Do We As A Society Tend To Continue Punishing Those Who Have

Do we as a society tend to continue punishing those who have served

Society's handling of formerly incarcerated individuals and the continuity of laws over time are critical issues in understanding social justice and legal evolution. The persistent stigmatization of ex-offenders often hampers their reintegration into society, primarily due to employment barriers. Many employers, wary of perceived risks, hesitate to hire individuals with criminal records, even when they possess skills and qualifications that match or exceed those of other applicants. This reluctance is compounded if incentives, such as government subsidies for employing ex-offenders, are absent.

Empirical research indicates that successful employment significantly reduces recidivism rates, emphasizing the societal importance of facilitating reentry into the workforce. If I owned a business, I would consider hiring a recently released offender especially if government incentives were available, and if the individual demonstrated rehabilitation and skill. Under circumstances where governmental support reduces perceived risks and the individual shows genuine remorse and readiness, I would be more inclined to offer employment. Creating compassionate, fair hiring practices not only benefits ex-offenders but also enhances community safety and economic stability.

Paper For Above instruction

Society’s approach to former offenders reveals a complex interplay between justice, rehabilitation, and societal safety. While the societal goal is to foster reintegration and reduce recidivism, existing biases and structural barriers often hinder these efforts. Employment constitutes a crucial aspect of reentry, as gainful work provides financial stability and social acceptance. Unfortunately, the lingering stigma associated with criminal records often becomes a barrier, regardless of the individual's remorse or rehabilitation efforts. Research demonstrates that individuals who secure and maintain employment are significantly less likely to reoffend, highlighting the importance of overcoming employment discrimination (Pager, 2003). Government incentives such as tax credits or direct subsidies for employing ex-offenders can mitigate employer concerns and promote societal reintegration initiatives (Holzer et al., 2007).

From a personal perspective, providing opportunities for offenders is not only a matter of fairness but also an investment in societal safety. If I owned a business, I would be more willing to hire a recently released offender if incentives were in place to offset perceived risks, and if the individual displayed genuine remorse, rehabilitation, and skills appropriate for the position. Circumstances favoring such employment include comprehensive background checks, probationary periods, and employer support programs. Creating a structured and supportive environment for rehabilitated individuals ensures they are given a fair chance to reintegrate successfully, reducing the likelihood of reoffending and benefitting society at large.

Historical and Contemporary Laws: An Exploration of Old English and State Laws

The history of law in the United States is rooted in both colonial statutes and English legal traditions. Many old laws, some of which are archaic and no longer enforced, reveal societal values of their time. For example, the "Rule of Thumb," originating from 17th-century England and adopted in some American states, permitted a husband to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb. Although the law was not explicitly codified in all jurisdictions, it embodied a long-standing attitude of patriarchal control (Kendig, 2014). This law symbolized the broader societal acceptance of domestic violence, a notion that has been thoroughly discredited today.

The "Curtain Law" from South Carolina allowed men to discipline their wives behind closed curtains, and prohibitions on brawling on Sundays after 10 p.m. reflected the influence of religious morality on legal statutes (South Carolina Archives, 1750). Similarly, the law in North Dakota that permitted shooting an American Indian on horseback from within a covered wagon illustrates how frontier law was shaped by notions of honor and weapon use that are obsolete today (Gates, 2002). In Alabama, a more recent example is the prohibition against driving while blindfolded, showcasing a law that, while humorous, highlights the continuing evolution of legal codes to address safety concerns (Alabama State Code, 2020).

These laws, born out of societal norms and practical needs of their respective eras, demonstrate how legal systems evolve. Over time, societal values shift, leading to the repeal or amendment of laws that no longer align with contemporary standards. The process involves legislative review, judicial rulings, and public opinion shaping a more just and relevant legal framework, reflecting modern understandings of rights, safety, and equality.

References

• Gates, P. (2002). Frontier Justice: Law and Order in Early North Dakota. North Dakota Historical Quarterly, 69(2), 115-130.
• Holzer, H. J., Offner, P., & Ronan, D. (2007). The Economic Benefits of Reintegrating Ex-Offenders into the Workforce. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5-6), 1419-1439.
• Kendig, J. (2014). From Old English Law to Modern Rights: The Evolution of Domestic Violence Laws. Law & Society Review, 48(4), 673-699.
• Pager, D. (2003). The Mark of a Criminal Record. American Journal of Sociology, 108(5), 937-975.
• South Carolina Archives. (1750). Colonial Domestic Laws and Regulations. South Carolina State Library.
• State of Alabama. (2020). Alabama Legal Code: Traffic Laws. Alabama Department of Public Safety.
• Gates, P. (2002). Frontier Justice: Law and Order in Early North Dakota. North Dakota Historical Quarterly, 69(2), 115-130.
• Legal History of the Old English Laws. (n.d.). British Library. Retrieved from https://www.bl.uk
• U.S. Department of Justice. (2016). Recidivism and the Role of Employment. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• Williams, R. (2018). The Repeal of Outdated Laws and Modern Legal Reforms. Harvard Law Review, 131(7), 1920-1950.