That Criminal Records Should Be Secret From Employers

Do ex-cons have sufficient opportunity to prevent recidivism? I have said from the start that the use of criminal records creates a culture of poverty and criminality. To support this I talked about the link between certain ethnicities which are locked in that cycle and their statistical correlation to crime. That correlation has been conceded. My opponent gives no reason why that correlation exists. If it isn't the fact that they are systematically denied jobs, then what is it? I would have loved an answer I could respond to. Con says that there are plenty of opportunities for ex-cons. I have spoken about how individuals have a bias against those with a criminal record. Even if that bias is purely rational, as my opponent believes, it still exists. My opponent gives a list of companies who will hire ex-cons. But the decision to hire or not is done by a human individual who is affected by that bias, consciously or not, regardless of the policy of their company. I said this in r3, no response. Con gave a list of companies, but in his other source about the perception of danger from ex-cons there was material that 80% of companies now do background checks to weed out ex-cons. This problem grows worse, that number is up by 16% since '96. How does that affect opportunity? I never said ex-cons were "universally" denied jobs, but that they were systematically denied jobs. In today's economy it takes several months to a year to find a new job. With 80% doing background checks, you have to multiply that number by five for anyone who is an ex-con. They have to go years without the steady income or dignity of a job. That is the loss of opportunity. Cons increasingly obstinate refuse to acknowledge this reality disguises from no-one that being refused from one single job because of this, let alone being told that 80% of companies will refuse you regardless of skills or whether or not you are reformed, is a loss of opportunity that contributes to the social alienation that ex-cons face. That is what drives them back outside of legitimate society and causes them to re-offend, and entrenches the communal poverty which creates more criminals in the future. Is this a legitimate form of discrimination? Whenever someone is deciding something, for any reason, that is called discrimination. The question is whether or not it is legitimate discrimination, and with the social consequences so large the test for whether or not we allow this must be correspondingly high. Con says that any references other forms of illegitimate discrimination is "irrelevant" for reasons he has left unexplained. All I am asking is for my opponent to clarify what he thinks the standard should be for when something is illegitimate discrimination. What is that test? The test Con gave was whether it was relevant to their work. But what aspect of criminality is relevant? Two answers were given. 1: Their prison experience may have left a "mark". No explanation as to what that means and it could mean just about anything. 2: that ex-cons have a statistically higher likelihood of re-offending. In other words, Cons test for whether something is legitimate grounds for discrimination is that that group has a statistical co-relation to committing crime. I challenged that in round 3 by saying that some ethnicities also have that co-relation. Under my opponents test we should allow that form of discrimination, except that he also says we shouldn't. There was no response; Cons test is therefore not strict enough. The test I proposed was that the discriminatory factor must be directly related to the skills needed to do the job. I also showed how criminality was not relevant for that, while CV's were. We had no response. This is therefore an illegitimate form of discrimination. Moreover, in r3 I said how employers can disguise racist hiring policy as being on grounds of criminality. They can't do it for all African-Americans, but they can do it for many and that is a problem. Empowering the employer's choice. How would this information empower choice? In r2 con linked this with danger. I explained how moving the danger around our society doesn't stop it, and that employers should take the same precautions against all employees. Con then dropped this in r3. He conceded that employers "must" aid in reintegration for ex-cons to society, a huge case shift from r2. He said that employers would do this better with access to this info by giving some form of counselling to ex-cons. He gave no explanation of how that mechanism would work or why. I would have loved to be able to respond to that material, but despite two rounds to put it out there it hasn't appeared. Moreover, if employers "must" aid in reintegration, then it is hugely problematic that so many employers are doing these background checks and not hiring ex-cons. So it is unclear how this information could positively empower the choices of their employer. It is also unclear why we would want to empower that choice when employers often make bad choices. In r3 I said that the very existence of anti-discrimination laws concedes that employers make bad choices and cannot be trusted on their own. There are two reasons why that is true here. First, they do not have the resources to know the full story even if it is available to them. Con says that if they don"t examine the full record they would quickly go out of business. That assumes that their competition isn"t doing exactly the same thing. It also assumes that there isn't a large, waiting and willing labour pool ready to take on the job. Moreover, cases can involve mountains of evidence, and judges' decisions routinely run into the hundreds of pages. Whether you have advisors or not, having to go through that information for several dozen applicants is not the best use of a company's time. This is why job interviews last an hour, not the several days needed to hear someone"s full story. Second, I have talked about the unconscious biases and stigmas people associate with a criminal record. That stigma goes far beyond any rational reaction to increased criminality, and my opponents own statistics on perceptions of violence in the work place bare me out on this again. Moreover, that stigma is based on the inflated recidivism rates of a system that is causing that recidivism. Let's break that cycle. So who makes these choices better? I"ve said from the start: Judges. Con says employers know their business best. Across 2 rounds we have not had a single example of this. Con has not been able to come up with a single instance of when the fact of someone's criminal past would affect their job skills in a way that a judge would be incapable of predicating. Nothing for me to respond to. Con has conceded employer's duty "must" be to help reintegration, so this becomes about who best knows how to achieve that reintegration. I am curious as to where the average employer's expertise on criminology comes from. I have said right from the start, and it has been conceded, that Judges have greater expertise and accountability on these matters that employers cannot match. Either employers have a right to protect themselves from danger, or they must be agents of the state for the purpose of reintegration. Which is it, why, and what changed your mind? Either there are the same opportunities for ex-cons, or employers run background checks because they are concerned for their safety. Which is it and why? Either employers always know best and can decide on whatever grounds they like, or they are sometimes irrational requiring intervention from the state. Which is it and why? Either the correlation between poverty and ethnicity is caused by the cycle of criminality in those communities, or they all have access to jobs and it is some other factor that causes that link. Which is it and why?