The Instigator
DeeZeeQuinn
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
shuffledybot
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Employers Using Criminal Records as Background Checks

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
DeeZeeQuinn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,621 times Debate No: 26572
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

DeeZeeQuinn

Con

It is hard enough in today's world to live without having one indiscretion you had at the ripe old age of let's say twenty years follow you and hunt you down. After you've committed your CHUMP crime, a Driving While Impaired, Possession of a Controlled Substance (namely marijuana), Drinking Under Age, and an array of other NON-VIOLENT crimes, you grow up. As a part of the "grown up" experience you consider that you need a job...you begin filling out online applications, you walk into the variety of chains around our country and you apply. The interview does come because you're a healthy looking person, you're clean cut, you've finally grown up. The interview goes well and then you hear, "once we get your back ground check back, I'll give you a call." And all of a sudden that stupid mistake of yours just two years ago is coming back to haunt you, you know it before it happens.

Let's go a bit further, say you're an middle aged adult man or woman, in this economy of cut backs and shut downs, you find yourself without a job. You've worked at the very same job now for well on twenty years so you know that you'll leave it with some consolation, at the very least unemployment. But you also know that unemployment benefits won't pay the bills so you begin to look for work. That Driving While Impaired charge that you got at twenty-two years of age has not crossed your mind in decades, your car insurance is no longer affected by it, it's over. You interview, it goes well and you just know that you got the job because you're qualified, educated, and grown up. The phone rings, it's the company that you interviewed with and wa-la, no job forthcoming, your criminal background check results were in, the D.W.I. HALTS this process.

It is not fair. Anyone that has ever had any criminal trouble, REGARDLESS of what crime it was, the debt to society has been paid IF that individual completed his/her sentence, the majority do. It doesn't matter if it was actual prison time or merely the payment of fines, HIS/HER DEBT HAS BEEN PAID. Granted if the crimes were violent it would certainly lend to a more indepth study of what the person allegely did, but some people really do change and some crimes ARE NOT what they seem. According to Google (my favorite search engine) ONE in FOUR Americans have criminal records (http://nelp.3cdn.net...). Also according to Google, the majority of criminals are one time offenders, and the majority are misdemeanors (http://www.drtomoconnor.com...). It has been determined that a MAJORITY of reformed criminals remain reformed, that this same MAJORITY become productive members of our society. Until that is that dreaded cut back or shut down. IT IS THEN THAT THEY BECOME DEPENDENT ON THE TAX PAYER because companies around the world are turning GOOD PEOPLE with VERY GOOD SKILLS away due to a DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED charge that crept up when the background search was performed. It is downright sad.

It has been determined that AT THE VERY LEAST NINETY-THREE PERCENT of the information sold on the black market today regarding PRIVATE individuals has a tonnage of inaccuracies. It has also been determined that sixty-three percent of the information sold about you and I has been sold by the very states that we live in. Have you ever Googled your name? Have you ever entered your name into any people search engine? Try it, you'll be astonished. I have a very unique name, there are twenty-three individuals of the same name nationwide.

I do NOT support criminal records as adequate records on any individual, because I know that people can change. I know what it was like to be young, and I know the mistakes that I made. I know too that criminal records are a matter of public record, but really, if I share the same name with twenty-three people on this planet, isn't it likely that I may inherit some of their misgivings...it happened, I can prove it.

I think that it is time that WE THE PEOPLE give the systems that are currently in place regarding the often private information about individuals a good revamping. A majority of these systems are antiquated and should be put to rest. We should hold our government accountable for the ACCURATE distribution of information that is PUBLIC RECORD, MAKING THEM CROSS THEIR T's AND DOT THEIR I's.

Any pros you may offer will be refuted.
shuffledybot

Pro

it is for the safety of the community, state, and nation that criminal records are used in background checks. If a pedophile goes to jail for raping a kid, does it seem reasonable that if this person has all of the qualifications to be a teacher, that they should be hired as an elementary school teacher?

If a drug user goes to jail for using prescription drugs, does it seem at all intelligent to let them have a job in a pharmacy?

A person's criminal background should be taken into account when giving them a job.
Debate Round No. 1
DeeZeeQuinn

Con

Based on our former debate, YOU WOULD HAVE TO KNOW THAT I WOULD OBJECT severely to a pedophile DOING ANYTHING BEYOND A PRISON CELL or MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE...DEATH, it would be ludicrous. I am speaking of MISDEMEANOR CHARGES and I was quite clear on that, there isn't a PEDOPHILE SCENARIO that would be considered MISDEMEANOR. And due to my BELIEF in the SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY (a relatively new concept in law that should have been enacted YEARS ago), I daresay that anyone with such a record COULD walk in front of school.

