Introduction
People who had been convicted and were interested in finding work were the driving force behind the beginning of the movement to Ban the Box. Despite their prior convictions, the campaign’s goal was to provide formerly incarcerated individuals with access to employment opportunities within the state. Employers are not permitted to inquire about the applicants’ criminal histories under any circumstances, as per the mandates of policies known as ban-the-box. On the other hand, they are allowed to ask questions at a later stage of the hiring process. Therefore, the essay will discuss the significance of banning the box while focusing on the perspectives of diverse participants from the employment sectors and former offenders.
Effects of Ban the Box
Ban the Box movement has given rise to contentious debates among those who support its policies and those who oppose them. The people who support this movement believe that the Ban the Box initiative is critical because it paves the way for formerly incarcerated individuals who are currently disadvantaged to obtain employment services, education, and housing. The individuals opposed to the policies argue that it is to the employer’s detriment to provide these opportunities to formerly incarcerated individuals. They are a danger to the general public and the other employees here. The claims made by those opposed to Ban the Box appear to have minimal merit because states implementing these policies have made significant progress (Flake &Dallan 1079). The policies offer a variety of advantages, not only to formerly incarcerated people but also to society as a whole.
Ex-offenders are given a fresh start and a second chance through the Banning the Box program. According to the findings of recent studies, each year, approximately 700,000 people are released from prison (English & Katherine 513). These people are set free from the disadvantageous life that follows them after their sentence is over when they discover an opportunity to work in any industry or organization. Employers ought to take into consideration letting them work. These people have already attained the final stage of a comprehensive progressive refinery in their character and thinking.
In addition, they are people with obligations and have a responsibility to better themselves and the lives of their families. As a consequence, the vast majority of those who were locked up had been wrongly accused and served a sentence for a crime they had not committed, while others were locked up for infractions that were so minor that their imprisonment was not warranted (Doleac & Jennifer 156). These formerly incarcerated individuals have a lot to offer as potential employees, and their qualifications as workers should not be evaluated based on whether or not they have served time but rather on how well they can do their jobs.
The availability of employment prospects for formerly imprisoned individuals deters them from returning to a life of crime. In many instances, those released from jail feel the need to attempt to make ends meet despite not having a job. There are numerous families, and some of them have young children who rely on them. Many individuals would be compelled by financial hardships to experiment with shortcuts to put food on the table, despite the risks involved. Thus, the policies will act as a fulcrum in the drive to minimize the number of criminal cases. Employing individuals with a history of criminal activity can promote public safety by decreasing the recidivism rate. The crime rate tends to increase in parallel with the unemployment rate.
Banning the Box reduces the likelihood of engaging in behaviors that could land them back behind bars by instilling self-confidence, commitment, and a sense of responsibility in formerly incarcerated individuals. Despite claims that formerly jailed individuals will cause issues, these individuals have shown a strong work ethic and dedication. People do not realize that these individuals are constantly seeking social reacceptance and are still thriving with the desire to start over, but this is what they are attempting to do. Ex-offenders who join in Banning the Box have the chance to contribute to the community’s general growth and betterment (Tønseth and Bergsland 1628408). Most individuals incarcerated at some point in their lives have had successful moral conversions and are now good individuals.
Ban the box is the only method with the prospect of successfully lowering the racial employment gap. The rate of crime is much higher among black individuals (Leung & Katerine.681). A person of African heritage with a criminal past may find it challenging to persuade a prospective employer of their high moral standards and exceptional ethics. As a result, employers tend to feel that white people have a reduced risk of participating in criminal activity; consequently, it is simpler for white people to acquire employment than for black people. Therefore, eliminating the box will be crucial in eradicating various forms of racism-based discrimination.
Ban-the-Box Employers cannot obtain information on an applicant’s criminal background due to policies prohibiting such access. Later in the hiring process, businesses can review an applicant’s criminal record. Employers who demand former inmates for their complete criminal records harm many of these individuals, many of whom are reintegrating into society and becoming productive members (Doleac &Jennifer 329). However, it is advantageous for both the organization and the applicants if these individuals are given a chance to apply for a job and, if successful, be invited to an interview. They will be able to identify themselves in greater detail and will have committed to the position throughout the interview.
When deviating from an exclusion policy and adopting a policy that involves individual assessment of applicants, the hiring committee is free to evaluate the type of the offence, the length of time since the offence, and how the criminal record relates to the work position. Many recently imprisoned individuals notice a boost in their future career prospects when they engage the hiring manager in discussion prior to revealing their criminal history. Before being granted employment, a significant percentage of formerly incarcerated individuals were allowed to speak with the hiring committee. Interactions that led to positive outcomes for employers or hiring committee members would eventually result in obtaining jobs for individuals.
Conclusion
The “ban the box” strategy has proven to be a significant source of concern around the globe. Most formerly jailed people have the opportunity to start a new life outside of prison because it gives them a second chance. A policy regulation bans convicted individuals from checking a box that would publicize their prior arrests and convictions. This law expands the opportunities for condemned individuals to satisfy essential criteria, such as employment, education, and social acceptance. Therefore, eliminating the obligation to check the box facilitates the employment of recently jailed individuals. It encourages most people who have been discriminated against due to their criminal records to have hope and to continue making more significant attempts to transform their lives. They should not allow prior mistakes to prevent them from getting back on track and following the proper processes. The only way to better the lives of these disadvantaged individuals and invest in their futures was to design a plan for how they could access justice by obtaining employment, which involves forbidding the use of checkboxes on employment applications.
Works Cited
Doleac, Jennifer L. “Strategies to productively reincorporate the formerly-incarcerated into communities: a review of the literature.” Available at SSRN 3198112 (2018).
Doleac, Jennifer L., and Benjamin Hansen. “The unintended consequences of “ban the box”: Statistical discrimination and employment outcomes when criminal histories are hidden.” Journal of Labor Economics 38.2 (2020): 321-374.
English, Katherine. “Conflicting approaches to addressing ex-offender unemployment: The work opportunity tax credit and ban the box.” Ind. LJ 93 (2018): 513.
Flake, Dallan F. “Do ban-the-box laws really work.” Iowa L. Rev. 104 (2018): 1079.
Leung, Katerine E. “Prison labor as a lawful form of race discrimination.” Harv. CR-CLL Rev. 53 (2018): 681.
Tønseth, Christin, and Ragnhild Bergsland. “Prison Education in Norway – the Importance for Work and Life after Release.” Cogent Education, vol. 6, no. 1, 2019, p. 1628408.