The justice system in the United States is supposed to be at once a retributive and a rehabilitative system. This means that when someone is convicted of a crime, they are punished because what they did was wrong and caused harm to society, and they are given a chance to rehabilitate themselves. If the crime is serious enough, rehabilitation usually means prison.
There is a bill in the Wisconsin State Assembly that would make it legal for employers to refuse to hire people or even fire employees convicted of felonies in the past. I would generally support the right of employers to make their own decisions regarding who they can and cannot employ, and it would be wonderful if we lived in an ideal world in which no one were ever discriminated against because of completely irrelevant factors such as skin color or sexual orientation. Currently, however, we don’t. That’s why we have laws in place that protect the rights of historically oppressed groups.
For some reason, ex-convicts are never included among these groups. One might argue that ex-convicts should not be protected under such laws because their situation is, in fact, different. No individual chose their skin color; every (rightly convicted) felon chose to act in such a way that led to their being convicted of a felony. However, this does not change the fact that ex-convicts are an oppressed group.
When convicted of a crime, a felon is given a sentence. After having served that sentence, they are supposed to have been punished and rehabilitated. I don’t understand the point of punishment for the sake of punishment in the first place. Certainly, if a criminal can make amends for what they did, then this should be part of their sentence, but many sentences serve no such end.
Time in prison does not help the victim of a crime in any direct or significant way, although there is no question that some crimes are heinous enough that the criminal simply needs to be put in prison in order to protect society. However, further punishing felons by allowing them to be discriminated against for a crime for which they have already paid makes no sense. The felon is rehabilitated; they should not have to be a social pariah after having paid for their crime.
The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said, “Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful.” If we follow this advice, I’m not sure we can even trust ourselves. We as a society have a very strong impulse to punish. We like to think that it’s OK to discriminate against those who have been convicted of crimes because they “deserve” it, but the whole point of our justice system is to ensure that criminals get their just desserts.
They have already gotten what they “deserve.” There is no reason to further punish ex-convicts. If we believe that they are not rehabilitated, then let’s lock them away forever. But if we believe that they are, they should be given the same opportunities as everyone else.
It is already the case in Wisconsin that felons cannot vote until they have been released from prison and completed their parole and probation. Reasonable people can debate whether felons should be disenfranchised while incarcerated, but it seems somewhat harsh to bar individuals from voting after being released. Moreover, I can only imagine how difficult it is to reintegrate oneself into a society which is so unforgiving. This bill unnecessarily adds to that difficulty.
There is already a law in place in Wisconsin which bans felons from having jobs that relate specifically to their past convictions. This law makes complete sense. A child molester forfeits their right to work at a school because children need to be protected from them. However, blindly discriminating against felons in the workplace protects no one. It only makes their lives harder and undermines the most important purpose of the justice system, which is to allow criminals a chance to again be productive members of society.
Ryan Plesh ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in philosophy and physics.
