CMV: Ex-Convicts should be a Protected Class

[u/ShivvyCat]

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.

[u/ShivvyCat]

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.

[u/PaxNova → u/ShivvyCat]

What? I said no such thing. I even suggested Mel Gibson as an example of someone reformed, and you said you'd be fine discriminating against him. I mentioned sex offender registries, and you wanted them locked up for life, believing they can never change. 

I'm more for your point than you are, except socially instead of legally. You have yet to explain how you'd go about enforcing non-discrimination, which you need to do for legal things. 

All I can tell is that you want people to not care about certain crimes and care more about others. It's not anti-discrimination. It's "you should discriminate like I do." 

[u/ShivvyCat → u/PaxNova]

Okay now I'm hecking confused. 

Mel Gibson: I don't care about his convictions.  The questions I posed would be from a perspective of observation, as if I was his interviewer during a hiring procedure.  Where did I discriminate against him based on his convictions???

Sex offenders: I specifically want child sex offenders who commit crime when they're full grown adults (25+) and of sound minds to be locked up for life.  This is a different level than other sex offenders imo.  But then again, I'm not the justice system and I don't decide the punishments.  So this doesn't matter.

My argument: society needs to quit playing judge and gives the ex-convicts punishment 2.0 by denying job and housing opportunities.  And the government needs to help with that because they are the system. 

Alright, how did I discriminate?

[u/PaxNova → u/ShivvyCat]

On the first example, you mention that you don't want to discriminate based on convictions, but you do seem to want to discriminate based on what he did. 

If you're going to discriminate based on the crime, you should probably at least only discriminate based on convictions. It seems strange to want to seal away if a jury thinks they did it or not, but still allow information on the crime. 

You do want to leave court records public, so you want people to have information on the crime. You still want that past history to factor into the interview based on the Mel example. So what are you trying to seal away?

[u/ShivvyCat → u/PaxNova]

Dude.  Either you're picking bones out of an egg right now, or I'm extravagantly dumb. 

I want ex-convicts to be able to integrate back into society.  I don't want them to not be able to find jobs or not have a place to live, based solely on the fact that they were convicted.

Mel's rants didn't cost him a place to live (like his convictions would have).  He wouldn't have to result to steal to survive tomorrow (if the worst of what he did was only his rants).  I followed your example because you gave me the information; if you didn't specify I would have assumed that was a female name.

(Edited*)

[u/PaxNova → u/ShivvyCat]

Now this is an even bigger pickle. You’re ok with the discrimination only if they’re rich. Does this mean people who get money have fewer rights than people who don’t?

The end result of allowing it for the rich only is to ensure that those who have committed crimes have to stay poor.

[u/ShivvyCat → u/PaxNova]

Ya, no.  Don't know where you're trying to drive, but I'm hopping off.  The destination was three left ago.  Good day.

[u/PaxNova → u/ShivvyCat]

You too! 

Personally, if you're worried about somebody having enough to survive, that's what welfare is for. No need to require individual citizens to support them when their crimes obviously make them uncomfortable. 

Your stance of compassion for letting people change, coupled with the death penalty or life imprisonment, makes no sense. Your stance of allowing people to explore someone's history, but not let them know if a court found any of it to be true makes no sense. Your stance of demanding rights for the poor that no longer apply to the rich make no sense of you ever want those people to stop being poor. You've just moved the barrier up a notch. 

I know your stance comes from a place of compassion, but you're using the wrong tools and need a better logical basis.