Employers Using Criminal Records as Background Checks

The topic in question IS NOT "Should employers use criminal records in background checks?" There is NO question asked in this debate, I simply wanted to dispute the pros of doing this, as trust me sir they are already doing it! There is no "type" of criminal record, any individual only has one criminal record, or at least that is my discovery in this notion. That being said, if one has traveled quite a bit, committing crimes along the way, well then there's potentially hundreds of reporting GOVERNED agencies, all of which may or may report to the same investigating company. And it is HIGHLY unlikely that ANY investigating company has accomplished the great task of consolidating anyone's records completely. Like I said if you've traveled only the Federal Bureau of Investigations has access to of ALL OF THAT information, that does not mean that ANY reporting agencies would. The sells of criminal records have increased ten fold over the last decade. It is private sector, totally unregulated, and it is comprised of humans. It is often due to simple human error MANY of these records are NOT adequate, accurate, and most include a COMBINATION of like names, places some criminals have never been. That only happens when consolidation is attempted. A great deal of the mistakes occur prior to the sell along the course of your life. If you got a speeding ticket and the OFFICER misspells your name, YOU HAVE AN ALIAS. These records are not adequate, accurate, nor reliable. But these records are stopping good people from gaining substantial employment to feed their families. There are many private companies that offer criminal records for a fee, all of which have yet to standardize the related AND relayed information. There are NO two reporting company reports alike, you may get all of a record or simply a portion, IS THAT FAIR? Personally I would hope that the company in which I am attempting to secure employment would use the slacker company of the hundreds that are out here, but alas I cannot choose what company any potential employer may use. As far as using our previous debate. You began your rebuttal in Round One referencing a topic that we had just debated, there is nothing unreasonable about that. You KNOW how I feel about pedophiles without a doubt based on your take in our last debate. It is NOT unreasonable to surmise that you have not made a valid point, referencing any criminal is NOT establishing valid points. A person whom gets behind the wheel of a vehicle, fails to see that his/her right front headlamp is out BECAME a criminal when an authority became aware of the malfunctioning equipment and cited the driver for it. That one VERY SIMPLE indiscretion can very well prevent that person from becoming a driver of any sort, or further than that a valued employee because all that someone saw at report was a criminal act, not even bothering to read the report. It is that simple and it is happening everyday. Typically an educated individual would NOT subject his/herself to this type of scrutiny by applying for a position that he or she is OBVIOUSLY unqualified as a DIRECT relation to the position for which he or she applies based on convicted crimes. Of course a thief should not work in retail or financial, nor should a pedophile work in school zones. However and again, people change, the act of rehabilitation is complete once that individual has paid the debt to society back. The individual with the DWI that you referenced SHOULD stand the opportunity of becoming a taxi driver and/or the employee of a liquor store, THEY ARE DOING IT EVERYDAY. Alcoholism is a disease, not every one that drinks has it. And finally, I no longer wish to debate anything with you. A debate typically exists between two people of relatively the same age, experience, and agenda. I do not believe that you are in any status remotely resembling those characteristics. Concerning your reference to my loosing our previous debate, the voting phase is not complete, and unlike anything that I've relayed to you, that was a very unprofessional manuever, it was not warranted. It is a waste of good air to make reference to an event that is not yet complete. Aside from that, after reviewing those that have voted I consider the sources, all three of you are very young, and I suspect that I may know Muted. I will complete this debate with you and I ask you then to no longer reflect on my debates as I assure you I will not respond to you on any level.