Discrimination against People with Criminal Records - Essay Example

?Introduction With the new age of awareness and increasingly high fears of crime and terrorism, there have been widespread changes all over the worldwhich have resulted in the hardening of laws regulating crime. Today, not only are people wary of crime, but also of the perpetrators behind the crime, which means that people with a crime record are faced with extreme discriminations in a number of instances. These people are considered a socially excluded group, and face challenges when returning to the walk of life, which effectively prevents them to rehabilitate successfully. In the recent years there has been a very high increase in the number of employers requesting for background checks for possible job candidates, an event which is most likely to cause discrimination against anyone with a criminal past. Project Concern: Research shows that almost 58% of the people with a criminal record are liable to re-offend within the first two years of their release from a facility (Home office, 2006), statistics which prove without a doubt the fact that the way our legal system is handling these criminals is not effective enough to stamp out their law-breaking behavior. It also points out the fact that the authorities are not carrying out effective steps to ensure the rehabilitation of these offenders, steps which may well be responsible for increasing the offender’s prospects, and thereby effectively dissociating them from a life of crime. In the united Kingdom, The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, passed in 1974, attempts to ensure that these offenders are given a chance at the successful establishment of a career and family life by allowing the record of their criminal activities and any subsequent convictions to become ‘spent’ or ignored after a certain period. The rehabilitation period is set as a length of time starting from the date of conviction and the act details that with certain exceptions, an ex-offender is not normally obliged to mention their conviction when applying for a job or when obtaining insurance or when involved in criminal or civil proceedings (Rehabilitation of offenders act, 1974)). However, in most circumstances, people with a criminal past are not successful at obtaining employment due to their record, a fact which is actually detrimental to their rehabilitation process, and makes them more liable to seek a means of livelihood doing something which is illegal or prohibited by the law. Ethical Dilemma: In a report published by the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) in 2003, a number of issues have been raised about the post-custody rehabilitation process of offenders. The report puts into light, the following statistics: Almost a third of prisoners lose their housing when they are taken into custody, hence upon release, they do not have a house to go to. There are instances of loss of family contact due to imprisonment Their mental ( effecting confidence, people skills etc.) and physical health deteriorates during incarceration Three quarter of prisoners do not have a job, or any other source of income upon release. Contrary to this, literature on the subject of prisoner rehabilitation is almost constant in the depiction of a stable employment, secure housing and a healthy family life as the key instruments through which a criminal offender can break through the cycle and enter a normal life successfully. Most importantly, a steady source of income is a key factor which is responsible for allowing these individuals to form the basis of a social and responsible livelihood. This brings to light the important question of the criminal offenders being given an honest an equal opportunity of employment upon their release in the United Kingdom, a question that this report aims to tackle. This report presents an account of the discrimination against criminal record holders in the United Kingdom and judges its implications on the person’s chances of future re-offence. The major ethical dilemma that is presented and discussed in this report using the action research methodology is whether it is right or wrong to allow people with criminal records to be provided employment without discrimination and be allowed to work in instances where they pose no chances of being injurious to those in their surroundings. Employment Discrimination against Criminal Record holders: A Cause of concern In the United Kingdom, The Rehabilitation of offenders Act allows people with reasonably small offences to have their sentences ‘spent’ after specified fixed dates from the date of their conviction. However, any employer who asks for a background check can get this information, apart from which people with records are expected to provide any record of a history of offence when applying for a job relating to the provision of training, supervision, care or recreational facilities to children under the age of 18 and the elderly, sick or mentally disabled. The following chart summarizes how the sentences are ‘spent’, allowing the perpetrators to apply for employment etc, without being obliged to mention their criminal record: The following sentences become spent after fixed periods from the date of conviction: Table 1 (Source Law On the Web) Sentence Rehabilitation Period   People aged 18 or over when convicted People aged 17 and under  when convicted Prison sentences of 6 months or less 7 years 3 1/2 years Prison sentences  of more than 6 months to 2 1/2 years 10 years 5 years Borstal (abolished in 1983) 7 years 7 years Detention centres (abolished in 1988) 3 years 3 years Fines probation, compensation, community service, combination action plan, curfew orders, drug treatment and testing, and reparation orders 5 years 2 1/2 years Absolute discharge 6 months 6 months On the other hand, research shows that over 50% of the people under probation alone are unemployed (Metcalfe, Anderson & Rolfe,2001). This research, after extensive surveys and interviews held with offenders after they leave prison have pointed out the following issues as being extremely prevalent and the major cause of this ratio of unemployment of people with a criminal record. Discrimination by the employers who choose to exclude people with even the most minor offences. Problems faced by individuals over revealing a criminal record due to a number of reasons, among which most common is the fact that they will be looked down upon as a result of their record. This raises an important ethical dilemma. Is it right to say that all criminal offenders should be employed without discrimination in positions where they can be of no harm to those around them, thus allowing them a chance to lead a normal productive and crime-free life, and if it is right, are employers today