Instigator / Pro
0
1480
rating
17
debates
52.94%
won
Topic
#4563

Criminal records should not be available to employers and landowners.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
0
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

hey-yo
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1493
rating
23
debates
60.87%
won
Description

In this debate, Pro argues why not having criminal background checks available to land owners and businesses would help reduce crime's resurgence. Con must say about public access to such records or why privatizing such information would not help reduce crime.

Round 1
Pro
#1
First, thank you Con for accepting this debate.

Introduction: Our crime rates as a nation are ridiculously high. 500 out of 100,000 people are incarcerated in the USA as of 2023, which makes our country the fifth most prison populated in the world, with a total population of 1,767,200.Incarceration in the United States - Wikipedia This number can be attributed to the fact that Many of criminals even when released are often taken back to into prison shortly after release. According to the World population review, up to 44 percent of criminals re-offend before the first year out of prison. Recidivism Rates by State [Updated May 2023] (worldpopulationreview.com) We also deny criminals the available means to make it on the outside by allowing landlords and business owners to discriminate against them for past crimes. If things are to change, we must stop allowing this type of discrimination to continue.

First argument: Once an inmate has been released from the correctional facility having served his or her sentence. They are expected to live a crime-free lifestyle and contribute to our society. However, society offers little to no help to millions of Americans as they are often prevented from doing so, thanks to their criminal records barring them from many jobs. According to themarshallproject.org, over 70 million to 100 million in the USA have a criminal record. They also have found that over 72 percent of all post-release restrictions impact Job opportunities and point out that housing is even more difficult next to job searching. A Criminal Record is a Barrier to Jobs and Housing for Millions in the U.S. | The Marshall Project
By allowing free access to criminal records to the public for land owners and jobs to see, we leave millions of Americans who have criminal records without a means to escape their criminal pasts and thus leave them with no other option but to go back to prison which is why such records should not be made public.

Second argument:  Many criminals, even when released, are often taken back to prison shortly after release. According to the World population review, up to 44 percent of criminals re-offend before the first year out of prison. Recidivism Rates by State [Updated May 2023] (worldpopulationreview.com We are therefore causing recidivism because millions are not only denied jobs and housing for having criminal records by allowing the free and legal discrimination of former convicts at the employer and landowners preference, we are forcing 44 percent of these millions to go back to prison before they have even been free for a year. It is not only a failure of our justice system but also an injustice to all ex-cons who have learned from their mistakes but are barred from making better choices because society will neither not help them but will instead allow them to be hated and mistreated in said efforts. 

Final argument: Every study and article I presented as Pro all root back to the same issue. The publication of one's past criminal records not only prevents job and housing opportunities from being denied to them despite already having paid for their crimes but also allows for the legal discrimination of millions that are sent back to prison, not out of personal choice, but because landowners and employees abuse their power and cruelly deny the services that help keep former criminals from breaking parole. Only the State should be able to review crimes committed against it and use that as a justification for denying benefits, not unrelated people who do not need such compromising and personal information.
Con
#2
Thanks for an interesting debate. 

Should criminal background checks be available to employers and landowners?

I will first provide my own opening statement and then respond in next round. 

1.  When companies look for new hirees, they perform background checks on candidates. This background check is diverse and may look into several aspects about a job candidate depending on the job type. 

If anyone is interested,  here is a link for most (if not all) background check types performed. 


An insert from U.S. equal employment opportunity commission (above link) says:
"when you run background checks through a company in the business of compiling background information, you must comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces the FCRA. "" 

Later on this same page we can read:
""If you get background information (for example, a credit or criminal background report) from a company in the business of compiling background information, there are additional procedures the FCRA requires beforehand:"" 

 We can see here that there are requirements for background checks. 

Directly bellow the second quoted paragraph from above link, we can see that employers are required to inform potential employees that:
A. Gain written permission to perform background checks
B. Background checks influence decision making
C. . Notify about the background check

Based on information gained from eeoc website, background checks require consent. 

There is no need to prevent criminal background checks if they currently require consent because companies are unable to perform the background checks that we are to believe are so devistating without consent. 

2. What does employer look for or at with criminal back ground check? 


We can look at eeoc website again for interesting statistics and employer response to this question. 


"" In one survey, a total of 92% of responding employers stated that they subjected all or some of their job candidates to criminal background checks.49 Employers have reported that their use of criminal history information is related to ongoing efforts to combat theft and fraud,50 as well as heightened concerns about workplace violence51 and potential liability for negligent hiring.52 Employers also cite federal laws as well as state and local laws53 as reasons for using criminal background checks

[This article is large.  Please feel free to examine it or use their citations to discover more about employer demographics and responses. ]
.""
An article from paycor.com highlights these findings as we read: 
  • Mitigate Fraud or Theft. Stealing money or merchandise are the two most typical forms of company theft. According to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), a company’s employees are 15 times more likely to steal from them than some stranger off the street. Employees also make up 44% of theft losses at stores. Skimming (diverting business funds); fraudulent disbursements (billing schemes, inflated expense reports, check tampering); and embezzlement are just a few methods of theft and fraud that can be perpetrated by a dishonest employee. A thorough criminal background check will determine those applicants who have theft convictions, helping protect your business.
This article also indicates companies may deal with Negligent Hiring Lawsuits, as companies are held accountable for their employees. 
 
The most recent (potential) lawsuit to date is occuring in Virginia, US. Where a family is describing their intent to sue law enforcement agencies involved/responsible for hiring a cop accused of murdering a family. 

Companies and public agencies can loose millions if not billions of dollars from lawsuits. Just because they hired someone whom they could have known should not be hired. This reason alone, criminal records should be available to private sector. 

Thus I conclude the first round. Although pro suggests criminal records prevent people from getting a job, we can see that criminal records require consent and may result in greater loss for both employer and employee if unaccessable. 




Round 2
Pro
#3
First argument: Con's argument needs to be revised. It may be true that consent is required when looking for a background check. Businesses require that you give them consent when they consider hiring you. Additionally, Con said nothing in response to the harmful effects of employers freely denying millions of Americans jobs for having a criminal record beyond pointing out that statistically, employees are 15 times more likely to steal on average. I accept risks, such as lawsuits, when hiring the wrong people, but said risks apply to everyone a company may employ regardless of a criminal past or lack off. Con also ignores the harmful effects of denying people with a criminal record meaningful employment by arguing that companies can lose money by hiring the wrong person. Con's argument fails to address that the resurgence of crime resulting in the denial of getting a decent job is more costly than any possible lawsuit a company might face.

Second argument:  Con also said nothing about ex-criminals inability to find a home due to their failure to find a home. Con has deemed that fact unimportant or conceded that such issues are harmful and the effect of background checks since they have no counter-argument. Ex-cons are human beings. Yes, they made mistakes, and I am not asking for that fact to be forgotten or forgiven. However, I ask if we want the crime waves to halt and the costs of prisons and other institutions to house and punish criminals to decrease. Then we must stop denying people the chance to start a new life and find a place within our society by allowing private citizens to use public access to such harmful information to sabotage reform efforts that are causing crime waves to increase yearly.

Final argument:  I, as Pro, have established that background checks are directly responsible for the inability of Millions of Americans with criminal records to find jobs and Adequate housing. Additionally, I have pointed out that Of these Millions, at least 44% of them re-offend after a year out of a past release, which results from background checks since 72% of jobs that ex-cons apply to. These stats are ignored by Con, whose only counterargument so far has been that employees are 15 times more likely to steal and that the risk of lawsuits justifies the use of background checks. My opponent's argument fails to address my points and disregards the situation of the millions negatively impacted by the harmful and unneeded effects of background checks. The plight of Millions of our fellow citizens should take priority over a company's finances.

Vote Pro.
Con
#4
Parts from pro's round 2 post makes me want to reiterate that I opened round 1 with my position only. I will respond to round 1 and 2 now.  

