SOCIETY TODAY

Catch 22 for ex-prisoners

Jim Daly

Society continues to behave

ir

rationally in its treatment of former prisoners. We spend vast amounts on retribution and very little on rehabilitation. Instead of setting the former prisoner on the road to a settled and trouble-free life, we deliver him to situations that almost certainly will consolidate criminal behaviour.

Quite apart from the inhuman nature of the treatment of the exprisoner, we are depriving the economy of potentially skilled manpower and we are misdirecting the use of social service resources that could better be used elsewhere. It is estimated that the weekly cost of maintaining a prisoner is of the order of £23 and up to a further £40 in maintaining his dependants. But we will not stand for wasted expenditure on insurance stamps which prevent the released from taking useful employment. So they are thrown back on social security hand-outs and a depressing roundabout of degrading interviews with various officials.

The obstacle race begins with the unstamped card — an almost certain signal to the poten

tial employer that the applicant has a record. Many organisations, including nationalised industries and local authorities, have rigid policies preventing the employment of former prisoners, irrespective of the nature of the offence or the post to which the applicant aspires. It is a classic Catch 22 situation. Some personnel forms pose the question direct: " Have you a criminal record?" and the "yes" or "no" reply space is a clear indication that no further explanation is required. This means that first offenders whose maximum sentence is usually six months, with say two months remission, will bear the scar always and their employment prospects are severely curtailed as a result.

Since it is now policy to encourage the courts to hand down postponed sentences, subject to satisfactory behaviour during probation, an individual may feel threatened in his job, should he have one, by the possibility that the information that he is so constrained will come to light and he will lose his job.

So what can be done to provide employment and future career prospects for the discharged prisoner?

First we need urgently a Code of Practice which is endorsed by government, industry and trade unions. This should lay down guidelines and a more mature evaluation as to what jobs may be tabulated as needing " security " clearance and what crimes would seriously handicap a former prisoner.

State bodies such as the Post Office at present maintain maximum security. Is this really necessary?

And that bodies like Londoh Transport apply blanket criteria is simply unjust, especially when the Executive constantly laments the lack of bus drivers, train crews and station staff. The DHSS might also look at its severe notions that every former prisoner, no matter what his offence, is a potential blackmailer who would use confidential client data as the tools of his trade.

The Airports Authority too should grow up. I know of a case of a former catering executive who had a mental breakdown during which he took money from his employer. He was punished. On release he has searched in vain in spite of high capability and a varied range of catering skills. But the BAA will not employ him, even on the strength of a probation officer's recommendation and supervision.

Organisations such as the Industrial Society, the Institute of Personnel Management and all who claim to advocate progressive employment policies should support measures urgently to deal with such deprived and neglected members of modern society who are being punished several times over.

Jim Daly is Lecturer in Industrial Relations at Thames Polytechnic.