February 13, 2007
Morning Roundup: Dude, Where's My Snowpocalypse?
None the less, plenty of local schools are closed outright or opening late. At D.C. public schools all evening activities are nixed in anticipation of icy roads and dangerous conditions.
Felons Could Get a Break in D.C.: The City Council is currently considering legislation limiting prospective employers' ability to look into a candidate's criminal background. The Post says that as many as 3,000 ex-prisoners enter the District's workforce each year, facing serious barriers to employment and even housing. The new law, which has gained support with a majority of Council members as well as Mayor Fenty, would limit what employers can ask about applicants' criminal records. Earlier this year Mayor Anthony Williams vetoed similar legislation in response to business owners' concerns.
Speaking of Jobs: A new audit released by the D.C. Inspector General reports that several hirings that took place in 2005 and 2006 ignored set statutes opening positions to competition and setting qualification standards for all new hires. The report targets the Department of Personnel and the Department of Parks and Recreation, asserting that both bodies abused temporary hiring rules and failed to check if appointees met minimum standards of competency. Anyone else find it ironic that the Department of Personnel had a hard time following employment rules?
Briefly Noted: Foot discovered in landfill isn't human after all. Whew... Capitol Hill residents frustrated with flooding...
This Day in DCist: Last year we lauded the "Beyond" in D.C.'s first Bed, Bath and Beyond. In 2005, we found the "best" place to live in the District, despite all the pesky white people.
Photo by Flickr user davebushe.
|
Any word on why everyone has been kicked off the METRO at Foggy Bottom for a search?
Fenty is the new Marion Barry. I'm pretty liberal, but I understand the need for people to have consequences for their actions. This is how liberals get labeled soft on everything. It doesn't make sense.
This is exactly the shot-in-the-arm that DCPS needs. Imagine gradeschool children being taught by violent criminal sex offenders and ex-gang members. Not only would kids learn the fundamentals of narcotics traffiking from the pros, they'd learn the basic prison discipline needed to maintain a death grip on subordinates. You've got discipline, mathematics, chaos theory, AND sex ed in one package. Kudos on yet another bold initiative from the Council!
but they are talking about AFTER someone's gotten out of jail. I dont know what side i would fall on, on this issue, but I do think that it is difficult for someone to come out of jail and legitimately find a job and earn themselves a living. It shouldnt be that way -- if you want these people to benefit society, rather than take from it, you have to give them the ability to do so. On the other hand, yeah, how do you separate the to-be repeat offenders, and the ones that are honestly just trying to work? who knows.
Fenty is at least 6 arrests, 3 `sabbaticals,' and 2 tax evasion charges away from being the new Marion Barry. There is only 1 Marion `Anwar Amal' Barry! Often imitated but never duplicated.
Fenty is at least 6 arrests, 3 `sabbaticals,' and 2 tax evasion charges away from being the new Marion Barry. There is only 1 Marion `Anwar Amal' Barry! Often imitated but never duplicated.
Because of the high rate of recidivism, I think it is appropriate to understand the history of released offenders. You don't want someone with a history of stealing from their employer working for you, do you? You also don't want a serial wife beater living in an apartment you are renting.
While I do feel that there MUST be opportunities for ex-offenders to bring them back into the fold of society, that must be balanced with the greater good. It's a tough line to walk...restricting opportunities for ex-offenders will probably increase their likelyhood of commiting another crime, but those chances are pretty high anyways. The answer is not making a persons ex-offender status a protected class against discrimination - their choices put them in their own situation, but more must be done to help them along the way. And more must be done to incent business and landlords to help these folks out.
Because of the high rate of recidivism, I think it is appropriate to understand the history of released offenders. You don't want someone with a history of stealing from their employer working for you, do you? You also don't want a serial wife beater living in an apartment you are renting.
While I do feel that there MUST be opportunities for ex-offenders to bring them back into the fold of society, that must be balanced with the greater good. It's a tough line to walk...restricting opportunities for ex-offenders will probably increase their likelihood of committing another crime, but those chances are pretty high anyways. The answer is not making a person’s ex-offender status a protected class against discrimination - their choices put them in their own situation, but more must be done to help them along the way. And more must be done to incent business and landlords to help these folks out.
