Ban-the-box laws have been popular for years and many prevented private employers from asking job candidates about their criminal record during certain stages of the recruitment process. Recent research on the topic seems to suggest that these laws cause more harm than good; resulting in less employment , more discrimination , and more crime among the groups they are intended to help.
Conversely, certificate of rehabilitation or employability policies have recently been found to increase the chance of receiving a job offer by threefold and increase the likelihood of securing a place to live by up to 24 percent. One of the most comprehensive research undertakings seeking to advance second chances is being led by Professor Carrie Pettus-Davis of Florida State University.
Pettus-Davis and her team are studying the effectiveness of current re-entry models compared to a 5-Key Model of reentry. The first of four reports from the research team revealed some of the largest internal and external barriers being faced by individuals reentering communities in Florida, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Texas, such as mental health and housing instability.
In order to ensure that those with a criminal record have the best opportunity at a second chance, individual action from community members is needed. For example, community members can ensure formerly incarcerated individuals are connected to supportive groups and neighborhood networks that can encourage them throughout the reentry process and beyond. Additionally, community members could have the opportunity to provide references for an individual on their work ethic and character as well as seeking to judge each individual person as who they are today and not who they were in their past.
Employers and the business community at large also can play a role in promoting second chances by helping to remove the barriers to employment discussed previously.
A recent survey by the Charles Koch Institute and the Society for Human Resources Management revealed that the quality of hire for workers with a criminal record is the same as those without records. These results led to the creation of the Getting Talent Back to Work initiative, a new toolkit that empowers businesses and HR leaders to learn more about hiring individuals with a criminal record by providing them with the latest research, evidence-based best practices, and industry guidance.
Individual landlords can also lead by example and help foster second chances by removing barriers that prevent those with a criminal record from securing housing. Studies show that more than two-thirds of landlords will not rent to an individual with a criminal record.
Instead of providing an outright denial when someone with a criminal record applies to rent a unit, landlords should consider other positive factors such as an excellent credit or work history, a formal rights restoration or certificate of rehabilitation, and informal reference letters. Many individuals can find themselves released from prison but locked out of work, even after job training programs have been completed, due to occupational licensing.
Occupational licensing reform can help expand opportunities for those with criminal records. Other changes can help people overcome societal barriers or stigma, including expanding expungement and sealing of criminal records , creating a certificate of relief or rehabilitation program , or providing liability limitations for employers or landlords willing to provide second chances. Our justice system must promote accountability for those convicted of breaking the law. Section I provides necessary background information.
Section III provides key points to the courts on how they should implement the newly amended authority. The Second Chance Act of aims to reduce recidivism, rebuild ties between offenders and their families, support evidence-based practices, protect the public, and assist offenders in establishing a self-sustaining life. Congress intended the new authority to be exercised judiciously. Courts, as always, will need to be careful stewards of any resources used under this revised authority.
Additionally, the Act amended 18 U. Given the new statutory provisions, the RTS Working Group identified three principles to structure the guidance provided to the courts:. Building upon these principles and in consultation with a variety of stakeholders, the RTS Working Group developed the following categories of service:. Authorization should also require that the assigned officer has been unable to find free community resources. Emergency services require authorization procedures and payment mechanisms that are quick, efficient and flexible.
See below for examples of emergency services. They may experience such crises regardless of their risk level.
Transitional services are intended to mitigate a broad spectrum of longer-term offender needs and deficits that increase the likelihood of recidivism, other than substance abuse dependency and mental health disorders. By their nature, these needs often require significant intervention and greater expense than emergency services See Appendix B: Interim Project Code Guidance.
Likewise, if the defendant violates the conditions of SCP the court — having previously accepted a guilty plea- may enter a judgment of conviction and re-sentence the defendant to whatever punishment the original offense carried. Given that judgment is not entered and the case dismissed and the defendant discharged upon successful completion, the question arises as to whether the defendant is eligible to expunge or seal a case under SCP and, if so, when. This question is complicated by the fact that a defendant is only eligible once for SCP and, if expunged, such a condition would be unenforceable.
Moreover, the five year permissibility to use SCP as aggravation in a future case suggests that the defendant may not be eligible for Expungement, or at least until such time elapses.
Nor is SCP ever described as Supervision though, like Supervision, there is a finding of guilt, a sentence imposed but no judgment entered. So it would appear SCP may apply for immediate expungement. Yet it is difficult to imagine the legislature had this in mind when it referred to a dismissal in this context, listed as it is among those cases eligible for expungement as a result of a finding of not guilty or where charges are never even brought.
Given this, it is difficult to give clear advice to a practitioner on how to proceed. It may be best to file the petition immediately after dismissal and see how the court rules. And as with TASC probation it may be also advisable to file a Petition to Vacate as soon as the plea is taken, but certainly no later than thirty days after an order of dismissal is entered.
Even if denied, this should in no way preclude bringing it back following the imposition of a two, or possibly a five, year waiting period.
0コメント