Just read a thread where a landlord said that his instruction to his tenant screening company was to automatically disqualify anyone with a felony.

HUD has this guideline in public housing. In some cases it was warranted, in others it wasn't.

I believe there are about 15 million felons. The US has more per capita than any other nation according to a news comment, hard to believe that we have more incarcerations than China.

I have rented to felons, but with additional considerations to circumstances.

Most were women, a few men but most of the men encountered simply had different circumstances.

I'd think the war on drugs has not only failed but has ruined innocent lives as well. I'm not pro-drug, I don't condone illegal drug usage but I do recognize the abuse as an illness. Possession of drugs in certain amounts carries varied levels of illegal actions. I'm not sure that mandatory sentences is the right approach nor appropriate in all cases.

The felons I leased to were usually for drug offenses, possession topped the list. Dealing drugs has different levels, having a certain amount may put one in that category even if they weren't selling.

Besides drug activities, there were people who got tagged for activities by association. A girl waiting in a car for her boyfriend where the boyfriend decided to rob a store, movie type stuff, where she claimed she had no idea he was going to do that.

A wife who was given money just to drop off at the bank for a deposit by her husband not knowing funds were tainted by his fraudulent dealings with someone she didn't know.

Here is what I considered: Age at the time of the incident and the time passed. Type of activity, violent activities were not accepted. Time served told me in some cases how severe the incident was viewed, if they were mandatory minimums that says something. Past record since the incident, a clean record, no further legal troubles or arrests. Other factors weighed more heavily as well, credit, job history, income and personal references.

I admit, one consideration with guys was if I thought I could command any situation with that person, I'm not a little guy, how they carried themselves, attitude, communication skills were thoughts. Sometimes, with anyone, you may have to get things done on your own toughness, that's what a judge told me long ago. I'm not talking about having to get physical as much as commanding the situation, laying down the law and enforcing it. With some men, it can come down to who can intimidate who, rather primal isn't it.

Of those selected I can say that I never had any issues with them more over any non-felon, I can't tag a late payment for example to their past history or some incident ten years ago. I never had any eviction problems with this group or intentional damages either.

Anyway, it's a judgment call I'd say, not an automatic no, it's a "depends" situation with me. I don't believe that some 9 year old must suffer for sins of the father and live in some dump because someone got in trouble at 21 ten years ago.

So, do you consider this group, can you look at such issues fairly and take individual situations into account or d you just not go there? If you do, what do you consider?

I'd like to hear what @Jerry W. has to say, since he is charged to put bad guys away, a tough position to be in and thanks to those like him that keep the public safer. He's a landlord too! :)