Oh, Shelly! I'd forgotten about Anwar Amal. I don't know why that cracks me up.
The most stunning part of this legislation is the housing aspect. Under this, you could not refuse to rent to felons. That means you are forced by law to expose all your other tenants to violent felons. You know, rapists, murderers, people that have had a history of twenty years of terrorizing their neighbors in other apartment buildings.
Apparently the ONLY exception is for child sex molesters.
That's all well and good, except by law now landlords are going to be exposing their other tenants to every thug in town.
And the best part? Under DC privacy laws you can't even tell your tenants that the person you are now by law required to rent to next door to them is a violent criminal. You just have to wait for them to get raped, their apartment broken into repeatedly, etc.
Stunningly stupid legislation.
This idiotic law will be repealed. Unfortunately, it will only be after the city is sued repeatedly because the felons they are protecting have violently raped and killed people in the apartment buildings that landlords are forced to rent to them.
Of course, that'll be little consolation to the victims.
And it's not just the super violent stuff. Who wants to live in the same building as a petty criminal, one with a mile long history of stealing everything he can touch?
Again, stunningly stupid legislation.
geesh let's just never let felons out of prison at all. or maybe we can exile them? or have an ex-con reservation somewhere out west, surrounded by barb wire fences?
there are plenty of problems with the criminal justice system but what exactly do you propose somewhat does when he or she gets out of prison?
why not just send them all to VA? i hear they have a way of getting rid of felon...
why not just send them to VA? i hear they have a way of getting rid of felons... for good.
Jeff, if you're so keen on felons rights how about if you let a few move into your building? Or maybe your sister's building? Or your grandmother's?
I recognize the need to try to help ex cons that are truly on the mend, but the reality is that most are not, and most are still violent. And this legislation is forcing landlords to expose themselves to massive liabilities and forcing other DC residents to give up their basic security in their own homes.
Of course, it's easy for the DC Council to single out landlords to bear this burden, as they have always traded in class warfare rhetoric demonizing landlords. So in that sense it's a win for them. But what they forget is that very real DC residents live in apartment buildings that will be hurt by this.
I wonder. Does it apply to roommates? If you have a group house, does this mean you must allow convicted felons to rent a room?
most are still violent? where'd you read that, convenient theories for you, weekly?
I think some of us are forgetting that DC residents have no right to know whether that new guy in the mailroom handling your correspondence is a convicted felon who ran an identity theft ring, in the same way you have no right to defend yourself in your home, except with a frying pan. So what if the new hire you're working late on a project with is a convicted rapist or cannibal who got off on a technicality? Isn't it more important to create a nurturing environment that accepts people's differences, and urges them to be a productive member of the community? Like using your organs and head in a stew he keeps in his refrigerator?
Fortunately those difficult decisions have been made by people other than you. You can go back to worrying about when Trader Joes will open in your neighborhood.
I support convicted felons by electing 'em.
Off topic: What is it with the Rorschach Theater that they use these disturbing photos in all their ads? This one isn't quite as bad as the choking one, but it's still awfully jarring each time I open this page. Is he falling? Was he just shot? Is he watching game seven? Tell me!
I've got to mirror what xaosDC and Jeff are saying. What then are we supposed to do with people who have served their time? How does isolating someone even more from society help things? We can't just lock everyone away forever. I'm so tired of the whole liberals are soft on crime act. We are locking more and more people away each year and we continue to pass one mandatory sentencing law after another. Is it making us any safer? I agree that for the most part, information about a person's criminal past should be accessible to the public, but I also support felon voting rights, job training programs,halfway houses, etc. Who cares about being tough, why can't we just be practical?
Reid, those ads disturb me too.
Anyway, to go this extreme route, you at least have to leave a ladder out of the spiral so that people who do not recommit are taken care of. If I remember correctly, the standard government background check limits questions to within the last 7 years. A time limit makes it so that people who don't recommit can eventually have an effectively clean record. Buildings that care about such things will ask, but many won't. This just specifies what they are permitted to ask. Employment to me is a much stickier issue, and should depend on the nature of the job, ideally.
