Criminal Record Does Matter

A Criminal Record Does Matter April 11, 2013 Sociology 381 In the article, seduce of a Criminal Record by Devah beeper, the takings that a ne remoteious discharge has on dim and etiolated males is examined. Pagers goal is to answer whether and to what issue employers engross whitlow memoir, whether race plays a role in hiring, and whether thither argon distinct results for black appli go offts than for white applicants when applying for a concern. In value to conduct this re look for Pager uses Audit Methodology. The basic design of this written report was to create four different resumes for four different people ( inspectors). some(prenominal)ly inspector was an articulate college student who took on adept of two roles when applying for a billet an ex convict or someone with no whitlow history. Each resume had the same level of qualifications for gentility and task experience. The two black testers were paired together and the two white testers were paired togeth er. Each tester had one resume and the precisely difference between the resumes within sever all toldy group was that one had dressd prison metre for possession of cocaine with wrapped to distribute.The first fair game of the count was to find by whether and to what extent employers use information around wretched history in making hiring purposes. This was burning(prenominal) because in the sample taken by Pager (2003), 27% of employers say they would perform bindingground checks on all applicants. However, the actual number was closely likely higher because employers were non required to indicate whether or not they intended to perform spinal columnground checks (Pager, 2003, p. 953). And although not all employers actually do this, it calm implied that, to some degree, a outlaw history lead continue job opportunities.One criticism to this type of research was that employers use other characteristics to descend whether or not the applicant exit be hired and not the criminal phonograph record. This says that the same characteristics that make a person resort to plague happen to everyplacelap with characteristics that make a person an undesirable employee. This objective and study was designed to find out how true that is. It has been found that a criminal record plays a significant role during the hiring process. A criminal record reduced the likelihood of a call back by 50%. 4% of whites without a criminal record received a callback compared to 17% of whites with a criminal background. For one tedious job application for a trucking service, one applicant was told that the job had been make full after the employer reviewed the application. Keep in mind, though, that the applicant had to check with the supervisor several different times during the application process in order to bump off the application. The second objective was to find out the extent to which race continues to serve as a major barrier to employment.This is importa nt because racial unlikeness is a prevalent issue that has been heavily debated in regards to job opportunities. African Americans submit lower rates of employment compared to whites. There is disagreement over the cause of these discriminations. This method of testing is designed to address this question. Recent studies bear doubted the importance of race when it comes to the job hiring process. Some recent arguments have verbalize that other concomitantors such as spatial location, soft skills, social capital, and cognitive ability are to blame preferably than race.This study compares equally fit black and white applicants who apply for the same job and the frequency separately one received call backs. One surprising conclusion is that out of the black applicants without criminal records, only 14% were called back compared to 34% of white applicants without criminal history. What really makes the results of this audit so surprising is that whites with criminal background s were called back more than blacks without a criminal background at 17% of the time.Blacks with criminal history were only a little less likely to be called back than their noncriminal counterparts at 14% of the time. The third objective is to assess whether the effect of a criminal record differs for black and white applicants. This is important because criminal history can affect job opportunities and whitethorn even be more troublesome depending on the race of the applicant. Effects of criminal records for blacks and whites can be even more detrimental in times of stinting hardships.One employer for a janitorial service said that the company had been extremely short staffed and had to question virtually every applicant. Now with job scarcity, even the most introduction level jobs are able to be more selective more or less whom they employ. It is important to recognize the possible racial differences in the effects of incarceration. ongoing literature on racial stereotypes sa ys that stereotypes are most likely to be activated and reinforced when a target matches on more than one dimension of the stereotype (Pager, 2003, p. 45). This may make employers, who already have gestate notions, even more wary with proven past criminal behavior. The results of the study showed that the effect of a criminal record is more pronounced and impacting blacks 40% more than whites. On three separate occasions black testers were asked if they had criminal backgrounds before they submitted their applications. I had a lot of different reactions to this article. Before I read the article I had a couple different assumptions that were correct.For example, I already figured that a criminal record would affect luck for hire and that it would have a bigger impact for blacks than for whites. I was, however, affect to learn that whites with a criminal history were more often called back than blacks with a clean history. I did not know that there was still such discrimination wi th the workplace. I was more disturbed by how more a criminal record affected overall employment rather than by how much race played a role. One conclusion that really bothered me was that there are no limitations as to how far back an employer can go when performing a background check.Employers may potentially reject an applicant because of a crime committed some(prenominal) years prior or even during adolescents and according to Kurlychek (2007), individualists who have teenage or early adult records have a lower mishap of recidivism. With todays technology it is even easier to access this information, making it more likely that an employer will look at the background, making the mark of a criminal record even more problematic. Employers are allowed to deny employment if the offense in a flash relates to the job.This is vague and the lack of regulation and accountability on the employers part makes it favourable for them to dismiss an applicant and blame it on other defect s of character or qualification even though these defects may be completely erroneous. some other part of the results that is shocking is that these testers are articulate college students, and even though they took on criminal personas, are still not being selected. During the study the testers were the opera hat possible scenario ex convicts, meaning that each(prenominal) one had some college education and his own transportation.Each applicant put down his parole officers name and had other references. Very rarely did the employer contact any of the references. To me, this means that regardless of how wellhead presented a person is or even if he/she has credible references that are able to atone for his/her character and reliability, a criminal record may destroy any chance a person has for a special(prenominal) job. One important part of Pagers study is that the testers were open and upfront about their criminal background.The part of this which stuck out in my mind was even if the job application did not request criminal information, it was still granted. And according to Pager (2003), this reflects real life situations, as it is assumed that most employers will at long last find out with that being said, these people are being openly designate as ex convicts. Labels serve as cues to how others respond to an individual and have even been formalized into law so that people who have criminal records face civil disenfranchisement (Kurlychek, 2007, p. 67).Another aspect of this I found fantastically shocking is that people labeled deviant suffered more setbacks in search of employment than did illegal aliens. I realize there are different types of offending and I believe each one should be set on a case by case basis, but the fact remains, it is easier for an illegal alien to find employment than some U. S. citizens who are labeled as criminals. 50% of cases, employers were unwilling to consider equally qualified applicants on the basis of their crimi nal record (Pager, 2003, p. 956).I find this statistic to be very expected yet unfair in some circumstances. The fact that half of the employers polled will not even consider an applicant because of a criminal record is absurd, especially, in cases such as the one studied in Pagers audit. This finding is supported by a study reviewed in Kurlycheks article 25 employers received a resume with a criminal history and only one offered the applicant employment (2007, p. 67). Each crime is different, and as I have previously stated, each one should be considered on a case by case basis.I do not believe that all hope for employment should be abolished due to the criminal record depict in Pagers study. The testers were one time offenders whom otherwise would have been viewed as safe candidates for employment. In one study by Cheng, Kim, and Lo (2008), there was a tyrannical correlation between the number of offenses committed in the past and the likelihood of reoffending. Other findings in Kurlycheks (2007) article state that the majority of one time offenders do not continue to offend and either learn their lesson or grow out of it.I should add, when an offender forms a positive social tie, such as the one that would be created due to employment, the chances of offending decrease. After instruction these articles, the way I view those with criminal records is a little telephone number different. I am very open-minded, I give people the gather of the doubt, and I do not believe that a criminal history defines who a person is or their ability to perform certain tasks. Although, each situation needs to be evaluated separately by factors other than the comportment of a criminal record.I think one time offenders should be given more leniency and there should be more focus on the offenders pattern (or lack thereof) of criminality. The way in which offenders are labeled in society by both written and unwritten law is other aspect I see a little differently. I never realized how difficult it is to escape the stigmatization of being labeled as deviant. This kind of negative label has the ability to haunt people their full(a) lives, even if their offense can be attributed to one bad decision made while maturing.References Cheng, T. , Kim, Y. , & Lo, C. (n. d. ). Offense specialization of arrestees. (2008). An Event History Analysis,54(3), 341-365. inside 10. 1177/0011128707305746 Kurlychek, M. , Brame, R. , & Bushway, S. (n. d. ). Enduring risk? old criminal records and predictions of future criminal social function . (2007). Crime & Delinquency,53(1), 64-83. doi 10. 1177/0011128706294439 Pager, D. (n. d. ). The mark of a criminal record. (2003). American Journal of Sociology,108(5), 937-975. doi 10. 1086/374403