Privacy, Criminal Records and Employment. Should punishment extend beyond what court has already imposed?

Travail de Recherche , 2008 , 18 Pages , Note: Commendation Receiver

Gestion d'entreprise - Sciences de l'information, gestion de l'information

An individual’s entitlement to privacy is considered a pivotal human right that is recognised by United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in many other international and regional treaties. However, notwithstanding that nearly every country in the world recognises a right of privacy explicitly in their Constitution, of all the human rights in the international catalogue, privacy is perhaps the most difficult to circumscribe and define.

Debates surrounding the trade-off between personal privacy and the protection of the wider society are commonplace. This research paper will consider this debate in the specific context of an individuals’ criminal record. It is acknowledged that a criminal record can, officially or unofficially, result in collateral consequences for ex-offenders including the deprivation of opportunities such as public housing, student financial aid, welfare benefits, voting rights, and employment. This is contrary to the aims of organisations such as the ‘National Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders’ that advocate for the rehabilitation of ex-offenders through channels such as recruitment.

Although there is a need for greater study of repeat offences rate, a number of studies have argued that an individual with previous criminal convictions is more likely to repeat and/or commit a crime than an individual with no criminal convictions. In short therefore, this paper examines the subject of an individual’s criminal record in the context of equal employment opportunities with respect to the individual’s right to privacy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

3 PRIVACY, SOCIETY AND CRIME

4 COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCE OF CRIMINAL INVOLVEMENT

5 REPEAT OFFENCES

6 CONCLUSION

7 REFERENCES

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Type Of Criminal Offenses That An Employer Can Use To Reject A Potential Employee Based On State Of Connecticut

Table 2: Result of Schwartz and Skolnick (1962) Experiment

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Percentage of Employers Willing to Hire Ex-Offenders by Characteristics (2001)

Figure 2: Method by Which Employers Check Criminal Backgrounds (2001)

Figure 3: Contact Hazard Rates Through Age 32: Age-18 Offenders and Non-Offenders (2007)

Abstract

An individual’s entitlement to privacy is considered a pivotal human right that is recognised by United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in many other international and regional treaties. However, notwithstanding that nearly every country in the world recognises a right of privacy explicitly in their Constitution, of all the human rights in the international catalogue, privacy is perhaps the most difficult to circumscribe and define. Debates surrounding the trade-off between personal privacy and the protection of the wider society are commonplace. This research paper will consider this debate in the specific context of an individuals’ criminal record. It is acknowledged that a criminal record can, officially or unofficially, result in collateral consequences for ex-offenders including the deprivation of opportunities such as public housing, student financial aid, welfare benefits, voting rights, and employment. This is contrary to the aims of organisations such as the ‘National Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders’ that advocate for the rehabilitation of ex-offenders through channels such as recruitment. Although there is a need for greater study of repeat offences rate, a number of studies have argued that an individual with previous criminal convictions is more likely to repeat and/or commit a crime than an individual with no criminal convictions. In short therefore, this paper examines the subject of an individual’s criminal record in the context of equal employment opportunities with respect to the individual’s right to privacy.

1 INTRODUCTION

A great deal has been written about the notion of privacy, the extent to which it should be protected, the mechanisms used to protect it and when is it to be sacrificed (Privacy and Human Rights International Survey, 2003). Privacy roots deep in history with ancient societies and Holy Scriptures recognise individual’s right to privacy (Privacy International, 2007). In contemporary times, it is perhaps most notably recognised through the development of Article 12 of the 1948 United Nations ‘UN’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights which explicitly states:

"No-one should be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks on his honour or reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interferences or attacks”

Privacy protection has been generally seen as setting the boundaries of how far a society can interfere into a person’s life (Privacy and Human Rights International Survey, 2003). However, the very definition of privacy varies widely according to context and environment. The Calcutt Committee in the United Kingdom ‘UK’ said that,

"Nowhere have we found a wholly satisfactory statutory definition of privacy."

