Until the 2000 elections, when I learned about convicted felons being disenfranchised, I didn’t quite realize that in this country we like to continue punishing people well after they have served their prison time. It came as a bit of a shock. Now Dr. G has cowritten a policy paper on the issue of lifetime sanctions for felony offenders. I’ll link to it once it comes out. He and his cowriter advocate two things: 1. Except in rare cases, lifetime sanctions on former convicts should be abolished or replaced with shorter-term sanctions. 2. Use of criminal background checks should be regulated and have sunset provisions (that is, people would be able to access only a certain number of recent years of a person’s record).

These sanctions are created for two reasons– continued punishment, and to reduce risk of further harm to society. Examples of these punishments at the state level include not being able to vote, not being able to get public funding for education, and being barred from hundreds of different jobs. Examples of preventing risk include sex offender registries and bans from adopting children. In most cases, Dr. G explains, these lifetime regulations are unnecessary and have ethical problems. This is a big deal because these laws affect 16 million people* already.

Let’s say a drug dealer with a felony charge completes his prison term and is sent back into the community to go and sin no more. “Become a productive citizen!” we tell him. “Except, you can’t get financial aid for school, there is a big list of jobs you will never be allowed to do, and for the jobs you can get, employers are pretty much going to rule you out based on the criminal background check. Good luck! We wish you the best! And oh, you don’t like these policies? Too bad, because you will never be able to vote to change them.” These sanctions not only put him at an immediate disadvantage in getting back on his feet, but likely severely limit the opportunities he has to create a better life for himself. Multiply his dead-end situation by 16 million. That’s just ridiculous. Punishment for a crime should be contained to a specific time period; once you’ve done your time, you should regain full citizenship. Anything else is, in my opinion, unethical except in cases where vulnerable members of society, such as children, need additional protection.

Voting in particular is an essential check on government abuses. Imagine if the government started picking on a particular group. Let’s say, Christians. Draconian laws are passed against Christian assembly and prayer. People are convicted of felonies for carrying bibles and spend years in prison. People plot to vote in more open-minded leaders. But once they get out of prison, they find their right to vote has been rescinded, so they can’t do anything legal to change the situation. The government has effectively taken a group it doesn’t like and found as many ways as possible to reduce its power. Dangerous policy, indeed.

Dr. G also pointed out the good research on what happens to people over their lifetimes and after they get out of prison. The fact is, people commit less and less crime as they get older. Some studies show that by the time career criminals are 40, their criminal activity goes into steep decline. Nearly everyone is done with crime by the age of 60. * In addition, the longer someone stays out of prison, the less likely they are to be arrested again. By the time someone has been out of prison for seven years, you can’t tell the difference in risk of offending between that person and someone who’s never been convicted*. They blend right in to the general population. So, then, there is no need for lifetime bans and sanctions, since people become much lower risks to society with each passing year.

That’s why the indiscriminate use of criminal background checks should be reigned in. The common wisdom”once a criminal, always a criminal” just isn’t true. To withold opportunity and trust from someone for a conviction from 10 or even 20 years ago makes no sense, in light of the facts. Let’s not stigmatize people lifelong for the crimes of their youth.

*Updated5/7

The best online resource on this issue is Chris Uggen’s webpage. The 16 million figure comes from his 2006 paper with Manza & Thompson, available on his research web page:
and another paper:

“Scarlet letters and recidivism: Does an old criminal record predict future offending?”

Tags: