In the US, all criminal records are life sentences
Although the idea of a 'second chance' is celebrated, the reality is that the door to opportunity remains shut for millions of Americans coming out of prison. Without access to stable jobs and financial independence, many end up back behind bars or at least continue to have some kind of involvement with the criminal justice system.
Each year, more than 600,000 people are released from state and federal prisons. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, about two-thirds of those released will be rearrested within three years. One of the main contributors to this staggering recidivism rate is the inability to find meaningful employment.
A study from the Prison Policy Initiative found that the unemployment rate for formerly incarcerated individuals is nearly five times higher than the general population. For Black men with criminal records, the rate is even higher. It comes down to the fact that most employers conduct background checks. Even a quick internet search often reveals a past record, even if the offense was nonviolent or occurred many years ago.
With limited employment options, financial stability becomes unattainable, and the likelihood of reoffending increases.
If we are serious about reducing recidivism and supporting successful reentry, we should work to dismantle the systemic barriers that prevent people with criminal records from rebuilding their lives. I have three suggestions.
First, we should expunge criminal records from internet search results. In the U.S., if someone goes bankrupt, there is no searchable evidence of that bankruptcy after 10 years. However, if you make a mistake with something as simple as failure to appear in court or a charge of driving under the influence, your record appears in internet searches in perpetuity. These search engine results undermine even the most well-intentioned and best-prepared job applicants. This goes directly against the basic American ideal that everyone deserves a second chance.
A sensible reform would involve requiring search engines and third-party data aggregators to remove criminal records from search results after a designated period, particularly for nonviolent offenses. If Google can tweak its algorithms to demote low-quality content in search results in an effort to combat 'fake news,' it can give people who have been incarcerated a way to expunge their online record after a period of time or through some fair process, helping individuals move on with their lives without their past defining their future.
Second, we should provide tax credits to employers who hire individuals with criminal records. Financial incentives can be a powerful tool in encouraging businesses to do this. A federal tax credit program specifically designed for employers who hire formerly incarcerated individuals would reduce perceived risks and encourage companies to make these hires.
Although the Work Opportunity Tax Credi t already offers some benefits, they are very limited in that they are available to employers of individuals who have been convicted of a felony or released from prison for a felony only within the last year. A system of tiered incentives based on retention rates could further encourage long-term employment and stability.
Third, we should support entrepreneurship for people with criminal records. Not every citizen returning to life on the outside will find traditional employment opportunities, but entrepreneurship provides an alternative path. Starting a small business allows individuals to take control of their financial future and contribute positively to their communities.
Unlike corporate hiring managers, customers rarely ask small-business owners about their criminal backgrounds. They care about the quality of the product or service. Entrepreneurship training programs and mentorship initiatives can help people with criminal records build sustainable businesses.
My organization has demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach. By equipping individuals with practical skills and ongoing support, these programs reduce recidivism and foster economic growth.
Second Chance Month serves as a reminder that redemption and rehabilitation are possible — but only if we remove the significant obstacles that stand in the way.
Outside of people whose ancestors are from Africa, in America, all of our ancestors started anew and got a second chance. In this way, second chance is not a concept — it is central to what we are all about. Today, we are not living up to this basic principle.
Brian Hamiltonis a nationally-recognized entrepreneur and the chairman of LiveSwitch. He is the founder of Inmates to Entrepreneurs, where he serves as the leading voice on the power of ownership to transform lives. He is well known for being the founder of Sageworks (now Abrigo), the country's first fintech company. He is also the star of 'Free Enterprise,' an award-winning show on ABC based on Inmates to Entrepreneurs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
25 minutes ago
- New York Post
Just say no to Big Dope — and its push for even more legal marijuana
Will more marijuana use make America a better place? Not many who've seen and smelled what legalizing the drug has done to cities like New York, Washington, DC, and San Francisco would say so. Yet President Donald Trump is contemplating a change to marijuana's federal classification that would make it easier to buy and more profitable to sell. The pot industry — Big Dope — is heavily invested in getting its product recategorized from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule 3 drug. Industry leaders ponied up for a $1-million-a-plate Trump fundraising dinner earlier this month to hear what the president had in mind, according to The Wall Street Journal. The president should ignore the well-funded cannabis lobby: What matters is what more and cheaper marijuana will mean for ordinary Americans. Twenty-four states have legalized recreational use of the drug, despite the ugly results experienced by the first state to do so. Taking advantage of high Democratic turnout the year of President Barack Obama's re-election, activists passed a Colorado ballot measure to make pot legal back in 2012. Legalization didn't take effect until 2014, but by 2022 marijuana use in Colorado and other states that had then legalized was 24% higher than in states where recreational use remained