According to Michael (1994) different cultures and individuals have different views on what should be kept private and what can be justly made public. The latter notion is further clarified in the 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 8 which states:

“There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health of morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”

Therefore, privacy can be described as a fundamental human right but not an absolute as it sometimes might be perceived as detrimental to society security and/or to public interest. Warren and Brandeis (1890) argued that it is hard to visualise the situations in which such ideas can be applicable in regards to the privacy of an individual.

This paper explores this argument with respect to the subject of criminal record stipulation by nearly all institutions in order to grant opportunities such as voting, public housing, student financial aid, welfare benefits and employment. A number of studies have shown the demoralising consequences inflicted on individuals with criminal record if they are exposed and how society tends to punish them beyond what the court has already imposed (Holzer et al 2003; Bushway, 2006; DePledge, 2005). A criminal record check is defined as a mechanism through which employers’ access information about the criminal histories of applicants. Such checks are also an alternative indirect manner of gauging employer aversion to applicants with criminal histories (Holzer et al, 2003).

The paper will focus on the impact of the criminal record of ex-offenders with regards to employment. In this paper ex-offenders are referred to individuals with arrest record and/or conviction record. It is the intention of this author to examine whether an individual has the right to keep his or her past arrests and/or convictions private from the scrutiny of any potential employer as long as that individual has already been subjected to the outcome of the court verdict or do employers have the right to access such information. The discussion will draw on literature, cases and statistic.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

UK National Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders ‘NACRO’ reported that some 30% of men have a criminal conviction before they reach the age of 30, while Holzer et al (2003) reported that between 1988 and 2000 in the United States ‘US’ incarceration rate doubled from about 250 to nearly 500 per 100,000 people. Further, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) estimates that approximately nine percent of all men in US will serve some time in state or federal prisons. For many of them the journey of punishment and disciplinary for their actions, minor or major, will continue even after completing their court sentence. These so-called “collateral consequences” of criminal involvement include abandonment and/or restriction on exercising or obtaining basic rights such as voting rights, accessing to firearms, loss of eligibility for public assistance, housing and food stamps and educational loans. According to Kurlychek et al (2007) employment barriers are probably the most concerning consequence that an ex-offender will face.

Various studies have found that employers are reluctant to recruit ex-offenders (Grogger, 1995; Holzer et al., 2003; Pager, 2003) and that individuals who are found to have kept their criminal involvement private are likely to be terminated from jobs (NACRO, 2003). Such a step is considered a huge loss not only to the applicant who may possess all the relevant skills and experience but also for the employer who by excluding a competent potential employee is giving up a beneficial opportunity to enhance the quality of their workforce (NACRO, 2003).

Employer request for criminal records was not necessarily a strict part of the standard recruitment practices in the past. However, this has changed since the terrorist attacks of September 11 and a stark increase in the use of criminal background checks, particularly by large companies, became the norm. For example, Wal-Mart has plans of conducting criminal history checks on all potential employees (Zimmerman & Stringer, 2004). Moreover, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which governs the use of consumer information such as criminal history records, was amended in 1998 to eliminate any restrictions on how far back conviction records could be reported (SEARCH Group, 2005), meaning that in terms of employment, a criminal record can truly follow a person for life.

Today employers are responsible for providing a safe working environment for all of employees as well as considering the safety and security of customers. According to a report that was conducted by the criminal record and abuse registry access task force to the legislature (2001), it is very important for employers whose employees or volunteers work with children, the elderly and persons with disabilities, to have access to the adult abuse registry and the child abuse registry and access to the State of Vermont criminal record checks for all of their employees. The report also point out that:

“The National Child Protection Act (42 USC Section 5119) as amended in October of 1998, authorizes agencies and organisations that provide care for vulnerable populations to obtain national fingerprint supported record checks from the FBI for purposes of employee and volunteer screening.”

Moreover, Act 151 directed the Task Force to provide:

"Recommendations for the implementation of a plan to provide access to the adult abuse registry and the child abuse registry to any employer required to check either registry for employment purposes."

Furthermore, according to the department of correction, an employer has the right to reject a number of potential employees with certain criminal records. ‘Table 1’ below elaborates more on this issue.

