Comments on: Bars to business

By: SteveG

SteveG — Thu, 29 May 2008 12:24:44 +0000

Klasko: The program is an attempt to reduce recidivism by giving ex-cons the education and training they need to earn a decent living. The tax break is a legitimate tool the government has to pursue that goal.

You see it as a reward for bad behavior. But the goal is to prevent future bad behavior. If it’s a choice between taxpayers paying to educate offenders so they can become productive citizens (in the form of making up the revenue lost from the businesses that get tax breaks), or taxpayers paying the costs of incarcerating them when they commit another crime, the first option seems clearly much better.

I would hope there is some sort of suitability evaluation in place, though. I think there are some people in prison who would gladly take advantage of a program like this to put their pasts behind them and start a new life, and others who won’t be helped.

By: Sawgunner

Sawgunner — Thu, 29 May 2008 12:11:18 +0000

NJLawyer, there’s a joke brewing with your post:
Three paralegal applicants walk into an attorneys office: one is a paroled excon, one is a thief etc
In Texas a man named Kerry Max Cook was finally exonerated with DNA. After all that time in prison he now works for his former attorneys.
I believe Lynndie England the dog handler torturess at Abu Gharib prison also now works for her former defense lawyers.
Is this a PR stunt or quite common among lawyers?

By: NJLawyer

NJLawyer — Wed, 28 May 2008 21:52:52 +0000

Sawgunner writes: “Obviously, a parolee with sex crime history would not be a candidate to work in a dirty mag store, a strip joint or children’s daycare.”

Not in my office either. I’d rather have a thief!

By: Sawgunner

Sawgunner — Wed, 28 May 2008 18:10:00 +0000

Would I hire an excon? Was he or she involved with Prison Fellowship? What was the offense he/she got sent to Sing-sing for, anyway??
Obviously, a parolee with sex crime history would not be a candidate to work in a dirty mag store, a strip joint or children’s daycare.
I fear would be that the owners of legit businesses would rightly fear liability if the excon lapsed and committed an offense while on the clock or on my firm’s property. Perhaps then the state alone should be held liable for the inmates subsequent offenses?

By: Pauline

Pauline — Wed, 28 May 2008 15:40:59 +0000

Regarding the tax break -
Theoretically, the reduction in tax revenue may be balanced by a lesser need for law enforcement to process these people through the system again, if they are motivated to avoid crime in the future. And the businesses are taking on a certain risk by hiring ex-cons, so I don’t see the financial benefit as wholly out of place.

I understand KLasko’s concern about other citizens wanting tuition and training, however. I know that is available in some places, but it’s been a long time since I’ve been away from the Philadelphia area, so I don’t know what is offered there.

By: Peter L

Peter L — Wed, 28 May 2008 15:39:03 +0000

Klasko (#4) is on to something. It seems our current trend is to reward bad behavior in order to prevent repetition. Our focus should be on preventing the bad behavior in the first place!

By: klasko

klasko — Wed, 28 May 2008 14:59:10 +0000

Can these businesses get the same tax credits for offering law abiding citizens who could also use it the same the tuition and training? This is a reward for bad behavior not affordrd to citizens who don’t commit crimes. Once again, our system proves that crime does pay.

By: StuBob

StuBob — Wed, 28 May 2008 14:52:54 +0000

I don’t think it would be a good idea to hire ex-cons in a doctor’s office, though I certainly have enough of them as patients!

In another business, agreeing with NJL and Pauline’s cautions, I’m all for it. The hiring, that is. As for the policy, I’m generally opposed to using the tax code to encourage government-sanctioned social goals. The purpose of taxation is to generate revenue for the government. “Doing good things” shouldn’t reduce your tax obligation.

By: Pauline

Pauline — Wed, 28 May 2008 14:02:35 +0000

NJLawyer,
I think the mayor meant that the city government would be helping by offering the municipal tax credits (i.e. the city govt collects less revenue), not by hiring the ex-cons directly. (They could do that too, but that’s not the focus of this program.)

I’m not a business owner either, although I have an MBA and thus a theoretical knowledge of what it takes to hire good people and run a business. As NJL says, it would depend on the crime. My impression is that there are a lot of people in prison who are not hardened criminals and whom I would personally not be uncomfortable working in the same office with.

It’s certainly a benefit for society in general for more of these people to have productive jobs instead of feeling barred from normal society and unemployed and probably tempted back into crime. I hope it works out well.

By: NJLawyer

NJLawyer — Wed, 28 May 2008 13:44:05 +0000

Well, this is a hypothetical for me. I think it would depend on the person’s crime. If I didn’t feel physically safe with that person around, I doubt I’d go in for this. I note that the mayor talks about “city government” — which to me means he’s going to have the city take these people on. Your tax dollars at work. Personal safety aside, I wouldn’t object to hiring and training someone, everyone does deserve a second chance, but unless I were to offer tuition to my other employees, I don’t think I would offer it to an ex-con. And I would take the feelings of my other employees into consideration.