On almost every job application there is a question box that some people fear. That box asks if that person has ever been convicted on a felony and, if so, to explain their crime. Obama’s administration joined ‘Ban the Box’. That If a state or local business was to join the movement of banning the box, that means they would have to “eliminate job applications that have people check off whether they have a criminal history, and not asking about it until other qualifications have been reviewed.” (,) Banning the box seems like the perfect solution for former convicts to get back on their feet but it is easier said and done. If the ‘Ban the Box’ movement was instated throughout the country it would not only prolong the hiring process but it could end up hurting job seekers and potential employers. …show more content…
To achieve a goal as complex as banning the box, precautions must be taken. San Francisco has been building their system to help ex-convicts have an equal opportunity for jobs and housing. This city in California decided to instate the ‘San Francisco Fair Chance Ordinance’ and with this ordinance “affordable housing providers need to assess each applicant’s individual background, instead of outright denying an applicant simply because they checked a box saying that they have a record.” (,) This system allows anyone with a prison record to have a fair and equal chance to get back up on their feet. The city of San Francisco is also trying to create the same effect with employment. They are “first city to implement a law that addressed barriers faced by persons with arrest and conviction records in both housing and employment.” (,) This will motivate ex-convicts to reinvent themselves; with the acceptance and equality given from this ordinance, these people will feel comfortable carrying their past with
Without these men getting to work and becoming productive members of society, they are barred from this opportunity and the economy suffers (Appelbaum, 2015). Devah Pager, who conducted the famous study “Mark of a Criminal Recod,” which unveiled apparent discrimination against ex-offenders in the job market, weighed in on the issue: “Prior to the prison boom, when convictions were restricted to a smaller fraction of the population, it wasn’t great for their rehab potential but it wasn’t having a huge impact… Now such a large fraction of the population is affected that is has really significant implication, not just for those people, but for the labor market as a whole (Appelbaum,
"Parole and Re-Entry - Right on Crime." Right on Crime. Texas Public Policy Foundation and Justice Fellowship, n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2014.
Wadley, Jared. "Panel: Ex-felons Should Be Allowed to Vote." January 9, 2012 | The University
One of the more controversial debates in today’s political arena, especially around election times, is that of felon disenfranchisement. The disenfranchisement of felons, or the practice of denying felons and ex-felons the right to vote, has been in practice before the colonization of America and traces back to early England; however, it has not become so controversial and publicized until recent times. “In today’s political system, felons and ex-felons are the only competent adults that are denied the right to vote; the total of those banned to vote is approximately 4.7 million men and women, over two percent of the nation’s population” (Reiman 3).
The “Ban the Box” is a law that took effect on January 1, 2014, and it inhibits companies from asking about a potential employee’s criminal history on the initial applications for employment (Deitchler, Fliegel, Fitzke, & Mora, 2013). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) endorsed this Ban the Box in that its contemplation of criminal history of arrests or convictions in the Title Ⅶ of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Deitchler, Fliegel, Fitzke, & Mora, 2013). It is directly related to employer’s ability to hire those employees with a criminal past to be compliant with the fair employment requirements. Employers have a balancing act to perform because they should be aware of risks related to negligent hiring. In the case of litigation
... 2 -. Copyright 2006 by Northwestern University, School of Law. Hull, Elizabeth. The Disenfranchisement of Ex-Felons.
We live in an overprotective society, where people try to control other people’s lives from things that they find explicit. Many parents believe that by sheltering their kids from offensive things it will keep them safe. But, trying to live life as if there is always sunshine and no rain turns out to be a big disappointment. The banning of books has a negative effect on children and adults alike, as it can shelter children from real life situations, and revokes the rights of the people. Although people believe in banning books that contain vulgar language and profanity to help their children, it can actually hurt the child and can be considered unconstitutional.
Upon release, previously incarceration individuals find themselves subject to what is known as collateral consequences. Societal and policy consequences that extend beyond the criminal justice system and long after incarceration. With consequences touching every aspect of their life from; housing, family composition, education and employment opportunities. As one becomes incarcerated they better understand racial, economic and behavioral-health barriers within yet at the time of parole many do not have an awareness of the negative and disproportionate treatments associated with life post-conviction and incarceration (Pettus-Davis, Epperson and Grier, 2017).
Standards for Hiring People with Criminal Records. 11 Mar 2010. http://www.lac.org/ ‘’Legal Affairs’’ http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_disenfranchisement1104.msp ‘’Locked Out’’ Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. 11 Mar. 2010. http://www.powells.com/biblio/65-9780195149326-0 Prison Segregation and Felon Disenfranchisement.
Living in a world where many prefer to believe what is shown to them, rather than doing some of their own research, can lead to consequences. (Figure 1) Some people believe electronic cigarettes are a safer and healthier alternative to the actual cigarette because of how they are advertised. “Because they [e-cigs] deliver nicotine without burning tobacco, e-cigarettes are purported to be safer and less toxic than conventional cigarettes. Despite these claims, there’s still no real data on the effects of e-cigarettes (positive or negative), yet marketing materials still bill them as a healthy choice” (Worthington emphasis mine). Drug advertisements normally show the beneficial side of
Almost everyone knows the health risks involved with smoking tobacco. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) give habitual smokers the most promising results of tobacco reduction or cessation. There are some that disagree with the use of e-cigarettes however; the benefits are exceptional for those looking to quit this habit. It significantly lowers their health risks related with smoking tobacco and, unlike cigarettes, it does not release any harmful toxic chemical substances. E-cigarettes are also more cost efficient than buying a pack of cigarettes. Although there are some that oppose the use of the economical e-cigarettes, the advantages are greater because
More than 600,000 prisoners are released into the main population of the United States every year. Of that 600,000, 30 percent end up back behind bars within six months of their release, and 70 percent end up returning to jail within three years (Reisig, 409). Upon release, many criminals find that life on the outside is harder on them than it was when they were convicted, sentenced, and locked away. People who know them may become just as prejudiced as the interviewers and landlords who deny them the chance to earn a living or a place to stay. Through the continued use of labels like criminal, thug, crook, and felon, many released offenders feel ostracized and isolated. Their friends and families may turn their backs on them, taking away the few things they have left...
Internet is a powerful tool that allows users to collaborate and interact with others all over the world conveniently and relatively safely. It has allowed education and trade to be accessed easily and quickly, but all these benefits do not come without very taxing costs. This is especially true when dealing with the likes of the Internet. Countries in the European Union and Asia have realized this and have taken action against the threat of net neutrality to protect their citizens, even at the cost of online privacy. Internet censorship is required to protect us from our opinions and vices. Every country should adopt Internet censorship and regulation since it improves society by reducing pornography, racism/prejudice, and online identity theft.
Knafo, Saki. "'Ban The Box' Bill In Minnesota Could Help Ex-Offenders Get Jobs." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 08 May 2013. Web. 16 Dec. 2013.
One of the biggest problems with society today is children and young adults are turning to electronic cigarettes for a source to nicotine. It is understood that some people might think that electronic cigarettes are better for people but here is why they are not. Electronic cigarettes have the same consequences as normal cigarettes with very few differences, such as in electronic cigarettes there is no tobacco and there is no carbon monoxide. Some might not know what is really in electronic cigarettes. Many people don’t know that there are over seven thousand chemicals and cartridges in these devices. Smoking electronic cigarettes has the same effects as normal cigarettes; they as well have been known to cause cancer and other diseases. Here is why electronic cigarettes are just as bad for the human body as