Opening
I agree that there are issues that need to be addressed in terms overall societal view on convicted population and the work place. We need to approach this with care. To do that, we need all tools available to us. When we hire a new employee or rent to a new resident, we need those tools to provide care and maintain our own ability to deliver on services, goods, and housing. 

Criminal background checks are an active tool to do just that. To help people from any demographic.  This includes those who have been convicted as well. 

Laws may be  in place to restrict employers from denying work for any criminal history. While still allowing public access to criminal background checks and denying work for specific reasons.  For example, New York has restricted employers from denying work solely based on previous convictions. 

This allows agencies to manage employees based on their experience as well as denying work if that is necessary for the agency. 

As we read more about the issue, we can see many states have already put restrictions on criminal background checks.  

""In December 2019, the “Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2019” became law as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. Effective December 2021, the law will prohibit most federal agencies and contractors from requesting information on a job applicant’s arrest and conviction record until after conditionally offering the job to the applicant.""

We can see, many places that transition to use more "fair chance" policies will maintain some form of criminal background check. This is because criminal background checks can be used to navigate employment for everyone. They help everyone. We should not outright ban them. 

Some reasons for having background checks for work can transfer to housing. To maintain a concise and easy to read post, I will address housing separately because it possess its own perspective on the issue. Both issues may exist but do not exist mutually. 

Let's start with responding to round 1

First argument 
The marshal project delivers interesting perspective on the issue at hand; being able to get a job after being released from prison.  

Unfortunately, there is information lossed in fancy phrases like "over policed neighborhoods," or "to the work he does best." These phrases are emote driven that although could help understand perspective (i.e. desperation), blind us to the many factors that influence life decisions and the people around us. 

The article also touches on many aspects that may not directly involve the conversation. So I will identify similarities between marshal project to pro's argument. I may go further into marshal project if time allows it, but we should remember it too is an opinion on the issue not an explicit study and explanation on the issue. 

A.) ...thanks to [their] criminal records barring them from many jobs. 

In truth people are barred from some jobs. Marshal project delivers heart felt story that does not define the entire scene. In some examples provided, they note that persons try to re-enter the same job/industry as before or something they had not known was restricted to them. 

This shows us that access to information is needed.  Every ex con is given a parole agent.  Does parole agents provide this information? How can we gain access to information to know that if/when we are released from prison, we know what we can do to get our education or upstart a career? 

These things are not impossible to know and do. I just met a man who spent 3 years in prison, who later became a pastor and obtain a docterate degree. The real issue is knowing where to look and how to look along with a good support system (friends, family, etc .) 

B.) "" Sometimes those laws directly prevent people from getting the licensing they need for a given job, like a firefighter or plumber. Other times, the laws work indirectly by banning certain employers — like nursing homes or drug rehabs — from hiring people convicted of particular offenses, known as “barrier crimes.”


Laws that prevent curtain individuals  from getting a specific job type is not inherently bad. All laws are made with a purpose that is a result of x. We need to learn what x is and judge each law individually. 

Lets look at firefighters. 

""Many state and local laws offer guidelines as to what types of charges will disqualify applicants from becoming a firefighter.

For example, Salt Lake City Fire Department notes that any felony conviction that requires you to register will disqualify you. Other felony and misdemeanor charges may also prevent you from working as a firefighter in the city including a DUI in the last two years, a domestic violence conviction and possession or use of hallucinogens, narcotics or cannabis without a prescription. The statutes of the State of North Carolina stipulate that both misdemeanors and felonies may make you ineligible to be a firefighter depending on the type of crime. Some disqualifying crimes under the law include counterfeiting, sex offenses, murder, assault, kidnapping, burglary, arson and fraud.""
We need to be real about these restrictions. They serve to prevent the ex con from facing temptation to repeat crimes they have already shown a history in doing. Some aspects like DUI or drug use show the history of behavior. Although anyone can start using drugs, having a history in using drugs and possibly while using a vehicle shows increase risk in repeat offenses. We do not want this to occur, for example, during a situation where firefighters are depending on each other or a potential patient requires medical attention. 

If there is a law that does not make sense, again, lets look at it. Examine it. However, we can not simply ban ev
erything outright. 

Second argument 
Pro does not provide connections between employers using criminal background checks and re-incarcerations despite  providing an impressive look into how many people return to prison after 3 year period. 

Statistics provided give us quantity and correlation, but no cause. I repeat, we do not see how many re-incarcerations do or do not have a job when they are re-incarcerated. Nor can we read into any individual's attempt at being hired. 

Pro's argument may be stronger if we can have a better visual aid to show us connections.  Does this mean no one returns to jail for commiting a crime based on being jobless? 

No. What we are trying to see if the provided statistics indicate causation. Where as a majority can irrefutably be identified as having applied to multiple jobs and then denied multiple times because they have criminal history. We do not see that in studies provided. 

As a result, we need to provide better services and awareness about programs and employers who help hire ex-convicts. 

Here is a link that shows a list of employers hiring ex-cons. 

Linkedin provides a comprehensive article on how much help can be obtained by those with convictions. 

Again, these sites and programs help us understand that there are ways to get good paying jobs despite having a criminal record. The main objective is to go for the jobs and careers you can get into. 

Third/final argument 
Pro has not connected the dots to show how or why millions of people are denied an ability to work. Are they denied a job? Would the job put them in the exact same position they were in to commit a crime? 

Sometimes yes. That is ok.  The person who committed fraud by stealing customer identification should not go back into the same job to be tempted by the same crime. 



Now we can examine my position vs pro's response to it. 

1. Consent for background checks
Pro is correct in a sense but borders coersion when saying a company can require you to do a background check.

However, a company may not hire a candidate if they refuse because of two reasons. 
A.) That company (i.e. day care, youth sports) is required by law to do a background check. 
B.) That company has policies in place to prevent incidences and establish positive environment. 

Although the job market can be difficult to navigate and compete in, there are many companies and agencies that hire people with criminal records. 

And here is a link that explains criminal background checks i we want to look deeper into it. There  is also a list of govt. agencies that provide opportunity to those with criminal history. 

We should also know that there are  advantages for those who hire people with criminal record. 

""
Tell employers about the benefits of hiring a worker with a criminal record. Two items to mention:

  • The Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which gives tax discounts to employers who hire low-income ex-offenders. Print a brochure about this program to bring to interviews by clicking the WOTC Brochure link at the bottom of this page.
  • The Federal Bonding Program, which is insurance for employers concerned about theft or dishonesty by an employee. Employers can call 1 (877) US2-JOBS to get more information."""

If we look further we can use online help to find list of employers willing to hire those with criminal history. 

This list ranges from delivery companies to manufacturers to hotel chains. Opportunity is there for use. We just need to go for it. 

We should also consider the difficulty in obtaining background checks. An article from glassdoor helps identify that the background check process is not a one stop shop, click of the button process. 
""The top misconception about background checks is that there is a single ultimate database out there that includes all of the criminal records ever filed in the United States. The truth is that criminal records are scattered across thousands of different databases from county courts to federal criminal databases. ""

This difficulty means companies have to choose what they are looking at, not an entire rap sheet.  They need to look at what is most important for them. 

A day care is looking for a potential in abuse.  An office space may look for anything that suggests aggression. A bank will look for fraud or theft. Really depends on the industry and if there are any laws that require background checks. 

The most important part to take away is that we as job candidates choose who to go to for a job. We do not need to limit ourselves to one field or industry or job type. Although a criminal background check may keep us from a specific job, it does not prevent us from getting a job. 

2. Risk intake. 
My opponent down plays risk management and the concequences involved. Although I touch primarily on the employer perspective, there are more people who may sustain damage than just a random company. 
Please remember I quoted a list of reasons why employers want to perform background checks. We will re-examine that list in both micro and macro perspective. 