Table 1: Type Of Criminal Offenses That An Employer Can Use To Reject A Potential Employee Based On State Of Connecticut

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Based on the Legal Assistance Resource Centre of CT in cooperation with Connecticut Legal Services, Greater Hartford Legal Aid, New Haven Legal Assistance Association, and State-wide Legal Services

In addition, based on the legal assistance resource centre of Connecticut state the employer has the right to prevent a potential employee with a criminal record to be hired for any of following jobs: Private detective and private security personnel; bail enforcement agent or bail bond agent; taxi driver, livery driver, or bus driver; firearms sales ; pawnbroker; jewellery sales; airport personnel; armoured car crew members; employee benefit plans; unlicensed home child care provider. Moreover, an employer is forced by law to perform criminal record checking for the following jobs: Public school employee; nurse and nurse’s aide; lottery, casino, horse or dog racing, or off-track betting personnel; child day care centre or group day care operator/employee, Direct care worker for the Department of Mental Retardation; licensed home child care provider.

Many employers argue that criminal record checks are necessary for the overall performance and reputation of their organisations (NACRO, 2003). Certainly a number of studies have shown that ex-offenders are more likely than average person to repeat and/or commit another crime in the future (Nagin & Paternoster, 2000). Moreover, some employers are reluctant to recruit ex-offenders or at least to do so openly, because of the critical response they might receive from the press and the public (NACRO, 2003). Undoubtedly the reality of behavioural continuity as well as the reputation of organisation has influenced a good deal of current interest in stipulating and scrutinizing individuals’ criminal records. However, a good deal of current research also debates the significance of behavioural change in the lives of offenders (Kurlychek, 2007).

According to Kurlychek, (2007) the real concern is not with respect to employers’ rapid increase in criminal record checks, but with how they collect information. In fact, the type of criminal background checks performed by employers often includes not only conviction information but arrest information as well, regardless of the case outcome (Legal Action Centre, 2004).

NACRO concurs with the view of Kurlychek, and Legal Action Centre and concludes that giving employers access to criminal record information would intensify discrimination against ex-offenders. Crucially it is equally important to acknowledge that criminological research suggests that one of the key rehabilitation processes for ex-offenders is the attainment of stable employment (Wallman & Blumstein, 2006). It is for these reasons agencies such NACRO emerged, for ex-offenders who are facing difficulty in reintegrating with society.

Mead (1918) debates the ways in which the criminal justice system’s ability to label one a criminal conveys the message to others that this person is to be an outcast and alienated from the world of legitimate people. With this label, people are separated into groups of “acceptable” and “unacceptable” or, in the later words of Becker (1963), classifications of “insiders” and “outsiders.” The issue of being labelled an outsider has been discussed and referred to in many terms such as tagging (Tannenbaum, 1938) or stigmatisation (Goffman, 1963). Once such a label has been effectively applied to an individual, the label affects the way that person is perceived by others and even the way a person views himself or herself. Perhaps this phenomenon is best summarised by Becker (1963, p.33), when he states that the

“Possession of one deviant trait may have a generalized symbolic value, so that people automatically assume that its bearer posses other undesirable traits allegedly associated with it”

The label can therefore deduce not just the person did something wrong, but that there is something wrong with them (Kurlychek, 2007). Moreover, even when restrictions are not formalised into law such as those noted above, an individual with a criminal record may face unspoken discrimination when searching for housing (particularly for sex-offenders) and employment. In fact, research consistently shows that people with a criminal record of any type have a difficult time securing and maintaining employment. In reality, they experience greater difficulty in obtaining steady employment than any other disadvantaged group (Holzer et al., 2003; Kurlychek, 2007). Further a study by Pager (2003) on criminal record checks deduced that they do not only lead to employment barriers but also to racial bias among criminals.

3 PRIVACY, SOCIETY AND CRIME

Westin and Baker (1972) state that socio-cultural privacy is closely related to social legitimacy. When a society considers a certain behaviour to be socially acceptable, it labels such conduct as a private matter that no one shall intrude upon it. But when a society does not accept a certain type of personal conduct then it is judged as a public matter and with no applicable claims of privacy (Westin, 2003). For some therefore, privacy is considered an elastic concept (Allen, 1988; Margulis, 2003) and all attempts to circumscribe the boundaries of privacy lead to ongoing debates as it is linked to changes in the norms of society.

