Obama thinks criminal background checks are racist

[madoka]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...criminal-background-checks-for/#ixzz2aMf8ATAQ

Attorneys general across the country are fighting back against new Obama administration guidelines on businesses using criminal background checks for job applicants and two federal lawsuits that followed, calling both “a quintessential example of gross federal overreach.”

The nine attorneys general sent the letter Wednesday to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which in April 2012 voted in favor of the new guidelines that warn such checks can discriminate against African-Americans because they being are arrested at a disproportionate rate compared to the rest of the U.S. population.

-------------------------------------

Obama's new guidelines on criminal background checks are symptomatic of why this writer believes liberals are destroying the black community:

http://www.lloydmarcus.com/?p=3607

Black advocates indulging blacks in irresponsible self-destructive behavior serve only to undermine black progress, creating spoiled, entitlement-minded, undisciplined, hopeless, and angry black youths. Do you guys not see the disservice you are doing to your own people? It is the same as bad parenting.

But here is what is truly sad and frustrating: every word in this article is true, and yet, liberals, black and white, will read it and seek to silence, punish, and destroy me. They’ll call me a traitorous sellout, an Uncle Tom, and a self-loathing stupid N-word.

Meanwhile, liberals’ exploitation will further the decline and suffering of black America. Race-hustling ambulance-chasers like Sharpton will continue seeking opportunities to extort a buck and increase their political power. Liberals will continue treating us blacks like inferior idiots, demanding lowered standards and expectations. Lord, help us.

 

[Spungo]

Now that is hilarious. This reminds me of those instances where feminists claimed that the standards for fire fighters and police officers were sexist because women couldn't do them. The standard would be something like carrying a 150 pound person out of a building because that's how much people weigh. Feminists said most women can't carry 150 pounds, so the standard should be lowered. That's awesome until you're the 150 pound person who passed out from smoke inhalation and needs to be carried out, but the responding fire fighters are all too weak to carry you. Gotta die some time, right guys?

 

[Genx87]

What is ironic is Obama could suspend the war on drugs and solve most of the arrest issues within this community.

 

[Doppel]

Shockingly, the title is not actually as absurd as I thought it would be; it is in line with this article.

This policy may backfire. If the business previously had an idea as to how many of its black applicants had criminal histories, but now it cannot confirm either way the law abiding from the non law abiding, it may be less inclined to hire blacks in general, including those who have no criminal history. Essentially, it is limiting relevant information from the employer and thus making their decision process less effective. I should expect a lot of blacks would not benefit from this policy and would be against it. The majority have no criminal record, and cannot as effectively distance themselves from people with one.

Many businesses have a policy requiring degrees in their workers. What if it is deemed to be discriminatory as well, since certain classes of people are less likely to have a degree, and so the business is no longer allowed to consider one's education?

 

[drebo]

Everyone should be treated equal...as long as blacks are given special treatment.

 

[woolfe9998]

Shockingly, the title is not actually as absurd as I thought it would be; it is in line with this article.

This policy may backfire. If the business previously had an idea as to how many of its black applicants had criminal histories, but now it cannot confirm either way the law abiding from the non law abiding, it may be less inclined to hire blacks in general, including those who have no criminal history. Essentially, it is limiting relevant information from the employer and thus making their decision process less effective. I should expect a lot of blacks would not benefit from this policy and would be against it. The majority have no criminal record, and cannot as effectively distance themselves from people with one.

Many businesses have a policy requiring degrees in their workers. What if it is deemed to be discriminatory as well, since certain classes of people are less likely to have a degree, and so the business is no longer allowed to consider one's education?

Point of clarification. This is not a "policy." It is a guideline issued to employers, a suggestion of how to avoid discrimination lawsuits. Background checks are not being disallowed. As for the 2 lawsuits filed by the EEOC itself, I'd rather see more detail about the allegations in those lawsuits than accept Fox's summary of them.

Background checks are messed up right now. The companies doing the background checks cannot be sued for mistakes they make so long as they correct them within 30 days of a request to do so. I have a friend who was provisionally hired but a background check said he was a felon. It was an error but by the time the background check company fixed the error, it was too late as the employer needed to hire someone sooner.

 

[Doppel]

The companies doing the background checks cannot be sued for mistakes they make so long as they correct them within 30 days of a request to do so. I have a friend who was provisionally hired but a background check said he was a felon. It was an error but by the time the background check company fixed the error, it was too late as the employer needed to hire someone sooner.

That would suck. In theory employers would stop using companies that make these mistakes but maybe they don't care enough.

 

[hal2kilo]

The Seattle city cuoncil was proposing to implement this in hiring practices for I think city employees. Maybe for privates hires also.
As much as I simpathize with the intent, I just don't see how you are going to avoid all kinds of liability issues.

It's a non starter.

 

[woolfe9998]

That would suck. In theory employers would stop using companies that make these mistakes but maybe they don't care enough.

