Blog Stage 3 - Editorial

An editorial in The New York Times, titled Hiring and Fairness, claims that employment rights of past offenders should have greater protection by the government. The author states that “confining people with criminal convictions to the very margins of society is unfair and self-defeating.”

A number of states, such as New York, Connecticut, and New Mexico, recently passed such laws. The author claims these states made the right decision; by protecting former offenders’ employment rights, the states are dealing with a large part of their urban unemployment population, and thus being less “self-defeating”. A law taking effect in October in Connecticut restricts “government employers and licensing agencies” from looking into an applicant’s criminal history until the person has been picked as qualified. By providing greater protection of the employment rights of former offenders, states increase the former offenders’ likelihood of obtaining a job, and the states are therefore working toward lowering their unemployment rate.

The author also points out the fact that even if, or when these laws are put in place, a criminal record review will be conducted for jobs in more sensitive fields, such as those dealing with law enforcement, children, or the disabled. In this way, former criminals will be given more chances to get integrated into society once again, and society still, in a way, be protected from them.

The author is targeting employers, former and current offenders, and the adult and young adult population of the United States. Those are the people who will be most directly affected by the implementation of these laws, and who would care to learn about their existence. The New York Times, is a well known and respected newspaper, so its publications are assumed to have desired credibility.

Overall, the author makes some good arguments, and personally, I agree with the idea of providing greater protection for the employment rights of former offenders, especially if the job they are applying for is not connected with the type of conviction they previously had. If, as the author said, a large portion of the urban unemployed population is in fact unemployed because of a criminal past, then protecting employment rights can help with the unemployment rate. These protections will not be forcing employers to hire applicants with a criminal past, they will simply be giving those applicants a more fair chance of obtaining the position when compared with the rest of the applicants – they won’t be prematurely dismissed based on their past.

However, along with the implementation of these protective laws, states should, at the same time, be working toward lowering the crime rate in their cities. If a large urban population is unemployed because of a criminal past, then, lowering the number of criminals will lower that unemployment rate as well. Not only that, but the state will be safer.