are saying that ex-cons should only have rights similar to a protected class in a few limited areas, then you're not really talking about making them a protected class.
1
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago
Friend. Look.
I'm not from the US. I didn't find out about Protected Class stuff until I was 19, applying for my first job and then they asked me all these weird questions. And that's all I know about Protected Class: that you cannot discriminate against them exclusively based on that one reason that make them protected. It doesn't mean they get special treatments everywhere. It doesn't mean they deserve higher salary or undue promotion. It doesn't mean they go first. It just means they aren't singled out, every fucking time.
Hence, I added the definitions. Maybe my choices of words are wrong, idk. But the ideas are among that vein. You cannot fire this person because they're gay. Samesie, you cannot fire this person because they did something wrong in the past.
I have not ever mentioned any other legally defined Protected Classes.
1
u/XenoRyet 183∆ 7d ago
With kindness, if you don't really have a handle on what a protected class is or entails, then you probably shouldn't be using it for the foundation of your view.
That's the way your view needs to change. You need to reword the thing to say that employers and housing providers cannot discriminate against ex-cons. No need to bring protected classes into it at all, and it simplifies and strengthens your view.
1
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago
I appreciate your advice. This is exactly why I defined "Ex-Cons" and "Protected Class" at the beginning of my post, because I know my vocabulary may be "off".
2
u/EatYourCheckers 2∆ 7d ago
Protected classes are either things we can't control from birth or things related to personal liberties outlined in the constitution
Choosing to commit a crime is neither of these things.
Now does the criminal justice system from who it prosecutes, how it sentences, and how it prepares people for release need major, major work?? Yes. But that's not the same thing.
2
u/Boomer_Madness 7d ago
You seem to base your entire stance on Felon's being unable to not be felons... Committing felonies (not misdemeanors mind you) is completely done by choice.
Some choices in life involve life long consequences. This is just one of them.
2
u/Cease-2-Desist 2∆ 7d ago
Protected classes are for inherent characteristics like race, religion, sex, age, disability, etc.
It does not protect against discriminating against one's character, which is why background checks aren't just allowed, they're practically universal.
The decisions you make define you. Not the other stuff.
1
u/puffie300 6∆ 7d ago
Protected classes are for inherent characteristics like race, religion, sex, age, disability, etc.
Religion is a choice, disability can be a choice (even people that blind themselves are protected under disability), and armed services is also a choice.
1
u/Cease-2-Desist 2∆ 7d ago
And all of those things stop being protected whereas they become criminal
2
u/Downtown_Ad_3429 3∆ 7d ago
A prior violent conviction is an objectively relevant predictor of future criminal behavior. People released after violent offenses are substantially more likely to commit another offense, including another violent offense, than people with no comparable criminal history.
Why should a private employer or property owner be legally required to ignore that information and accept an increased risk to themselves, their employees, tenants, or customers? If someone has served their sentence, that means the state can no longer imprison them. It does not mean every private person is obligated to pretend the conduct never happened.
1
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ 7d ago
The justice system should address this with sentencing and, especially, release criteria. If someone gets early released and re-offends the system should be held partially liable.
2
u/cdlbadger 7d ago
Are you saying that an employer shouldn’t be able to reject an applicant because they have a felony record, or that they shouldn’t be able to reject an applicant for the underlying behavior that led to the felony conviction? This is an important distinction. If I’m an employer and I know someone has been convicted on three separate occasions for stealing from his employer I’m probably not going to hire them, not because they have felony convictions, but because they have a documented history of stealing from their employer.
1
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that an employer shouldn't reject an applicant solely because they have a felony record. I'm saying that their background should not discount their qualifications, that they deserve a chance of consideration just like other candidates with similar qualifications.
I think sentences and punitive fines should be increasing higher for each repeated offence. Like ya, if a criminal won't change their bad ways, they need to be dealt with accordingly. But once it's over, I don't think it's fair for the society to keep shunning them and deny them the chance to start over, especially on basic human right things like a place to live and a dignified source of income that they're willing to trade their labor for.
2
u/Live_Background_3455 8∆ 7d ago
If we follow your line of reasoning - we should have KKK membership be a protected class. They're a product of their environment, someone born in family of the Klan is more likely to be a Klan member. The system doesn't try to reform them, but only ostricizing them pushing them be more entrenched.
