Barriers to the Rehabilitation of Ex-Offenders

• Published in: Crime and delinquency Vol. 22; no. 3; pp. 322 - 337
• Main Author: Dale, Mitchell W.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Thousand Oaks, CA SAGE Publications 01-07-1976; National Council on Crime and Delinquency
• Subjects: Obstacle/Obstacles; Occupation/Occupations/Occupational; Offender/Offenders; Recidivism/Recidivists; Rehabilitation; United States/US
• ISSN: 0011-1287; 1552-387X
• DOI: 10.1177/001112877602200305

A person's identity—both in his own eyes and in the eyes o f
others—is very often tied to his occupation. One's job may
determine to a large extent the kind and quality of life one
leads. In penology and correction, therefore, as in perhaps all
the social sciences, the function and availability of employ
ment are o f great concern. According to some analysts, gain
ful employment is perhaps the most important ingredient
needed to help ex-offenders pursue law-abiding, productive
lives; unemployment is one of the principal causes of recidi
vism among adult male offenders.
Yet, despite popular sentiment regarding the desirability o f
giving "a second chance" to the person with a criminal re
cord, socially imposed and almost insurmountable barriers
prevent him from obtaining productive and rehabilitative
employment.
Employers resist hiring ex-offenders because of perceived
security risks that are often more imaginary than real. More
often than not, an ex-offender cannot be bonded by the
private bonding industry. Under the terms of a standard
"blanket" bond—the only type of bonding appropriate to
many large operations and available at a price the employer
can afford—an employer's insurance coverage is specifically
voided if he knowingly hires any person having a criminal
record.
Finally, under misguided statutes ostensibly enacted to
protect the public from criminal depredations, ex-offenders
may be excluded from service in government and a myriad
of "licensed occupations."
This paper discusses these so-called "legal" barriers to the
employment of ex-offenders. Its conclusion is that the
attempt to protect against crime by denying ex-offenders
gainful employment not only makes a mockery o f the concept
of equal opportunity for all but costs us dearly in recidivist
crime.