That Criminal Records Should Be Secret From Employers

I shall now offer my rebuttal point by point according to the points given by my opponent. The link between past crime and potential future crime and unemployment1. There is a link between crime and unemployment when, for example, a certain ethnic minority has an enormous unemployment rate so they commit crime to survive. Ex-criminals are not ethnic minorities. They are not discriminated. They will have job opporunities, no one denies that, and I do not oppose the idea of them being hired. The only thing I propose is that employers have insight into their record to be able to take all precautions and pass correct when reviewing applications.2. My opponent seems to have misunderstood my round 2 rebuttal, since he asks why am I supportive of ex-criminals getting a job. I must point out I never opposed them getting a job. I never even said they are always dangerous. The point I tried to prove is that the employer's opinion matters most when hiring and that he should be able to give his opinion according to all the available information when hiring. I never said I support companies not caring abou the record. Whether or not a company/employer chooses to hire an ex-criminal is their decision. What we must ensure is that the decision is made upon all the available information.3. My opponent speaks of discrmination and a certain stigma, but he hasn't explained how exactly that is discrimination. Ex-criminals are simply judged by relevant information during the process of getting a job (for example, time served in jail can leave "marks" on peple, and the employer must be able to know that the applicant served time in jail so he can determine whether or not those marks can have an effect on the applicant should he be employed), just as they are judged by their education, past experience etc. There is a difference between being judged by past actions, or being judged because you were born with another skin color. I do not support stigmatization of ex-criminals. My point is only that due care should be taken while reintegrating them into society.4. Past criminal actions do not affect employment skills per se, but they may affect performance in a certain branch more than in another branch; not because of the skills required, but because of the environment etc. We are talking about certain consequences of past actions that could have an effect on ex-criminals, and that is why employers hld have insight into crimina lrecords. The comparison to a CV was made to prove how judging on relevant information is important, while I've already addressed the problem of poverty and crime.5. People are capable of reform, but we can't just take that possibility for granted. Precautions must always be taken, because one single case is enough to endager many lives.6. No one disputes the need for security measures, regardless of whether one employs ex-cons or not. It is the responsibility of every employer to devise and apply security measures for all possible situations; which involves ex-cons as well. Once again, that is a legitimate reason to allow employers insight into criminal records. Perhaps a bad employer would feel complacent, but then again, such an employer would apply no security measures whatsoever. Do employers have a right to protect themselves at society's cost?1. I have already addressed that problem in the first part of my rebuttal. Ex-felons will not get universally rejected just because someone looked into their criminal record. That insight simply allows potential employers to be 100% sure of their decision, and even help ex-felons with reintegration should they be employed.2. The link between high crime rates and the African-Amerin population is a complicated one, but once again, there is a difference between discrimination and judging on relevant information. This debate is about a simple insight into criminal records, not about discrimionation of ethnic minorities.3. My opponent bases his rebuttal on the simple insinuation that employers are careless and won't even look through the full story even if it is given to them. Such employers do not last long and they are not relevant. A good employer will look into the record just as he looks into any other information and think well before deciding. It is in his interest that the company prospers; he does not just sit there, make decisions from the top of his head and collect money. Furthermore, employers also have advisors to help make a decision.4. For the upteenth time, discrimination based on ethnicity, religion and gender is irrelevant to this debate. We are not talking about discrimination here. As for moving on ex-cons, I have already addressed that probm in previous points. Furthermore, I agree that employers must help with reintegration. Do you not agree they would better help an ex-con if they knew what he went through and gave guidance? Many employers would be willing to do that, and since they have a responsibility towards every single employee, they must have information about every single employee. If they do, only then they can help. Finally, I do not see an advantage in not hiring ex-cons, especially when work force is very much appreciated.5. Judges have no connection to future employment. They do not know whether the ex-con will seek employment after jail, or where he will seek it. Such assumptions are too far-fetched and one cannot make decisions based on predictions. An employer, aware of the current situation, is much better suited to making a decision. The problem of rash decisions has already been addressed. On poverty and recidivism1. This has been adressed multiple times during my round 3 rebuttal.2. All true. But unfair employers are unfair towards everyone. Not just ex-felons. Why they are unfair is irrelevant, the point is that when an employer is unfair, he is generally unfair. Thus, this bears no direct connection to the problem.3. The list offered was a list of the most prominent employers. Not of all the employers. I apologise if I had not made that clear enough. The problem of stigmatization has already, I repeat, been addressed during this rebuttal.4. Yes. It can. There is just one little problem: we are not talking about ethnic minorities.5. We are not talking about ethnic minorities and racism. We are talking about ex-cons, and ex-cons in general. Each application should be treated individually. No one is going to say: "Oh look, he's black. He must be a criminal. Let's not hire him. " And whoever does say that would have said it regardless of a criminal record. As for my opponent's conclusion:Of course I do not support decisions based on sexuality, religion etc. , because that information is irrelevant. Criminal records are relevant, as I have already stated. Recidivism isn't only about employment. I have proven during this debate, especially in this rebuttal, that insight into criminal records won't negatively affect recidivism, and that is what my task was to prove in this rebuttal, among others. My task isn't to offer a full solution to recidivism. In conclusion, throughout this rebuttal I have refuted my opponent's arguments and strenghtened my own, while my opponent has, up to now, based his argumentation on insinuations about how employers will be careless and on discrimination of ethnic minorities, which does not have anything to do with this debate at all. I have proved why employers should have insight into criminal records and I have shown how that may even help with reintegratin ex-felons. All this shows why we must allow employers insight into criminal records.