Prison Reform, Recidivism, and Reintegration
January 31, 2009 14 Comments
Today the L.A. Times published an article about a convicted rapist finding employment as an X-ray lab technician. After outlining the horrible details of the worker’s criminal past and explaining that through his promotions, he was placed in contact with women “unattended,” it concluded the hiring of this man and other ex-offenders, despite the presence of background checks, is a failing of the entire record review system.
What’s missing in the article, however, is any indication that Gariner Beasley perpetrated any misconduct while employed at County-USC Medical Center. Instead, the article focuses exclusively on Beasley’s criminal past as why he should have never received the job, even though Beasley fully disclosed his criminal past and many reviews of his record were conducted.
My question is simple from here: Why can’t this man keep his job?
I am not in any way condoning his past crime; Beasley raped a number of women, including a sex worker in a deplorable assault and abuse of his position then as a police officer. Nor do I think the type of job he performed, in light of his background, was well-matched. However, if the purpose of serving time in jail is not to atone for the wrong you have done, then what options are left for former criminals once released if sensationalist articles and public fears prevent them from getting jobs? The blunt fact of the matter is while working this job, the L.A. Times has not shown that he has committed any violations while he was hired there. At all. The full disclosure of his past will affect his future employability in ANY context if work he’s done and lack of future convictions are invalidated by its revelation.
The societal reintegration of people previously convicted and sentenced for crimes needs careful, systemic reform and review. Articles like the one appearing in the L.A. Times easily can reset the progress of encouraging public and private institutions to hire ex-convicts. Scaremongering about formerly incarcerated people affects a number of demographics: African-Americans and Latin@s, the lower-class and underclasses, sex workers, transgendered people, juveniles and people of advanced ages.
If we as a community do not work harder to refute the idea of “once a criminal, always a criminal,” our society will perpetuate its high recidivism rates and prison will continue its corrupting influences on people brought within its walls to return to illegal behavior. We must keep working to provide alternatives to people upon release from jail or prison, and we must strengthen our justice system to seek a balance between retribution, instilling atonement, and helping people enter society as whole people.
About problem chylde
I believe that most people feel, even if someone “pays” for their crime, they should still be punished for the rest of their lives. Crimes like murder and rape leave society with desire to ensure that the ex-convicts never reenter society and take part. Society openly do not want them to.
Crimes of other kinds– stealing, vandalism, drug addiction– I think society a little more open to giving those convicts a chance to re-start life.
I think people feel that way as well; but that doesn’t help when our society has a higher likelihood of releasing violent offenders and keeping low-level criminals in jail for long periods of time. And when options are foreclosed to people on either side of the spectrum for their pasts, there are few alternatives out there to recidivism.
I’m wondering what would cause a collective shift in perspective so that people will remember that former criminals are human beings and not walking crimes once they get out of prison, you know? And stories like these are disheartening.
My question is simple from here: Why can’t this man keep his job?
The answer is simple-he has not received any sort of character rehabilitation (if that’s even possible) that addresses why he raped women in the first place. This man is not just a criminal-he is a PREDATOR. And behavior like that is rarely reformed. His attacks were NOT one time incidents (not that it would have mattered). In addition, this man abused his power as an officer of the law.
Whether his rapes were calculated or compulsive, this man is not to be trusted. He didn’t commit any crimes at his job-YET- perhaps due to lack of opportunity. I would never allow a multiple conviction child molester anywhere near my child-I don’t care if he hasn’t attempted anything or how long he spent in jail-he would not get that opportunity. This man does not need to be given anymore windows of opportunity to hurt anyone.
As an aside, can you imagine the lawsuit that would ensue if he were to harm someone at his job?
I understand the argument for not hiring him; but in this article, there’s no mention of him committing a crime during the tenure of his working there. You’re right that it doesn’t mean he hasn’t; however, the only grounds for trying to link him up with any crime is knowledge of his previous history. It’s obvious that his employers saw something beyond his past and thought him capable of working. From the tone of the article, if there had been an incident, it would have been reported. And for some reason, I doubt the managers who kept him working there and promoted him were “pinheads” — it takes a LOT to reach the decision to hire ex-offenders precisely because of the catch-22 of our shoddy industrial prison complex and the possibility of lawsuits.
I think it is wrong to use an ex-offender’s violent past to foreclose working opportunities for all ex-offenders. His hiring here was counterintuitive; but ex-prisoners are not foreclosed from reforming themselves because there are few rehabilitative mechanisms instituted through the system.
We don’t know if he has been rehabilitated on his own initiative. We only have his crimes, one explained in gruesome detail, and a call to close the door on prisoner reintegration. I can’t stand behind that. It does nothing to change the situation, and it only leads to permanently branding someone who is re-entering our society as barely worth considered judgment.