According to stats at csom.org, violent sex offenders (rapists and child molesters) have around a 30 percent recidivism rate over 10 years. Not "most" by any means, but try using those stats to comfort rape victims.
Ack. I lost my response for including a URL backing up my argument. There are statistics available at the DOJ's website, try google for "Criminal Offenders Statistics".
@ Hillman : I assume there are plenty of ex-felons in my neighborhood, and it is fine with me. Recidivism is high (see the stats) but the way to fight recidivism is to enable felons to have a semi-normal life. I don't live in fear of my own neighbors, even if a few of them (gasp) spent time locked up. The odds are pretty good that they did something stupid and drug-related at a young age, and the only way to help them not be trapped in an endless cycle of more crime is to allow them to have a place to live, and a job to support themselves. The Post article has anecdotal evidence of this.
I guess it is a debate about priorities (the halfway house arguments are also tied up in this). The DOJ says "Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide." So should we have draconian laws against all felons to make it harder for them to re-enter society? Is the chance of rehabilitating ex-cons too high of a risk to public safety? I dunno. But I am willing to give people a second chance after they have done their time.
Reid, those ads disturb me too.
Really? The guy kind of looks like Steve-O after some sort of bizarro genital mutilation stunt IMHO; mildly disturbing, but easy to ignore.
Jeff: There's a big difference between thugs "in your neighborhood" and living in your building. Especially in DC so many of our apartment buildings have fairly pathetic security once you get past the front door of the building (especially so many of our converted row houses) So you'd be fine with a repeat mugger moving into the apartment next to your mom? Or your sister being forced to live with a convicted rapist in a group house?
And let's not forget that recidivism rates generally measure only those convicted again. In DC our stunningly inefficient police force don't even bother to investigate things like simple muggings, theft from your apartment, stalkings, etc.
Jeff: I think you have too rosy a picture of convicted felons. Sure, some were convicted of a minor drug offense. But a lot in DC are career criminals, with dozens of criminal acts to their credit.
That guy is Cesar, a very nice boy. He looks nothing like that in his non-acting life, and in fact, was so pleased his face was on the front of dcist.com, he posted a myspace bulletin about it yesterday. I don't know what the deal is with the troupe, but cesar is nice. the picture is scary, for sure, though.
Hillman-
There's a name what what you're proposing. Argument Et Extremis. It's just as much bullshit as any other red herring of rhetorical style, and more objectionable because you're doing it so blatantly.
Is "Or your sister being forced to live with a convicted rapist in a group house?" the new "when did you stop beating your wife?" They're both just as unworthy of a response. Please play again.
I'm not going to bother addressing you in any substantive way, because you haven't put forth anything of substance yourself, but I'm not going to let that go by without calling you out on it. I guess I can refer you to the sections of the constitution dealing with things like due process, double jeopardy, cruel and unusual punishment, and corruption of blood.
It's a stupid bill. Folks on the Council are presumptively for it, but that's because they haven't been told the full implications of the bill. I wouldn't bet any money on this bill coming out of committee any time in the near future. The issue of felons finding jobs and residences is indeed a big issuer for a city with such a large number of released convicts. But this bill goes way too far in trying to accomodate released convicts at the expense of the general public's right to discriminate against employing and housing such individuals. What non sequitors like double jeopardy, due process or the Eight Amendment have anything to do with this is totally beyond me. But rest assured, the business and landlord groups will never allow this bill to pass, no matter how many Council members tell the Post they support the bill or its concept.
Both scenarios I presented are logical and foreseeable outcomes of the proposed legislation. As such they are quite logit questions.
They are quite different from 'when did you stop beating your wife?'. That is a trick question. My questions are difficult to answer, but that doesn't lessen their legitimacy.
I've actually read the proposed legislation language, and there's absolutely nothing to stop either of those two scenarios. The only stipulations are that the proposed renter not have victimized children or the elderly, or not have been convicted of destroying real property within the past two years.
