Criminal behavior
HARSH
Society punishes ex-convicts for life
By Devah Pager and Jeff Manza.
April 11, 2004
America punishes its criminals harshly. Beyond rapidly rising rates of
imprisonment, offenders leave jail or prison only to be subjected to a variety
of continuing restrictions, some lasting for life.
In certain cases these restrictions reflect reasonable concerns. Who, for
example, would argue that convicted child molesters should be allowed to work in
schools or day-care centers?
But many other restrictions on ex-offenders seem aimed more at extending
punishment than serving society. Take the Higher Education Act of 1998, which
bars ex-felons from eligibility for Pell Grants, the largest type of federal
student loans.
How can ex-offenders build better lives for themselves if they are not allowed
to compete for the same kinds of educational opportunities as everyone else?
Many of the legal barriers that extend beyond the completion of a prison
sentence were adopted by Congress or state governments as part of the "war" on
crime and drugs. These include restrictions on occupational licensing that
prevent work in many types of jobs; access to public housing and other types of
social programs aimed at the poorest Americans, and a variety of political
rights (such as the right to vote, to serve on juries and to hold public
office).
The unintended consequence of these policies can be to promote the very
circumstances that led to crime in the first place.
In fact, with a growing majority of states now making a criminal record public
information, ex-offenders are effectively being branded for life. Much of this
information is easily accessible through the Internet or from a number of
private services.
Politicians point to the cases of murderers, terrorists and serial rapists as
the frightening menace that such laws and the profusion of information about
offenders protect us from. Yet such violent offenders account for only a tiny
fraction of the people being released from prison each year. The majority are
non-violent offenders, many convicted for the first time.
Crime policy in recent decades has emphasized harsh punishment over
rehabilitation, and the problems of prisoner re-entry have become increasingly
difficult to ignore.
The sheer number of Americans ending up in prison is staggering.
Last year alone, more than 600,000 Americans were released from prison. More
than 14 million Americans now carry a felony conviction on their records.
The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, 6 to 10 times
higher than that of most European countries. This remarkable number of prisoners
has led to growing bipartisan concerns about how to help former offenders
reintegrate into their communities.
Even "tough on crime" President Bush included in his most recent State of the
Union address a surprising proposal to help ex-inmates. Dubbed the Prisoner
Re-Entry Initiative, Bush proposed to spend $300 million over four years to help
returning inmates find stable jobs and housing.
"If they can't find work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to
commit crime and return to prison," Bush said.
The president is on the right track. Developing a more-successful re-entry
program would benefit prisoners and their families as well as increasing public
safety. Expanding job training and placement assistance, providing help with
transitional housing, and support for counseling services would all help make
reintegration much easier and reduce the impetus to return to crime.
But the president's proposal does not go nearly far enough.
Helping ex-inmates find jobs, reconnect with their families and become full
citizens requires changes in the laws that prevent them from achieving such
goals.
Hundreds of jobs become off-limits to ex-offenders due to bonding or licensure
requirements. In many states, for example, a felony conviction prohibits
barbers, social workers, optometrists and even car sellers from practicing their
trade. Some of the largest sources of stable employment, including the medical
industry and the public sector, impose extensive restrictions on people with
criminal records.
If the goal is to move offenders from criminal activity to legitimate
employment, the proliferation of occupational restrictions serves the wrong
purpose.
Aside from the problems of finding steady work, ex-offenders face serious
challenges in securing stable housing. According to federal housing policies,
all public-housing authorities, Section 8 providers and federally assisted
housing programs are permitted or required to deny housing to people with
criminal convictions.
Private housing isn't much easier. In addition to the problem convicts have
accumulating a down payment or security deposit, many landlords require
references and criminal-history information from prospective tenants.
For custodial parents who are sentenced to prison, loss of parental rights
becomes an increasingly common form of punishment. Two-thirds of incarcerated
women and more than half of incarcerated men are the parents of children younger
than 18. These numbers translate into more than 1.5 million children with a
parent behind bars.
Family reunification upon release is by no means guaranteed. The 1997 Adoption
and Safe Families Act, for example, mandates termination of parental rights for
children who spend 15 months or more in foster care. With average time served
standing at more than 18 months, the threat of permanent family dissolution is
very real. Research has shown foster care to be associated with a high risk of
juvenile delinquency and criminal activity, so our "protective" policies may
themselves be contributing to the next generation of offenders.
Even more alarming, people convicted of public-order offenses, drug crimes and
petty theft are thrown in with the most serious criminals in the growing pool of
ex-prisoners. In some cases the least serious offenders are the worst off.
Special provisions enacted as part of the war on drugs impose restrictions on
drug offenders that apply to no other class of criminals. Certain restrictions
on cash assistance and food stamps, public-housing eligibility and student loans
are targeted at drug offenders.
Finally, millions of ex-offenders are also denied the most basic right of
citizenship in a democratic society: the right to vote. While we expect
ex-offenders to abide by the law, most states prevent those out on probation or
parole from voting, and 14 states prevent some or all ex-offenders from voting
for life. These restrictions are ironic considering that almost all ex-offenders
are citizens, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that no one can be
stripped of citizenship because of a criminal offense.
Given the overwhelming problems that ex-offenders face, it is no surprise that
recidivism rates (that is, the likelihood of committing further crimes) are so
high. The costs for society, both financially and in terms of public safety, are
enormous.
Copyright (c) 2004, Chicago Tribune
|
|
