Human Rights: Rights of the Formerly Incarcerated

Introduction

It is estimated that about 70 million people in America which account to one in every three adults have previous conviction or detention records (Lam, 2016). For this populace and over 600,000 Americans that are freed from both federal and state prisons every year, having served certain periods in often cases implies that the foundations of the reintegration procedure that involves securing employment and other amenities such as housing become a severely challenging operation (Lam, 2016). In addition, the racially prejudiced criminal justice system that has fueled mass incarceration in the recent years has extremely affected the colored communities. A conviction in an individual’s past should not be a life verdict to poverty, joblessness, illiteracy, and loss of certain human rights (Austin, N.D). It is never easy to live with the knowledge that your criminal record will forever determine you. The primary objective of sentencing is to ensure that those found guilty of crimes are corrected and after release would, therefore, integrate at ease with the real world and focus on being a good person (Lam, 2016). Yet, these records hinder individuals from perusing education, developing self and regroup their real value. The rights of formerly convicted persons in America has consistently been violated based on unjustified prejudice and not on rationality.

In May 2016, President Obama signed up a memo proposing a law that would restrain federal organizations from requesting information on whether the applicants have any criminality records until the recruitment is in its final stage (Lam, 2016). While it remains theoretically unlawful to deny a qualified person a working opportunity based on past conviction unless the committed criminality has a link with the job, in most cases those with conviction and other related criminality records history are normally deterred or separated from other applicants leading to their disapproval based on the disclosure following the submission requirements. Most individuals close to 70 percent have consistently been disapproved based on such disclosure even though the detention or charges never resulted in a conviction or the competence is justifiable based on the needs of the company (Austin, N.D).

Besides the challenges of securing employment, some formerly incarcerated persons are denied the right to education and voting (Binswanger et al., 2017). The constitution makes it rather clear that every individual is entitled to the provision of such needs and privileges of voting. In this regard, this populace is subjected to poverty because unlike the counterparts they cannot access advanced education at ease based on fear and prejudice that they are not suitable to be integrated with other learners. With low education status this, therefore, implies that their chances of getting decent employment that is capable of taking care of them and their families are impossible. The dependency rate among the affected families is quite high which can ultimately lead to low living standard and the lack of access to essential services such as healthcare (Nelp, 2017).

It has been established that close to 40 percent of the formerly incarcerated persons are subjected to felony disenfranchisement due to assumption that most of them are a threat to the society (Binswanger, 2017). On the other hand, those suffering from poverty account to 55 percent of those that have secured employment have the privilege of connection or family wealth (Binswanger, 2017).  The suicidal level of those released from prison is eight times higher than that of those that have not be convicted at any time (Binswanger et al., 2017). This is driven by psychological instability because most of them feel that they have been alienated and have no control over their lives no more and they are to blame for such mistakes. In addition, to the inability to secure jobs their families are forced to live in undesirable states that drives their motivation down even further resulting in hopelessness (Nelp, 2017). The fair chance employment policy work to ensure a reasonable decision making procedure by encouraging employees to account for job-relatedness to past sentences, mitigating evidence and the conceded time (Keall, 2012). Every individual is entitled to employment given that they are qualified based on the job requirements. However, one with conviction records will have to face challenges due to the prejudice that such information creates on the employers. Title VII also restrains any employment discrimination that is grounded on nationality, age, race and so on but does not address the issue of conviction (Keall, 2012).

Conclusion

In summing up, employment security is one of the primary determinants in deterring criminality recidivism among those that had formerly been incarcerated. With more than 70 million persons having been incarcerated in the past and the number increasing with over half a million every year, it is apparent that discrimination based on conviction record is unnecessary and unlawful. In that qualified persons should be given the opportunity to participate in the workplace, pursue education, integrate with their communities and develop their personalities to achieve their actual values. The current system promotes the infringement of human rights as granted by the American constitution. A past conviction should not be utilized as a lifetime verdict to subject individuals to suffering even after serving their sentences and demonstrating reforms.

 

 

 

References

Austin, R. (N.D). The Shame of It All": Stigma and the Political Disenfranchisement Of Formerly Convicted And Incarcerated Persons. Retrieved from https://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/raustin/workingpapers/b36ColumbiaHumRtsLR173(2004).pdf

Binswanger (2017). Release from Prison — A High Risk of Death for Former Inmates

Ingrid A. Binswanger, M.D., Marc F. Stern, M.D., Richard A. Deyo, M.D., Patrick J. Heagerty, Ph.D., Allen Cheadle, Ph.D., Joann G. Elmore, M.D., and Thomas D. Koepsell, M.D. Retrieved from http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa064115

Keall, S. (2012). Employment & labour law: Jurisdictional comparisons. Thomson Reuters.

Lam, M. (2016). Obama’s Proposal to 'Ban the Box' for Government Jobs. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/obama-memorandum-opm/480909/

Nelp. (2017). Ensuring People with Convictions Have a Fair Chance to Work. Retrieved from http://www.nelp.org/campaign/ensuring-fair-chance-to-work/