illegal. A study by the South Korean scholar Sunyoung Lee published in the International Review of Law and Economics this year examines what's happened to crime levels in US states that legalized pot. Lee reported his findings 'do not yield conclusive evidence supporting a reduction in crime rates after legalizing recreational marijuana. Rather, they underscore notable positive associations with property crimes and suggest potential correlations with violent crimes.' The marijuana lobby claims that drug prohibition, not the drug itself, drives violent crime. That would be a bad argument even without evidence like Lee's, which suggests legal weed makes crime worse. After all, any profit-driven criminal enterprise could be shut down by simply legalizing the crime in question. If bank robbery were legal, bank robbers wouldn't need to use guns. If auto theft were legal, carjackers wouldn't have to use force, and there wouldn't be any violence associated with black-market chop shops because the chop shops would all be as legal as the commercial marijuana industry is today. Legalize everything Tony Soprano does, and Tony won't have to get rough — but he'll only do more of what he was doing before. Libertarians who argue for legalizing drugs to stop drug violence are closer than they realize to the radical leftists who argue property crimes shouldn't be prosecuted. The psychology is the same: They sympathize with the people who make it harder to live in a civilized society and reject society's right to defend its rules. There are downsides to laws against marijuana, just as there are costs to protecting private property and citizens' bodily safety. But the costs are well worth paying when the alternative is passivity in the face of aggression, handing your belongings or your life over to any thug who makes a demand. For a time marijuana legalization was sold to voters as just a matter of leaving people alone to consume whatever they want in private, without bothering anybody else. Yet millions of Americans have now lived long enough with pot legalization, or the non-enforcement of laws still on the books, to know the pot lobby perpetrated a fraud. What the country has actually had to deal with is pot smoking so rife in public that the offensive smell — and the sight and sounds of intoxication — smacks you in your face. It's hardly different from dope-users blowing smoke right in your eyes on the street. That's not the worst crime in the world — but neither is shoplifting, and there's no reason to tolerate that, either. Tolerating such things only breeds more tolerance for worse abuses, which is what has led progressives to treat even violent criminals with the utmost leniency. Two scenes in the suburbs of DC convinced me pot tolerance has gone too far. First was seeing an African-American bus driver, on a blazing hot summer day, order two dope-smoking teens to put out their joints and be aware there were children around. To the extent our cities work at all it's because of working-class men like him — and the rest of us have to decide whether we're on his side or the punks'. A year or so later I watched a young mother one bright October afternoon hold her small daughter's hand as they walked through a neighborhood reeking of high-potency pot. The multibillion-dollar weed industry got to advertise its product to a little girl about 4 years old that day. It's an industry that notoriously even sells its drug in candy form, as 'gummies.' Our cities and towns shouldn't be open-air drug dens — and Trump shouldn't let a lobby get high off of making Americans' lives worse. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review and editor-at-large of The American Conservative.
New York Post
25 minutes ago
- New York Post
Mamdani's ‘war' against Trump spells bad news for NYC
Zohran Mamdani's 'Five Boroughs Against Trump' tour makes oodles of sense for him — but only at the expense of the rest of the city. Not just because the last thing New Yorkers need is a mayor seeking a war with the White House, since they'd inevitably be the cannon fodder. More: Centering the mayoral debate on countering President Donald Trump encourages everyone to ignore all the issues Mamdani doesn't want voters thinking about, like how to make the streets and subways safe, the public schools functional and the local economy growing. It also prevents any focus on his privilege and inexperience, his cop-hatred, his obsessive loathing of Israel and the unworkability of pretty much his entire 'positive' agenda. Truth is, it mainly appeals to the vanity of his Democratic Socialists and their cheerleaders: Already imagining that their guy's surprise victory (in a Democratic primary) puts America on the brink of a new socialist era, they now get to also dream of Mamdani somehow turning the tide against Bad Orange Man. Except that he can't 'stand up' to Trump (beyond boring bits like the legal efforts to claw back improperly canceled grants that Mayor Eric Adams already has under way). Indeed, no mere mayor of any city can. Check the US Constitution: You'll find no mention of a mayoral power to check the president, Congress or for that matter the Supreme Court. And in the real world, a Mayor Mamdani declaring war on Trump would entail setting City Hall on fire and expecting the White House to burn down. New York City has zero leverage over the federal government, except perhaps 1) Wall Street's money — which socialists can't direct except via their trust funds — and 2) whatever power the national media has left — when the media's already done its damnedest to stop Trump. The feds, meanwhile, can screw New York eight ways to Sunday, starting with cutting back on the hundreds of billions it sends our way. Nor can local government 'withhold' New Yorkers' taxes, as some whiz kids in the Legislature suggest. State Attorney General Tish James, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and a few complacent judges have already waged their worst lawfare against Trump, while then-Mayor Bill de Blasio did what he could against the Trump businesses that remain here. 'Trump-proofing' the city — the new tough talk from progressives around the country — is an empty threat, too: Federal law almost always trumps state and local ordinances. Playing tough guy and talking big is sure to give Mamdani lots of outraged outtakes for his social media. But he is writing checks that the people of NYC will have to pay.
