>

Neck tattoos are a pretty clear sign of poor judgment in general, whether or not that's resulted in criminal activity those usually aren't people you want as renters.
I’m glad that there is an exception for those who have certain convictions for sex offenses and are required to comply with the conditions of being on the sex offender registry. >

Your comment made me think:  Is there a time limit on being on that registry, or are you on for life once you’re on?  
I know a person who got put on it because he essentially got tricked by a girl on tinder who lied about her age, her parents found out about her Tinder, and it became a whole issue (if we’re to believe his story, but who knows).  
Assuming his story is true (which, again, not gunna make a claim on that one way or another), that’s pretty much fucking him for life over something that’s not really his fault necessarily.  
I know that’s not the case for the majority of the people on it, but this is just a thought that crossed my mind with this article+your comment. >

That's the point of the registry.  To keep punishing people forever because society believes that the crime is too heinous to ever forgive (which tbh, it usually is).  My problem with it has always been that not all of the crimes that you can be added to it for are completely unforgivable.  Politicians like to add to it to gain political brownie points with their bloodthirsty base. >

The funny thing about the registry is that in this case, it completely undermines itself. If the idea (in theory) is that these people who committed these types of crimes are so dangerous (yet allowed to be out of prison) that the public has a need/right to know where they live, if these people can’t get a place to live because of their background, and end up being homeless without an address, then nobody really knows where they live so it ends up being a waste of everyone’s time and energy and doesn’t keep anybody safe. >

Why would I want to sell my house to a pedo when my neighbours who have looked out for me (he stopped someone from breaking into my house while I was away) has a 7yr? >

So instead that pedo camps out in a nearby park with no support system to keep from re-offending. >

Where in my comment did I state they shouldn’t have support? I don’t see how them moving into an area by themselves any different from your statement other than the fact they have somewhere to take a victim. >

Oy …it’s because if the person thinks “welp my life is over might as well commit again and go back to prison”. Leave someone with no options then they have nothing to lose >

Yeah, which is why I believe when you get out of certain prisons you should be sent to neighbourhoods run by support services until your back on your feet. Like there’s no point in being oh he’s gotten a nice house and seems to be doing well, that person has no one around them who understands what they have gone through, but with that said I’m a hypocrite who believes some crimes should have the death penalty. >

I would agree on the death penalty if we shifted the weight of evidence needed to do so. Many people plead guilty or are convicted for a variety of reasons that sometimes mean that haven’t committed the crime. The US is BIG on throwing people into prison and makes expensive to defend oneself. >

This is such a misleading headline. The regulations only apply to unincorporated Alameda County. Any units within a city are covered by city law, and two of the 14 cities in Alameda County already ban the box (Oakland and Berkeley). >

I understand the good intention but this sounds like people are going to be judged by their appearance and not by the credit and background check. >

That already happens. Try getting a house with a neck tattoo