Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:06 pm
Time: 8:06 pm
Results for ex-offenders employment
2 results foundAuthor: Subramanian, Ram Title: Relief in Sight? States Rethink the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction, 2009-2014 Summary: As this report makes clear, the legal and life-restricting consequences of having a criminal conviction are many, varied, and often bewildering. They can impact the most fundamental necessities of life - like a job, a place to live, and education - and affect not just the individuals with convictions but also their families. In some jurisdictions, they are onerous and numerous; you have to wonder what their creators thought they would accomplish in terms of enhancing public safety. The breadth and reach of collateral consequences are indeed wide when one considers the range of behaviors that are considered felonies in most states: from possession of drugs found to indicate an "intent to distribute" or stealing $500 worth of goods from a garage to more clearly serious offenses, such as stalking, armed robbery, and home invasion. Yet they are all treated the same in terms of consequences long after sentence completion. No one would argue against banning those convicted of identity theft or fraud from working in a bank, but there are many other kinds of employment opportunities for which they may be suited and should be permitted to pursue. This report documents the efforts in many states to revaluate some of these consequences, while making clear that many of the recently enacted reforms are easily undermined, worked around, or ignored. Even more frequently, the fixes are relatively insignificant or apply to such small group that they don't begin to address the problem. Collateral consequences are, of course, just one piece of the problem. The existing system of proliferating criminal penalties and attendant collateral consequences not only remains in place, it continues to grow - for example, with hundreds of new federal offenses created over the last several years. Too often we criminalize behavior that decades ago would not have been. We add on specific category or penalty enhancements for everything from where a crime was committed to the status of the victim or intended victim. Intent is equated with commission. Too many of our criminal laws are written to respond to behavior that should be dealt with (and would more effectively be dealt with) outside the criminal justice system. And evidence on the impact of public safety is mixed or limited at best. Other laws are written in ways that do not distinguish between truly harmful acts and those that only approximate those acts as exemplified by the overly broad definition of "violent", ensnaring people who may only possess a weapon in commission of an offense, even when it was not used, or never intended to be used. And finally, too often we respond to many members of our communities who are primarily sick, poor, homeless, or unable to care for themselves or their families with the hammer of the criminal justice system. And then we continue to hammer them long after they have satisfied our need for retribution. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2014. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2015 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/states-rethink-collateral-consequences-report-v3.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/states-rethink-collateral-consequences-report-v3.pdf Shelf Number: 134587 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal RecordsEx-Offenders EmploymentEx-Offenders Rights |
Author: Mungan, Murat C. Title: Statistical (and Racial) Discrimination, 'Banning the Box', and Crime Rates Summary: This article presents law enforcement models where employers engage in statistical discrimination, and the visibility of criminal records can be adjusted through policies (such as ban the box campaigns). I show that statistical discrimination leads to an increase in crime rates under plausible conditions. This suggests that societies in which membership to disadvantaged groups is salient (e.g. through greater racial or religious heterogeneity) are, ceteris paribus, likely to have higher crime rates. Attempting to fix the negative impacts of statistical discrimination through policies that reduce the visibility of criminal records increases crime rates further. Moreover, such policies cause a greater negative effect for law abiding members of the disadvantaged group than members of the statistically favored group. Details: Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, 2017. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 17-13: Accessed May 10, 2017 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2940743 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2940743 Shelf Number: 145399 Keywords: Banning the BoxCriminal ConvictionsCriminal RecordsEx-offenders EmploymentRacial Discrimination |