Perpetual punishment

[Zip]

*

When a man commits a crime today he is sentenced and sent to prison where (according to our legal principals) he pays for committing his crime and is then released a "free man".

But then in many instances he has to disclose to future employers, landlords and the like (and in some cases he must report his whereabouts to the police) that he is an ex-con.

This could in many cases confound his attempts to "go straight", get a job and a legitimate life.

My question is this. Does the label of ex-con (and more rightly the requirement to tell people about it) amount to little more than continued punishment for the crime that the person was supposed to have paid in full in prison?

Personally I believe that the only people who need to know and who aught to know that Mr. "X" is a former criminal are the police and that should only come up if he is arrested again.

Does this make sense?

*I am not a Lawyer, nor do I play one on TV...

[DavidOdden]

A punishment is a state-enforced consequence of an act which must have a definite duration. The opinions of people which result from your actions aren't punishments.

The need to know about a person's moral character depends on the circumstances. If a person is a habitual thief, as a potential employer in the hardware business, you need to know whether hiring the person will expose you to a substantial risk of losses due to this person's theft. If a potential employee at a child care center is a child-rapist, you need to know that. The employer, or landlord, has to be the one to determine whether there is a reason to care about a person's criminal past, thus if you want something from a person (a job, an apartment, a security bond) then you have to be willing to provide what they rationally demand, namely evidence as to your character. A landlord probably won't care about a tax evasion conviction; he might care about a firearms conviction, depending on the nature of the crime, and rightfully so because he has an interest in making sure that his property is protected.

[D'kian]

This could in many cases confound his attempts to "go straight", get a job and a legitimate life.

That is a valid concern.

My question is this. Does the label of ex-con (and more rightly the requirement to tell people about it) amount to little more than continued punishment for the crime that the person was supposed to have paid in full in prison?

I don't think so. The recidivism rate is rather high in most places, and there are kinds of criminals who you know will simply go back to crime as soon as possible (like pedophiles). Prospective employers ought to be warned.

In the end, of course, it depends on the individual ex-con. One with a long record and multiple stays in prison is more likely to keep on being a criminal. But also consider few criminals are caught on their first offense. Most are arrested after multiple crimes. So it's rather hard to say based on record alone.

But suppose you hire Joe for a book-keeping position, and after a few months he flees with half your company's money. Then you find out before you hired him he'd been convicted of embezlement. How'd you feel about that? Personally I wouldn't put a criminal in charge of my money.

[themadkat]

*

When a man commits a crime today he is sentenced and sent to prison where (according to our legal principals) he pays for committing his crime and is then released a "free man".

But then in many instances he has to disclose to future employers, landlords and the like (and in some cases he must report his whereabouts to the police) that he is an ex-con.

This could in many cases confound his attempts to "go straight", get a job and a legitimate life.

My question is this. Does the label of ex-con (and more rightly the requirement to tell people about it) amount to little more than continued punishment for the crime that the person was supposed to have paid in full in prison?

Personally I believe that the only people who need to know and who aught to know that Mr. "X" is a former criminal are the police and that should only come up if he is arrested again.

Does this make sense?

*I am not a Lawyer, nor do I play one on TV...

Yes, I agree that it is something like permanent punishment. I also think it depends on how likely a given class of crime is to be repeated...for example sex offenders are almost guaranteed to repeat (depending on the "sex offense"...I do not believe statutory rape should be lumped in with violent serial rapists and pedophiles, but unfortunately it is). Certain kinds of violent crime are also likely to be repeated. Rather than punishing people after they are released from prison, I think that the likelihood of repeated offenses should be factored into the original sentence, taking into account of course whether this PARTICULAR offender is a repeater.