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

I'd like to begin by thanking Pro for starting this thought-provoking debate, and I expect it to be a good one!Clarifications I am taking the Con position, meaning that I support job applicants being asked about prior criminal convictions. Since Pro is arguing against the current status quo, the majority of the burden falls on her to affirm this change of common business practice. I fully accept the definitions given by Pro. ArgumentsI. Safety of the work environmentAs a business owner, the common health and security of those who work for you is a concern of the utmost importance. You are responsible for their well-being, their pay, and even their health insurance or retirement plans. In essence, their lives depend on you - the one who employs them and provides the job for which they work - and it is up to you to protect them as any proper leader of men and women would. An integral part of protecting not only your business but also those who work for you is making sure that you hire those who are best matched for the duties that the job demands. For instance, if you are applying to become a server at a restaurant you will need to be someone who is responsible with handling money and social enough to adequately serve the customers who come in to eat and have a good time. Using this server example, if a manager unknowingly hires someone who has a record of robbery convictions or identity theft, he puts his entire business at risk. Perhaps the person doesn't report all of his tips, perhaps the person copies a customers credit card information and later buys a new tv using the customers credit card numbers. These potential harms are a reality in this world, and happen pretty often. [1] [2] Such cases could land the business in serious trouble, both financially and legally. The point is that there is a reason why such questions are asked during interviews. The employer is responsible for the livelihood of everyone who works in that business. The business itself is the livelihood of the owner. If anything happened to that business it could harm the lives of many innocent people. This is why employers ask such questions, they are doing it with the best interests of the company in mind. Hiring the wrong person can be the difference between continued success and the business shutting down. II. Reputation of the BusinessAnother key aspect of this debate would be the importance of maintaining a good reputation for the business. In my previous argument I showed the potential harm that could arise if business owners hire people without previously inquiring on their criminal history. In this argument, I wish to express the importance of customer-relations and opinions of the business. There are many websites nowadays dedicated to rating the quality of a certain business. Such sites like yelp.com or angieslist.com depend on the opinions of people who have experienced these businesses first-hand and then report on their personal opinion. So why is this relevant to the argument? The reason this is important is because surely no parent would desire to leave their child at a day care who hires ex-child molesters. Unfortunately, this is the reality that my opponent is arguing for. If my opponent gets their way, businesses like day cares run the risk of hiring such people, whereas if they inquired on the potential-employees criminal record they might have seen that he is a convicted child molester. Perhaps a film-developing company hires an ex-peeping tom and then customers start complaining about personal photos missing. Both of these scenarios pose serious threats to the reputations of the respective businesses. The aim of any decent business owner is to build a successful business. Part of that success would be attributable to the company having a good reputation. Surely no decent person would waste time with a company that has a poor reputation when a better company is within reach. Would you take your date to a restaurant that has reviews saying "there was a cockroach in my soup"? I don't think so. Thus, maintaining a good reputation is imperative of any hopeful business owner, and part of protecting that reputation depends on hiring employees that are well-fitting for the respective job position. I firmly stand against my opponent's position which has the potential of letting child molesters work wherever they please due to no background checks. RebuttalsIII. "everybody deserves a second chance"Not every crime is committed by "foolish people" plus there is no guarantee that they wouldn't do it again. Unless pro can provide some kind of guarantee, this point fails to hold validity. Pro claims that according to NYTimes less than half return to a life of crime. There is no supporting data given for this claim, thus it is nothing more than an unproven claim. Furthermore, it still fails to account for the other share of criminals which do return to lives of crime. Furthermore, there are work opportunities for criminals. [3] [4] My opponent also fails to consider the opportunity for criminals to have their past crimes expunged or sealed. Having a criminal record doesn't automatically mean that you'll never find a job again. IV. "not getting a job can lead to reoffense" Pro provides no sound reason to believe that two-time offenders become that way due to a lack of employment as a sole cause. There could literally be thousands of different reasons why that person chose to commit another crime. While the study might reveal a correlation, correlation does not necessarily prove causation. Furthermore, as I pointed out above, there are work opportunities for criminals. Furthermore, lessening the chance of them getting a job does not leave them with only one option - to commit a crime - that's ridiculous. Pro needs to provide some serious proof before either myself or the audience accept it as a valid one. In my fourth source, it actually covers the issue of juveniles and criminal records. They are the ones who can most easily get their records expunged or sealed. Additionally, most juvenile records don't even show up on adult records. So, not only does only a fraction of them actually have those charges remain on record as adults, but they additionally have a better chance of getting those records expunged or sealed once they do become an adult. There is no reason to assume that just because they are in juvenile detention that they'll never get a job. This is an unproven assumption and nothing more on Pro's part. V. "disregarding applications from criminals is discrimination"False. Discrimination is defined by the Oxford dictionary as: The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. [5]Not desiring to hire someone who poses a greater risk of harming the company is in no way reminiscent of discrimination. It is the owner practicing caution over the business which his/her livelihood and that of their employees depend on. I'll need proof from NYTimes saying otherwise, as I've now shown that discrimination does not involve criminal background checks from potential employers. Furthermore, racial discrimination has no grounds in this debate. This is known as a red herring fallacy [6] and I highly suggest you avoid presenting such logical fallacies as arguments for the remainder of this debate. In Closing, I've provided two key arguments as well as rebuttals for each argument presented by Pro. I now return the floor to Pro. Thank you. Sources [1] http://www.gulfcoastnewstoday.com...[2] http://www.nbcnewyork.com...[3] https://www.ncjrs.gov...[4] http://www.wikihow.com...[5] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[6] http://www.nizkor.org...