Criminal Labels: The Worst Consequence of Conviction - Research Paper

Introduction

For most people that are convicted of a crime, the most significant effect would neither be the imprisonment nor the fines, but being dressed "a criminal" and is subject to collateral consequences is what would adversely affect their lives.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Collateral consequences are the additional civil state penalties, sanctions, or disqualifications that stem from a person's criminal history. These consequences are not a part of the direct sentence like imprisonment, probation, or paying fines that are issued by the court. Collateral consequences are further civil actions imposed by the federal state as a consequence of a conviction.

Some of the most common collateral consequences include loss of the civil right to vote, being ineligible for certain types of employment, public benefits such as the right to hold a driver's license or even the access to health care, and many more that vary from jurisdiction, type, and duration (Chin, 2018). These consequences can create lifelong barriers that affect very many areas in life, thus making it extra hard for beings- ex-convicts-in their attempt to develop productive lives after their release and rehabilitation, therefore, increasing the likelihood of recidivism.

Employment prospects for millions of people can be adversely affected by a criminal record and could be the harshest consequence faced by those with criminal convictions. Thousands of organizations and local ordinances, public and private employers restrict their opportunities to those with criminal convictions and thus locking them out of the labor market.

Because of the collateral consequences of being convicted, in the USA, 1 out of 4 Americans are locked out of employment, leading to an average of $62 billion loss in output and significant loss in human capital (Chin, 2018). Research has it that 87% of employers conduct a background check, and recent surveys indicate that most employers are not willing to employ people who have served in prison.

A recent study showed that after an interview, applicants with a criminal record are 60 %( for black applicants) &30 %( for white applicants) less likely to be called back for the job than their counterparts without any criminal record (American Bar Association, & United States of America, 2018). The significant social stigma attached to conviction renders a convict to be automated as untrustworthy or lacking the job readiness, thus denying them an equal chance to fight for the available opportunities.

Getting employed is a critical factor in successfully integrating the convict since it is in the selling of labor and earning something in return that one could attain self-sufficiency and be in a position to support his needs and those of the dependants (Tonry,2017). Working, according to research, also helps boost a person's sense of importance and purpose in society, which contributes to building strong and stable communities, thus stronger economies. Employment is, therefore, a reliable way to significantly reduce recidivism because of the income generated being sufficient and time spent at the work space-filling in for a time that would instead be spent in crime.

Research has shown that unemployment is one of the leading causes of recidivism in that if formerly incarcerated individuals lack a job with an average wage that meets their basic needs, there is a higher chance of them being lured back to reoffending. Since being employed or not, bills have to be paid, and mouths are fed. So what would they do to sustain the consumption? Probably engage in criminal activities, which might lead them back to jail. Creating a cyclic tendency in society and leaving it worse off, whereas employment could be the key to break the cycle.

Throughout the years, collateral consequences proliferated in number and severity, affecting even more people and even becoming harder to mitigate (American Bar Association, & United States of America, 2018). While some of these restrictions serve an essential purpose, for example, having someone who has been convicted of a sexual offense not serving as a foster parent, others apply broadly across all convictions no matter the irrelevance whatsoever. For example, in Texas, anyone convicted of a misdemeanor is prohibited from serving as an instructor at any college or career school. Such a consequence is massive and could tremendously damage somebody's career. The legal effects of a conviction are hard to eliminate. Some convictions' consequences last a lifetime.

The effect of collateral conviction is even by far much worse in developing countries where they struggle to sustain an average family on a regular payroll. Imagine a scenario where their survival budget was on a dollar per day and say the breadwinner is sentenced to serve in prison and with being released; he/she could not even secure a job. (Chin, 2018). Consequently, this would force him to look for alternatives that will be most likely going back to crime, mental stress, and sometimes even death by suicides.

There is a difficulty in trying to strike a balance between successful re-entry in the society and the well being of the general public. But with close monitoring, ex-convicts should be given a chance to re-enter the communities. It may be well that individuals get a fairer shake, and public safety can be protected. While in prison or even after programs such as vocational training, academic courses, among others, should be administered to them to facilitate their reintegration and transformations into better people in society.

References

American Bar Association, & United States of America. (2018). Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions: Judicial Bench Book.

Chin, G. J. (2018). Collateral consequences of criminal conviction. Actual Probs. Econ. & L., 660.

Tonry, M. (2017). Community punishments. Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, 4, 187-204.