The problem is inherent to the system. Employers can only afford to pay x for a background check. The background check companies therefore can only spend y amount of time verifying the accuracy of their findings. They do a high volume without much time devoted to the individual case. If they could be sued for every error they'd be out of business. My friend talked to the company and they told him that mistakes come up frequently and that they have 30 days to fix it. Too bad he had been looking for work in this field for 6 months and this is the first job offer he had after 20 interviews, and that he later had to accept a job which paid $20K less. The economics of the system guaranty a certain number of casualties like my friend.

I'm in a bit of a quandary about these background checks. On the one hand, employers do have a legitimate interest here. On the other, I feel that the entire practice perpetuates more crime by discouraging those previously convinced from entering the work force. The logical compromise seems to be a time limit, i.e. not checking for stuff more than say 10 years old. They could create specific exceptions if a particular crime has special relevance to a particular job or business. For example, for DUI's if the job involves driving.

 

[Incorruptible]

obama is an idiot and has to pander to his base so this doesn't surprise me at all.

 

[soulcougher73]

Is it our fault criminal background checks turn up more blacks than other races? Maybe fix the problem that leads to that instead? A check in and of itself is not racist.

 

[justoh]

Is it our fault criminal background checks turn up more blacks than other races? Maybe fix the problem that leads to that instead? A check in and of itself is not racist.

It's only your fault if the criminal justice system is biased against black people. If not, then this act of remedial injustice (which is apparently just a suggestion?) is appalling.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Our Dear Leader does no wrong. It is only for the good of the country THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.

 

[Jaskalas]

I find myself conflicted. If a person is free from jail / prison, does that mean they are second class citizens? They are not in fact free men to be treated equally?

Seems like crimes have life long punishments, does that constitute cruel and unusual?

 

[spacejamz]

I find myself conflicted. If a person is free from jail / prison, does that mean they are second class citizens? They are not in fact free men to be treated equally?

Seems like crimes have life long punishments, does that constitute cruel and unusual?

So how long should a registered sex offender have to keep registering after they serve their time? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? After that, you wouldn't have any problems with them babysitting your kids, would you?

Would a convicted robber/thief working the register of your business be any different?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Hmmmmm now how does Obama feel about those trying to get a secret or above security clearance or trying to get a job as a secret security agent position?

I could just see the reaction to the President being killed by secret security agent, investigation determines that agent had prior violent crime felony conviction.

 

[justoh]

So how long should a registered sex offender have to keep registering after they serve their time? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? After that, you wouldn't have any problems with them babysitting your kids, would you?

Would a convicted robber/thief working the register of your business be any different?

What about a thief who was convicted of copyright infringement on some petty level? Why couldn't he work the register? You would have nobody work the register, it seems.

 

[spacejamz]

What about a thief who was convicted of copyright infringement on some petty level? Why couldn't he work the register? You would have nobody work the register, it seems.

Are you saying that everyone has been convicted of a copyright infringement?

 

[Jaskalas]

So how long should a registered sex offender have to keep registering after they serve their time? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? After that, you wouldn't have any problems with them babysitting your kids, would you?

Would a convicted robber/thief working the register of your business be any different?

You are saying they are still threats to society. Why are they not in jail or six feet under? The point of our system is to eliminate such threats, not to have everyone walking free but stained by a record which destroys future potential.

If everyone has a record and is caught up in this system, then no one is truly treated equally. That so called virtue of our society would simply be a lie. We already have plenty examples of how anyone on probation has lost their civil liberties.

For example, picture speed limit laws. Very few people follow them. Imagine a crack down which randomly (or selectively) targeted people, put them on probation, and called it a day. Let's say those people may no longer drink, own a gun, or have the right to privacy. That their home may be searched and invaded without due process. That they are second class citizens without rights.

I find that as a society we are ignoring threats and harming innocent or reformed people. That we're weaving a tangled web of complex laws to create second class citizens without fully grasping what the consequences are down the road. Reducing employment chances for people freed from jail is a great way to increase crime. To ruin their lives and not give them a second chance. I have a problem with that.

 

[OutHouse]

Obama is a joke and the worst president ever.

 

[justoh]

Are you saying that everyone has been convicted of a copyright infringement?

Yes. No? What? I'm saying it's pretty easy to be a felon, technically, and that it's more often going to be because of something unrelated to a desired position. Marijuana possession? Copyright infringement? I say that second one half jokingly. But yes, hiring actual thieves for your register isn't prudent. They should either take the concept of a felony more seriously or else the consequences of being a felon less so.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Isn't it kinda checking the references on a work application?

Every work application I have seen asked "Have you been convicted of a felony?" What is the harm with checking to see if they are lying?

 

[spacejamz]

Yes. No? What? I'm saying it's pretty easy to be a felon, technically, and that it's more often going to be because of something unrelated to a desired position. Marijuana possession? Copyright infringement? I say that second one half jokingly. But yes, hiring actual thieves for your register isn't prudent. They should either take the concept of a felony more seriously or else the consequences of being a felon less so.

Not sure why you think it would be easy to convicted of a felony...

 

[Jaepheth]

This is fixing the problem at the wrong end.

Need to find ways of reducing race and class inequality at the arrest/indict/convict stage of the justice system.

 

[justoh]

Not sure why you think it would be easy to convicted of a felony...

So, what, it's okay if you get lucky? I guess you have a point. Nevermind, then.