San Francisco Offers A Fair Chance To Convicted Felons

A proposal doing the rounds at City Hall in San Francisco would make it illegal for employers and landlords to discriminate against applicants because they were previously incarcerated. The bill would not cover sex offenders or other perpetrators of some other violent crimes. That would give ex-convicts protection similar to that of African Americans, Latinos, gays, transgender people, pregnant women and the disabled. It would be a bold move from a city already considered more liberal than most. But doesn't it just make sense? As already mentioned, dangerous offenders aren't covered. The people that are left have served their time and paid the price for their crimes. Isn't it only correct that society offers them a fresh start? Supervisor and sheriff candidate Ross Mirkarimi admits that the mechanics of the proposal need to be worked out. He's not wrong. Concerns will center on how to protect landlords if an ex-convict turns out to be not at all rehabilitated and trashes the building. Similar issues could arise for employers. Also, much like other minorities, there will be issues regarding enforcement. Will there be a form of positive discrimination in effect? Will employers have convict quotas to fill? Naturally, San Francisco landlords aren't keen on the idea. They feel that they should have the right to arbitrarily discriminate as they please when it comes to picking tenants. "Trust me - I recognize the concern," said District Attorney and former Police Chief George Gascón. "But if we want to reduce the likelihood of people going back to prison, then we have to provide them with an opportunity to reintegrate themselves." It's a difficult subject because both sides have very good points. It isn't overly liberal to think that minor offenders deserve the chance to be reintegrated into society without prejudice after serving their time. However, it isn't overly conservative to suggest that property owners have a right to let whoever they want rent a room. This is surely a case where common sense has to prevail, and to be fair San Francisco has a good record in that regard. It'll need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. In the meantime, if the bill passes, the rest of the country will be looking on with interest.