Arguments
The primary arguments made by Rep. Rangel and supporters of the bill have been economic: by forcing all federal ex-offenders, including those who only offended once, those convicted of non-violent crimes, and those whose offense may have occurred years or even decades ago) to reveal their status to prospective employers severely limits their job opportunities after release. In many cases, this lack of job stability perpetuates a cycle of poverty and other forms of disenfranchisement, becoming a major contributor to recidivism, which in turn increases demands on the resources of the federal prison system and drives up prison costs. The goal of the legislation would be to reward non-violent felons for good behavior and a demonstrated desire and commitment to rehabilitating themselves by assisting them in re-establishing themselves as full members of their communities. Expunging criminal records would carry other benefits as well, removing or dramatically minimizing obstacles towards obtaining housing, education, and the restoration of voting rights.
Another point raised by Rangel has been that serious problems with the federal justice system, such as mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which he alleges are responsible for sending a disproportionate number of women and minorities to prison, could be combated through his bill by making it easier for offenders to move on after their release, rather than being continually reminded of, and being forced to pay, for their past crimes.
Read more about this topic: Second Chance Act (2009)
Famous quotes containing the word arguments:
“The second [of Zeno’s arguments about motion] is the one called “Achilles.” This is to the effect that the slowest as it runs will never be caught by the quickest. For the pursuer must first reach the point from which the pursued departed, so that the slower must always be some distance in front.”
—Zeno Of Elea (c. 490–430 B.C.)
“When I am convinced of any principle, it is only an idea which strikes more strongly upon me. When I give the preference to one set of arguments above another, I do nothing but decide from my feeling concerning the superiority of their influence.”
—David Hume (1711–1776)
“There is no assurance of the great fact in question [namely, immortality]. All the arguments are mere probabilities, analogies, fancies, whims. We believe, or disbelieve, or are in doubt according to our own make-up—to accidents, to education, to environment. For myself, I do not reach either faith or belief ... that I—the conscious person talking to you—will meet you in the world beyond—you being yourself a conscious person—the same person now reading what I say.”
—Rutherford Birchard Hayes (1822–1893)