In other words, he could rape or mug anyone that's not a child or elderly a dozen times over and you'd still have to rent to him. He could steal from every single tenant in his last apartment building and you'd still have to rent to him.
Some DC criminals have literally dozens of crimes on their record. These aren't sweet young kids that got caught with a bit of dope. They are career thugs, waiting for their next crime opportunity.
And I guarantee you he'd sue for invasion of privacy if you notified other tenants of his record.
So, by definition you are setting up a scenario for violence and harm to other tenants.
There is no constitutional right to housing after you've been convicted of refusing to live by societal rules - i.e., not mugging your neighbors, especially when such provision directly puts others at unacceptable risk.
One thing I do support, however, is voting rights for felons. That is an easy fix, and doesn't endanger anyone's safety directly.
As for your 'corruption of blood' reference, I don't really know what the reference is to.
I'm with Cranky. I don't see the business community standing idly by and letting this legislation pass, leaving themselves open to lawsuits based on hiring convicted felons. In the event that it does pass, they've got pockets enough to take it to court to block implementation.
The distinction seems to be between discrimination based on things you have no control over (race, gender, sexual preference, handicapped status, age) and those you do (a conscious decision to commit a crime). The former's illegal, but the latter, I don't know. Society should be obligated to offer every opportunity for an offender to reform his or her life. But this legislation seems to put the felon's right to privacy above the public's right to know who they're stuck in an apartment/workplace with.
I think I hear the K Street legal crowd logging billable hours as we speak.
Monkey:
You raise an interesting point. In a way, adding 'felony status' to the list of protected classes like race, sex, etc., cheapens all the others.
If I were, say, handicapped, and someone told me that someone was claiming the same rights I have based on the fact that he robbed a liquor store I think I'd be a bit steamed over that.
"There is no constitutional right to housing after you've been convicted of refusing to live by societal rules - i.e., not mugging your neighbors, especially when such provision directly puts others at unacceptable risk."
Hooray for Constitutionally mandated homelessness!
"What non sequitors like double jeopardy, due process or the Eight Amendment have anything to do with this is totally beyond me."
I'm sorry, but the last I checked, mandating that people leave jail, and then denying them right to work or to have access to housing seems to be cruel and unusual punishment to me.
"The distinction seems to be between discrimination based on things you have no control over (race, gender, sexual preference, handicapped status, age) and those you do (a conscious decision to commit a crime)"
Which would be a great argument, if it had any relation whatsoever to due process jurisprudence. Rather than focusing on choice or not, the Supreme Court has instead looked to a pattern of discrimination against the class. That's why sexual preference and age are NOT protected classes, along with illegitimacy.
Look, I'm not mandating that you hire Rod from RHOS to work at the CIA. But yea- I'd rather live next to a crack addict than some of you guys, apparently.
Brody: Why is it an individual landlord or employers responsibility to rehabilitate these losers? Some asswipe has a life of crime, then it's my responsibility as a landlord or employer to provide him safe haven and employment? Why isn't that the responsibility of the state? I'm not punishing this loser in a 'cruel and unusual punishment' government action. I'm simply telling him he can't have access to my property so he can terrorize my tenants or employees.
And if committing crimes is a cause for homelessness, then it's well-deserved homelessness.
And you never actually answered my questions.
Brody:
You say you'd rather live next to a crack addict than us.
That's not really the issue at hand. You can theoretically be a crack addict without being a violent threat to your neighbors.
However, if you are a mugger, rapist, thief, etc., by definition you are a danger to others. Whether you are a drug addict is interesting and may or may not be the root cause of your shitty behavior. Incidentally, not all drug addicts are violent. But by definition all thugs are, well, thugs.
And, frankly, that may be your choice, but you don't get to make that choice for others.
And that's exactly what this law does - it makes that choice for everyone. And, better yet, it doesn't even allow for an informed choice, as privacy laws in DC would most probably say a landlord or employer couldn't inform tenants or employees of the very threat that is being forced on them.