In general privacy is defined as the right of an individual to determine what information about himself or herself can be exposed to others (Westin, 1967; Solove, 2002). Many argue that privacy is positive as it protects behaviour which is either morally neutral or valued by society (Warren and Laslett, 1977, Margulis 2003). However, other authors believe privacy can nurture illegitimate activities (Westin, 1967). For example, some claim that privacy can provide room to deceive others (Margulis, 2003). Therefore, they argue that public interest should come before anything and everything.

Urges of curiosity and gossip in society compete with privacy claims (Westin, 2003) but also society is obsessed with crime (Voight, 1994) hence there is great interest to know the unknown especially when it relates to what is perceived to be the interest of the public. According to Liska and Warner (1991) society response to crimes and/or criminals can help strengthen and unite the community. For example, the way society reacts to school shootings, kidnap, or rape.

Holzer et al (2003) reports that over 600,000 people are now being released from prisons each year in the US. Many already struggle as they attempt to integrate within their communities and embrace normal life. Among the most challenging situations they face is that of re-entry into the labour market. Employment rates and wages of ex-offenders are substandard (Holzer et al, 2003). NACRO (2003) reports that some employers showed willingness to recruit ex-offenders but were worried about the public, press, customers and their staff reaction. They were concerned they might be perceived as actively seeking to recruit ex-offenders. Two of the employers on the group gave examples of when they had been attacked in the press for recruiting ex-offenders. One employer in the retail sector had been vigorously criticised when the organisation announced it was recruiting young ex-offenders on to their ‘New Deal Programme’. Another employer in the transport sector had been criticised when they had unknowingly recruited someone with a minor criminal record. There was concern that recruiting ex-offenders could put organisations at risk and thereby their competitive advantage and reputation (NACRO, 2003).

Criminal record checks are not the only reasons behind employment barriers for ex-offenders. Holzer et al (2003) reports reasons that lead to low employment rate of ex-offenders namely: a) limited work experience; b) limited education; c) substance abuse and other physical/mental health problems. In addition, the period they have spent incarcerated can hinder them from obtaining work experience and probably eroded whatever job skills or connections to employers they might have had previously. Therefore, ex-offenders can have great difficulty in re-entering the labour market after imprisonment. Moreover, it is reported that in many countries most of their ex-offenders are minorities and since minorities already suffer from employment discrimination, their criminal records can further impede the ability to gain employment and earnings rates. The fact that some ex-offenders have past convictions in their criminal record can further limit what is already available to them as most employers are reluctant to recruit ex-offenders. Under state and sometime federal law some job posts have been legally prohibited for individuals with convictions in their criminal records (Hahn, 1991). Examples include jobs requiring contact with children, certain health services occupations, and employment with firms providing security services (Holzer et al, 2003).

On many occasions employers can be held accountable for criminal actions of their employees under the theory of ‘negligent hiring’. Legally, negligence is reflected on the notion that one who breaches a duty of care to others in an organisation or to the public is legally accountable for any damages that result (Glynn 1988; Holzer et al, 2003). Under this theory of negligent hiring, employers believe that their organisations could have problems obtaining insurance cover if they did not undertake checks and may be accountable for the risk generated by subjecting the public and their employee to potentially dangerous individuals. Those concerns are best expressed by Bushway (1996)

“Employers who know, or should have known, that an employee has had a history of criminal behaviour may be liable for the employee’s criminal or tortuous acts.”

Therefore, employers may rightly feel that not undertaking, and potentially acting upon, criminal checks might subject them to legal actions and its resulting damages (Holzer et al, 2003). According to Connerley (2001) employers have lost 72 percent of negligent hiring cases with an average settlement of more than $1.6 million. All those concerns have impeded employers from recruiting ex-offenders.

Some employers argued that governments should collaborate with a number of major employers in the development of policies for the recruitment of ex-offenders that can be used as good practice cases studies. It also recommended that an awareness programme to public regarding these issues will encourage employers to recruit ex-offenders.