giving them that chance?. To reach a substantial conclusion, this research was carried out using the Action research methodology, which not only aims to contribute to the practical concern of the ethical dilemma in question (in the form of research carried out to further the knowledge about the situation), but also presents solutions after the evaluation, which may help in the resolution of the dilemma. Steare’s Ethical Dilemma’s for an Employer: Self interest vs common good: Self interest : It is safer for the organisation and reputation of the employers if they steer clear of anyone with a criminal record. Common good: If they hire people with a record without discrimination, based soley on their skills, it would help them to move forward and create a lawful and meaningful existence. Truth vs loyalty: Truth: Employees discriminate against giving jobs to people with criminal records Loyalty: These ex offenders need jobs as well and need to get back in to society in order to get away from a life of illegal activities. Short term vs Long term: Short term: Organisations remain discriminative and employee people who are less likely to cause them problems. Long Term: Unemployment for people with criminal records remains high and offenders may carry on with crime due to lack of opportunity elsewhere. Primary Research To understand some of the major concerns that were faced by individuals with a criminal record who were working and or seeking employment, a focus group discussion was carried out on 20th January 2011, which was intended to provide an insight into the experience that people with a criminal record had when looking for employment. 10 people took part in this discussion, all of whom had minor offences on their record which included charges such as being on probation due to driving while intoxicated. Among the 10 participants, 3 had drug related charges, and were the ones with the most repeated offensive records. Employment histories of Participants: The following were the common areas among the people who took part in this discussion: Almost all had been out of work for substantial periods. Some had changed jobs regularly, with the exception of 3 people who had held their current jobs for over 3 years. Responses Regarding ease and level of success in obtaining a job: One participant noted: “They say they want to help you, but then you go to the Jobcentre and there’s so little work to do, almost nothing that you would want to, or that would interest you” (Rich, 31) Similarly, another participant cited the lack of availability of jobs that matched his criteria, saying, “You sometimes get to a point where at the end, you’ll do anything, even if it’s something that you would rather not”. (Fred, 25). Instances of blatant employer discrimination: During the discussion, I as a moderator steered the conversation towards instances of discrimination that the participants may or may not have faced during their search for employment. Several of the participants said that they had been on unsuccessful to obtain a job on a number of occasions due to their criminal record. One participant noted that in one instance, an employer gave the job to another less competent person whom he happened to know, only after he disclosed the fact that he was on probation due to a domestic violence charge. An analysis of the recorded responses produced an outline of the following issues faced by most of the participants when they were searching for work: They were laid off work when their employer found out about their criminal record Had been unable and/or unsuccessful on a number of occasions when the employer filed for a background search. One participant also pointed out that he had a college degree and still had trouble finding work. He said, “I have a degree along with a criminal record and have only been able to find work that is not suitable for someone with my qualifications” (Nathan, 29). Another noted “After not being able to find a job I took it upon myself to start up my own business and now run a successful car hire company” (Matt, 44), indicating clearly while he is successful at his own business, other people thought he could not carry out any sort of work without engaging in unlawful behaviour. Secondary Research The legal protection of people with a criminal record, along with those who have a history of offences, is a major issue in the UK. Here, one in three males is reported to have a criminal record of some sort by the age 30 (Anonymous, 1996). While it is the job of the legal system to apprehend these people, it is also the society’s job to make useful and responsible citizens out of them once they have served their punishment. However that is not the case in most situations. An SEU report published in 2003 states that almost 90% of all criminal record holders are subject to some or all of the following circumstances, in that these people: Are more likely to have grown up in adverse conditions (poverty, abuse, without family) Are more likely to have truanted, been expelled or dropped out of school before 16. Have low or almost no qualifications Have a history of substance of alcohol abuse prior to incarceration. Have inconsistent job records. And subsequently, after release from prison, are faced with extreme discrimination and are therefore at a disadvantage when attempting to re-enter the labor force. From research it is clear that the hardships these people face do not end after they leave prison. The CIPD report on pre – employments says evidence shows that of all things to put an employer off, a criminal offence is the worst. People with a criminal record are unsure about disclosing information when seeking employment. They know from experience that this will jeopardise their chances. They also know that not declaring records about unspent convictions will break the trust of an employer if it is found out at a later date. This is a dilemma that can only be addressed by encouraging disclosure and by fair employment practice. Research from careers at The Guardian shows 20% of employers subsequently refuse to recruit someone as a result of a disclosure and it seems that rather than weeding out potentially dangerous candidates, the disclosure system is being used by some employers to filter out anyone with a prior criminal record. Similarly, according to an employment consultant, 37% of the employers for whom they performed recruitment services required them to conduct a pre-employment screening to separate those applicants who had a prior criminal record of some sort (Arthur, 1997). The fact that this discrimination has a lot of negative effect on the people with the criminal record is another observation which is of importance here. Grier and Thomas (2000) note that the “use of criminal records to screen out applicants in airing