That Criminal Records Should Be Secret From Employers

My opponent opens the debate by stating that poverty and crime are problems, and they are indeed. However, I believe that is not a reason to keep criminal records secret from employers and I shall prove that. So, without further ado, I move on to analysing my opponent's case. The solution proposed by my opponent is that judges be able to issue certain measures according to one's criminal record, but not employers, because he believes giving insight into criminal records to employers is punishment towards ex-felons. There is, however, a difference between punishment and qualification. I shall offer an example. If an employer decides to reject an application because the applicant hasn't fulfilled a condition, is it punishment? No, it isn't. The employer, as a qualified person in charge of a business, company etc. , is simply saying: "No, sorry, you cannot work here, because I, as the employer, deem you unqualified. " That is perfectly normal in the modern world, and it is the same with criminal records, where the employer should be given the chance to tell someone that he hasn't fulfilled the conditions set. Then, my opponent spaks about how judges should be responsible for issuing measures because they are accountable to the state, trained professionals and know the whole story. Judges are indeed accountable to the state and that is why they have power on state level to issue punishment for criminal deeds and one cannot dispute that. On the other hand, an employer runs a business, is responsible for that business and dependable on it, and thus he has the qualifications in a certain area to reject someone because he deems the person is unfit to work in his business/company. The point is that employers are trained as well as judges. Judges are trained to issue punishment and they do so. But when the punishment is issued and executed, and the felons reintegrated into society, they can again be rejected by any employer because of their history, because the employer is trained enough in his area (or definitely more trained in a certain area than a judge) to decide whether the criminal record will affect the performance of an applicant. As for access to the whole story, it would be a better solution to give employers insight into details, because they, as people responsible for a business and a certain number workers, should definitely have insight. He also states judicial decisions will be better because judges won't have to compensate for employers' decions, but he didn't show how exactly do they compensate? Judges are there to issue punishment according to the law and they do so. A decision of a judge is based on solely on a criminal deed; a judge cannot predict what will happen to the felon in jail, let alone afer his punishment. A judge has no correlation with an employer. Whether the judge makes his decision according to the criminal deed or not is a question of the judge's skill, not the quality of the current system. My opponent then mentions anti-discrimination laws, and labels decision-making based on one's criminal record discrimination as well. Anti-discrimination laws exist to prevent discrimination because of irrelevant things - for example, one's skin color. One's skin color does not affect one's peformance, but throughout history, employers were prejudiced towards people with a different skin color, so laws were enacted to prevent that. On the other hand, one's criminal record and criminal history can indeed affect one's performance and it has been proven. Felonies are serious acts, and the employer must be allowed to pass judgement on whether or not that act performed in one's past is relevant or not, because the employer can best judge what effect will that have on his other employees, the business as a whole etc. . http://www.businessknowhow.com...As stated in the aforementioned source, 57% of human resource professionals are worried about violence in the workplace and enact more background checks. Why do they do that? Because they are trained and have a huge knowledge of the area they specialize in, as well as how certain employee histories can affect the business. Furthermore, no one disputes the importance of job interviews, but with access to criminal records, employers would be better informed. Judging by my opponent's logic, CVs are also unnecessary because they are simply records and don't show the whole story. That's right, they don't. But along with job interviews, they do - that is why we require both, and it's the same with criminal records. My opponent's second argument concerns rehabilitation. My opponent states that it is important and that society has an interest in felons commiting no more crimes. That is true, of course. He also states that there is a link between crimies and poverty, which is also true. But instead of denying important information from employers, more effort should be placed in counselling for ex-felons and in informing them of job opportunities, which are many. There are more than enough companies that employ ex-felons and one cannot claim that they are systematically denied jobs beuse of the sheer amount of opportunities. Below is a list of companies that employ ex-felons in the USA, as well as a list of possibilities, to prove my statement that possibilities are plenty. . http://www.ranker.com...http://ezinearticles.com...My opponent then speaks about opportunity (after speaking of need), to which I can but repeat the same I said in the last paragraph, for the answer is the same. As for minimal wage etc. , that depends on the fairness of a certain employer, and not the system. An unfair employer will always be unfair, despite the system. The living standard he describes is bad indeed, but that comes into play only if there are no opportunities, and it has been proven there are plenty. Finally, he spaks of discimination and underclasses. That is why the anti-discrimination laws he mentioned exist - to prevent discrimination based on irrelevant information. The poverty of underclasses is caused by the policies of a certain state etc. A state that respects its minorities does not allow that to happen, and thus underclasses are not forced to commit crimes. It has nothing to do with employers and access to records. We should indeed not discriminate based on one being a member of an underclass; a white man can be judged based on his criminal record, as well as a black man. In the end, I must state that the employer has a huge responsibility and must be able to know everything. Should that ability be taken from him, his role as employer is minimized and the hierarchy of a business is damaged. That is why we should allow employers access to criminal records. Since most of my points and argumentation have been given given during my rebuttal, I shall just shortly repeat it in one argument. Responsibility and role of the employerThe employer has a role to judge job applicants and that is why he must be allowed access to all relevant information. He has a responsibility towards his employees and his business, which is why he must account for every possibility. A judge is not directly responsible for employees and so isn't fully qualified to make a decision. He is also not as skilled in a certain area as the employer. These are but some reasons why employers should be given the chance to make the decision based on all the information. Felons have committed inappropriate acts and yes, they can be judged based on their acts. There is no discrimination in that. It is the same as any other relevant qualification. If one has failed in a task in the past, he will most likely not be given that task again. If one has failed in behaving accordingly, he can be judged, as well as punished. My rebuttal has been given, back to my opponent.