Disclosure policies for sex offenders in communities

¶ … Disclosure on Sex Offenders in the Workplace

Sexual crimes are a serious offense, and ones which can cause the offenders to have to pay for them for the rest of their lives. Currently, this country has in place a law that requires sex offenders to register where they live for as long as the live. According to the research, Megan's Law "provides that all states are now required to have all convicted sex offenders register so that residents are aware of their presence in a neighborhood" (Mathis & Jackson 2010 p 243). It is a major issue to notify citizens of a neighborhood if and where sex offenders may be living, especially because there is a large public fear that sex offenders may and will commit another crime after their release. This fear is not entirely unfounded, as "a 2003 Bureau of Justice Statistics study showed 43% of convicted sex offenders were arrested for a serious crime within three years of their initial release" (Albrecht 2011 p 1). However, this registration can cause the previous sex offender to face the plight of major discrimination.

This situation gets even more complicated when employers are exposed to the fact that employees or potential employees have been convicted of a sexual offense. The law "raises issues around the use of criminal registries in hiring and employee management" (Mathis & Jackson 2010 p 243). Essentially, the question becomes an issue of whether or not this law is impacting the convicted sex offender's ability to find employment and whether or not that is a fair element. This creates a situation where conviction records are harming an individual's ability to find and retain employment, which could be seen as potentially discrimination against the person who had been convicted of a crime.

Still, at the same time, it is crucial for employers to take the right steps to protect the work environment, especially in cases where there is a direct danger to customers and other employees. Here, the research suggests that "employers want (and need) to protect other employers and customers from harm based on negligent hiring and negligent retention issues" (Mathis & Jackson 2010 p 243). Thus, it is important for employers to protect their other employees and customers through the same type of acknowledgement of sex offenders as neighborhoods require. This is especially necessary in particular job roles, where there may be a heightened danger in retaining a sex offender in a particular position. Here the research suggests that "those jobs include positions in health care facilities and hospitals, day cares and schools, security, social and mental health facilities, taxi and bus services, and recreational facilities" (Mathis & Jackson 2010 p 243). Therefore, certain jobs would require much more scrutiny than others, and would require employers to not hire, or possibly terminate existing employees who are sec offenders in such job roles.

Every organization's Human Resource department then has to deal with the sensitive issues in terms of potentially hiring sexual offenders, and how to handle breaking that news to other employees and customers. It is the burden of the HR department in any given organization to have to go through and actually check each application and each applicant's background. This has become a necessity within the context of the modern workplace. According to the research, "HR offices are weeding through more unqualified applicants and investing time and energy ensuring the accuracy of backgrounds presented on application materials" (Heathfield 2011). This process can be quite tedious, especially if HR does not take preventative steps to ensure they are promoting full disclosure within applicant populations. HR departments must facilitate the efficiency of the process by carefully designing application materials and questions that would force sexual offenders to have to disclose their offenses on the actual applications. Questions regarding such offenses should then be correlated to the actual application materials presented by the applicant. This will automatically point out applicants who failed to provide the necessary full disclosure of their crime under the law. If the applicant failed to disclose such information, it should be an automatic dismissal of any potential hiring with an organization, as it is both unethical and illegal on behalf of the applicant to do so. HR must "establish a no tolerance policy and track record" in terms of applicants failing to disclose any criminal histories, especially sexual offenses (Heathfield 2011). Yet, there are variations within the specific state laws that further complicate the role HR plays in terms of how to handle applicants that have been charged with a sexual crime. Each department must uphold the laws of the individual state in which the organization arises, and sometimes that does still allow for the hiring of sex offenders, depending on the nature of the position and whether or not they had disclosed such information at the time of applying for the position. When issues arise, it is also important for the HR department to step in and mediate the situation. It is the HR's responsibility to investigate any issues further, which could potentially lead to asking details about the crime itself in order to see if the applicant is still potentially open for the position even after disclosing their crimes.