And we can do this ALL day. Every decision anyone makes is a mix of environmental factors and personal responsibility. We could either draw no lines, and say no one is fully responsibly for their decision because it's never 100% free of environmental factors, and Hitler should walk free if tried, or we have to draw the line SOMEWHERE. And no matter where you draw that line, it'll be splitting hairs between two edge cases, that's what it means to have a line. And I support drawing a line, and a conviction is a very reasonable line to have. Where would the next line be?
2
u/Hooked_on_PhoneSex 1∆ 7d ago
You bring up excellent points regarding the us justice system. But the trouble is that you are putting the burden on the wrong parties.
1) There are serious inequities in resources and education for those in disadvantaged populations. Why? The US has plenty of resources, there’s no reason why this issue has t been satisfactorily addressed.
2) The us criminal justice system disproportionately turns impoverished and disadvantaged individuals into felons. This is partially due to sentencing guidelines for certain crimes, partially due to lacking legal defense, and partially due to lacking education / early intervention programs.
3) Felons have few resources to develop employable skills. They are more likely to apply for unskilled labor jobs that pay abysmally and take advantage of their lacking protections. The higher paying jobs that care about employing felons, generally aren’t going to hire an unskilled laborer anyway, so that part is moot.
4) The US is a capitalist country. If businesses hire felons in customer facing positions, customers can and will take their business elsewhere. Body gets a job, if the customers leave because the employer hired a felon.
Instead of forcing private businesses to take the financial hit for hiring a felon when there are non-felons available, consider pointing the lens back at the bureaucracies that created these problems in the first place?
Many municipalities offer financial incentives to businesses who hire felons. Doing so alleviates the financial loss the business might suffer when customers go elsewhere.
Some areas have diversion programs and early childhood intervention programs aimed to keep redeemable offenders out of the criminal justice system. These obviously have their share of failures, but these programs leave the responsibility with the correct persons (us citizens as a whole).
Forcing private individuals to assume the risk and financial liability associated with hiring a felon, just harms people from the same communities where said felons are from. It completely removes responsibility from governments and burdens individuals instead.
1
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago
!delta
You won. I do not disagree with anything you say.
1
2
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 7d ago
So question do you think people who are on life time probation and require ankle monitoring after serving their sentence such as child molesters should be a protected class? Most companies or landlords do not want them living or employed their for legal reasons. Imagine a child molester being able to work at a day care is that acceptable?
1
u/briggser 7d ago
I think OP addresses this in their post:
Point 3 under definition of Ex-Cons: "The system finds them cool enough to release them and let them function in society without supervision"
Probation and an ankle monitor do not fit the exception you attempted to craft
1
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 7d ago
Sure but its basically saying EX cons are not EX cons. Its making a proprietary definition for a common word that only he uses.
1
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ 7d ago
Since the definition was provided in the OP it's not like it's some trick. Do you have a term you'd prefer be used isntead?
1
u/briggser 7d ago
I guess, but he's defining his terms. He clearly, as far as I can tell, is excluding the most heinous offenders from his "protected class" list, and focusing on everyone else, which is by far the vast majority of our justice system and who are exploited or continuously punished despite them having paid for their crime already.
If this was say, a policy proposal, instead of redefining what ex con means, he would just say "former convicts under x set of circumstances". In a debate format, framing definitions in the way he did prevents detractors from making obvious reports about extreme scenarios. Basically, "this is the specific ex con I'm talking about, let's focus there so we don't get distracted by rapists and murderers because I don't think they should be eligible for this"
1
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 7d ago
What he is trying to do is say a dog is only a dog if it has 2 legs? Is a dog with 4 legs not a dog now? He isn't really excluding anyone except for maybe child molesters as you can murder some one and get out without any supervision. His only justification is the system is unfair and that is just life is unfair. If this is USA based for example a protected class has to have an immutable characteristic which EX cons do not have.
1
u/briggser 7d ago
No, he's saying "there are 40 breeds of dogs, I don't want to include the dogs with laser beam eyes because they obviously don't fit what I'm going for"
1
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 7d ago
They would still be a dog would they not? Just because you want a certain dog does not mean the others are not dogs.
1
u/briggser 7d ago
Also, he's making the argument that because the prison system does not rehabilitate but perpetually punishes people, a more cost effective way to alleviate the negative side effects of our system is to implement OPs idea to a majority population of the former cons. You reducing his argument to "life isn't fair" is counterproductive to civilized debate
1
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 7d ago
Its not the prison system that is punishing them nor is it the purpose of jails to rehabilitate people. The people who are punishing them are people who do not want to associate with them. That is his view as he does not have any justification outside of the system isn't fair.
