No sense in allowing criminals to omit records

WHAT possible sense can you make of the latest proposal to rehabilitate criminals?

Now there is an idea that in order for exoffenders be given a better chance of finding employment they should be legally permitted to omit prison records from applications for jobs.

A slight caveat being that this only applies to those having made sufficient progress with respect to rehabilitation measures.

I would have thought that it would be far better to instil in the potential criminal, from an early age, that pursuing a career of crime means a criminal record and therefore less chance of procuring employment later in life, no matter what their circumstances regarding social and economic deprivation.

Many of the working class in this country have for decades had to battle against social deprivation in order to find employment though few have resorted to crime as a solution to their plight.

The reason given for the government’s idea is borne out of the fact that a large number of criminals re-offend and that it is therefore costly to keep them incarcerated.

Since, however, so many ex-prisons are seen to be so anxious to return, then I can only assume that the three star hotel treatment in prison has failed and that a more rigorous programme of deprivation should ensue, despite protests of boredom and like.

I would have thought that in the event of a prisoner having made sufficient effort to reform then, given a reference to this effect, it would be up the potential employer to make a judgement as to the suitability of the candidate.

Perhaps there could even be some sort of financial incentive involved for the employer in the process of facilitation.

By way of contrast, one can only sympathise with those unfortunate folks sleeping out on our streets who have little, if any, of the benefits provided to prisoners.

It’s a most peculiar society we find ourselves in today.

David Abbott Stoke Golding