Introduction
One of the recurrent controversies in the field of criminology is a concern about those poor individuals who suffer at the hands of a negative attitude from society. The role of social contribution in criminal etiology if represents something is none other than an abominating attitude for the individuals who suffer at the hands of a negative criminal record. Or it is better to say that society is nothing for ex-offenders other than a discerned group of people who have no room of sympathy for the ex-offender or for an individual who though is blamed for having a criminal past, but is no longer associated with it.
Most criminologists in the United States have given very little attention to this problem, except in a negative and critical way. One of the main reasons for such a pessimistic attitude towards the poor individual is because of the strongly environmentalist orientation of the sociological criminologists and because of the preoccupation of the dynamic psychiatrists with their postulated processes of psychogenesis (Tappan, 1960, p. 83). Though it is good to be precise about taking safety measures to avoid crime, where is the humanitarian contemplation which suggests that an individual can not be held responsible his entire life for his past deeds and therefore cannot be examined so harshly, so as to not receive any kind of employment or housing facility?
The perilous effects of the criminal record often serve a lot more than what the offender has committed in the past in the name of crime. The challenges which the individual confronts to are more severe than what he experiences in jail as a punishment, for the behavior of society every now and again reminds him that he is still an offender, having no right to live as a respectable individual. Though society knows very well that an individual who has a criminal record has already been incarcerated and have put under all forms of correctional supervision so as to avoid any future crime, but not a single person in the society welcomes him as a new individual or as a member among them.
The ever-spiraling costs of building and maintaining prisons, not to mention the human toll on prisoners, their families, and communities, require the development of bold initiatives that serve both to prevent crime and to effectively address the needs of offenders in U.S. society (Delgado, 2001, p. 83). Today, the most common consequences after having a criminal record are:
Employment
After having a criminal record, no employer is willing to accept the job offer of an individual and does not consider him eligible for any position in his company. Thanks to the employers of the society who never contemplates hiring an ex-offender and conduct a pre-employment background check before hiring the individual (Rosen, Sept 2003). Individuals whose record has been marked ‘criminal’ never be able to get dignity from society, no matter if they are no longer part of the criminal history. However such ‘marked’ poor individuals are able to do low-paid jobs, those that are particularly designed for the ‘ex-offenders.
Such sociological inequalities exist in our society where on one hand the individual is treated psychologically so as to consider himself an important part of our society whereas on the other end, when he is determined to leave the criminal life far behind him the society does not give him the right to do so.
Individual who suffers at the hands of our society by such discrimination receive an unequal position in employment, housing and education. Other than employment, there are features of our society which present criminal record-holders in negative ways. Ways that attempt to describe ‘individuals’ objectively in terms of, for example, family relationships, housing, education, employment, therefore society sets up criteria or descriptions based on implicit assumptions of ‘normality, which often fails to recognize ‘individuals’ as ‘ex-offenders that also possess the right to lead their lives normally and therefore could not be imposed upon by structural inequalities.
Housing and Welfare
According to U.S statistics, there has been a continuous increase in the government-subsidized form of housing that appears in cells for ex-offenders. Figures prove that since June 2001, almost 2 million people are locked up somehow in criminal offenses (Karaim, Housing First). Yesterday’s prisoners mean those who today are able to get back to their towns and cities. Individuals who are somehow associated with a criminal record are marked as ‘ex-offenders and are thus not subjected to acquire the benefits which other non-ex-offenders enjoy. Similarly, their children and families are not entitled to the benefits which other members of society enjoy.
Those who take the view that anything that contributes to healthy personalities in children prevents delinquency are concerned with the roles of the home, the church, and the school, and the general opportunities for children to make normal adjustments in the communities in which they live (Bloch & Flynn, 1956, p. 512).
Many non-profit organizations work in order to serve those poor communities that provide shelter to ex-offenders. Among such organizations is Prisoner aid organization, less concerned about prisoners’ housing and development and more worried about the real estate housing development and management, Special needs providers – aimed at providing shelter to the ex-offenders and no doubt they have served many targeted populations concealing ex-offenders but still lack behind in providing a permanent home to ex-offenders.
These poor providers are themselves dependant upon the charity or welfare works to which the ex-offenders are ineligible (Scally, 2005). Community-based housing developers also do not want to lag behind and therefore provide affordable housing to ex-offenders, but where they lack is the consideration to reach and target ex-offenders (Scally, 2005).
Social welfare when seen in the context of ex-offenders is now largely a negative concept; unemployment insurance has been compensated with appropriate workfare and co-payment and has been instituted in other services, such as healthcare, primary and secondary education, and public transportation (Forrest & Lee, 2002, p. 69), but the dilemma is that ex-offenders are not entitled to any of the benefits that are curtailed by the rest of the society.
Likewise, those concerned with a particular condition believed to contribute to delinquency are interested in a segment of the general activities that affect the overall adjustment of children, such as bad housing, overcrowded schools, or conditions inimical to the welfare of minority groups. Similarly, those whose main preoccupation is with services to individual children or groups of children are interested in the impact of particular services upon the children served and therefore might well be concerned about the absence of a school social work program.
But what about those youthful ex-offenders who have come back to their old routines and want to lead their lives in their homes, what about those who have just decide never to indulge in any criminal act ever, would society be able to afford the cost of sending them back to the threshold of criminal offense or would she be able to forgive them and at least give them a chance of proving them. The decision is to be made by society for the future of the ex-offenders lies in the hands of the destiny, shaped by society.
Work Cited
Bloch A. Herbert & Flynn T. Frank, (1956) Delinquency: The Juvenile Offender in America Today: Random House: New York.
Delgado Melvin, (2001) Where Are All the Young Men and Women of Color?: Capacity Enhancement Practice in the Criminal Justice System: Columbia University Press: New York.
Forrest Ray & Lee James, (2002) Housing and Social Change: East-West Perspectives: Routledge: New York.
Karaim Reed, Housing First. Web.
Rosen Les, (2003) Web.
Scally P. Corianne (2005) ShelterOnline. Web.
Tappan W. Paul, (1960) Crime, Justice and Correction: McGraw-Hill: New York.