The world has a population of nearly 7 billion people, yet 10 million individuals are behind closed doors due to crimes they have committed (Walmsley, 2016). Prison is intended to change the convicted person’s character by giving them a time to reflect their wrongs before being released into the world. Prison is a solution that has been used universally by all modern governments to control and mitigate instances of crime. However, the question of the effectiveness of such services is still being debated due to the increased rates of recidivism. Schnepel (2018) suggest that more than 63% of all inmates released from prison in California end up returning within just three years. This is a textbook case of recidivism, and the high prevalence portrays it as a significant issue for many federal governments.
Alper & Durose (2018) mirror Schnepel (2018) studies by suggesting that five in six prisoners released were rearrested at least once in 9 years. This represents an 83% case of recidivism. Moreover, Alper & Durose (2018) suggest that male and younger released prisoners have an increased tendency to be rearrested when compared to female and older prisoners, accounting for 55% of total recidivism cases. The National Institute of Justice identifies recidivism as a significant aspect when dealing with criminal justice.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
When dealing with recidivism, another term that appears to correlate with it is desistance. Desistance, as defined by the National Institute of Justice, refers to a released prisoner commencing a state of permanent nonoffending. Both terms; recidivism and desistance, are critical when evaluating parole opportunities. Candidates displaying desistance tendencies have increased chances for parole as compared to their colleagues who demonstrate recurrence. Recidivism has been attributed to result from ex-convicts having a difficult time to get their life together after a prison sentence, thus leading to crime to make ends meet.
Criminal records translate into negative employment opportunities. No manager wants to risk a relapse of a crime at his or her organization, due to the severe repercussions it will have when viewed by the public eye. However, the federal law requires that all offenders released from prison should get jobs as these increases opportunities to obtain essential human services such as health care and housing. The tug of war between the federal government and employers on ex-convicts’ jobs is worsened since studies indicate that around 70 million people in the world have criminal records (Emsellem & Rodriguez, 2015). From a private organization point of view, that translates to 70 million people globally permanently out of employment opportunities all due to the insinuated security risk they pose.
Kincaid & Lawrence (2011) suggest that despite the federal regulations, ex-cons still face a hard time when it comes to employment opportunities. For instance, ex-offenders receive minimal wages of about 40% less than a person with no criminal record in a similar situation. This reduction is expected to translate to elevated recidivism rates as prisoners seek to better their lives in unconventional ways. Beitsch (2015) denotes that in the United States alone, there exist over 45,000 laws that restrict people with criminal records, which is antagonistic to what the federal government expects from all released convicts and civilian job employers.
However, some states have identified the potential risks of segregating convicts from employment opportunities and have opted to develop their internal regulations. States such as New Jersey and Hawaii have a statute that bars an employer from inquiring about the criminal history of potential employees. This ban is not only restricted to public employers but also extends to the private firms (Beitsch, 2015). This statute tends to even the playing field for ex-convicts, thus increases employment opportunities and mitigates cases of crime relapse.
At this point, it might seem like its all roses for the offenders. The statute, however, has a catch to it. Some crimes are deemed as “minor offenses,” and thus it will be unfair to subject the offender of such a crime to permanent lack of employment even after serving and proving to desist. However, if the offense is directly related to the job seeking, the offender may be disqualified from the application. A state like North Dakota even goes the extra mile of revoking the professional license if the offense directly impacts on the person’s ability to serve others. This is undoubtedly expected since exposing the inmate to the same situation might bring about ethical issues and credibility of the host institute.
Moreover, the ban that exists in states such as Hawaii does not cover for when the job opportunity involves dealing with vulnerable groups. Many American states require a detailed background screening for applicants to these types of jobs hence an offender will be disqualified. This is due to the associated risks with hiring such a person for these kinds of situations. However, despite the negative relation of jobs and offenders, Waldmeir (2018) suggest that labor shortages in the United States are leading to employers hiring ex-convicts. This kind of personnel provides cheap labor in addition to fulfilling the federal regulations, thereby being lucrative for many US companies.
This relationship is not well defined and has a significant potential to bite the employers later on in the future. Recidivism is a critical criminal associated factor since it forms an integral part of determining parole. Employment opportunities for people with records are still minimal despite the favorable federal regulations. Chances are, however, rising due to companies turning to felons for cheap labor and filling the available shortages. All in all, criminal records are deemed as risky indulgements to local employers; hence getting a job is a tough game of Tetris for offenders despite the state efforts to level the field.
References
Alper, M., Durose, M. R., & Markman, J. (2018). 2018 Update on Prisoner Recidivism: A 9- Year Follow-up Period (2005-2014). Update .
Beitsch, R. (2015). States try to remove barriers for ex-offenders . Retrieved from https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/6/18/states-try- to-remove-barriers-for-ex-offenders
Emsellem, M., & Rodriguez, M. (2015). Advancing a federal fair chance hiring agenda: Local & State reforms pave the way for presidential action . Retrieved from https://www.nelp.org/publication/advancing-a-federal-fair-chance-hiring-agenda/
Kincaid, E., & Lawrence, A. (2011). Ex-offender employment opportunities . Retrieved from https://comm.ncsl.org/productfiles/83136608/ex_offender_employment_report.pdf
Schnepel, K. T. (2017). Good jobs and recidivism. The Economic Journal , 128 (608), 447-469.
Waldmeir, P. (2018, July 03). US companies turn to felons to fill labor shortages . Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/7c41944e-7e3d-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d
Walmsley R. (2016). World prison population list (11th Ed.) . Institute for Criminal Policy Research (ICPR).
