That Criminal Records Should Be Secret From Employers

In the opinion of the con side, this debate was lead around three main points. a) On what grounds do employers have the right to gain insight into records and what will be the effect of that? b) Is giving employers insight into records to be considered discrimination? c) Does such a decision have a negative impact on recidivism? I shall now analyze each of these questions and prove how the con side had managed to offer a better answer. a) On what grounds do employers have the right to gain insight into records and what will be the effect of that? The main clash about this question is the one between pro's point about how employers don't know the whole story and are not suited to making decisions based on the records; and con's point about how employers have direct responsibility for their employees and are best qualified for their area of business and can decide what is best, and can be informed if necessary. In r2, pro attempts to explain how judges are better suited to making that decision to which con replies that it is not judges, but employers who should make the decision. Why is that so? A judge cannot know the impact of the employment of an ex-felon in two different areas while he, himself, is qualified in another area entirely. For that reason, judges today are entrusted with handing out punishments based on the crime committed, but their duty stops there, for a very good reason. When ex-felons are reintegrated into society, they are normal citizens and can be judged by their past acts. Now, the employer is the one who can say: "Yes, I see. You have committed action x, and I believe that will create an effect of y because of z", because he is the one who can determine the effect on a certain area best, having studied that area and specialized in it. The debate continues in r3, with pro speaking about how the link between ex-crimes and skills is dubious, and how precautions must be taken regardless of whether or not one is an ex-felon, to which pro replies that it is nt simply skills we are talking about, but rather effects on other employees, the work environment, productivity etc. Those are very complicated matters, which once again leads to the conclusion that employers should have insight into criminal record As for precautions; yes, con agrees precautions must always be taken, but just as there is a precaution for cerain situations and people, there must also be a precaution for ex-felons, and that precaution can only be applied if employers actually know who they're dealing with. Even if they wish to hire an ex-felon and help with his reintegration, they should have insight to know who exactly they're helping, as con explained in r3. In conclusion, con managed to win in the dispute about this question for a very simple reason; pro failed to explain how exactly judges are more qualified then employers and how can employers fulfill their direct responisibility towards all employs if they are not informed of them as individuals. b) Is giving employers insight into records to be considered discrimination? The dispute about this question was led around the clash between pro's point about how ex-felons are being discriminated, and con's point about how there is a difference between discrimination and realistic judgement. Pro begins this dispute by attempting to explain how ex-felons are systematically denied jobs and made victims of prejudice, to which con replies that prejudice and discrimination are based on unreal factors or irrelevant information, after which this dispute dissolves into a confusing, foggy discussion about ethnic minorities and the crime rate in African-American communities. Throughout the dispute, con manages to consistently prove how criminal records are relevant just like any other information that describes one's acts or attributes or whatever action committed because of those attributes. Discriminating someone because he was born black, which he didn't choose, is downright stupid. But judging someone by something that can be relevant, as shown, after all, by one of con's sources, is not discrimination. As for the whole discussion about minorities and anti-discrimination laws; yes - discrimination is bad. Yes - anti-discrimination laws are good. But the point of this discussion remains irrelevant to the debate, thus that partf the dispute is unimpotant. To conclude, in this dispute, con managed to get the upper hand by being consistent in showing how relevant information differs from irrelevant information, while pro was inconsistent and based his argumentation on irrelevant points, as stated in the paragraph above. c) Does such a decision have a negative impact on recidivism? This was, perhaps, the question most disputed about in this debate. Pro attempted to prove that ex-felons will be denied jobs en masse and will resort to committing crime again, while con attempted to prove that there are many opportunities and they are not to be denied, only reasonably offered. The dispute began when pro explained his position as said in the above paragraph, to which con replied with his position (again, as said in the above paragraph) and a source which proved his statement. This discussion, however, cought fire in r3 when pro attempted to find a fallacy in con's case by stating that con conceded the link between poverty and crime and that con was being inconsistent with his argumentation about opportunity. Con did, indeed, concede the link, in that people that live in poor communities are more likely to commit crime, and nothing more, as has been explicitly stated, and explained that ex-felons will not be members of such a community. It is not the goal of society to deny them opportunities, but one must first be able to analyze the situation before offering an opportunity. One cannot simply say: "Here, take this opportunity because I want to be a really good person. ". Just as in all other situations, there must be an analysis. That does not mean systematical denial. Pro also attempts to attack con in r3 by saying con doesn't offer a solution to recidivism. Con managed to prove there will be no negative impact on recidivism simply because we shall perform analysis; imagine if one is employed without prior analysis and then fired because he was badly affecting the work enviroment. Does that not, by pro's logic, also affect recidivism? Thus, pro hasn't managed to make a breakthrough with his argumentation on recidivism because he didn't show how and why exactly will there be systematical denial except that employers will be ignorant, which con refuted by stating that an ignorant employer is a bad employer, and good employers that wish to progress will not show such ignorance, and as we all know; only good employers can survive in today's world. Con wishes to state it is not his task to offer a solution to recidivism, only to prove there is no negative impact, which he successfully accomplished. After perusing these three questions, it is time to bring this interesting debate to an end. In this debate, you, the voters, should vote con because con had a consistent line of argumentation, constanty expanding his arguments as well as supporting them with sources, whereas pro's arguments were simply based on insinuation and a scenario where employers are really, really bad, which is in no terms a convincing argument, and con made that clear throughout the debate. Pro's arguments never reached a breakthrough and they didn't have the answer to the most important "why" at the end of this debate, while con repeatedly explained his reasoning, while at the same time pointing out that pro failed to do the same.