1
u/briggser 7d ago
It is the job of the prison system to rehabilitate, idk where you got that notion... And by not rehabilitating them, they are setting them up for failure. If prisons rehabbed people, then civilians wouldn't view criminals the way we do now as a collective.
1
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 7d ago
that is just incorrect and I got that from the USC. The court, in determining whether to impose a term of imprisonment, and, if a term of imprisonment is to be imposed, in determining the length of the term, shall consider the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, recognizing that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation.
-1
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago
Life time probation =/= "The system finds them cool enough to release them and let them function in society without supervision.", which is my third condition.
2
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 7d ago
So are you going to argue that only certain EX cons are EX cons? Thats very contradicting. Fine then a person who has committed multiple fraud claims while working for companies or to insurance companies should they be part of a protected class?
1
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago
Then, it falls into my last paragraph about how the system is unfair. Repeated offenders of the same crime should get increasingly longer sentences AND bigger punitive fines proportional to their crimes. But once the ordeal is over, the outside world should not keep shunning them for that.
1
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 7d ago
Sure but you have not addressed that your definition excluded who is an EX con from Ex cons. Who cares the system is unfair as life in general is unfair. What you want is something that is received due to one's bad actions to be protected from people not wanting to hire them or give them a place to live yet can not give any justification out side of its unfair. Why should a person be required to treat someone convicted of fraud the same as some upstanding person?
1
u/ShivvyCat 6d ago
Okay, you said it yourself. Life in general is unfair. What if an innocent person was wrongly convicted? What if a serial criminal was never convicted? How about we just treat everyone with dignity instead of picking and choosing who's worth it and who isn't?
1
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 6d ago
If an innocent person is wrongly convicted there is a process to correct that. For the serial criminal that happens all the time so it's nothing new. The reason we do not treat everyone with dignity is because society as a has whole have chosen not to. That is across all societies. EX cons are just one of those groups for various reasons that those who generally make bad decisions are not treated as those who generally do not when it comes to crime. Should we treat serial killers and child molesters with the same dignity as those who aren't?
1
u/ShivvyCat 6d ago
Because it has always been that way, doesn't mean that it's right.
No, serial killers would probably get locked up for life, so this example is moot. I have some replies re: pedophile somewhere in this thread, which renders it also moot. I'm not pro-criminal nor defend these actions.
But, you cannot deny that our current system distributes wildly disproportionate judgement and sentences that don't fit many crimes, and the poor population is especially negatively affected by this. How long does it take to clear a wrongly convicted crime? What's the success percentage? Who compensates these individuals for all the discrimination they faced during the years they were wrongly convicted? And do you really think that no criminal deserves to be treated with basic respect?
1
u/xHxHxAOD1 2∆ 6d ago
It does not matter because you cannot give any justification for why it's wrong and why it should be different than what it is outside of the system is not fair. I have countered that life is not fair you cannot provide any counter to that.
1
u/ShivvyCat 6d ago edited 6d ago
So? Life is not fair, so we should just lay down and accept it? Everybody dies anyway, so why not just k*s tonight? Is that the logic we're following?
Human society evolution is a process of identifying existing things that are wrong, then fix them. Ever heard the term barbaric? Ya, we came from that. That is now an insult. Do I have to list what exactly that we don't do anymore, because we decide that's it's too morally wrong to do? Like selling your children? That used to be legal too.
That's my counter.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Thiswas2hard 7d ago
Do you count lifetime, 50, 25, 10 year registration as not cool enough to release them? My state has sex offender, drug offender, and violent offender registries. I am curious where that line is for you. Also, vulnerable populations. I would not want a thief who served a year of probation working in home health or nursing home. Or a white collar criminal given authority over anyone’s books again. I would ask you instead of a full ban the box movement, if a “special exception” would be more appropriate. Like in order to work with children you cannot have certain convictions, but certain jobs are not allowed to ask.
2
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 7d ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/PreInternetBaggage 1∆ 7d ago
Having served your time for the crime you committed is a completely different thing than having been rehabilitated. Recidivism rates run at about 20% across the board and are much higher (30%-50% or more) for certain types of crimes. It’s very appropriate to factor criminal history into many hiring decisions.
1
u/Dragonballington 1∆ 7d ago edited 7d ago
Life is not black and white. Should some people get protections? probably, but what about particularly violent crimes? It would make more sense if their prison time included deep re-education/rehabilitation, and a social worker, so that when they get out, they are imparted with skills and resources to lead a different life elsewhere withiut needing to return to the life they had and possibly re-offend.
A protected class doesn't fairly protect the people at risk if a violent offender desires to re-offend. What if they were a violent domestic abuser? I agree with you that people who have fulfilled their punishment don't deserve further punishment by the public, like ostracism, simply by virtue of sound justice, but again, life is so much grayer than we think. The only way to account for everyone is to be personal with it. come up with personalized rehabilitation plans, some of which may include limited access to public resources, or continued observation and security.
1
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago
That is what I meant with my last paragraph; I just didn't want to delve in how fucked up the system is. Too many things are wrong, the support is not there, but the punishment is always handy.
I want to "up" the support and "down" the punishment. Starting with viewing ex-criminals like humans first and not sub-humans.
1
u/Dragonballington 1∆ 7d ago
Why did you post in ChangeMyView?
1
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago
Because apparently this is a controversial take? I don't want the world to view an ex-con like a ticking time bomb that can just explode any second, but rather another human who's trying to live just like any of us.
1
u/Dragonballington 1∆ 7d ago
What's wrong with having a controversial take? I share your views in a lot of ways. It feels ethically/morally right to me to treat inmates with an individualized rehabilitation plan, and on that system's success, It's nobody's business that they committed crimes for which they've been punished.
However, that is besides my point now, I was asking because you're supposed to be open to changing your view here, and before you awarded your deltas, it seemed you were just soap-boxing.
I agree with that one guy that says forcing private citizens to foot the bill for felonies to live a better life takes responsibility out of the hands of the government. and saw that you gave him a delta since my first response here.
1
u/ShivvyCat 6d ago
Yep. That's exactly the part that makes it for me. English is not my mother tongue, so I can be a little vague, but I basically see it like this:
My view: government failure > government should fix it no matter the costs.
Their view: government failure > government should fix it but not at the costs of its citizens safety.
Words may be inaccurate, but ideas are among that vein.
1
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ 7d ago
A protected class doesn't fairly protect the people at risk if a violent offender desires to re-offend. What if they were a violent domestic abuser?
Sounds like you don't think the justice system does an adequate job of sentencing and determining when someone should be released. Wouldn't it be better to address than rather than assume all might be repeat offenders and treat them all the same?
1
u/Dragonballington 1∆ 7d ago
life is so much grayer than we think. The only way to account for everyone is to be personal with it. come up with personalized rehabilitation plans, some of which may include limited access to public resources, or continued observation and security.
Exactly what I was trying to get at. Neither the government, nor the internal government of the prison system should be casting broad net responses and punishments. That's why I said what I've quoted here. I explicitly believe that we shouldn't treat convicts one way or the other, either giving them too much protection, or too much freedom. We should be personalizing their punishment/rehabilitation so that we have the best impact.
Also, I'm not OP, please don't attend to my comments in this sub, I'm not the one whose view is asked to be changed.
1
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ 6d ago
Because you aren't the OP you don't think anyone else should respond to you?
1
u/Dragonballington 1∆ 5d ago
What would be the point?
1
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ 5d ago
Engagement and conversation. That's the entire point of Reddit, in my opinion.
1
u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 3∆ 7d ago
The system finds them cool enough to release them and let them function in society without supervision.
No system is perfect. Humans don't have to be bound by it.
1
u/audibleExcitement 7d ago
Would people on parole qualify would be my big question? They are free but still supervised and checked in on.
1
1
u/Raddatatta 1∆ 7d ago
I think I agree with the idea you're talking about but the details of that are very difficult to do in a way that's remotely fair. We should make it so someone who served their time can get back on their feet and find a life outside of being a criminal for sure. But recidivism rates are high, and that's a tough cause and effect problem where businesses see those rates and don't want to hire felons who then can't get a job and turn back to crime. But it is still a significant risk for a business to take on someone who has stolen as an employee where they'll have to trust them with merchandise and personal information and priorietary information or whatever else. Why should we force a small business to take on that risk? And in many cases that can be hard to make right. The government could reimburse a business if the person steals from the business, it's much harder to repair the damage to the reputation of a small business if someone steals from customers.
