It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
People who make bad choices probably didnt think through just how much it would affect their lives.. but that's not a landlords problem.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JustAnObservation
People who make bad choices probably didnt think through just how much it would affect their lives.. but that's not a landlords problem.
It isn't.
But if the landlord accepts a white criminal and not a black one (or a Muslim), there's a problem. That's actually what this is about.
To be perfectly honest most of the people who think it's ok to completely discriminate against someone based on a single past mistake, if their lives where combed through we could probably pick out multiple feloby charges
Let them choose to deny people because of their race and let everyone know about it so that their business fails.
Under this theory, a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class.[1] Therefore, the disparate impact theory under Title VII prohibits employers "from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class. A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its application or effect."[2]
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: onequestion
To be perfectly honest most of the people who think it's ok to completely discriminate against someone based on a single past mistake, if their lives where combed through we could probably pick out multiple feloby charges
That is not what this thread is about though.
It's about using a criminal record as an excuse to discriminate against a protected group.
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: JustAnObservation
What crimes are you talking about? Jaywalking? Speeding? Possession of maryjane, which isn't even a crime in many places in the US now?
Because, yes, I still think that once someone has paid their debt to society, they should be free. That's the whole point in crime and punishment. There should not be a life sentence for most of these things. That's why you serve your sentence in jail or on parole.
But I will never agree that if someone commits a crime and does their govt mandated punishment, they should also be forbidden from getting a good job or have a legal place to stay. That's literally creating a 2nd class of citizens, which is something I'll never agree with. If society feels that the initial sentencing isn't long enough, they need to change the laws. But punishing people beyond that society's mandated sentence is just wrong, especially since most "criminals" aren't even violent offenders.
Then again, I believe firmly in rehabilitation over punishment. Hmm... I feel like I'm repeating myself. I don't feel the desire to keep typing the same things so I think I'll just leave it at this (unless I get responses on different aspects of this issue).
originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Edumakated
You have no solution so unless you come up with a solution than stay out of the debate because your creating more a problem,
One that you have no experience with.
You have no idea what's it like to find a job with a record or do anything really.
The debate is whether a landlord can use criminal records to screen tenants and if doing so is racist.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Edumakated
The debate is whether a landlord can use criminal records to screen tenants and if doing so is racist.
No. That is what the OP would like you to believe.
The issue is about landlords using a criminal record as an excuse to discriminate against a protected group.
Yes. It does. That is a fact. However the concern is over landlords who would use that disparity as an excuse to discriminate.
This is going over your head despite pointing out in the actual HUD memo that you linked as your own source that HUD believes using criminal background checks creates a disparate impact.
Selective use of criminal history as a pretext for unequal treatment of individuals based on race, national origin, or other protected characteristics violates the Act.