NCJ Number
220744
Journal
Criminology & Public Policy Volume: 6 Issue: 4 Dated: November 2007 Pages: 697-706
Date Published
November 2007
Length
10 pages
Annotation
After reviewing the nature and effects of the lifetime bans placed on ex-felons, this essay concludes that although such bans may have some short-term benefit during the period when ex-felons are at higher risk of reoffending, offending-risk differences disappear after a relatively short time.
Abstract
Ex-felons are barred from up to 800 different occupations across the United States. Such bans may be warranted for occupations directly linked to offending history. Sex offenders against children, for example, should not be employed in jobs that involve frequent contact with children. Often, however, the occupational bans have no relationship to a particular offending history. Some lifetime bans extend into educational opportunities, child adoption and foster parenting, voting rights, public assistance, public housing, and marital dissolution. One area of criminology relevant to these bans is research on patterns of decrease in offending (desistance research) over the life course of an offender. Repeated long-term studies of reoffending confirm that the risk for reoffending tends to peak within 1 or 2 years after release from prison and then decline. Research indicates that lifetime bans are excessive and that a more rational policy should include time limits on various bans according to the findings of desistance research. Because lifetime bans bar entry into many types of employment; impede the formation of stable family units; and block access to education assistance, low-income housing, and public assistance, they prevent ex-offenders from accessing the benefits known to reduce reoffending. Short-term and long-term bans may be justified for particular offenders and offenses; however, blanket lifetime bans on all ex-felons, regardless of the nature of their offenses, are not supported by research and should be abolished. 44 references