The drug user that has a long criminal record or BACKGROUND of drug abuse and use certainly should not become a pharmacy technician, that too would be ludicrous. A drug abuser is fairly obvious, when quizzed on his/her last ten years it's difficult to insert, "Well I've been in treatment for the last year. I was a drug addict for nine years prior to treatment," which if manually checked is easily determined. Fortunately we can avoid that because as I type this ANY criminal offense would eliminate any sort of attempt to secure that type of employment.

I am speaking of general misdemeanors. Of course I believe that any employer that makes the effort can be aware of an individuals past, but I do not believe that it should be used against that individual nor based solely on anyone's criminal record with all of it's inaccuracies and such. It's simple enough to determine if any individual is skilled to meet the demands of the job, POST that being judged, I believe that a past has an explanation, especially a past that occurred years ago. EMPLOYERS USE TO DO MANUAL BACKGROUND CHECKS, this has taken it's place. However if MANUAL BACKGROUND CHECKS were still performed, one would know quickly if the person would be a desired employee.

The entire principal of our corrections system is rehabilitation, if we accept that an individual has served his/her debt to society by release of whatever sentence he/she received, then why in the world would I want to continue to support him/her once released? I have to believe that rehabilitation works and that most people are good, that most people want to better their lives and because of this one POLICY (not law) a person is stripped of his/her ability to become a productive member of society, thus leaving most no choice but to return to what they may know, CRIME, as well as food stamps and the like.

I personally know a TEACHER whom worked for the same school system for TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS. His release of service came because of CUT BACKS. Back when he got the job the POLICY to use your criminal background as a condition of employment DID NOT exist. He was first laid off, then totally severed from the local school system SIX years ago and due his charge of "Possession of Less Than An One Half of an Ounce of Marijuana" THIRTY TWO YEARS AGO he has NOT been able to find equal and substantial employment since. His unemployment benefits extinguished four years ago, he is a fine teacher, a Deacon of his church, and was a shining star in the profession, but because of NORTH CAROLINA'S POLICY REGARDING CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS he will NEVER work in the profession again, at least not here. He has attempted to expunge the record but HEAR THIS...TO EVERY ONE BUT THE LOCAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THIS CHARGE WILL NEVER BE SEEN AGAIN, BUT to those AGENCIES, it will always be readily available. And you only get to do this ONE TIME in your life, expunge a record.

It is unlikely that ANYONE would offer reference to any background that they may or may not have had, but truth is this, NO ONE CAN CHANGE ANY COMPANY'S POLICY REGARDING THIS ACT, but government can mandate that a criminal history that falls into certain guidelines NOT BE CONSIDERED, pedophiles excluded :) If employers are going to let a criminal background check be the be all in employment, then our welfare lines will get longer and hostility will continue to rein over us.

As far as the safety of our communities, tell me young man, when do you think it would be good time to begin mandating backgrounds on our neighbors, after all a person MUST have a place to live.
shuffledybot

Pro

The topic in question is "Should employers use criminal records in background checks". In the topic you did not specify what kind of criminal record was to be used. Furthermore, to use our previous debate in this is without question an unreasonable source of reasoning, especially when you are losing, but with that being all i will say about the previous debate.

But to go on further, is it practical to let someone who has gotten a DUI or two be a taxi driver? Is it reasonable to let someone with DUI work at a liquor store?
Debate Round No. 2
DeeZeeQuinn

Con

The topic in question IS NOT "Should employers use criminal records in background checks?" There is NO question asked in this debate, I simply wanted to dispute the pros of doing this, as trust me sir they are already doing it! There is no "type" of criminal record, any individual only has one criminal record, or at least that is my discovery in this notion.

That being said, if one has traveled quite a bit, committing crimes along the way, well then there's potentially hundreds of reporting GOVERNED agencies, all of which may or may report to the same investigating company. And it is HIGHLY unlikely that ANY investigating company has accomplished the great task of consolidating anyone's records completely. Like I said if you've traveled only the Federal Bureau of Investigations has access to of ALL OF THAT information, that does not mean that ANY reporting agencies would. The sells of criminal records have increased ten fold over the last decade. It is private sector, totally unregulated, and it is comprised of humans. It is often due to simple human error MANY of these records are NOT adequate, accurate, and most include a COMBINATION of like names, places some criminals have never been. That only happens when consolidation is attempted. A great deal of the mistakes occur prior to the sell along the course of your life. If you got a speeding ticket and the OFFICER misspells your name, YOU HAVE AN ALIAS. These records are not adequate, accurate, nor reliable. But these records are stopping good people from gaining substantial employment to feed their families.

There are many private companies that offer criminal records for a fee, all of which have yet to standardize the related AND relayed information. There are NO two reporting company reports alike, you may get all of a record or simply a portion, IS THAT FAIR? Personally I would hope that the company in which I am attempting to secure employment would use the slacker company of the hundreds that are out here, but alas I cannot choose what company any potential employer may use.

As far as using our previous debate. You began your rebuttal in Round One referencing a topic that we had just debated, there is nothing unreasonable about that. You KNOW how I feel about pedophiles without a doubt based on your take in our last debate. It is NOT unreasonable to surmise that you have not made a valid point, referencing any criminal is NOT establishing valid points. A person whom gets behind the wheel of a vehicle, fails to see that his/her right front headlamp is out BECAME a criminal when an authority became aware of the malfunctioning equipment and cited the driver for it. That one VERY SIMPLE indiscretion can very well prevent that person from becoming a driver of any sort, or further than that a valued employee because all that someone saw at report was a criminal act, not even bothering to read the report. It is that simple and it is happening everyday.

Typically an educated individual would NOT subject his/herself to this type of scrutiny by applying for a position that he or she is OBVIOUSLY unqualified as a DIRECT relation to the position for which he or she applies based on convicted crimes. Of course a thief should not work in retail or financial, nor should a pedophile work in school zones. However and again, people change, the act of rehabilitation is complete once that individual has paid the debt to society back. The individual with the DWI that you referenced SHOULD stand the opportunity of becoming a taxi driver and/or the employee of a liquor store, THEY ARE DOING IT EVERYDAY. Alcoholism is a disease, not every one that drinks has it.

And finally, I no longer wish to debate anything with you. A debate typically exists between two people of relatively the same age, experience, and agenda. I do not believe that you are in any status remotely resembling those characteristics. Concerning your reference to my loosing our previous debate, the voting phase is not complete, and unlike anything that I've relayed to you, that was a very unprofessional manuever, it was not warranted. It is a waste of good air to make reference to an event that is not yet complete. Aside from that, after reviewing those that have voted I consider the sources, all three of you are very young, and I suspect that I may know Muted.

I will complete this debate with you and I ask you then to no longer reflect on my debates as I assure you I will not respond to you on any level.
shuffledybot

Pro

The fact of the matter is, that if I was an employer, or another employee, I wouldn't want someone who has a past history with a problem concerning this job to be around me, its unsafe and unhealthy.

Furthermore, to say that you wish not to debate with me any further has nothing to do with this debate, if you have a personal problem with me you can put it either into the comments section or message me about it. To put something out like that shows a sign of weakness and a comparative lack of competence and intelligence.
Debate Round No. 3
DeeZeeQuinn

Con

The fact is that you are around them everyday. You walk among them and you live among them. Most everyone has some issue or another that they are trying to shake, never judge for you will be judged. You are making a remark about people that is unfounded, do yourself a favor, take a poll, you'll find that a good majority of your network has been charged criminally. There are certain elements in this world that I agree with you that have no place.

I do not wish to debate with you further SIMPLY because I believe that you are too young to have ANY substantial knowledge about anything other than academics, based on what I've read you should excel in any and all endeavors that you pursue. I didn't put it out there like that, I wasn't rude, I simply believe that we are not on equal footing.

This debate was never a question, I wanted to see pros and cons, your pros have not been sufficient.
shuffledybot

Pro

If my pros were not sufficient, then you would keep debating to show me that my arguments are not sufficient, instead you are quitting because you are being outsmarted by a 17 year old.
Debate Round No. 4
DeeZeeQuinn

Con

I have not been outsmarted, this isn't about being outsmarted. You simply given me nothing to work with and I chose to refrain from debating the obvious, there is no better debater here.
shuffledybot

Pro

the fact of the matter is, a good debater can continue to debate whether there opponent is willing or not.

I will conclude with the idea that Criminal records need to be used for the Health, Safety, and Well-being of an entire corporation.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
DeeZeeQuinnshuffledybotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not really debate - giving Con the arguments and conduct. However Con manages to lose her cool and (thus) conduct. She also loses S&G due to random capitalization (which is equivalent to shouting in written debate).
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 4 years ago
Greyparrot
DeeZeeQuinnshuffledybotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Oh comeon, pro just ignored many of Con's arguments. Also counterbomb
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
DeeZeeQuinnshuffledybotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm going to give Pro S/G because Con's random capitalization of words annoyed me. This is a votebomb, and I expect someone to counter me.