A convicted felon reentering society after being released from prison finds him or herself either relying heavily on government-based help, or depending largely on the family to support them until they are able to make it on their own. The end result may either find the offender waiting a number of years before climbing out from under the radar, or barely thriving on the streets. The topic regarding property rights has generated a lot of stress between the parties involved, seemingly impossible to figure out. The issue of housing discrimination has become a heated debate because no one knows whom to support with regard to rights, the individual's interest, or the community's.

Values to an ex-convict differ greatly from the "average" individual because their freedom is quite different from someone who has no criminal background. A former offender values his or her possessions and securities in a different light. A landowner views the debate over property rights and probably shakes their head, because it is all very simple to them. They purchased the lot; they take care of the property, and have to keep up a standard of living for their tenants, so why should they be forced to allow a criminal offender live in their units? The property owner has rights, just as any other human being does. When somebody buys an item, it is their inalienable right to do as they please with it, and generally speaking, nobody can tell them otherwise. If they were forced to consider renting to a person despite the potential renter's criminal background, an area of concern would be for their security. No one wants to feel unprotected, especially in his or her own home. With a known offender around the corner, other families may decide to just leave the area, therefore causing the proprietor to lose profit. Someone convicted of a property crime may be a hazard to other's possessions, and an individual with a personable crime on their record may be a danger to everyone's safety. Clearly, a landowner has many reasons to worry.

However, people trying to get their feet on the ground have their own rights as well. A property owner can't deny a person a living quarter based on a person's skin color, or religious preference, so wouldn't basing an opinion on a criminal background be considered discrimination? The vastly growing population exiting correctional facilities would say that it is, since the community has the burden to help him or her integrate into society as a productive member. They figure the only way to really help them conquer their criminal issues is for the government to step in a bit more often during the housing process. They already have enough trouble with getting a job, obtaining a bank account, and winning the respect back from the public. An ex-convict in many cases already forfeits their right to vote and possess firearms, but everyone should have a place to live.

The two sides are quite extreme, as the values at stake are highly treasured. On the one side, a landowner feels their property rights and individual interest are being compromised. After all, many people believe everyone must look out for himself or herself, so why should they devalue their places of rent for someone who obviously didn't care enough about that right? Just as the landowner feels they are losing their rights, a person with a criminal history fears lie in being discriminated against. A man who commits a minor crime may be trying desperately to get his life on track, but must endure a years-long waiting period before he can be considered to rent, since background checks usually go back a few years. This can't be said for felons, sadly, since a felony will always appear on a check, which results in an immediate denial.

A felony is a permanent punishment to an individual. Whoever obtains one must explain them while trying for a job regardless of the skills needed; housing is only one of the many issues surrounding a felon. However, if one wants to understand why landowners and potential tenants have such an issue with one another, this would be a great place to start.

Some middle ground may be found through government assistance. If a property management or private owner won't accept an application from a criminal offender, then the system must step in, providing dwellings for those who need a place to live and can't seem to find any luck. However, the government is constantly running out of funding, and the only way to pay for a state-run housing project would be to raise taxes, which is almost always declined by the public, since they would rather keep their hard-earned money. In addition, the kind of content a person would have to endure in these kinds of housing projects would be very undesirable and may tempt the ex-con to commit another crime.

Yet another way to compromise would be for landlords to flag certain extreme crimes, like a sexual or violent offense, but look beyond the more minor infractions. They could also consider how long ago the crime occurred, since many individuals have made stupid decisions in their youth that they regret later on. If a man committed a robbery at the age of eighteen, this stigma will be carried with him wherever he goes, and even if he changes his ways, educates himself, and tries to redeem himself with society, this won't necessarily help him in finding employment or shelter.

One thing that can be done is to inform the public how important it is to get offenders off the streets. If they continue to surround themself with poverty, drugs, and violence, then the inevitable is for them to break the law again, landing them back in jail. Correctional facilities are so full that some cells reveal inmates sleeping on the ground instead of a bunk, and many petty criminals are booked into the system only to be released hours later under their own recognizance, with the courts hoping that they may return for their court hearing.

Another idea that may work is for a landlord to be rewarded for giving an ex-con a house in the context of a tax break, or a grant issued by the government, since they are doing the corrections department a favor. This would absolutely motivate someone to reconsider those with a negative background check. Unfortunately, again, this relies on government funding which isn't always there when it is needed.

Today's society isn't unfamiliar with the criminal system, as it is all around and even in plain sight. Offenders have abused their rights as citizens by breaking the law, having no regard for others, and must be punished accordingly. But after they exit the confines of a jail or prison, their punishment is over so, the community should no longer have to reprimand them by limiting their access to certain things that everyone should have. Landowners feel like hapless victims in this situation, but they have abused a right as well, refusing a person in need of shelter and discriminating and stereotyping against them because of a mistake they have made in the past. These two groups both have responsibilities and must come to an accord so that everyone may be appeased.