“I understand the argument for not hiring him; but in this article, there’s no mention of him committing a crime during the tenure of his working there. You’re right that it doesn’t mean he hasn’t; however, the only grounds for trying to link him up with any crime is knowledge of his previous history.”
As I stated, his previous history points to a deeply flawed character, that of a PREDATOR. The only thing the employers had to judge him by was his previous actions-a rapist who committed attacks while sworn in as an officer of the law. He shouldn’t have been hired because of the type of person he is, not because he is an ex-con.
_________________________________________________________
“It’s obvious that his employers saw something beyond his past and thought him capable of working.”
The problem is that the employers are not the only ones working with him-their decision affected many other people. The man was not installing cabinets-he was being exposed to individuals in vulnerable positions-a position he has violated in the past. How would you feel if you find out your child’s pediatrician was a convicted child molester who had molested children within his profession? Should someone who committed Identity Theft be allowed to work with sensitive information such as Social Security numbers?
_________________________________________________________
“I think it is wrong to use an ex-offender’s violent past to foreclose working opportunities for all ex-offenders.”
Where was this mentioned in the article?
___________________________________________________________
“We don’t know if he has been rehabilitated on his own initiative.”
Is that a chance that should be taken with innocent people’s lives? When that question is answered, it might be too late.
_______________________________________________________
“We only have his crimes, one explained in gruesome detail, and a call to close the door on prisoner reintegration.”
What more do you need?
________________________________________________________
There has to be a balance between permanently branding ex-cons and the safety of the public. This particular case is very extreme and I don’t think this man should have been released from jail, let alone given a job that puts him in close contact with other human beings.
I am beyond disturbed that any functional human being could actually second guess this situation. Why are you determined to enable this scumbag? Are you trying to play Devil’s Advocate or do you actually believe what you are saying?
“As I stated, his previous history points to a deeply flawed character, that of a PREDATOR. The only thing the employers had to judge him by was his previous actions-a rapist who committed attacks while sworn in as an officer of the law. He shouldn’t have been hired because of the type of person he is, not because he is an ex-con.”
There’s a difference between believing someone has a propensity towards doing something and the person actually doing the crime. That difference keeps arguments about propensities towards violence/violent acts from appearing in court. Fortunately, the media act as a convenient surrogate for that assertion. He has served time for the crimes he committed. Until there’s proof he’s committed more crimes, it’s ridiculous to invent new, unproven crimes based off possibility and his past.
*
“The problem is that the employers are not the only ones working with him-their decision affected many other people. The man was not installing cabinets-he was being exposed to individuals in vulnerable positions-a position he has violated in the past. How would you feel if you find out your child’s pediatrician was a convicted child molester who had molested children within his profession? Should someone who committed Identity Theft be allowed to work with sensitive information such as Social Security numbers?”
That’s the consequence of releasing a prisoner into society — there are other people around. The system hasn’t been reformed to keep violent offenders locked away; does that mean every violent offender will automatically commit violent crimes again? Does that mean the ONLY jobs an ex-offender can get is installing cabinets, even if that person is capable of doing better, more sustaining work and staying straight?
As far as your examples, on paper: no. But that’s why people most times probe beyond what’s disclosed on a page to figure out why this particular person even decided to be vetted for the decision.
*
“I think it is wrong to use an ex-offender’s violent past to foreclose working opportunities for all ex-offenders.
“Where was this mentioned in the article?”
“We had real pinheads working for us,” said Supervisor Gloria Molina, referring to managers who cleared the hires. The county fired 19 King workers, including Beasley, after the findings became public.
Details of his case were obtained by The Times after Beasley, who had no record of disciplinary problems as a county employee, appealed his termination from his $73,000-a-year job and his name became public. The disclosure of his identity allowed the first in-depth look at any of the 152 workers found to have criminal histories at King.
When The Times reported that 11% of employees undergoing new background checks had criminal histories, Los Angeles County supervisors portrayed the management breakdown as isolated to King. They offered only scant details of the offenses and blocked repeated efforts by The Times to obtain records identifying the crimes and job titles held by the former offenders, citing the employees’ privacy rights.
Basically, people were fired for bad PR. Not because they were doing poor jobs, not because they were committing crimes on the job or violating patients — because people investigated their backgrounds, found out they were ex-convicts, and decided they wouldn’t have made the hiring decisions in their own reviews. There is NO proof of any crimes committed here, and the place of employment is understandably tight-lipped because they’re running up against smoke clouds of propensity arguments.
*
“We don’t know if he has been rehabilitated on his own initiative.
“Is that a chance that should be taken with innocent people’s lives? When that question is answered, it might be too late.”
