Let us imagine that when we were younger – and maybe a lot more stupid, we committed a crime. Or even a series of crimes. Nothing terribly violent mind you, but something stupid or impulsive or desperate. Suppose, for example, we used drugs and we were caught; not once, maybe two or three times – and we landed in jail.
Let us again imagine that we served our time and did all that was required of us to satisfy the law. We vowed to never screw up again. We made good on our promise to our family, friends and most importantly, to ourselves. Maybe we went back to college or a technical school; we earned a certificate or a license or a degree. We never touched drugs again.
We stepped out into the world, and could not get a job. There was a box on the employment application that asked if we had prior crimes. This perplexed us. We knew that if we lied, eventually a web search somehow and in some way would reveal our past. We told the truth instead, figuring that the brief imprisonment was six or seven or 15 years prior when we were younger and stupid and those employers would understand our indiscretion.
As it turned out, they did not understand. Rejection was a way of life; aside from menial work, there was no work. Oddly, even if we found a low level job, we could not rent an apartment; there was a “box” on that application as well. Chances are great we could not even have a bank account. What if we looked beyond the choices of the past and focused on the possibility of Second Chances for the future?
Changing Tides
There is now a movement afoot in several states to “ban the box.” The legislation has just passed the San Francisco City Council and many other areas of the country are following suit. However, not everyone is so enthusiastic.
While I understand the reticence to allow a fellow citizen who once committed a crime to share our workplace or even an apartment in our apartment building just how serious are we about allowing people second chances?
And, just to make things a bit murkier is there a double standard at play in the middle of all this box-checking business?
In our great nation not everyone gets equal treatment under the law. This is hardly a top secret. The real question, I think, is this: How does our society view the law-breakers?
For example, how do the opponents of the “ban the box” movement view an athlete who commits a violent crime – then gets briefly imprisoned – and after release goes back to his or her sport? We can all think of times when that happened. Why doesn’t the athlete who breaks the law lose all his or her privileges to ever play that sport again?
Not the same thing you might say? OK then, how about a movie star or a singer who exits a boutique with an expensive piece of jewelry or a pricey new suit, and “forgets” to pay for it?
How about the movie star or singer who caused a traffic accident while on drugs or speeding or drinking? Why can he or she get up on a stage and sing again?
How about someone of great wealth or even a politician who commits a crime of great fraud and somehow (who-knows-how?) rises to build that political office again or gathers back all their wealth? Why was that allowed to happen?
My point is this: if we’re going to “ban the box,” we should do it with equal fervor.
If we allow the quarterback or actress; the politician or the banker second chances, why not someone “like us,” who just made an unwise decision?
I realize there are some people who can never integrate back into society but for the majority who made a stupid mistake, paid for it, and just want to go on with their lives, I think that “banning the box” is an idea whose time has come.
YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!
Chuck, your point is right on target. Let me tell you a “box” story about me and my family. As you know, I have to check the box. We were looking at renting a beautiful country home several years ago. We were dealing directly with the owner. He said he would email me that application. I knew that would be the end of the discussion the moment I had to check the box.
However, the application had no box. Wow! Amazing. I filled it out completely and we were quickly approved and scheduled to move in. We did.
About 6 or 7 months into what turned out to be three year stay, the landlord was meeting with a mutual friend I knew from church. When the landlord mentioned he had rented to us, the friend said, “he has quite the story, doesn’t he?” He was referring to me. The landlord had no idea since there was no box.
Later that week I bumped into the landlord in town and he told me how he learned of my “box” story from my friend. His comment was “no big deal”. But, here is the amazing part of this story.
He told me his version of me filling out the application.He said, “I own a number of properties and use the same application for each. And, my application has the felony box on it.” He proceeded to explain, “However, in this case when I was sending you the application, I noticed the felony question was not on it. I thought it was odd. I even thought to myself, ‘oh well, no big deal, I doubt it matters with him and his wife’ (meaning me and my wife)”.
We had a good laugh. The bottom line is he and I had a chance to meet in person and spend 30-45 minutes together before he gave me the application. So, rather than make a judgment based on a “box”, because it was missing, he made a judgment based on a real interaction with a real person.
We rented faithfully for three years before moving from the country to the city. He gave us a great reference and we still remain in contact.
He did say that had I checked the box, if it was there, he probably would have rejected the application. That is what he does as a routine process for all his rentals.
Oh, that silly little box. We do need to get out of our closed paradigms and start looking at the people not just the box.
Keep up the good work, Chuck!