Posted on 06/29/2016 4:43:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
Just got out of jail? Odds are that within five years, you'll get caught doing something illegal and go back to jail.
This is bad for ex-cons, their victims, their families and America.
Some of these people, of course, are career criminals who ought to stay in jail. But most are people who deserve another chance. They are more likely to stay straight if they find work. Work gives people purpose. It fills the idle hours that get many people into trouble.
But America makes it extra hard for ex-cons to find work. Some states make it illegal.
Illinois bans ex-convicts from more than 118 professions.
I understand why people might not want ex-cons to be bank security guards or cops, but in many states (Illinois isn't unusual) the list of forbidden jobs goes way beyond that.
The Illinois Policy Institute, a free-market group that tries to get these laws tossed out, reports that ex-cons must give up on trying to become a nurse, architect, interior designer, dancehall operator, teacher, dietician, acupuncturist, cosmetologist, buyer of slaughtered livestock, geologist, etc.
Why? Who cares if a livestock buyer or geologist once served time? If employers want to hire him, why tell them, "No"?
When Lisa Creason was 19, she tried to steal from a cash register at a Subway sandwich shop. She says she only stole because she needed food for her baby. Creason was caught and arrested, and she served a year in jail.
Twenty years later, Creason graduated from nursing school. But when she went to take the test that would allow her to get a nursing license, she learned that because she was once convicted of a "forcible felony," her career path was impossible.
She said it felt as if the bureaucrats had told her: "I was meant to be in the 'hood, meant to be on government assistance."
This is not a good message.
"Lisa is a great example of someone who has changed her life," says the Institute's Kristina Rasmussen on my TV show this week. "She is reformed. She wants to be a productive member of society." It has been 20 years since Lisa committed her crime, "but government gets in the way of her pursuing her profession."
The good news is "this year we got a bill passed and it will go to the governor. So there is hope for Lisa Creason."
It's hard to get rid of bad laws. It happens one reform at a time.
No one says that crimes these convicts committed don't matter, but punishing them forever doesn't help. Rasmussen says, "You went to jail, you paid your debt to society. Coming out, how are we going to treat you? Are we going to deny you work that keeps you and your family out of trouble ... deny you that opportunity, and you turn either to a life of crime again or dependency?"
Why do states have so many restrictions? "There are two forces at work," says Rasmussen. "One, government bureaucrats like being busybodies, deciding who gets to do what." They think that makes the world safer.
But there's another factor. "You have people who don't welcome competition," says Rasmussen. Existing businesses and unions don't like newcomers on their turf. "Who's easier to kick out of the pool of potential competitors than people just emerging out of the criminal justice system?"
Existing businesses -- the insiders -- fund politicians who pass rules that make it hard for newcomers to compete with them. The politicians convince themselves that their rules protect customers. But mostly, their rules protect the insiders.
But some competing businesses want to hire ex-cons, and when that works out, it's good for the businesses, their customers and the ex-cons. A Chicago suburb diner called Felony Franks hires only ex-felons, its policy being "that once a person has paid their debt to society after being convicted of a crime, that he or she should have the same rights and opportunities as others."
Of course, some ex-cons can be trusted while others cannot. But it's important to let employers and customers make those calls -- not a controlling, insider-protecting one-size-fits-all government.
Where is it written that ex-cons must NOT move away from environments that contributed to their crimes?
Why can’t ex-cons be provided with rent-free homesteads on Federal land in Alaska where their work in clearing the land, planting and harvesting crops, and living crime-free lives would be rewarded with ownership of that land?
Would ex-cons accept this challenge? Who knows? But what would be “lost” by making that offer?
Why is it bad for the victims, as Stossel purports up front?
If someone harmed my family I would want them in prison for a long time.
Alas, we live in a society where illegal criminals get 24 months for DUI manslaughter.