List:::
"" In one survey, a total of 92% of responding employers stated that they subjected all or some of their job candidates to criminal background checks.49 Employers have reported that their use of criminal history information is related to ongoing efforts to combat theft and fraud,50 as well as heightened concerns about workplace violence51 and potential liability for negligent hiring.52 Employers also cite federal laws as well as state and local laws53 as reasons for using criminal background checks

[This article is large.  Please feel free to examine it or use their citations to discover more about employer demographics and responses. ]
.""

Micro 
As we look over the list for offenses to prevent we can notice the list includes fraudwork place violence, and govt. laws
Although the last is vague, we will take a closer look and notice all these things involve victims. 

A. Fraud. Fraud can occur in many ways. 

B.  Assault Fifth Leading Cause of Workplace Deaths. 


From above link, we can read how intrussive work place violence can be; 20,050 injuries and illnesses with 481 deaths reported in 2021. 

Looking at job candidates' criminal history can show a history in violence/violent crimes that will give employers red flags.

Even if a company hires a person with a history of violent crimes, knowing this history can help navigate that employee. Sometimes choosing different managing approaches to individual employee. 


C. Some govt. laws require background checks to prevent dangerous incidences

34 U.S. Code § 20351 - Requirement for background check
""Each agency of the Federal Government, and every facility operated by the Federal Government (or operated under contract with the Federal Government), that hires (or contracts for hire) individuals involved with the provision to children under the age of 18 of child care services shall assure that all existing and newly-hired employees undergo a criminal history background check. All existing staff shall receive such checks not later than May 29, 1991. Except as provided in subsection (b)(3), no additional staff shall be hired without a check having been completed.""

We can see here that services to minors require background checks. Easy to see why having a background check here is necessary and a good thing. I doubt pro would object to it. I do not need to go into depth as to why this is needed to help prevent the most damaging scenarios. 


Considering round 1 and 2 together thus far, we can see having background checks include criminal records is a good that is necessary to prevent illegal and bad things from happening. Although it may not solve all issues or prevent 100% of incidences, it is a vital tool for everyone to use. 


Macro 
Moving from individual to the company and economy, employee environment can shape trust. Trust from the employer, employee,  customer and community. 

Resolving a lawsuit or even fraud can spiral into a nightmare. The over all cost can mean employee cuts, price increases, or even customer lost. A local story involves a woman stole money from a commercial complex that ended in several business closing. That commercial complex is now shut down for several years. 

When we look at the monetary loss a company may face, we should recognize that loss could mean employees loose their jobs. The employeer could loose their business. A govt. entity may have to reallocate funds from other resources to pay for a lawsuit. We are not just talking about figures vs people. 

Lets be real. We are looking at an individual's chance to get a job vs the safety and well being of a group. 
Here is an example from Colarado.

""  Poudre School District said it thoroughly reviewed an arrest record for a misdemeanor child-abuse case in 2012 before hiring a paraprofessional bus attendant who now faces nearly 130 charges for assaults, child abuse and harassment alleged to have occurred during his employment with the district.""
If we made all criminal background checks or are irresponsible with the requirements for them, then we will miss an opportunity to help two groups. In this example we missed the chance help the perpitrator by putting them in a place they can commit the same exact crim as before. In this case it was child abuse, which means we could have prevented their victimization. 

The school district will now need to pay restitution taking money away from the schools and other children's education. 

Although not every case will demonstrate the same crime, we can see the same impact on the community. Resources that could go there now go to restitution. As said before, this could make some companies fail. An economic blow. 

In Conclusion 
With these examinations we can see that the movement from jail to work is complex and taking away all criminal background checks would take away an important tool to help ex-cons and navigate risk. 



Round 3
Pro
#5
Opening argument: While Con claims that background checks benefit not just the employer but the convicted as well, They have yet to establish this to be true. They have pointed out that Not all laws that restrict Jobs are bad. I agree, but the argument that
They serve to prevent the ex con from facing temptation to repeat crimes they have already shown a history in doing. Some aspects like DUI or drug use show the history of behavior. 
is not proven.  We cannot objectively say that someone who was convicted of DUI but later for their license back for example. Will be tempted to drink and get drunk on the job. that is pure speculation and should not be used as a reason to deny someone with such a record meaningful employment. Some job restrictions make sense when they concern felonies. Any job that requires a gun should not be allowed to apply of course. What does not make sense is denying people just for having Criminal records. 
Statistics provided give us quantity and correlation, but no cause. I repeat, we do not see how many re-incarcerations do or do not have a job when they are re-incarcerated. Nor can we read into any individual's attempt at being hired. Pro's argument may be stronger if we can have a better visual aid to show us connections.  Does this mean no one returns to jail for commiting a crime based on being jobless? 
Con argues that I have not established a cause. but Acknowledges that Job restrictions exist. Furthermore, while Con tries to argue that we cannot know an Indvidual's attempts to be hired. The website and stats I previously gave establishes that these Job restrictions affect Millions of people. An individuals experience is irrelevant to the millions of others who suffer from a recuring issue such as job restrictions. Con has provide no stats to counter this point.

Here is a link that shows a list of employers hiring ex-cons. 
Linkedin provides a comprehensive article on how much help can be obtained by those with convictions. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/programs-for-felons-to-get-jobs Again, these sites and programs help us understand that there are ways to get good paying jobs despite having a criminal record. The main objective is to go for the jobs and careers you can get into. 
Con's argument would make sense if my argument was that no one gets hired, but that is not the argument I presented. My argument was the fact that Millions are denied Jobs and homes due to the discriminatory nature that background checks give employers and landowners. I did not argue that employment was impossible with criminal record.
Third/final argument 
Pro has not connected the dots to show how or why millions of people are denied an ability to work. Are they denied a job? Would the job put them in the exact same position they were in to commit a crime? 

Sometimes yes. That is ok.  The person who committed fraud by stealing customer identification should not go back into the same job to be tempted by the same crime. 
Con claims I have not "connected the dots" yet earlier addressed an article that said millions are barred from jobs for having criminal records. Ignoring this contradiction for a moment. Con needs to prove that a person convicted of a crime will for a fact be tempted to commit the same crime as before just because a job may have the opportunity to do. Are not all Americans innocent until proven guilty, or does that change the moment they make a mistake?  In the end Con cannot argue on evidence that I provide that shows Millions being unable to apply for work due to criminal records. And then argue that I made no connection or cause in relation to the issue. Either I have submitted evidence that prove my point or I have not. It cannot be both.

Second argument: 

However, a company may not hire a candidate if they refuse because of two reasons. 
A.) That company (i.e. day care, youth sports) is required by law to do a background check. 
B.) That company has policies in place to prevent incidences and establish positive environment. 

Although the job market can be difficult to navigate and compete in, there are many companies and agencies that hire people with criminal records. 

And here is a link that explains criminal background checks i we want to look deeper into it. There  is also a list of govt. agencies that provide opportunity to those with criminal history. 

We should also know that there are  advantages for those who hire people with criminal record. 

""
Tell employers about the benefits of hiring a worker with a criminal record. Two items to mention:

  • The Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which gives tax discounts to employers who hire low-income ex-offenders. Print a brochure about this program to bring to interviews by clicking the WOTC Brochure link at the bottom of this page.
  • The Federal Bonding Program, which is insurance for employers concerned about theft or dishonesty by an employee. Employers can call 1 (877) US2-JOBS to get more information."""

If we look further we can use online help to find list of employers willing to hire those with criminal history. 

Again I did not argue Whether employment was possible or not. My argument is that Land owners and business owners actively discriminate people with criminal records and therefore criminal  records should not be public Knowlege since it hurts people from trying to reform into society. Con's counter argument so far has been to point out that employment with criminal records is possible (not the point) That ex-cons are restricted on Jobs to avoid temptation to commit the same crime(subjective and untrue as my stats show that  44% reoffend in less then a year) and that (somehow) this is for the benefit of everyone including the ex-cons. They have completely misunderstood and misrepresented my argument. They have still failed to address the issues of discrimination of former inmates face concerning finding homes due to landowners not allowing them to rent from them. and have not responded to the point  I made about how these factors cause a resurgence in crimes every year. 

Third argument:

Macro 
Moving from individual to the company and economy, employee environment can shape trust. Trust from the employer, employee,  customer and community. 
Resolving a lawsuit or even fraud can spiral into a nightmare. The over all cost can mean employee cuts, price increases, or even customer lost. A local story involves a woman stole money from a commercial complex that ended in several business closing. That commercial complex is now shut down for several years. 

When we look at the monetary loss a company may face, we should recognize that loss could mean employees loose their jobs. The employeer could loose their business. A govt. entity may have to reallocate funds from other resources to pay for a lawsuit. We are not just talking about figures vs people. 

Lets be real. We are looking at an individual's chance to get a job vs the safety and well being of a group. 
Here is an example from Colarado.
Con makes a good argument to an extent. But fails to account for two things
  1. Law suits can happen for any reason: While I do not deny that Con has  a point. Companys face lawsuits on a regular basis for numerous reasons. hiring an ex-con and then having to be closed down employees loosing their Jobs etc. Happen all the time regardless if its by an employee and or other situations.
  2. Jobs are not guaranteed: While it is terrible to loose a job because the company you work for got sued, losing your Job can happen at anytime for any reason. People will ultimately move on and get employed else where. The possibility of losing a Job to a company that can go under for any reason is not a justified reason for denying an ex-con a job.
""  Poudre School District said it thoroughly reviewed an arrest record for a misdemeanor child-abuse case in 2012 before hiring a paraprofessional bus attendant who now faces nearly 130 charges for assaults, child abuse and harassment alleged to have occurred during his employment with the district.""

If we made all criminal background checks or are irresponsible with the requirements for them, then we will miss an opportunity to help two groups. In this example we missed the chance help perpetrator by putting them in a place they can commit the same exact crime as before. In this case it was child abuse, which means we could have prevented their victimization. The school district will now need to pay restitution taking money away from the schools and other children's education. 
Con is basically just making the same point I debunked earlier.
Although not every case will demonstrate the same crime, we can see the same impact on the community. Resources that could go there now go to restitution. As said before, this could make some companies fail. An economic blow.
Con admits this is not a one size fits all incident and thus cannot apply a collective effect in an isolated innocent.
Conclusion 
With these examinations we can see that the movement from jail to work is complex and taking away all criminal background checks would take away an important tool to help ex-cons and navigate risk. 
Con once again argues that background Checks are benefit ex-cons but this has been established to be false as Con did not address half of the issues my study brought up that comes with background checks. including reoffending and housing issues. In fact The only benefit that con has brought up so far for ex-criminals is the speculative argument that they would not be in the same position to commit the same offenses. And that some employees may hire those with criminal backgrounds. of these supposed benefits only half of them can be argued true but they do not change the fact that what few employers out their looking for ex-criminals to hire that may be out there. There are more that will deny it and leave former inmates no other choice but to commit more crime.

Conclusion: Con has misunderstood my arguments and has tried to argue from a point that was never in contest. Con also continues to stay primarily on employment which was only 1/3rd of the evidence I have submitted. My opponent argues that background checks benefit Ex-cons because they help prevent situations from "temptation" from happening again and that some places may hire them. They do not address the overall point. Background checks cause harm as they leave ex-cons homeless, destitute, and help encourage the resurgence of crime by denying former inmates a chance at a better life. Leading over 44% of them to fail to reform in less then a year. They will continue to do so for however long we choose to ignore the discrimination of ex-cons in the work environment and the hosuing departments brough on by background checks. 

Vote Pro.
Con
#6

Heads up. 
I am responding to parts from round 1 and round 2 to start. Then addressing what I think is more important for round 3. Some parts seem to overlay so I will try to combine issues where possible for ease in reading. Some things may need to be separated because information being provided is a large sum. 

Opening
When employers and housing agents select new candidates to join, they have to examine risk to benefit ratio. Sometimes refered to as risk/benefit analysis. We have mentioned some risks in round 1 for employers (i.e. fraud, work place violence, etc.). 

There are at least 5 major risks for owning rental property. The one we are looking at is bad tenants. This could mean devastation as some cause thousands in damages.

Owning rental property for some is a means to maintain retirement or a household. So getting a good tenant is very important. 

Same is true when owning and operating a business. We need to ask ourselves:
 What is my risk in hiring this candidate? 
What is my benefit? 

Risk to reward is similar to a pro/con list that uses probability. The most important part to take away is that every person who performs risk/benefit analysis in some way is investing. 

Owning Rental Property
Upon completing research on owning rental property, owners share in the same complexity and liability in performing criminal background checks as companies do. Especially with recent legal decisions that limit how criminal background checks are used. 

Rental property owners and experts share their input by sharing how important background checks are and how important it is to do them right. 

American Owner Association emphasises criminal background checks based on experience:
Don’t underestimate the need to know a prospective tenant’s criminal history, too. Like the credit report, their criminal background could give an indication of whether they might commit a crime again in the future. The information helps protect your investment, the neighborhood, and you.

While these sentiments express a common need to use criminal background checks, there is greater urgency and detail on how to perform them. 

This Rentprep.com article highlights Department of Housing and Urban Development requirements. These are federal requirements for all property owners who rent/lease. 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) clearly spells out that a landlord should not deny an applicant based solely on an arrest without conviction:

“A housing provider who denies housing to persons on the basis of arrests not resulting in a conviction cannot prove that the exclusion actually assists in protecting the resident safety and/or property.”

This 10 page HUD document boils down to two paragraphs in the conclusion.

“Policies that exclude persons based on criminal history must be tailored to serve the housing provider’s substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest and take into consideration such factors as the type of the crime and the length of the time since conviction. Where a policy or practice excludes individuals with only certain types of convictions, a housing provider will still bear the burden of proving that any discriminatory effect caused by such policy or practice is justified. Such a determination must be made on a case-by-case basis.”

Basically, if you’re going to use a criminal record in your tenant screening process, you must make a viable case for why that crime jeopardizes the residents’ safety and/or property.
Zillow has done a great job in breaking down what to look for to make a reliable claim. 

How long ago the crime occurred. Something that happened decades ago might not mean that the applicant isn’t the best tenant for you.


The severity of the crime. Did they commit a misdemeanor when they were younger, or was it a more serious offense?


The frequency of the crime. Are there multiple arrests? Have they committed the same offense more than once?


Legal restrictions on the individual. Some sex offenders must stay a certain distance away from places like schools and parks. Be sure to consider if an applicant is under any restrictions that may prevent them from living in your rental property. If you are unsure about the results of any criminal background check, you should consult a local lawyer. 

From HUD.gov to property owner associations to legal advice, the picture is the same. If you are using criminal background checks as a property owner to find a tenant, you are liable on how you find that tenant and any other resident within the area. You need to be diligent because you are between a rock and a hard place. 

With this evidence we can see that using criminal background checks are not easy to use as an excuse to neglect a candidate for criminal history.  Nor may it be used to discriminate against any set person or people. Owners need to have direct explanation for their reasoning and keep written record for it. 

This deeper look into what is involved with criminal background checks depict a different picture than what pro has alluded to. A landlord can not overlook a candidate just for having a record. There has be:
First,  a written consent from candidate 
Second, direct connection and reason for denial
Thirds, that evidence for denial has to be written. 


Therefore pro's generalized accusation that landlords are discriminating is false. This accusation is blanketed and unexplained as well. 

Pro's response 

As we read Pro's round 3 post, there are parts that jump at us.  Parts that need elaboration.  I will quote these parts and respond. 

1. Do we agree?
They have pointed out that Not all laws that restrict Jobs are bad. I agree...
Some laws that restrict jobs require criminal background checks. Pro's position in round 1 is clear, ban ALL criminal background checks to prevent restricting jobs because they are bad for millions of Americans. 

we just now see that pro agrees that job restrictions, which include criminal background checks, are not bad. 

Some job restrictions make sense when they concern felonies. Any job that requires a gun should not be allowed to apply of course. What does not make sense is denying people just for having Criminal records. 

This sounds like Pro concede's on debate topic. Criminal background checks have been included with "job restrictions" through out this debate - may Pro please clarify? 

 How are employers to know that a person is not allowed to have a gun because they have a felony on record other than a background check? 

Background checks are used to attest to the accuracy in job applications and resumes. How many people lie on them? Some suggest 55% of american population.  

For those who don't know, there are circumstances that exist that prevent citizens from owning or handling a gun. ATF website provides a list which includes, and I quote: 
(1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;

Only recently has persons of non violent crimes been considered eligible for carrying firearms. 

However, for the sake of this debate and based on Pro's comments "they concern felonies."  Does Pro agree that criminal background checks makes sense when we consider fellonies? 


2.. pro gives contradictions. 
An individuals experience is irrelevant to the millions of others who suffer from a recuring issue such as job restrictions. Con has provide no stats to counter this point.
An individual's experience is irrelevant to millions of others? 
I do not deny that millions may be affected by job restrictions. Billions are affected by being rejected during the job application process. As pro has said, we are not guaranteed in having a job. 

If Pro is giving us a sentiment where the many outweigh the few, I find the logic strange & contradictory that a company full of employees (more than 1) should risk closure for hiring  1 at risk candidate.  

Although millions are affected by background checks (in reality everyone who applies to a job is affected by background checks) the same millions are not applying for the same job or a job at the same time. 

What is really happening is a scenario where 1 ex-con experiences risk for rejection appling for 1 job vs. a company with many employees experiencing risk for hiring 1 ex-con. This scenario may occur more than once. This means the risk is being applied to more existing employees than potential candidates with criminal history. 

If we follow the sentiment that many out weight the few, then we would side with the company and its many employees vs the 1 ex-con. 

However, we should not follow this sentiment. Pro's approach alienates the people they claim to argue for! 

We need a comprehensive approach where background checks are not banned. Instead we need to understand their importance and how they are used to legislate failsafes to prevent employers from abusing criminal background checks. 

3....please clarify
Con argues that I have not established a cause. but Acknowledges that Job restrictions exist. Furthermore, while Con tries to argue that we cannot know an Indvidual's attempts to be hired. The website and stats I previously gave establishes that these Job restrictions affect Millions of people. An individuals experience is irrelevant to the millions of others who suffer from a recuring issue such as job restrictions. Con has provide no stats to counter this point

A )   Pro is misleading us here. Millions of people are affected by criminal background checks because millions of people have a criminal history. That does not inherently mean they are automatically rejected from a job. That does not mean they are all suffering. 

I provided info on several employers and programs that help people get hired despite having a criminal history. This includes many from that millions of people demographic. 

Even if some of these millions of people are not suffering and have a job, then we should not believe the picture Pro is trying to depict. 

Looking back at numbers Pro gave us. 
According to themarshallproject.org, over 70 million to 100 million in the USA have a criminal record
We do not get numbers for how many of these americans are employed or how many are not. We don't get numbers to show how many times a person has tried to get hired because some try once or some do not try at all. 

There is nothing substantial in numbers given that shows us why we should believe these people are discriminated against. 


B)  We should recognize Pro is using the Marshall project as evidence for their position.  The Marshal project uses individual experiences to illustrate the issue at hand, our debate topic. If Pro is suggesting that individual experiences are irrelevant, then the individual experiences used in marshal project (and therefore in Pro's supporting evidence) is irrelevant. We should not use the Marshal project to understand and develop a conclusion on whether or not criminal history should be open to public reference/use? 

C) Con has provide no stats to counter this point
What am I supposed to counter if I do not see any relative information in your stats or comments? 

If I am to argue that individual experiences matter please refer to part B. Should we consider the individual experiences that ex cons have?


4. Why do we need to argue statistics? 
Pro makes several comments that I do not argue against statistics provided. My response to this is simple; I don't have to. 

Pro has given us nice figures. I admit that. 1,700,000 incarcerations, all affected by criminal background checks because they have criminal history. That is yet to be established as a bad thing.  

Just because x number of people are affected by a law or policy does not mean they are automatically discriminated against. 

5. Predictions to commit a crime again. 
Con needs to prove that a person convicted of a crime will for a fact be tempted to commit the same crime as before just because a job may have the opportunity to do

Pro opened discussion by giving proof that a person convicted of a crime will commit another crime after being released from prison. 

According to the World population review, up to 44 percent of criminals re-offend before the first year out of prison. Recidivism Rates by State [Updated May 2023] (worldpopulationreview.com)

As said above, we make these decisions based on risk vs. reward.  No one wants a 50/50 chance to loose millions vs paying a guy $15/hr. Even at 44% chance to repeat offending, that risk can be far greater than some want to gamble on, let alone invest in. 

Whether or not the same crime is committed is irrelevant because an employee or tenant commiting any crime (especially during working hours or in a rental property) is a loss. Sometimes this loss means we find someone new. Sometimes this loss means file for bankruptcy. Sometimes that loss means we loose our own home. 

For many sole proprietors, insurance alone does not cover costs/losses when the company is sued. A court order to pay has to be followed. 

Our loss is a risk. We need adequate information to analyze our risk as an employer or owner. 

If pro does not agree with their own evidence, then we can read a 44 page pdf file with research about recidivism

In this study, points are given based on crime severity and other factors to determine if a person might be arrested again. Lower points mean less likelihood to be rearrested. Higher points mean greater likelihood. The study showed a greater accuracy to predict a future crime based on criminal history than other studies. 

Here is the link. But if the audience wants to save some reading time, I quoted a part of the conclusion bellow. 
"The manner in which Chapter Four of the Guidelines Manual assigns
criminal history points is designed to reflect that the seriousness of single
prior convictions is predictive of recidivism. An offender’s past convictions
are assigned one, two, or three points based on the nature of the offense and
sentence. These point assignments reflect the seriousness of the offender’s
past conviction
. Offenders with only one-point sentences have significantly
lower rearrest rates (53.4%) than offenders with a two-point but no three-point
sentence (71.3%), or offenders with a three-point sentence (70.5%).

If we consider this study as basis for rehiring someone with criminal record. We will be faced with a 70 % chance they might get rearrested.  Whether or not that person is guilty or not, sentenced or not, we will still get a bad image to repair as the employer. We still receive a loss, and that loss could mean (as a business) we will have to close our doors. 

As said before, federal and most states still allow criminal background checks even with their restrictions because sometimes the risk is far greater than the reward.

Following govt. regulation on how to perform a background check requires us to only consider crimes and information related to our industry or job type. 

The individuals who would qualify under u.s. regulations for denial are categorized in higher risk group within the above study. Lower risk groups would not be included as possible options for denial unless the crimes committed were directly related to the job. I.e. a person known to commit fraud probably would not be hired at a bank. 

6.  Pro's argument 
...is that Land owners and business owners actively discriminate people with criminal records and therefore criminal  records should not be public Knowlege since it hurts people from trying to reform into society. 

Exactly. Actively discriminate. The evidence regarding being hired, what the law permits, etc. all demonstrate that the majority does not and would not discriminate using criminal background checks. 

For example, Pro opened round 1 with the following. 

By allowing free access to criminal records to the public for land owners and jobs to see, we leave millions of Americans who have criminal records without a means to escape their criminal pasts

How does a person have no means to escape their criminal past if I just gave several examples on how they can?  

Consider the two individuals  used as examples by marshal project. Why were they denied work?  They were denied work because laws existed that prohibited their work in a specific field, not because an employer just saw that their criminal history. 

For any who do not recall, the stories shared by marshal project was that of: 
A) a man who got fired from being a counselor because a law prohibited it based on his history as an addict 
B) a person unable to work in cosmetology  because they had committed a felon. 
Change the laws and the two would be able to work where they wanted to because employers would have no merit to fire (A) or prevent hiring (B). Why is this so?  Federal/state laws prevent such actions. 

Pro has to demonstrate why being barred from specific jobs (but not all jobs) is bad and discriminatory. We have yet to see why and any real evidence for it. 

7....
my stats show that  44% reoffend in less then a year) and that (somehow) this is for the benefit of everyone including the ex-cons. They have completely misunderstood and misrepresented my argument

Stats about 44% reoffending only shows that people reoffend. Does it show us that this 44% did not have a job or was denied a job? no. 

This is not about misunderstanding or misrepresenting an argument. I am pointing out the lack of evidence. I am criticising existing comments that criminal background checks are bad and using them is discriminatory. 

If they are not bad or discriminatory or serve a greater purpose/good, then they should be used by tenants and employers. Simple as that. 

How do we know they are not discriminatory? Because the way they are used and limitations on how they can be used (based on law) requires specific details and relation between the background check and reason for not hiring. Evidenced by round 2 post which carries links that explain how background checks work. 

We also know they are not discriminatory because people with criminal record can still get a good paying job. I provided link to several good paying jobs available nationwide. 

Hiring an ex con also gives businesses a tax cut/credit. No one else gives a benefit to being hired in that way. No minority or religion or any other discriminated group (except those disabilities).  

Are criminal background checks bad? No. Why? Because they help prevent risks like that example  given about the bus driver. 5 new victims and millions lost. Even though it was preventable by performing a criminal background check and acting on it. 

Is that the only example or evidence to why background checks are good? No I gave more evidence. We are still waiting on Pro to give evidence. 

8.  
Con admits this is not a one size fits all incident and thus cannot apply a collective effect in an isolated innocent.

I never spoke on nor do my words reference "one size fits all". I acknowledge that not every person with a criminal history commits the same crime. 
Although not every case will demonstrate the same crime...
I then continue to say that the risks involved are the same and results would be same.  
we can see the same impact on the community.
The impact that results in negligent hiring is loss of business, more victims, lost community resources, and a very hard stain to remove. 

Why does pro select the first sentence to respond to but neglects the economic impact that occurs when an institution has to pay for negligence? Why are we ignoring the responsibility employers have to all employees and the community at larger? 

These things impact their decision. These things impact our community to a greater degree than 1 job candidate and more than the populace that has a criminal record. 


9.  Law suits can happen for any reason & Jobs are not guaranteed

What!?! Lol.

If jobs are not guaranteed then we are ok to use criminal background check and then not hire Joe because he has a criminal record directly related to the job he applied for. 

This silly phrase can be applied to anyone with a criminal record. 

I agree that lawsuits may happen for any reason. Institute try to mitigate lawsuits and ALL risks as best as possible to ensure they continue to exist. 

Is Pro trying to say an employer should allow a potential victim and lawsuit because they can just happen when ever? 

Why are we again ignoring all the risks involved as Pro does not respond to the victims included? 

10. Pro's conclusion is a reiteration to nowhere. 
I will not begin to assume to know why has chosen their words. Instead I will clarify that I am arguing from a point that is my own. My position. 

I argue that Pro has not given evidence to believe their position because they lack the connecting points. 

Look at their last paragraph. Again they speak on the 44% who has been affected by background checks. Where is the evidence that shows this 44 % applied to a job to be affected in the first place? 

Where the evidence that shows all 44% has ben denied work? Law requires written documentation of both consent to perform a criminal background check and reasoning for work denial. We should be able to find that evidence right? 

Instead we are pushed to assume they are affected for the simple fact they have a criminal history. Except current laws prohibit employers and property owners from denying these 44% a job or rental property just for having a criminal record. I provide evidence for this in round 2 and above for round 3. 

My closing for round 3. 
There may be 1 to 3 points I will have to address in next round, but I am still analysing if they impact the debate or not. There is more research to do as well. This ais a new topic for me, so I prefer to take my time with it. 

I ask the audience to consider a scenario. 

In this scenario, there are two candidates who want the same job. Joe and Carl. Both have a criminal record. 

Joe was arrested twice and sentenced once for 2 years for possessing illegal substance. These occured 10 years ago. He was released 8 years ago and has had varied jobs. 

Carl was arrested once and jailed once for sexual assault that occured 5 years ago. He was just released. No substantial information about his arrest is given. 

Both qualify for the job. Which is a desk job at a management firm. We have a mix employees, male/female.  Do we consider their criminal history?
Who would you hire? 

If we consider round 2 info. Joe would not be denied because his crime is not related to our environment amd occured further in past. If we can prove Carl posses a risk to our other employees, we may be able to deny the position on this basis because carl's crime is more serious and impactful on other employees.  

I will have more time to address temptations in more depth later but need to consider how important  it is to the discussion. Sometimes less is more, and I am providing a greater quantity of information already. 

lets consider percentages given for rearrests. These alone provide insight that a person may commit a crime again. Each person can be more or less likely to commit a crime again based on various factors. 
However we can easily just ask ourselves, would the bus driver from Colorado have bennefited from not being hired as a bus driver? 

I'd say yes. However now we would ask if he would still commit the same crime else where. If yes, then perhaps it is not a benefit. 

Until next round. 
Round 4
Pro
#7
Opening argument:

This sounds like Pro concedes on debate topic. Criminal background checks have been included with "job restrictions" through out this debate - may Pro please clarify?  How are employers to know that a person is not allowed to have a gun because they have a felony on record other than a background check? 
Con has misunderstood the debate topic. It does not say that All Background checks should be removed. I made it clear that I only said specific class of people such as employers and landowners. Me agreeing that restricting a job based on the fact the applicant has a felony record on that specific job. Is not a concession. That is me agreeing that it "made sense" nothing more.

Con Also has not been honest. They first claim there is nothing to counter because I supposedly did not give "relative information" Yet in response to them making No counter argument to the statistics I provided. They say.
Pro makes several comments that I do not argue against statistics provided. My response to this is simple; I don't have to. 
So is it that You don't have to counter any of my information or I have not provided any relative information? Con should really not try to deny existing evidence and then acknowledge it later.
Pro has given us nice figures. I admit that. 1,700,000 incarcerations, all affected by criminal background checks because they have criminal history. That is yet to be established as a bad thing.  
So millions of people not being able to gain meaningful Jobs is not established as a  bad thing?  How then would we be able to establish Millions of Jews being killed by the Nazis or Blacks being oppressed by Jim crow as a "bad thing" if figures alone do not establish an existing problem? Con is willfully denying the problems of Ex-cons by claiming a lack of understanding of how denying millions of people a job could be harmful.
Just because x number of people are affected by a law or policy does not mean they are automatically discriminated against. 

Wow. So I guess Malcom-x and Martin Luther King Jr had no reason to go up against Jim Crow law then? If we establish that society has a law or policy that treats people unfairly compared to others in the same society. How can Con deny this as discrimination? What if Any of us went to work one day and were told by our bosses "You(your name) are no longer allowed to work here because a law said anyone who with this past(whatever you want to imagine) can't work or be hired anymore." Would that not be discrimination at its finest? Con's statement makes no sense and is bluntly not true. Discrimination for ANY reason is in fact discrimination especially if its systematic.

Second Argument:  
As said above, we make these decisions based on risk vs. reward.  No one wants a 50/50 chance to loose millions vs paying a guy $15/hr. Even at 44% chance to repeat offending, that risk can be far greater than some want to gamble on, let alone invest in.  Whether or not the same crime is committed is irrelevant because an employee or tenant committing crime (especially during working hours or in a rental property) is a loss. Sometimes this loss means we find someone new. Sometimes this loss means file for bankruptcy. Sometimes that loss means we loose our own home. 
Con is saying that a persons life is not important enough to give someone a second chance. They also are Falsey trying to frame that hiring someone with a criminal record is more risky then to hire someone with a clean record. This is not True. Hiring Anyone is a 50/50 chance. You simply never know. They can steal from you, lie to you and cost you millions just as much as a person with a criminal record could. This fact alone destroys any justification not to hire someone due to their background. It may be logical to be wary of who you hire based on the things the Con point out. But logic alone is not fact. Everything in business is a risk and that is a fact. ex-cons costing you millions after employing them is not.

If we consider this study as basis for rehiring someone with criminal record. We will be faced with a 70 % chance they might get rearrested.  Whether or not that person is guilty or not, sentenced or not, we will still get a bad image to repair as the employer. We still receive a loss, and that loss could mean (as a business) we will have to close our doors. 

As said before, federal and most states still allow criminal background checks even with their restrictions because sometimes the risk is far greater than the reward.

Following govt. regulation on how to perform a background check requires us to only consider crimes and information related to our industry or job type. 

The individuals who would qualify under u.s. regulations for denial are categorized in higher risk group within the above study. Lower risk groups would not be included as possible options for denial unless the crimes committed were directly related to the job. I.e. a person known to commit fraud probably would not be hired at a bank. 
Con has presented a baseless and speculative argument. They point out that ex-cons have 70% chance of getting rearrested but then claim that the dental would happen if the Job was related to the crime they were convicted off. This is contradicted by the fact that they also state that it does not matter if the ex-con was guilty or not. Simply being hired could give a company a bad image. By the Con's own admission this means many companies will shy away from hiring people with criminal records due to the fear of a bad rep or the loss of business. Throughout this debate Con has denied my evidence of discrimination but then by their own statements inadvertently admitted to it by trying to justify it as a risk vs benefits argument.

How does a person have no means to escape their criminal past if I just gave several examples on how they can?  

Consider the two individuals  used as examples by marshal project. Why were they denied work?  They were denied work because laws existed that prohibited their work in a specific field, not because an employer just saw that their criminal history. 

For any who do not recall, the stories shared by marshal project was that of: 
A) a man who got fired from being a counselor because a law prohibited it based on his history as an addict 
B) a person unable to work in cosmetology  because they had committed a felon. 
Change the laws and the two would be able to work where they wanted to because employers would have no merit to fire (A) or prevent hiring (B). Why is this so?  Federal/state laws prevent such actions. 

Pro has to demonstrate why being barred from specific jobs (but not all jobs) is bad and discriminatory. We have yet to see why and any real evidence for it. 
Con forgets that the Marshal Project made it clear that the examples are just some of Millions face the same issues. Not just those examples. The Marshal coupled with the fact 44% of people are not out of jail for a year before reoffending. Establishes the harm background checks do for millions of Americans who are doing nothing but trying to put their pasts behind them but are unable to do so. My need to bring forth proof that being barred from Jobs due to criminal backgrounds is "Bad and discriminatory has long since been established. Con's main argument against it so far has been to ignore it, argue that it is justified, or say the figures are true but don't prove anything.  Which is not a true rebuttal.

Lastly the only "examples" that Con gave that showed people being able to get past the barriers of employment due to their criminal history. Was the vague and statically unsupportive claim that some employers may hire them. This is a very limited form of assistance compared to the majority that don't get good jobs.

Final argument:   I have presented the statistical facts. I have demonstrated the harmful and discriminatory nature that allowing criminal backgrounds  to be public knowledge and how that had caused most ex-cons to fail to adjust to our society  My esteemed opponent's only counter arguments are that some employers may hire a ex-criminal, that hiring someone with a bad past can be a risk, and that some laws require background checks. What he does not address or dispute is the fact the background checks cause harm. their response to this has simply been to ignore it and when pressed say "I don't have to" They also claim that none of it proves discriminatory behavior or that its even a bad thing.

Denying ones application for any reason other then the character and work ethic is always a bad thing for that is the very definition of discrimination. Everyone has faced discrimination at one point in their lives. Be it due to a lack of education, race, religion, or an unpopular opinion. Why should being denied opportunities or second chances due to history be anu different? Background checks in the hands of employers and land owners promotes unfairness and hurts reform chances for ex-cons and should not be allowed. Denying it or justifying it won't change this proven and undeniable fact.  

Vote Pro.
Con
#8
The debate title and topic is:
Criminal records should not be available to employers and Landowners. 

I opened my participation in this debate by identifying what criminal records are and how employers conduct their research (round 1&2).  This was followed by explaining how and why rental property owners use criminal records as well (round 3).   


I am arguing that criminal records should be available to us because: 

1. Ex-cons can choose where to apply for a job or residency
To perform a background check we need written consent. Although some employers may require background checks (based on policy or law) to be hired/ promoted, there are other options.

Federal/state laws address concerns about criminal background checks. 
(Round 2) These push background checks to after a job offer has been made and restricts who qualifies for work/residency denial. 

Here are links I posted in earlier rounds:


Each depict that a candidate or potential renter can be denied if they pose a direct risk to the outfit they are applying to. 

Ex: a person who has committed a crime that would affect their participation at or present a higher risk at a bank could be denied a job at a bank. 

A person with unrelated crime history like drug possession does not qualify for work denial. 

Here are links provided earlier that show us that people returning to normal civilian life (outside of prison) have a long list of good paying jobs available to them. These links also cover programs that help get over that hurdle in having a criminal history. 



Looking at the law and resources available, employers and rental property owners are not to use criminal background check to deny work based on having any criminal  record. 

2. they help analyze risk
As pro has commented, there is risk in hiring anyone or renting to anyone. We have to understand that risk to be able to mitigate or minimize that risk.  

Criminal background checks provide insight to what behavior someone may have. 



3. They help mitigate risk 
Once we have completed all necessary background checks, we move forward with next step. 

The employers and landlords are  making decisions based on the risk vs reward ratio. Taking away information that can depict character (i.e. Behavior) prevents us from making informed decisions to help the maintain the job or property each candidate applies to. Regardless to who is applying. 

4. Using a person's history to demonstrate character is not discriminatory. 
Companies use several methods to assess behavior and other attributes in their employees, including background checks prior to hiring. 

Our history depicts our character and behavior. Consider the study provided in the pdf file. 

The study does not give a 70% rearrest probability to every or any person released from jail. This percentage was assigned to individuals who had multiple arrests and convictions.  Those whose crimes consisted of rape, murder, assault, etc. 

Individuals who committed lesser or non violent crimes saw a lower percentage for being arrested again. Those who committed only 1 crime observed 15% probability to be arrested again. That's lower than the 44% given by Pro. 

Individuals with higher probability for rearrest show us their character with each repeat offense. This is the same mentality when hiring a person with a longer/bigger work history vs small work history. Except higher or more work experience means greater probability to be a good worker. Having more experience in crime appears to demonstrate a probability for a bad work experience. 

Using our (criminal) history to determine risk and desirability for hire is not bad because it reflects same conditions for hiring candidates than everyone else: our character and experience. 

The study being referenced is bellow:


5. The real issues are laws

Consider the stories shared by marshal project. Two individuals who got rejected/fired because an existing law that prevents persons with history from a specific crime. 

Change background checks and those laws still exist. Change the laws and it prevents those events from happening again despite background checks still being available. 
 

Final responses.  

1. Me agreeing that restricting a job based on the fact the applicant has a felony record on that specific job. Is not a concession. That is me agreeing that it "made sense" nothing more 

The tricky part here is that saying it made sense to use a criminal background check  to prevent x contradicts the idea that we should not use criminal background checks. 

Consider Loomis. They are a private organization that hires people to transport wealth. Money transports are known to carry guns but have no direct link to the govt.  

I say that because of this statement from pro. 
Only the State should be able to review crimes committed against it and use that as a justification for denying benefits, not unrelated people who do not need such compromising and personal information.

LOOMIS is an employer unrelated to the govt./state who performs criminal background checks on potential employees. With Pro's help we acknowledge that Loomis doing background checks makes sense but Pro has been arguing to deny Loomis (am employer) from doing something that makes sense? 

For anyone who thinks Im creating a false narrative, I am using Pro's comments about preventing a felon from obtaining a job that provides that felon a gun. Loomis has jobs that would do just that. Some employers require their employees to carry/use guns. 

2. So is it that You don't have to counter any of my information or I have not provided any relative information?

I don't have to counter everything pro says or does, especially statistics I view does not support Pro's stance. 

Why does statistics given are not evidence? Because they do not indicate that the people claimed to be affected by criminal background checks have had a criminal background check completed on them. 

For the 44% that returned to prison/jail, there is no evidence that these people applied to a job and/or denied a job.

 Just because they were rearrested does not mean they were arrested because of criminal background checks. There is no connecting evidence for it. 

3. So millions of people not being able to gain meaningful Jobs is not established as a  bad thing? 

A. Pro has not established or proven that millions of people are unable to gain a meaningful job. 
On contrary, I have shown how they can. 

B. This is a twist in words. I said pro did not establish why having a criminal background check processed on an ex-convict is automatically bad. Or bad in any sense. 

On contrary. Performing a background check to ensure safety for those around the job candidate is an absolute good. I show why above, but lets just point to the bus driver who attacked kids. Hot topic huh? That's not a, happened only once, kind of thing. 

 Con is willfully denying the problems of Ex-cons by claiming a lack of understanding of how denying millions of people a job could be harmful.
 
I deny that pro gave an actual example or adequate evidence for their argument. I do so because we understand the evidence is missing. 

4. Wow. So I guess Malcom-x and Martin Luther King Jr had no reason to go up against Jim Crow law then?

I cant tell if Pro is purposefully changing my words. Lets look at what I said again.  

Just because x number of people are affected by a law or policy does not mean they are automatically discriminated against. 

Yes. Just because you have to follow the speed limit does not mean the speed limit is discriminating against you. That makes sense. The speed limit exists. The simple existence or presence of a thing does not dictate that thing as bad or discriminatory. 

Jim crow laws were not bad because they existed. They were bad because they were written with intent to shit on black people. 

5. You(your name) are no longer allowed to work here because a law said anyone who with this past(whatever you want to imagine) can't work or be hired anymore." Would that not be discrimination at its finest?
 
May we rewrite this to fill in the blank? 
You Carl are no longer allowed to work at this YMCA because a law said anyone who with this past, child endangerment, sexual assault, etc., cant work or be hired here. Ever. 

No. I do not see how that could be discrimination or bad. OH and if someone does not know. The ymca has youth programs like after school programs or youth sports or summer camp. Yeah. 

6. Con is saying that a persons life is not important enough to give someone a second chance

A. No I gave evidence for companies and organization that help people get second chances. I am saying we as employers do not have to sacrifice (risk) our own life or other employee's lives (and livelihood) for the sake of 1. 

Although there are many who try to, those who do made a decision based on what they can do. 

Not everyone can reach out a hand to someone drowning because they themselves might drown. We hear about it in the news every summer. Employers may face it with the wrong employee. Therefore they should be afforded the ability to consider materials like a criminal record to check for risks. 

B. Unfortunately Pro follows up with more circular reasoning. 

7. Hiring Anyone is a 50/50 chance
Companies don't hire anyone they hire the best candidate for the job which means the least risk and highest benefit for being an employee. 

A company then invests in that employee with training, salary, benefits, etc. 

All other parts after this sentence is gibberish. No one said all convicts risk or cost millions of dollars. I reference the some who do or can because they have a history for bad behavior and character as evidenced by their criminal record. 

8.  Con point out that ex-cons have 70% chance of getting rearrested but then claim that the dental would happen if the Job was related to the crime they were convicted off. This is contradicted by the fact that they also state that it does not matter if the ex-con was guilty or not. Simply being hired could give a company a bad image
If we read the study and my comments as a whole, the 70% first is used to describe risk. There is a greater likelihood for persons to commit a crime again, possibly on the job. 

However, I also provide a quote and elaborate that the 70% probability is given to people who perform horrible crimes. 

I describe more in detail above in part where employers look for crimes and behaviors that give direct risk to the job. I also elaborate in round 2 &3. 

In this study, points are given based on crime severity and other factors to determine if a person might be arrested again. Lower points mean less likelihood to be rearrested. Higher points mean greater likelihood. The study showed a greater accuracy to predict a future crime based on criminal history than other studies. 

As we reread my earlier statement about "doesnt matter if they are guilty or not guilty" refers to an employee getting arrested during work hours. 

The key word here are rearrested as we are talking about if or when an individual is arrested again. 

If our employee is arrested in front of customers or other employees, the company will get a black eye. This does not have to be concerning for all employers but the backlash can have irriversible damage to others. This raises the risk in hiring for some applicants. 

9. 
Con's own admission this means many companies will shy away from hiring people with criminal records.

A. Pro seems to miss connecting points and dots in my argument. I have been saying people "shy away" from hiring people with criminal records that impact the job and risk to employer since round 2. 

Based on federal/state law the decision to deny work due to criminal record has to be written, explained, and relate the job to the person's criminal history. Which means a person with history in stealing from pharmacies would not work at a pharmacy. Such a denial is not bad because that person can work elsewhere. Such a denial is not detrimental or discriminatory. 

B.  Many is logically understood to mean some. No quantity or statistic given to show how many would. If this number is low, we do not have evidence to show it to be detrimental or discriminatory. 

10 this is getting repetitive. 
A Con forgets that the Marshal Project made it clear that the examples are just some of Millions face the same issues.


A. The question about the experiences involving marshal project and this error on response shows us a bias. There is no reason why we should consider only one side of this story. Pro, has repeatedly ignored experiences from the landlord, employer, and victims.

b Lastly the only "examples" that Con gave that showed people being able to get past the barriers of employment due to their criminal history. Was the vague and statically unsupportive claim that some employers may hire them.
B.
Pro has been unable to show that any majority is denied a job because they do not have a record to show how many are applying to any job.

Here are links to the vague and unsupportive claims I made(sarcasm). I provided these links in earlier rounds and again this round.


11.

 I have presented the statistical facts. I have demonstrated the harmful and discriminatory nature that allowing criminal backgrounds  to be public knowledge and how that had caused most ex-cons to fail to adjust to our society.

In round 3 I say:
Stats about 44% reoffending only shows that people reoffend. Does it show us that this 44% did not have a job or was denied a job? no. 

Unfortunately the evidence pro gives us relies on assuming discrimination occured. We need more than assuming. Where are the written consent forms by these 44% that were rearrested? 

Each person denied a job based on their criminal record is given written record that they were denied and reasons for why they were denied. Where are these documents that show us that a person applied to a job and was wrongfully denied? 

Without this evidence. We have no reason to believe that background checks are being used to discriminate because there is no evidence these people applied for a job. 

You cant be denied a job if you do not apply. 

12. How do we know a person's character? 
Denying ones application for any reason other then the character and work ethic is always a bad thing for that is the very definition of discrimination


We look at a person's past to see their character. Criminal record is a testimony to a person's character because it shows us their past. 

As said above, illegal to deny a person work or residency just because they have a criminal record. We have to prove there is a risk and that risk has to relate to the job or residency being applied to. 

Ex: a person registered as a sex offender can be denied residency at a rental if there are kids or a nearby school around that residency. 

This information has already been given in rounds 2 & 3. 

To audience
Well I tried to add as much as I could whilst being concise. 
I did not address a few things because they were not imperative to debate or my position.  Good luck voting. Cheers.