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump administration calls out human rights records of some nations accepting deported migrants
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration on Tuesday released human rights reports for countries worldwide, which eliminate mentions of discrimination faced by LGBTQ people, reduce a previous focus on reproductive rights and criticize restrictions on political speech by U.S. allies in Europe that American officials believe target right-wing politicians. The reports, which cover 2024 before President Donald Trump took office, reflect his administration's focus on free speech and protecting the lives of the unborn. However, the reports also offer a glimpse into the administration's view of dire human rights conditions in some countries that have agreed to accept migrants deported from the United States under Trump's immigration crackdown. 'This year's reports were streamlined for better utility and accessibility in the field and by partners,' the State Department said. The congressionally mandated reports in the past have been frequently used for reference and cited by lawmakers, policymakers, academic researchers and others investigating potential asylum claims or looking into conditions in specific countries. The reports were delayed by the Trump administration's changes The reports had been due to be released in March. The State Department said in an overview that the delay occurred because the Trump administration decided in March to 'adjust' the reports, which had been compiled during the Biden administration. Among other deletions, the reports do not include accounts from individual abuse survivors or witnesses. 'Frequently, eyewitnesses are intimidated or prevented from reporting what they know,' the overview said. 'On the other hand, individuals and groups opposed to a government may have incentive to exaggerate or fabricate abuses. In similar fashion, some governments may distort or exaggerate abuses attributed to opposition groups.' Human rights groups decried the changes in focus and omissions of certain categories of discrimination and potential abuse. 'With the release of the U.S. State Department's human rights report, it is clear that the Trump Administration has engaged in a very selective documentation of human rights abuses in certain countries,' Amnesty International said in a statement. 'In addition to eliminating entire sections for certain countries – for example discrimination against LGBTQ+ people – there are also arbitrary omissions within existing sections of the report based on the country,' it said. The reports do follow previous practices in criticizing widespread human rights abuses in China, Iran, North Korea and Russia. Laying out the poor human rights records of countries accepting migrant deportees Although such deportations did not begin until after Trump took office, the reports, with one notable exception, detail general poor human rights conditions in many of the countries that have agreed to accept migrants, even if they are not citizens of that nation. The exception is El Salvador, which was the first of several countries in Latin America and Africa to agree to accept non-citizen migrant deportees from the U.S. Despite claims from rights advocates to the contrary, the report about the country says 'there were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses' in El Salvador in 2024 and that 'the government took credible steps to identify and punish officials who committed human rights abuses.' Human rights groups have accused authorities of abuses, including at a notorious prison where many migrants are sent. However, for Eswatini — a small country in Africa formerly known as Swaziland — South Sudan and Rwanda, the reports paint a grimmer picture. All have agreed to accept third-country deportees from the United States. In all three countries, the reports noted 'significant human rights issues included credible reports of arbitrary or unlawful killings, torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment … serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, prohibiting independent trade unions or significant or systematic restrictions on workers' freedom of association.' Those governments 'did not take credible steps or action to identify and punish officials who committed human rights abuses,' the reports said. Singling out the treatment of white South Africans South Africa was also singled out for its human rights situation 'significantly worsening.' The report pointed to unfair treatment of white Afrikaners following the signing of major land reforms that the Trump administration has said discriminate against that minority, which ran the country's apartheid government. That system brutally enforced racial segregation, which oppressed the Black majority, for 50 years before ending in 1994. With the signing of that law in December, the report said that 'South Africa took a substantially worrying step towards land expropriation of Afrikaners and further abuses against racial minorities in the country.' It also said the government 'did not take credible steps to investigate, prosecute and punish officials who committed human rights abuses, including inflammatory racial rhetoric against Afrikaners and other racial minorities, or violence against racial minorities.' This year, the administration admitted as refugees some groups of white Afrikaners. Accusations of European allies restricting right-wing speech The reports take issue with what the Trump administration believes are restrictions on free speech imposed against generally right-wing voices in the United Kingdom, France and Germany. The reports use identical language to say that human rights conditions in each of the three NATO allies 'worsened during the year.' The executive summaries for each of the three reports say 'significant human rights issues included credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression, including enforcement of or threat of criminal or civil laws in order to limit expression; and crimes, violence, or threats of violence motivated by antisemitism.' These governments have rejected such assertions that have been made by senior U.S. officials, including Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Targeting Brazil over allegations of restricting Bolsonaro's speech Similar freedom-of-speech issues were raised in Brazil, which has more recently provoked Trump's ire by prosecuting his ally — former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro — and led to the imposition of massive U.S. tariffs and sanctions against Brazil's Supreme Court chief justice. 'The human rights situation in Brazil declined during the year,' the report said. 'The courts took broad and disproportionate action to undermine freedom of speech and internet freedom by blocking millions of users' access to information on a major social media platform in response to a case of harassment.' It added that the government 'undermined democratic debate by restricting access to online content deemed to undermine democracy' and specifically mentioned suppressing the speech of Bolsonaro and his supporters.
