U.S. Rep From Detroit Introduces Bill to Ban Criminal Background Checks

>> I have problems with laws restricting any “felon” from certain jobs no matter what the job is or what his crime was.

As a free-market enthusiast, I too would have problems with such a law.

I’m not aware of such a law, though. Is there a law like that in Michigan?

There are lots of jobs with federal restrictions like that. Jobs in transportation are notorious for federal restrictions. A good many jobs in the defense industry as well. In both its becoming easier to hire an illegal than a dangerous criminal who wrote a bad check or drove drunk.

You have centered the problem. What if the applicant is a rapist? Thief? Embezzler? Extortionist? Acts out violently? Uses drugs? Sells drugs? Obviously, other than minor traffic offenses, most things that create a criminal record make someone a major liability as an employee. This idiotic Congressman would be the first to hold a company accountable for a “hostile work environment” or some sort of incident at work. This is another part of the Democrats War on Employment — they’ll do anything to make jobs the last thing a potential employer can afford to create.

>> So “enduring the consequence” of bad credit from losing a home because you lost your job and couldn’t get a new one, part age and part bad economy, is to remain jobless and become destitute and dependent on government?

You’re putting words in my mouth; that’s not what I said.

I said that forgiveness and evading the consequences of one’s actions are different **concepts** — and they are. Forgiveness doesn’t automatically lead to “no penalty”. If you murder my loved one, I may forgive you — but I still want you to do your sentence.

But to address your implicit question, which is, “do I think the consequences you describe are fair”:

No. I think they suck for the individual you describe.

However, I don’t think the answer is government enforcement of an information blackout. If the individual is truly deserving and truly a victim of unfortunate circumstances, and not bad judgment, then they ought to be able to convince an employer of that.

Freedom => free markets, not government assurance of outcomes.

I would be just as “not in favor” of a rule or law that went the OTHER way, that is, precluded employment only because of someone’s bad credit rating or criminal record.

What about that Sex Offender Registry? Get rid of that too?

Bonding will be a problem once you hire a felon if a bond is necessary.

There are so many pratfalls with this stupidity.

There is a problem that a lot of the ex-cons in the US are aging, but unable to get even minimum wage jobs. One possible solution for this is for states to create poor farms specifically for ex-cons to do minor labor, mostly to support themselves, but in exchange for room and board.

As such, it would serve several purposes, the most important of which is to keep costs down by keeping them out of prison, off most welfare, out of the emergency rooms for health problems, and away from drugs and alcohol.

So, they sleep in barracks, grow some of their own food, make some of their own clothing, and do some jobs that will give them a small income.

The bottom line is that this is not being done for them, but for the taxpayers. If they benefit from it, great.

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.