Okay, so should we bother letting people out of prison? There is no ideal stage for a crime to be committed; if it’s gonna happen, it can happen with cabinet installation (to keep using that example) the same way it could happen in a lab. I’ve already mentioned that there is a serious problem with the prison system in this society, where violent offenders do not serve as much time as they should, and people who commit petty crimes are in for long periods of time. Both circumstances can mean fewer opportunities to survive once out of jail for either group of people.
And articles like these aren’t helping matters because it allows people to weave together conjectures of what could have happened, yet did NOT. Either way, ex-convicts are out of jobs despite having served their sentences because of the way the system is structured. And that’s not fair to society or to these people.
*
“We only have his crimes, one explained in gruesome detail, and a call to close the door on prisoner reintegration.
“What more do you need?”
Proof something happened beyond someone raising a snit and article of statistics. As of now, there is nothing but proof that journalists can find publicly accessible criminal records.
*
I agree with you on the need for a balance, and I think this article is using a worst-case, extreme scenario to close the chance of creating that balance. I think this goes part and parcel for creating any situation that would enable that balance to happen. That’s why I wrote this entry. I wrote from the perspective of prisoner reintegration because people already think criminals, regardless of what stage of life they’ve hit, are expendable. It’s not so much devil’s advocate as it is “this is an important issue that can’t be isolated to poles of Always Criminal vs. Safe and Cuddly.”
I completely agree with you, Sylvia. When a person is put in jail, they are treated inhumanely and aren’t provided with any rehabilitative services or are provided with ones that are wholly inadequate both during their incarceration and after they are released. Then we deny these people jobs and fire them b/c of fear of bad PR when their criminal history has nothing to do with their ability to perform their assigned work tasks. What are we supposed to do with this man? Keep him in solitary for the rest of his life? Deny him the privilege to ever interact with any women? Continue to ignore the issues that he had/has which contributed to his crimes and wait until he does something equally or more egregious and throw him back in jail? The criminal justice system is broke broke broke, and there are very few people who are trying to fix it because (as some these comments show) prisoners and ex-prisoners are one of the least respected, more marginalized populations in the US–an ethically abhorrent position that is inherently racist and classist. I have mad respect for people who work for prison reform because the systemic and interlocking oppressions that they are fighting pretty much don’t get any more difficult.
Sylvia, I agree with your overall approach and I do agree that every person who leaves prison deserves a job. But in THIS case with THIS job? Where he is in a position of power over, and physical contact with, vulnerable women? Without direct supervision?
I’m not going to argue whether someone who has a lengthy history of sexual assaults can truly reform or not. But I will say that if I were to find out that my x-ray technician were a convicted rapist, there is no way in hell that I would go alone into that x-ray room with him.
Yes, the man needs to be employed and reintegrated back into society. But not THIS job.
I am all for giving people second chances however a rapist should never be in a positions of trust with women who are not aware of his past criminal history. I believe that we need to give ex cons a chance to work and be part of society but their past crimes should also factor into any position that they work for the safety of the public at large. There is a difference between doing your time and being reformed. Considering that we don’t spend a lot of time actually working to reform inmates this is a big leap of faith.
I don’t know, Renee, because this then infringes on people’s right to privacy, and the validity of the assumption of replicating a past bad act. To push this further, let’s say we do require convicted rapists to tell women that they are in a “position of trust” with that they’ve been convicted of rape, given the targeting of poor men of color by the criminal justice system, this just comes across to me as one more way we not only condone systemic racism and classism, but increase its reach/control of poor men of color’s lives. I’d perhaps feel differently if I thought the criminal justice system actually worked.
I read some wonderful and insightful comments in response to this artice, although not all of them so forgive me if I am repeating something that has already been said. I would like to say kudos to Aisha for her comments. I am in agreeance with you.
I am a law enforcement officer, I am a woman who has at times felt distincty uncomfortable in certain situations with male health care practitioners. If I ever found out one of those practitioners were convicted sex offenders, I would go looking for the person who gave them the opportunity to assault me or others.
Certain types of criminal offenders can be rehabilitated, certain types of criminal offenders CANNOT.
For those of you who say that this man has served his time and should be allowed unrestrained and unchecked access to vulnerable people, even after he has once abused his authorities, YOU go and get undressed and be subjected to his care OR take your child to see him! tell me that you would risk yourself or someone that you love just to see if he will keep his oath! I think not.
I do believe that once a person has served their sentence they should be able to work and make an honest living but lets use our brains people. Sex offenders should not be put in positions which make re-offending easier than not. Child molesters shouldn’t be allowed to be day care providers! There must be checks and balances to protect the innocent.
I know this man and can tell you he is STILL violent.
Pingback: Talking to people « Chicks Dig Me
I agree with GallingGalla.