TWICE PUNISHED

This week's CBS Sunday Morning had a segment dealing with a woman and two men who had been released from prisons after having been locked up for a number of years before being exonerated of crimes for which they were wrongly convicted. Their stories were similar in that all three found it difficult, if not impossible, to find jobs despite the fact they had been wrongly convicted and had the newspaper articles and court papers to prove their innocense.

What does that tell us about our society when it refuses to give ex-cons another chance? It tells us that we are really not all that forgiving. We punish them twice - first by sending them to prison and then by refusing to employ them when they get out, even if we know they were really innocent when imprisoned.

Although I am a hard-ass law and order advocate, I also believe in "with justice for all." Everyone needs to know for sure that there will be consequences, such as jail time, for committing unlawful acts. But when someone is wrongfully convicted, their prison time should never be held against them. And if we hold that someone has paid his "debt to society" once he has completed his prison sentence, then we owe him a good chance to take his rightful place in the community.

A supervisor at the nature center where I do my volunteer work told me they have a policy of not allowing anyone to become a volunteer if they've got a criminal record. For an organization that cannot survive without volunteer workers that policy doesn't make any sense if it's true. I can see barring sex offenders from volunteering at a place where children visit all the time. I can see persons convicted of violent crimes being barred. I cannot see barring a run-of-the-mill type offender if he wants to do volunteer work.

Social scientists and criminal justice authorities are all in agreement that employment is the key factor in preventing the recidivism of offenders released from prison. Generally, about half of all parolees are returned to prison, either for violating parole conditions or for committing new crimes. It is true that many of these parole violators were holding down a job, but you can bet your entire bankroll that any ex-con who is out of work and cannot find a decent job will be committing new crimes.

When I was a California state parole agent back in the late '60s, parolees had little trouble finding work, especially if they were warned that failure to obtain and maintain employment would get them returned to prison on a parole violation, no ifs, ands or buts! Those without skills found work as unskilled laborers. Those with specific skills found employment in their area of expertise. Employers were willing, if not eager, to give ex-cons a second chance. It made the employers feel good. I even had an Indiana bank robber working for one of Southern California's largest banking institutions.

Obviously, nowadays many employers are no longer willing to employ ex-cons. What has happened since the late '60s? Putting aside the current economic crisis, I blame politicians for a change in attitudes. Well before our economy went south, ex-cons found it increasingly difficult to find a job. Politicians discovered that they could get elected by campaigning on a law and order platform. They called attention to horrific crimes, often exacerbating crime rates, and promised to put criminals away.

While crime rates were indeed high, political office seekers were responsible for making the crime problem seem far worse than it actually was. They scared the shit out of the public to get themselves elected and in the process changed the attitudes of employers who had always been willing to give ex-cons another chance. And sadly, now ex-cons can't even get a job if they were wrongly convicted and presented proof of that fact to prospective employers.

EDITOR'S NOTE; When the director of the nature center came to one of our early morning meetings, I asked him if it was true that they would not use any volunteers with a criminal record. He informed me that the use of ex-cons as volunteers was not prohibitive. A criminal record check is run on every staff and volunteer applicant. Each case would be judged on the basis of the crime for which the applicant was convicted. After the director had left, one of my fellow volunteers said, "Bullshit, he's not going to use a volunteer once he finds out that he has a criminal record." I suspect he's right.