Here's an article on how policy, the systems under which we live, directly shape one's opportunities and place some in a life of poverty.
http://www.thenation.com/article/201089/should-criminal-record-be-life-sentence-poverty
I think the REDEEM Act would be a step in the right direction but its also just another band-aid to the culture of the prison system. If the prison system was effective in rehabilitating criminals, would background checks even really be necessary? The problem is it is that recidivism is natural assumed in our culture because we know these people aren't actually getting the treatment they need or provided the proper resources; in part because billions of dollars are being spend to fight the war on drugs with mandatory minimum sentences in order to enforce this 'justice' based framework which just ends up costing even more money. While the war on drugs is futile and just an excuse to militarize the police and enforce the idea that the justice system is actually cracking down on key crimes because they know people will continue to use drugs and they know its an easy conviction. We even see on TV sitcoms where someone is released from prison and they are bitter and angry at the world and are out to seek revenge. And we accept that as a natural reaction to being imprisoned because we know the system doesn't actually work to rehabilitate people but is just a time-out session. Also if background checks are known to be inaccurate and provide limited information why are we using them? 1 in every 100 adults in the US is in prison currently and as the article said 1/3 of us have a criminal record, if there are this many people with some sort of criminal history wouldn't it be worth spending the time to make sure the FBI background checks are accurate and provide detail whether or not said person is/was 1) accused 2) convicted 3) charged? Also there should be discrepancy between drug related crimes (possession, distribution) and violence related crimes (assault, battery, rape, murder). Like no one should be denied an apartment for a low level drug offense.
I think the REDEEM Act would be a step in the right direction but its also just another band-aid to the culture of the prison system. If the prison system was effective in rehabilitating criminals, would background checks even really be necessary? The problem is it is that recidivism is natural assumed in our culture because we know these people aren't actually getting the treatment they need or provided the proper resources; in part because billions of dollars are being spend to fight the war on drugs with mandatory minimum sentences in order to enforce this 'justice' based framework which just ends up costing even more money. While the war on drugs is futile and just an excuse to militarize the police and enforce the idea that the justice system is actually cracking down on key crimes because they know people will continue to use drugs and they know its an easy conviction. We even see on TV sitcoms where someone is released from prison and they are bitter and angry at the world and are out to seek revenge. And we accept that as a natural reaction to being imprisoned because we know the system doesn't actually work to rehabilitate people but is just a time-out session. Also if background checks are known to be inaccurate and provide limited information why are we using them? 1 in every 100 adults in the US is in prison currently and as the article said 1/3 of us have a criminal record, if there are this many people with some sort of criminal history wouldn't it be worth spending the time to make sure the FBI background checks are accurate and provide detail whether or not said person is/was 1) accused 2) convicted 3) charged? Also there should be discrepancy between drug related crimes (possession, distribution) and violence related crimes (assault, battery, rape, murder). Like no one should be denied an apartment for a low level drug offense.
ReplyDelete