Is This Legal?

[LinuxRandal]

All valid points, guys. Given that, what is the answer? I still don't want homeless criminals in my neighborhood. Also, there is the issue of "I've paid my debt to society'. Do we want to say that anyone who has a record for whatever will pay for the rest of his life? That hardly seems fair either.

We don't see all the circumstances of all the crimes, so records and debt payment, seem to haunt people. There have been cases on the news of people who were wrongly in prison, that were let out when DNA tests MUCH later proved their innocence, and yet they are STILL convicted felons. You also could have (much rarer, but still happens) cases where someone steals enough stuff, to make it a felony (grand larceny), and will never do it again.

I understand the intent of the law, but the reality could be ridiculous. To lose your property because someone you rented to used it for illegal purposes without your knowledge is ridiculous. I seriously wonder if this has ever been invoked, do you know?

Up the street from me, a late friends kid, lived. He is a TOTAL POS (can't stress enough). He had scammed his mother (she owned the house) on a constant basis. Everything from the toilet needs fixed and that costs $300+, to getting his late fathers vehicle and tools and they get "stolen", to "Mom, I took your car down to Allen's and got the oil changed, for x dollars and it also needed this." (the SHOP I worked at). Drugs were being sold out of the house as well as some other issues. The task forces (couple of different ones I know about) came in, emptied the house, and started the procedure to confiscate it. They hit a hurdle when they found out he (the scumbag) didn't own it. So they did some legal paperwork, which gave his mom 30 days to bring everything up to snuff, or she would lose the house.
She very nearly lost her mind, as well as a ton of money. Her other kids came back to town to help, and contacted the prosecutor and the police and got their help to get things turned around (the other thing police like to see that can slow any procedure against a property)

[Ed62]

Surely there are convicted felons who have straightened their lives out. It's too bad for those people that the stigma follows them, and they have to continue to pay the price.

Think about Michael Vick, a convicted felon. He paid the price for his crime. He's making more money again than most of us could hope to. Should he be allowed to do that? I know the public opinion is split on that. But there's nothing in the law to prohibit it.

Ed

[Uncle Cracker]

I understand the intent of the law, but the reality could be ridiculous. To lose your property because someone you rented to used it for illegal purposes without your knowledge is ridiculous. I seriously wonder if this has ever been invoked, do you know? Are there any lawsuits against the government because of this, or are they actually allowing for mitigating circumstances when it occurs?

Oh, it has definitely been invoked. However, I think for the moment LE is using the legal mechanism to selectively shut down "slum lord" property owners who look the other way regarding how their properties are being used. But it was made clear in the media that the letter of the law would not prevent authorities from coming after any property owner on whose property crimes were being committed. I have no idea about any pending lawsuits, and I'm sure LE would have to consider that possibility prior to infringing on the general populous. But, you know, so many laws are done that same way... pass the law first, and then test it in the courts to see if it's actually enforceable. Seems like a bass-ackwards way to to do it. But you have to admit that it gives landlords cause for concern over the suitability of certain individuals as tenants.

Another way to look at this would be to consider what you might think if you were looking for a care-giver for your kids while you work. You would insist on your right to know the background of the person you hire, right? And yet, everybody has the right to work, just as everybody has the right to a place to live. So, how is being selective about who you rent to any different than being selective about who sits for your kids? It's a question of semantics either way, but you certainly wouldn't want to have to hire anybody that applied for the job, any more than you'd want to have to rent to any tenant who asked.

I also think that the feeling is widely held that people who have demonstrated a willingness to take liberties with the law would be more likely to do the same with your property and your money. Call it a stigma if you will, but it's hard to wash off a stain on your character, even if you have "paid your debt to society". I'm not sayin' it's right (at least not all the time), but it's reality.

[Pappy]

Call it a stigma if you will, but it's hard to wash off a stain on your character, even if you have "paid your debt to society". I'm not sayin' it's right (at least not all the time), but it's reality.

My problem with this is that it not only affects the individual (my eldest) with the conviction, but the wife and step daughter that were not part of his life in those days. Due to a severely torn rotator cuff he can't work any job that requires lifting and, because of a federal drug related conviction for which he did his time, they can't apply for any government assistance including food stamps.

[Uncle Cracker]

My problem with this is that it not only affects the individual (my eldest) with the conviction, but the wife and step daughter that were not part of his life in those days. Due to a severely torn rotator cuff he can't work any job that requires lifting and, because of a federal drug related conviction for which he did his time, they can't apply for any government assistance including food stamps.

I know, Pappy, and I'm not insensitive to the problem. I've got convicted felons in my own family. But you are applying individual logic to what is a systematic problem. There is no fair way to deal with it, so when something has to give, the scales of public opinion are gonna tip away from those with the records. I don't see how that's gonna change. Affirmative action has already biased too many people against the concept of true equality. I don't want to go further into what some might consider a political issue, so I'm gonna take a powder on this one now.

[woodturner]

but to outright deny anything because of any conviction is wrong.

A felony conviction is a big deal, and results in removal of rights that non-felons have, such as the right to bear arms, run for president, and vote. In principle, a convicted felon has committed a major infraction against society and must "pay for it" for the rest of their lives.

For those that may have had misdemeanors improperly escalated to felonies, their is a process in place to have the felony expunged.