Prospective Job Applicants Should Not Be Asked To Reveal Prior Criminal Convictions

I. Safety of the work environmentPro continues to quote sources such as Forbes or the Guardian without ever presenting the actual article itself as a source. There is no reason for either myself or the audience to accept such claims as anything more than baseless opinions unless Pro provides actual proof of these claims. I can easily say, "According to Forbes, dinosaurs are real." Without providing evidence though, there is no reason to accept this claim as valid. Pro needs to provide the actual articles from which he is getting such data, otherwise, it remains an invalid opinion and nothing more. Furthermore, Pro presented the faulty claim that "people who have committed crimes that can put your life in imminent danger are in jail." What a foolish claim. There are countless examples of people who can put our lives in danger after being freed from jail. To prove my point, take a look at the case of five murderers who were released and then killed again while out in society: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...As anyone can see, Pro's claim is not only false, but also an extremely dangerous one to accept. My opponent then claims that, "If you are arrested for murder or assault, you will stay in prison for a long time - anywhere from 50 years to life!" Once more, just take a look at the article above and see how wrong my opponent is in making such claims. I expect my opponent to apologize for sharing such false information with the audience. II. Reputation of the Business Con fails to understand the point I am making here. It wouldn't take me telling everyone that I am hiring criminals to ruin my business reputation. What if I hired an ex-child molester as an employee at my day care business because I didn't ask him about his history, then, a week later he is busted grabbing the penis of a 4 year old boy. Does Pro really not see how such situations can ruin the reputation of a business? I highly doubt it. Con has also given no reason for us to assume that such a possibility wouldn't happen, there are countless cases of child molesters being released from jail only to commit the same crime again: http://www.norwalkreflector.com...III. "everybody deserves a second chance"Once more Pro presents data that remains unsupported by actual evidence. Furthermore, Pro still hasn't given us any kind of guarantee that these criminals won't commit another crime. Just because they "might not" commit the crime again is no reason nor guarantee that they won't. Pro claims we shouldn't be afraid of the of the "few who do". I strongly disagree. All it takes is one time, just one time, and someone you love or employed could be dead. Just one time is all it takes to steal a customers identity while holding their credit card in hand. My opponent fails to grasp the reality that it just takes one time. The fact that the risk still remains, regardless of how big or little the chance, means exactly that - the risk still remains. Pro also completely dropped my point about criminals getting their records expunged or sealed as a viable option for helping themselves get jobs. IV. "not getting a job can lead to reoffense"Pro draws the focus on the terms "can" and "lead" as some means of proving the validity of this claim. The issue with this reasoning is that I can play the same game. "Not getting a job might not lead to reoffense" see, I just flipped it, and guess what? It's just as valid as my opponent's claim! Why? Because neither side is showing a cause, but rather just a correlation. Both sides are nothing more than possibilities, neither are absolute fact. There is no reason to accept such a claim as the only valid claim here, nor does Pro's claim prove to be any more valid than my own. Furthermore, if the ex-criminal commits another crime to provide for his family, then he has every right to not be hired at places as his own nature proved that he was not yet fully prepared to be a positive contributor to our society. There are countless means for an ex-convict to get a job, as I showed in the previous round, just because some of them fail to do so does not outweigh the fact that others are fully successful in their pursuit of obtaining a job after jail. My opponent is basically arguing that being poor can lead to committing crimes, thus we must hire the poor. Trade "poor" in for "criminals" and this is what my opponent is saying. It's absurd.V. "disregarding applications from criminals is discrimination"Pro fails to understand that just because he claims a news outlet said something doesn't mean they actually did, nor does it mean that such a claim is automatically fact - news outlets can be mistaken. Both myself and the audience need proof of this claim. I've shown the definition of "discrimination" and no-where does it include criminals or anything related to criminals. Pro is literally creating his own definition of "discrimination" and it simply doesn't uphold against the true definition accepted by Oxford which I shared in the previous round. Pro also fails to apologize or recognize that he committed a red herring fallacy with this point in the last round. Additional RebuttalsVI. "This will help America"s problem of massive unemployment."Considering that there are regular Americans with no criminal record in need of jobs, what makes pro think that a business would choose them over someone with no criminal record? Pro continues to share statistics that remain unproven. I have no idea where he is getting the data from, but I can just as easily say 1 in 10 Americans have a criminal history. Without evidence for the claim there is no reason to accept it as valid. Pro claims that this will help America's unemployment rate. What Pro fails to realize is that job demand is exactly that - demand. Without the demand, there is no reason to hire someone. Considering that there are countless Americans which remain without a job - record or not - I see no possible way for criminals to suddenly get hired at places that aren't even hiring non-criminals. Pro expects that this law will just suddenly increase the demands for employees but fails to realize that this isn't how the world works. Pro further states, "a problem plaguing America, because then they aren"t going to be able to find a job, then they can"t provide for themselves, then they go back to their old ways." If they fall back onto their old ways then they deserve to be jailed again. I don't see how this is even debatable. As I've shown previously, there are several opportunities for ex-convicts to find employment with organizations and programs specifically designated to that sole purpose. I gave these links last round, and stand by them since Pro has yet to provide any rebuttal to that point. VII. "It"ll also bring down the prisoner rate while it brings up the employment rate."This entire argument by Pro rests on the faulty premise that getting a job will "very likely lead to reoffense". Pro has utilized this same point in like 3 different arguments. I've already shown the fault with this assumption and until Pro rebuts that there is no reason for me to delve any further into this point as it's already been previously rebutted in my earlier rebuttals this round. In closing, I've rebutted every argument raised by Pro. I've additionally provided further argumentation to the first two points. Pro lacks any and all evidence to support literally every presentation of statistics. Pro also continues to fail at presenting evidence for his claims regarding news outlets. Pro has also dropped a few points which I expanded on earlier pertaining to job opportunities specifically tailored to ex-convicts, as well as the fact that they can have their records expunged/sealed. Pro additionally dropped all point regarding juveniles. As it stands, Pro's case is defeated.I now return the floor to Pro and thank the audience for their patience and time.