PS: The justice system no longer serves the people. Most here know that. But many do not want to take the next logical step and agree to gut the system and start over, or at least reform. That means many judges and DAs are going to prison for their crimes. It’s a big step, I know. The stable needs to be cleaned out.
Not sure what percentage of convicts want to straighten out their lives, but if they can’t support themselves legally when they get out, what’s the alternative? And if they aren’t getting rehabilitated, then why are we spending so much on the prison system? It’s a crazy situation.
Rap music and Hip Hop tell young people it is the sly kid who goes and makes a living selling drugs.
but then you get popped and then you can’t work doing anything else.
The music industry has a lot of the blame actually.
young people listen to music, they actually believe it.
It seems especially unfair when employers can hire actual criminals that have been lucky or skilled enough at committing crime(s) to have never been caught. How could an employer know that the recently rejected applicant was actually less of a criminal than the person they just hired?
Stoessel seems to have lost his common sense. The jobs he lists are professions that require a high degree of diligence and trust, and are regulated in the interest of public safety. I generally do not like regulation, but a person who has demonstrated a willingness to “break the rules” for their temporary interests will never be a good choice for designing building structures, fire exits, performing geological studies that determine bearing capacities or potential value based on mineral resources, etc. Nail salons and dance halls can quickly become hq for prostitution and drug sales. Nurses dispense potentially deadly drugs and many more with great value on the street. The temptations are huge and the potential harm is great. The remedies are too little, too late (Sue for money they have stolen that is long gone? For wrongful death after a building collapses? Someone dies because fake meds were substituted? Or ex-con nurse takes $ for offing someone?) How will ex-cons get the liability insurance required for professional work?
The “need” for employing ex-cons is real, and is good public policy. That does not make it good policy to allow cons into any job. Much better to focus on individuals and a path to legal rehabilitation after due process.
Stoessel does not demonstrate proper analytical skills. Hmm...ex-cons can become journalists — no diligence or trustworthiness required, no regulation.
Once the debt has been paid, all rights should be restored. That requires a change in the existing reglations regarding ex-cons, but it also imposes a stricter obligation on the criminal justice system to scrutinize the cons it’s releasing back into the public sphere.
Conviction for multiple felonies or certain more heinous crimes should include the option of being stripped of all or some of your rights, even post-release, as part of the sentence.
Because your average ex-con is not a farmer?
While legal punks in Texas get no time at all.
Ok, you hire them.
I’d gladly give them the same chance as anyone else.
Is not being a farmer a “good thing”?
Supposedly, even ex-cons can learn.
Otherwise, what is the point of EVER releasing crooks from prison?
As our pastor has a jail ministry, many come to our small church after they are released. It is getting to be an issue for our family. Twice the church has had to tell him no-this sex offender should not be around our children. He gets very upset because “they are now saved” and therefore changed. First one proved he was not changed, second one is still in a halfway house so time will tell.
Currently there is a guy who makes me extremely uneasy:
-His name is Mohammed
-He brings a backpack every Sunday but never takes a Bible, notebook, pen, etc out of it
-He stands during songs, but when we remain standing for the reading of God’s word he sits down. Stands again when Bible reading is over
-He leaves his backpack to use the restroom during the sermon, conditioning us perhaps??
So it’s not just what to do about work, what do people do as believers? The only way for a true change is for one to repent and turn to Jesus-how can we work towards that while keeping the flock safe?
Just tell your house counsel that you’re hiring a convicted felon because you think it’s the right thing to do.
If they can't be trusted, don't let them out of jail.
“She said it felt as if the bureaucrats had told her: “I was meant to be in the ‘hood, meant to be on government assistance.” “
Nope. She was the one that said, “I am a no good criminal, meant not to be trusted.”
I am also against government forcing businesses to hire her.
Let the employer decide but also make sure that the if the company is "felon friendly" that they are forced to disclose that.
“The jobs he lists are professions that require a high degree of diligence and trust, and are regulated in the interest of public safety. “
Like cutting hair needs to be regulated in the interest of public safety ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.