In the event offenders attempt to re-enter the community after serving their jail terms, they face numerous challenges, especially with regards to finding meaningful employment. The ability to gain meaningful employment is hard enough for qualified individuals without any criminal records, which makes it harder for ex-convicts to even be considered for employment. As an employer that is willing to employ an ex-convict, it is important to understand some of the many challenges that potential employee may face since the same influences their performance at work. Upon establishing those challenges an employer is at a better position of providing an enabling environment for an ex-convict to work productively, thus making their re-entry into the community possible, as well as easy. Re-entry into the community with regards to gaining meaningful employment is characterized by numerous challenges including housing and the negativity that comes with criminal background checks. The aim of this assignment, therefore, is to address some of the challenges and obstacles offenders face in the event they try to re-enter the community.
Effects of criminal background on offenders’ chances of finding work are numerous and can be detrimental to them. Criminal background checks reduce the chances offenders have of gaining meaningful employment owing to the implications of the same. A criminal background chance shows the possibility of lack of experience since it reveals time spent serving a jail term, which would have been instead spent gaining the experience needed to gain employment (Gideon & Sung, 2010) . A criminal background check also makes employers question the credibility of an offender making such an individual less likely to be employees, thus the limiting effect of a criminal background check on an offender.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the one hand, some of the types of works that offenders may be eligible for include home depot, web development, plumbing, writing, commercial driving, sales, video/film editing, welding, drug abuse counseling among other works. However, certain work positions take into consideration various factors such as the offence one was convicted for, the amount of time served, as well as how well the offender explains their past, an example being the home depot, one of America's largest employers (Gideon & Sung, 2010) . As a result, depending on whether an offender meets the requirements of the employer, their chances of getting employed are most negatively influenced by the fact that they are an ex-convict. On the other hand, there are certain jobs or working positions that are not typically made available for an ex-convict, thus making it difficult for offenders to gain employment in certain areas (Gideon & Sung, 2010) . Some of the things ex-felons cannot do with regards to work include holding public office, work that involves bearing arms such as being in the army or police force, becoming a dietician, work as a tattoo artist, as well as work as a Barber.
Clients have certain bonds with the community that consists of an interactive relationship where that interaction influences the manner in which clients interact with the business. Clients depend on the well-being of the community to have the business facilitate business, thus an interdependent relationship. Fortunately, there are no gang-related issues affecting the performance of the organization with regards to employed ex-felons (Love, Roberts & Klingele, 2013) . There is also no case of a violent offender, who would have had a harder time gaining meaningful employment at the organization. Among the collateral consequences of a conviction as identified by the American Bar Association are denial of government-issued licenses, being ineligible for public services and public programs, as well as the impairment and possible elimination of the civil rights of an individual.
Regarding the issue of renting a house, employers cannot necessarily have much of a say or control since owners are the ones in control of that. Typically, when an individual applies for an apartment, they undergo a background check, where a person is supposed to indicate whether or not they were convicted for a felony in the past. People who have indeed been convicted of a felony in the past are less likely to be considered as rental prospects, which makes the issue of housing an issue among ex-convicts (Gideon & Sung, 2010) . Lack of housing facilities among ex-convicts adds on to the obstacles they have to face, which makes their lives harder. Those landlords who are willing to employ ex-convicts introduce conditions which may not necessarily be favorable to the tenant, such as being in the house before a certain time. In the event such a convict has a shift that occurs past such an hour, then their living arrangement hinders their ability to work and have a gainful re-entry into the community.
Owing to the fact that collateral consequences of criminal conviction are associated with civil state penalties, mandated by statute, I am of the opinion that attaching the same to criminal convictions is unfair and too harsh of a punishment. Convicts are human beings capable of making mistakes that they show remorse for. Similarly, the mere fact that they serve the given jail term to pay for their crimes should be adequate punishment, thus there is no need for attaching collateral consequences to their convictions (Love, Roberts & Klingele, 2013) . Not only is the idea of collateral consequence unfair and too harsh of a punishment, but it may be a show of lack of confidence in the correctional facilities and rehabilitation offered during jail term serving.
As a result, I believe that an offender should not be further penalized upon re-entry into the community. This is because when offenders are serving their jail terms, they undergo rehabilitation, which makes them a better person than who they were when they initially went to prison. I also believe that serving time in prison is enough punishment, thus there is no need to further punish an offender. In addition to that, I believe that the criminal justice system is equipped enough to administer the adequate time required to rehabilitate an offender, thus making the idea of additional punishment irrelevant, harsh and unfair. Ex-convicts should not be punished with regards to gaining meaningful employment since collateral consequences limit their chances at getting employment (Love, Roberts & Klingele, 2013) . However, I also do believe that caution should be taken to ensure that only reformed offenders are employed as their conduct and attitude influence their performance at work. In as much as ex-felons should be given a second chance at becoming contributing members of the community, compromise with regards to the performance of the organization should not be the case. Therefore, if an ex-convict is to be given a chance at employment, they should prove that indeed they have been rehabilitated and that they intend on contributing to the profitability and growth of the organization or business.
Overall, employers should be aware of the challenges that ex-felons face with regards to seeking employment, as well as getting basic facilities such as housing. Employers should be aware of the influence the time ex-felons have spent in jail has on their ability to be productive, thus maximize on their abilities, as well as minimize on their shortcomings. In addition to that, collateral consequences should not be a factor in the event ex-convicts are re-entering the community as they should be given a second chance otherwise additional punishment would be unfair and harsh.
References
Gideon, L., & Sung, H.-E. (2010). Rethinking Corrections: Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration . Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Love, M. C., Roberts, J., & Klingele, C. (2013). Collateral consequences of criminal convictions: Law, policy and practice .