4 COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCE OF CRIMINAL INVOLVEMENT

Collateral consequences of criminal involvement include abandonment and/or restriction on exercising or obtaining basic rights such as voting rights, accessing to firearms loss of eligibility for public assistance, housing and food stamps and educational loans. Employment barriers is probably the most concerning consequence that an ex offender will face (Kurlychek et al, 2007). Morrison articulated in his article ‘Ex Cons Need Not Apply’ (2006):

“ A vast class of men and women live under an unbreakable glass ceiling. They committed a crime, and they helped to put that ceiling in place themselves. But isn't there a statute of limitations on punishment? Can't someone help them turn that glass ceiling into a sunroof? These people, ex-felons mostly, are out of the cell, but they're still in "the box" — the little square on almost every job application that asks, "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" Most of us breeze by it. For those millions — and another 650,000 who are paroled or released every year — that box is the end of the line. Check that box, and check off your chance for a job”

An early experiment conducted by Schwartz and Skolnick (1962) illustrates the discrimination individuals with criminal or police record face when applying for work. In the study, four sets of employers were given four folders of 25 CVs each that differed only as follows: Group 1) no criminal record; Group 2) an arrest record but no conviction; Group 3) an arrest record, no conviction and a letter of support from the judge; Group 4) an arrest and conviction record. Each set of employers were viewing one folder only. The result is summarised in ‘Table 2’ next page.

Table 2: Result of Schwartz and Skolnick (1962) Experiment

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Although it is universally acceptable that a person is innocent until proven guilty but the proposed candidates with only arrests but no convictions were given limited employment opportunities. Another view that individuals with criminal record carry a stigma that can affect their job prospects is provided by Hozler et al (2003) who found that over 90% of employers surveyed are willing to consider filling their most recent job vacancy with a welfare recipient, while only about 40% are willing to consider doing so with an ex-offender. Therefore, NACRO (2003) argues that many ex-offenders have opted to hide their past convictions from their potential employers in hope of obtaining job offers but which they have been harshly punished when they were found dishonest about their past. As shown in ‘Figure 1’ below, employer reluctance is greatest when the offense in question was a violent one and least when it was a nonviolent drug offense.

Figure 1: Percentage of Employers Willing to Hire Ex-Offenders by Characteristics (2001)

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Employers Demand for Ex-Offenders: Recent Evidence from Los Angeles’ (Holzer et al, 2003).

Notwithstanding ex-offenders difficulties in getting job offers, if successful they are more likely to end up with jobs that pay low earnings and provide few benefits (Holzer et al, 2003). In these circumstances, many ex-offenders may simply choose to skip these offers in favour of illegal opportunities for better pay. Alternatively, they may accept these jobs temporarily, but may not retain them for very long. Their belonging to the legitimate labour market is therefore tenuous. Thus, the limited employment outcomes that ex-offenders experience will at least partly reflect “barriers,” perhaps compounded by their own attitudes towards and responses to these circumstances (Hozler et al, 2003; Margulis, 2003)

Criminal record result in ex-offenders being either discredited or discreditable. Discredited when their “stigma” becomes evident to others through the exposure of their past convictions on their criminal records, and discreditable when their “stigma” is unknown to others but can be exposed the moment employers stipulate their criminal record or by any other means (Goffman, 1963; Kurlychek et al, 2007). Stigmas are socially unacceptable and, as a result, stigmatized individuals have been devalued, given lower status, and been targets of negative stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination (Crocker, Major and Steele, 1998) which is especially concerning when the ex-offender has dependents that will be affected by the entire stigmatization. Certainly such defamatory attacks violate the very principle of Article 12 of UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Many organizations make a distinction between arrest records and conviction records. In general, arrest records are more likely to be kept discreet from free dissemination especially arrests for cases that are still open. However, the growing availability of this information over the internet, usually from private firms and at very low cost, makes it increasingly easy for employers to access these data (Holzer et al., 2003). As shown in ‘Figure 2’ below, private agencies are the most used method by which employer checks criminal backgrounds.

Figure 2: Method by Which Employers Check Criminal Backgrounds (2001)

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Employers Demand for Ex-Offenders: Recent Evidence from Los Angeles’ (Holzer et al, 2003).

