NCJ Number
170885
Journal
Howard Journal of Criminal Justice Volume: 36 Issue: 4 Dated: (November 1997) Pages: 352-366
Date Published
1997
Length
15 pages
Annotation
Although Great Britain's Rehabilitation of Offenders Act of 1974 was hailed as a landmark for civil liberties and should have been a great asset to ex-offenders who wanted to rehabilitate themselves, its effectiveness has been extremely limited in practice.
Abstract
The act is based on the principle that when a person has made a sincere and successful attempt to live down a conviction and go straight, both common justice and the need to remove barriers to rehabilitation require such efforts should not be prejudiced by unwarranted disclosure of the earlier conviction. The act provides that, after a rehabilitation period fixed according to a sliding scale based on the nature and length of the sentence imposed at trial and age of the accused, the conviction becomes spent and the ex-offender is regarded as rehabilitated. Criticisms of the act include the following: (1) a sentence of more than 30 months can never become spent; (2) the act offers no redress or compensation to a person whose privacy has been violated by unauthorized disclosures and whose job prospects has been irrevocably damaged; (3) the act limits employment opportunities available to ex-offenders; and (4) effective remedies for ex-offenders are not specified in the act, making it difficult for employees wronged by an abuse of the act to do much about it in terms of legal action. The authors conclude the act requires immediate review since successful rehabilitation is in the interests of a society concerned with justice, crime prevention, and equal employment opportunity. Criminal record check proposals in 1996 to protect both employers and employees are discussed. 14 references and 12 notes