process has huge repercussions in the applicant’s job-seeking efforts and can result in the loss of civil liberties and the invasion of privacy”. Proposals for improving the existing situation After the analysis of the Primary and Secondary data, following are some of the steps which can be taken to prevent this dilemma from arising: Helping the offenders to improve their skill level. Allowing them to further their education while serving a sentence, and increasing the quality and subject of the skills provided to them while in custody, a step which will allow them to be suitable for a number of jobs where they can be of no harm to other around them. Make it a concern to improve the offender’s skill set and help them get trained in multiple skills. Creating alliances with strategic employers and then providing specified training to the offenders as a means of providing them with employment support since they will be ensured of a secure source of income upon their release, an act which will be a likely cause of lower levels of re-offending behaviour in most instances. Improving the ease of access that these people have to social and health care services, thereby allowing them to engage help (specifically psychiatric help) if they require it (which in most instances they do). This will allow them to develop self-confidence and will help them in finding employment and retaining it successfully. Since this discrimination is also responsible for a lot of people who have received probations and community services as a sentence being unable to find work, it is suggested that background checks carried out by employers do not provide information about such minor offences. It be made mandatory for employers to hire people based on their skills, and not on their past criminal records, especially in instances where the offense is very small and/or the work entails very little contact with people. Conclusions This paper raises the issue of discriminations against people who have a criminal record and whether it is ethical to disallow them to work in places where they do not pose harm to people in their surroundings. The research has shown that while it is suggested that finding a solid source of income early on upon their release is a crucial part of the ex-offenders rehabilitation process, it does not happen as often in reality. Most employers in the United Kingdom now routinely carry out background checks before offering employment to people and due to this, many suitable ex-offenders are automatically screened out no matter how small or irrelevant their offence is. The Primary research, although limited and on a very small and subjective scale, nonetheless showed that employers discriminated even against those people with a very small offense (Drunk driving incidents for example), thereby suggesting that the situation is much worse for offenders who have serious criminal records. Since the fact remains that a very large number of British people, specifically males, will have a record of some sort of criminal activity in their past, it is extremely important to ensure that such discrimination is discouraged in a widespread manner. Research mentioned in the paper has identified that the inability to find paid work is a primary motive in these ex-offenders to carry out another crime, thereby clearly pressing the importance of ensuring that each and every individual who has a criminal record is treated in a just manner and be allowed to work in the conditions where they can perform well. The report outlines a number of proposals in this regard, which can be seen as effective measurements against this discrimination, when carried out successfully. First and foremost, it is important that the authorities look towards increasing the quality and quantity of training and education that offenders who are incarcerated receive. This would increase the employability of these people who would otherwise be deemed unskilled in a number of situations. Another proposal asks for the authorities to form partnerships with employers thereby assuring these people of secure jobs upon their release, and while the offenders are in custody, the authorities can provide them with adequate training to be perfectly suited for the job they will take on their release. For instances where minor offenders, and/or those who do not serve any sentence but are still discriminated upon, it is suggested that the background checks carried out by employers do not contain the record of offences which carried no sentence, specifically in cases where the offence is not related to the causing of injury or harm to another person. This paper has attempted to present an ethical dilemma in a clear light and has seeked to gain insight into how to solve this dilemma. Every individual, no matter who they are, is entitled to a normal life and some level of prosperity. For people who come from an under-privileged background and get into a life of crime, staying clean and living a lawful life is even harder than ever after they have been subject to a sentence, and the dilemma that has been raised in this paper, is of the utmost importance specifically for these people. The reason a legal system and law and order exists is to not only punish offences, but also prevent offences from occurring, and in this regard, the discrimination that is faced by people with a criminal record is extremely relevant as it not only inhibits these people from becoming important parts of the society, it also pushes them deeper into a life of crime. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that care is taken and that this discrimination is discouraged at every level. References Arthur, A. 1997, ‘How Much Should EmployersKnow?’ Black Enterprise 28(3), 56. Grier, A. and T. Thomas: 2000, ‘Unsuitable to Work with Young People: The Pre-employment Screening of Youth Workers’, Youth & Policy 70, 1–10. Hartfree, Y., Dearden, C., & Pound, E. 2006 . High hopes: Supporting ex-prisoners in their lives after prison. Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No 509. Metcalf, H., Anderson, T.,& Rolfe, H. 2001. Barriers to employment for offenders and ex-offenders. Department for Works and Pensions. Research Report number 155. Pre-employment checks: Resource Summary. CIPD. Retrieved from: http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/recruitmen/general/pre-employment-checks.htm on 10th March 2011. Reducing Re-offending by ex-prisoners, Social Exclusion Unit, 2002, London. Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. 1974. Chapter 53. legislation.gov.uk. Shanahan, A., 2006. Full Disclosure. Guardian.co.uk. Available at: http://careers.guardian.co.uk/criminal-record-disclosure Social Exclusion Unit (2002) Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners, London: ODPM. Read More