5 REPEAT OFFENCES

NACRO (2003) reports that employers prime hesitation in hiring past offenders is their concern over their propensity to re-offend. The case of Frank Loher is an example that indirectly supports their concern (DePledge 2005). Loher was a sex offender that the state Department of Public Safety was so concerned would strike again that they made him go through a treatment program twice before he was released from prison. After he completed his program and served his sentence he sexually attacked another woman and was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison as a repeat offender. His case is not the first or the last of repeat offences. According to the Hawai Criminal Justice Data Centre it was found that 5.7 percent of the state's 2,161 registered sex offenders have been convicted again of sex crimes and 21.4 percent have been convicted of other felonies (DePledge, 2005). Nonetheless, the data is also saying that approximately 73% of the sex-offenders have not re-offended, at least up till the data was gathered. A research conducted by Ericsson on former burglars found that 76% of them have gone back to the homes they once burgle and 75% of those who returned were to steal more things (Ericsson, 1995). A study conducted by Kurlychek et al (2007) on comparing the behavioural pattern of 151 individuals with past convictions with 519 individuals with no criminal record found that there is relevant important differences between juvenile offenders and non-offenders until the mid of 20s, after that point the group become very hard to distinguish from each other. Moreover, Kurlychek et al (2007) deduce that the amount of time since the last police contact has occurred is relevant information for making short-term predictions about future criminal activity but they also insist that basic distinctions between those who have been convicted previously and average person not appear to be quite inadequate as a basis for future criminal activity predictions. As shown in ‘Figure 3’ below the difference in behavioural pattern between past offenders and non-offenders become hard to distinguish with age.

Figure 3: Contact Hazard Rates Through Age 32: Age-18 Offenders and Non-Offenders (2007)

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: ‘Enduring Risk? Old Criminal Records and Predictions of Future Criminal Involvement, Kurlychek et al (2007)

On the other hand, strong arguments exist that a majority of one-time offenders do not opt to continue committing crimes and ‘age out’ or otherwise desist from criminal activity. Significant predictors of desistance include not only age but also the forming of positive social bonds such as work and marriage (Sampson & Laub, 1993; Uggen, 1999). Studies typically found that it is a small number of individuals who are responsible for the majority of arrests, police contacts, and criminal convictions (Blumstein, et al 1985). These individuals are usually described as “chronic offenders” or “career criminals” and it is indeed those who capture the attention of studies whereas there has been much less study of the remainder of the population of youths who have had no or low police contacts. As numerous studies now show, the risk of new offenses among those who have offended in the past typically peaks within 1 or 2 years and declines thereafter (Lattimore & Baker, 1992; Schmidt & Witte, 1988; Visher et al 1991; Kurlychek et al, 2007).

6 CONCLUSION

Article 12 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly states that “No-one should be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks on his honour or reputation”. There is no doubt that convicted offenders have the right to demand their reputation and honour be returned after they have served the court imposed sentence. However, as illustrated previously, many studies have shown that this is often not the case. Individuals with criminal records may be stigmatised and experience invasions of privacy because some members of society view them as legitimate targets for intrusion and scrutiny. The impediments and hardships imposed on many ex-offenders are therefore an additional sentence imposed by society in addition to the penalty deemed appropriate by the court. These ‘collateral consequences’ cause great frustration and in many cases not only prolong the rehabilitation process but in fact drive people back to criminal activities. According to some studies, employment barriers are probably the most concerning of consequences that an ex-offender may face. For many, this situation is primarily caused by the exposure of an individual’s criminal record to an employer. However, employers argue that they should have the right to protect their organisation, staff, customers and the public.

There is little doubt that this a complex issue. It is the opinion of this author that a criminal record should be accessible to employers, however this should be limited to convictions as opposed to arrests. Further, employers should only be able to access information on convictions that relate directly to the type of work being applied for. For example, fraud convictions are relevant to posts in accounting and finance, while sex offences are relevant for positions involving children and those deemed vulnerable. Meanwhile, “role model” jobs such as teachers, judges and policemen and women should require a totally clean record sheet.

The view above is based primarily on the fact that an individual’s privacy is important and should be respected wherever possible, however some studies have shown that an ex-offender is more likely to repeat and/or commit another crime. In the view of this author, any potential risk to society or its organisations can, on occasion, outweigh the sanctity of individual privacy.