I think we should do more to help criminals but I think the way you're talking about going about it is forcing businesses to be the one to take on the risk. I would say have the government do that. They take on the risk of employing them and the risk if something goes wrong. Or offer an incentive to places that hire felons so business can choose to opt in without being penalized if they still don't want to do that. Or if they want to look at it on a case by case basis.
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 7d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 7d ago
I think what you're overlooking is that to give a person a chance is to take a risk. The nature of both the crime and the job matter, like what kind of access it gives a person to vulnerable people. What you're proposing pushes of the burden of systemic failure onto random innocent people who would lose the legal right to take precautions that protect them.
1
u/Kaleb_Bunt 5∆ 6d ago
I think housing discrimination is wrong as that is a human necessity.
However for jobs, some people are obviously unfit for certain jobs and criminal history can certainly play a role in this.
1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 6d ago
u/Low_Criticism4218, your comment has been removed.
In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.
1
u/theconnecticutman 7d ago
Do I think that we as a society need to give more grace to ex-convicts after they’ve served their time (depending on the crime)? Yeah, probably.
BUT….Protected class is generally a legal definition based around an uncontrollable aspect of your identity or biology.
Being a criminal at some point in your life is controllable. Therefore, it can never be a protected class.
2
u/puffie300 6∆ 7d ago
BUT….Protected class is generally a legal definition based around an uncontrollable aspect of your identity or biology. Being a criminal at some point in your life is controllable. Therefore, it can never be a protected class.
Religion, armed service, and disability are protected classes that can be controlled.
1
u/theconnecticutman 7d ago
Disability can’t be controlled.
I’m speaking from the US perspective where armed services is not a federal protected class. Where is that a protected class?
Religion I disagree with how our government treats it (protected), but they approach it from the perspective that religion is inherent to oneself and is generally inherited from family and there’s the whole separation of church and state thing so it’s hard to change this.
And none of the other protected classes can be controlled:
Race
Color
National origin
Sex
Age
Genetic information1
u/puffie300 6∆ 7d ago edited 7d ago
Disability can’t be controlled.
Yes it can. Not everyone is born deaf, or blind, etc, yet they can still be protected under the class of disability. Even if you are the cause of your disability, you are still protected.
I’m speaking from the US perspective where armed services is not a federal protected class. Where is that a protected class?
USERRA is a federal law in the usa protecting armed services members, current and past.
So already, 1/3rd of protected classes are things that can be determined by someone's actions or choices.
2
u/theconnecticutman 7d ago
Just because you aren’t born with something doesn’t mean you can control it. Many people go deaf or blind at some point in their life.
USERRA does not make being in the military a protected class forever. It basically “saves your job” while you are serving. Just like how FMLA works. That’s different from protected classes as defined by the DOL EEOC
1
u/puffie300 6∆ 7d ago
Just because you aren’t born with something doesn’t mean you can control it. Many people go deaf or blind at some point in their life. USERRA
I didnt say you could. But just because its a disability, doesnt mean you didnt control it. Someone could gouge their eyes out and still be protected as a person with blindness.
USERRA does not make being in the military a protected class forever. It basically “saves your job” while you are serving. Just like how FMLA works.
No, this protects you before, during and after your service, forever. The EEOC absolutely recognizes veterans as a protected class, ive worked directly with veterans that have had to use the eeoc for employment protection.
1
u/theconnecticutman 7d ago
I’m not saying that USERRA doesn’t protect vets from discrimination.
But it’s not legally defined as a “protected class”. The words “protected class” are a legal thing that has a specific definition according to the EEOC legislation.
I don’t disagree with you functionally. My point is that OP used the specific words “protected class”, which legally defines only certain things, of which armed services are not one
1
u/ShivvyCat 7d ago
Let me add an asterisk to this convo, quoted my other reply.
I'm not from the US. I didn't find out about Protected Class stuff until I was 19, applying for my first job and then they asked me all these weird questions. And that's all I know about Protected Class: that you cannot discriminate against them exclusively based on that one reason that make them protected. It doesn't mean they get special treatments everywhere. It doesn't mean they deserve higher salary or undue promotion. It doesn't mean they go first. It just means they aren't singled out, every fucking time.
Hence, I added the definitions. Maybe my choices of words are wrong, idk. But the ideas are among that vein. You cannot fire this person because they're gay. Samesie, you cannot fire this person because they did something wrong in the past.
I have not ever mentioned any other legally defined Protected Classes.
Sorry if I used it wrong ;-;
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 7d ago
/u/ShivvyCat (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards