Jawando and Ban the Box
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Since you put it in quotes, I take it you don't think it would actually be discriminatory. The reason it could be discriminatory is because our criminal justice system is racist. By that I mean that race determines outcomes. For example, historically police have targeted drug trafficking that occurs on the streets (in public), but have not really gone after drug trafficking in private homes. People of color are more likely to sell and buy drugs on the street while White people are more likely to sell and buy drugs in private homes. So a background check might flag a Black drug dealer but not a White one. That has a racist impact even if the intent is not to discriminate by race. Unfortunately background checks are obviously necessary, and I doubt they would be eliminated. |
Anonymous
Not every slope is slippery. If they tried to ban background checks entirely, I'd oppose that. I've done hiring under ban the box rules in DC at a company to which they already apply and they work really well. We've given everyone a fair shake, but never been kept from using our best judgement in terms of criminal records. I've got no problem applying the rule to smaller companies (ours bounces around between above and below the 15 employee line anyway) |
Anonymous
| If someone has paid their debt to society, they shouldn’t have to keep paying for it later. If they can be trusted to be out of jail, then they can be trusted to be in a job. How else are people supposed to get on with their lives and past their past if they keep getting punished for something they’ve already paid for? Even sex crimes and pedophilia crimes. Their sentence ends when they leave parole. It shouldn’t still keep punishing them a decade or two later. |