Regardless of the view taken on this matter it seems straightforward that governments should continue to play an active role in helping ex-offenders to enjoy a normal life after incarceration. This can be achieved by providing them re-education and training programmes, introducing awareness programmes for the public to answer their fears and concerns, encouraging the media to participate in awareness campaigns and collaborating with large organisations to develop policies and procedures for recruiting ex-offenders.

7 REFERENCES

- ‘Avoiding Negligent Hiring Lawsuits’, Human Resource Management, http://www.hrmreport.com/pastissue/article.asp?art=268447&issue=172, last accessed on 28/03/08
- ‘Criminal Psychology’, Crime Library, http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/index.html, last accessed on 25/03/08
- Allen, A. (1988), ‘Uneasy Access: Privacy for Women in a Free Society’, Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield
- Becker, H. (1963), ‘Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology Of Deviance’, New York: Free Press.
- Blumstein, A.; Farrington, D.; and Moitra, S. (1985), ‘ Delinquency Careers: Innocents, Desisters, And Persisters’ Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, Volume 7, pp. 187-220
- Bushway, S. (1996), ‘Labour Market Effects of Permitting Employer Access to Criminal History Records’, Working Paper, University of Maryland.
- Connerley, M.; Richard, A.; and Charles, B. (2001), ‘Criminal Background Checks For Prospective and Current Employees: Current Practices Among Municipal Agencies’ , Public Personnel Management Volume. 20, No. 2.
- Crocker, J.; Major, B.; and Steele, C. (1998), ‘The Handbook of Social Psychology’, McGraw-Hill, Boston, Volume 2, No.4, pp.504-553
- DeCew Judith, ‘Privacy’, in Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/privacy/) last accessed on 25/03/08
- DePledge, D. (2005), ‘Sex Offenders Likelihood To Repeat Crimes Debated’, (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Mar/07/ln/ln07p.html), last accessed 30/3/08
- Ericsson, U. (1995) 'Straight from the Horse's Mouth'. Forensic Update 43, pp. 23-25
- Glynn, T. (1988), ‘ The Limited Viability of Negligent Supervision, Retention, Hiring and Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims in Employment Discrimination Cases in Minnesota’ , William Mitchell Law Review
- Goffman, I. (1963), ‘Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity’, New York: Simon & Schuster.
- Hahn, J. (1991), ‘Pre-Employment Information Services: Employers Beware’, Employee Relations Law Journal, Volume 17, 45-69.
- Holzer, H.; Raphael, S.; Stoll, M. (2003), ‘Employer Demand for Ex-Offenders: Recent Evidence from Los Angeles’ , Unpublished.
- Holzer, H.; Raphael, S.; Stoll, M. (2003), ‘Employment Barriers Facing Ex-Offenders’
- Kurlychek, M.; Brame, R.; Bushway, S. (2007), ‘Enduring Risk? Old Criminal Records and Predictions of Future Criminal Involvement’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Volume 53, No.1, pp. 64-83
- Lattimore, P. and Baker, J. (1992) ‘ The Impact of Recidivism and Capacity on Prison Population’, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Volume 8, pp. 189-215.
- Legal Action Centre (2004) ‘After Prison: Roadblocks To Re-entry’, New York: Author
- Liska, A. and Warner B. (1991), ‘Functions of Crime: A Paradoxical Process’, The American Journal of Sociology, Volume 96, No.6. pp. 1441-1463
- Machan,T. ‘The Right to Private Property’, The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Fieser, J. (University of Tennessee/Martin), (http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/property.htm), last accessed on 1/04/08
- Margulis, S. (2003), ‘Privacy as a Social Issue and Behavioural Concept’, Journal of Social Issues, Volume 59, No.2, pp. 243-261
- Mead, G. (1918), ‘The Psychology Of Punitive Justice’, American Journal of Sociology, Volume 23, pp. 577-602
- Michael, J. (1994), ‘Privacy and Human Rights’, UNESCO, pp.1
- Morrison, P. (2006), ‘Ex Cons Need Not Apply’, Los Angeles Times, (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0615-25.htm), last accessed on 28/3/2008
- Moss, P. and Chris, T. (2001), ‘ Stories Employers Tell’, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
- NACRO (2003), ‘Recruiting Ex-Offenders: The Employer’s Perspective’, The Urban Institute Re-entry Roundtable Discussion Paper
- Nagin, S. and Paternoster, R. (2000), ‘Population Heterogeneity And State Dependence: State Of The Evidence And Directions For Future Research’, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 117-144
- Pager, D. (2003), ‘ The Mark Of A Criminal Record’, American Journal of Sociology, 108, 937-975
- Privacy International (2003), ‘Privacy and Human Rights: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Practice’, (http://www.gilc.org/privacy/survey/intro.html), last accessed on 23/03/2008
- Privacy International, ‘Overview of Privacy’, http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-559062), last accessed 01/04/08
- Rosen, L. (September, 2003), ‘Criminal Records and Getting Back into the Workforce: Six Critical Steps for Ex-offenders Trying to Get Back into the Workforce’,(http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/rosencrim.htm), last accessed on 25/03/08
- Rosen, L. ‘Criminal Records, Employment and Employment Applications’, in ERS Check, (http://www.esrcheck.com/articles/crime_and_employment_application.php), last accessed on 28/03/08
- Sampson, R. and Laub, J. (1993), ‘Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life’, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Schmidt, P. and Witte, A. (1988). ’Predicting Recidivism Using Survival Models’, New York: Springer-Verlag.
- Schwartz, R. and Skolnick, J. (1962), ‘Two Studies Of Legal Stigma’, Social Problems, Volume 10, 133-142.
- SEARCH Group. (2005), ‘Report of the National Task Force on the Commercial Sale of Criminal Justice Record Information’, Sacramento, CA: Author.
- Solove, D. (2002), ‘Conceptualizing Privacy’, California Law Review, Volume 90, No.4, pp. 1087-1156
- Tannenbaum, F (1938), ‘Crime and Community’, New York: Ginn.
- The Criminal Record & Abuse Registry Access Task Force (2001), ‘A Report To The Legislature’, (http://www.dps.state.vt.us/emp_access.PDF) last accessed on 28/03/08
- Uggen, C. (1999), ‘Ex-Offenders and the Conformist Alternative: A Job Quality Model Of Work And Crime’, Social Problems, 46, pp. 127-151
- Visher, C.; Lattimore, P.; and Linster, R. (1991) ‘Predicting Recidivism Of Serious Youthful Offenders Using Survival Models’, Criminology, Volume 29, pp. 329-366.
- Voight, L.; Thornton, W.; Barrile, L.; and Seaman, J. (1994), ‘ Criminology and Justice’, McGraw-Hill, New Jersey.
- Wallman, J. and Blumstein, A. (2006), ‘After the crime drop. In A. Blumstein & J. Wallman (Eds.), The Crime Drop in America’, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 319-347
- Warren, C. and Laslett, B. (1977), ‘Privacy and Secrecy: A Conceptual Comparison’, Journal of Social Issues, Volume 33, No.3, pp. 43-51
- Warren, S. and Brandeis, L. (1890). ‘The Right to Privacy’, Harvard Law Review, Volume. 4, No. 5, pp.193-220
- Westin, A. (1967), ‘Privacy and Freedom’, New York: Athenaeum
- Westin, A. (2003), ‘Social and Political Dimension of Privacy’, Journal of Social Issues, Volume 59, No.2, pp. 431-453
- Westin, A. and Baker, M. (1972), ‘Data Banks in a Free Society’, New York: Quadrangle Books.
- Zimmerman, A. and Stringer, K. (2004, August 26), ‘As Background Checks Proliferate, Ex-Cons Face A Lock On Jobs’ , The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.

• Université: London School of Economics
• Note: Commendation Receiver
• Auteur: Mohamed Alsalehi (Auteur)
• Année de publication: 2008
• Pages: 18
• N° de catalogue: V342983
• ISBN (ebook): 9783668331242
• ISBN (Livre): 9783668331259
• Langue: anglais
• mots-clé: privacy, criminal record, ex-offenders, crime, rahabilitation