Parole violations and new crimes are frequently committed because reentering people do not have the skills and resources in order to become accustomed to community life. A lot are not capable to find work not only because they do not have considerable work histories and work skills, but also due to the societal stigma connected to their criminal and substance use histories. Characteristically, time spent in prison weakens family and community ties. Without income support or family and community support systems, people released from prison are at high danger of returning to crime in order to sustain themselves (O'Brien, 2002). Recidivism has never been a main anxiety of policymakers and as a result of present policies and a lack of resources, communities struggle to support ex-offenders. The public fails to comprehend that the appropriate treatment and rehabilitation known to reduce recidivism is not being fully put into place. It can be prevented, but policies are causing more people to recidivate. Everyday the media communicates instances of atrocious crimes to the public, and fails to center more on the more affirmative facets of society. Even though horrible crimes are committed, the media reports them disproportionally. The crime rate then becomes sensationalized, which causes the public to be focused more on harsh chastisement rather than searching for manners to successfully reduce crime such as rehabilitation programs (Stravinskas, 2009).

How public access to criminal records affect crime is something that is just being discovered. On one hand, greater provision of criminal background information may augment the opportunity cost of crime to possible criminals by endangering their prospect work scenarios and therefore act as crime prevention. The stigma from a criminal record could also act as prevention by way of fear of exclusion from socially rewarding networks. On the other hand, online criminal records could make it complicated for ex-convicts to reintegrate into society as lawful citizens and lead to superior recidivism rates. Public records could arm the community with knowledge on who among their neighborhood has a criminal past, thus increasing the cost of committing a crime for a repeat offender. This theoretical tradeoff between the avoidance and recidivism effects is accurately why the topic of public records is highly debated among public policy makers, the media and in the legal field, but therefore far there has been no empirical evidence on what the definite impact of public records is on crime, if any exists at all (Lee, 2011).

Judicious criminal justice policy attempts to strike an equilibrium that makes the most of both public safety and the rights and liberties of individual citizens. When novel technologies or innovations tip the equilibrium in one direction or another, policy makers reflect on taking actions to recalibrate the scales. On one side of the argument, clear and compelling social science confirmation exists that employers discriminate on the foundation of criminal history. On the other side of the argument, at least a predominance of social science confirmation suggests that employment accelerates desistance from crime. In addition to documenting the increasing occurrence of background checks, there is evidence that who checks, how they check, and the extent to which such checks influences hiring. These consequences propose that law, as well as finances, is determining employer performances; legal requirements to run background checks radically change companies' tendencies to hire people with criminal records (Uggen, 2008).

While some might worry that too much knowledge hurts the job prospects of those with criminal backgrounds, economists have proposed that making more knowledge about the degree and temperament of a person's post conviction history accessible to employers. In the lack of dependable signs about peoples' criminality, it has been argued that companies will rely as an alternative on statistical discrimination, thinking the worst about people from high-crime areas, in spite of whether they have a criminal background (Uggen, 2008).

Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks have become an element of contemporary employment practice. A clean CRB check gives a sense of safety that may be completely false, but it's in all probability the narrowest way of determining risk. The reality is that most companies only have to glance at a person's criminal record and they run away. A CRB check does nothing more than narrate the wrongs that a person once carried out without saying what they've done right since. Employers, like most of the public, are media-educated in regards to crime. They've been subjected to self-righteous indignation without knowing anything about the things that lead to the offence in the first place, or the hard work that has gone into conquering those factors. When one puts the facts in their hands, they can too frequently use them to discriminate. The offender has previously been punished by incarceration, but society now persists...

There are a lot of ex-offenders who will slip with no trouble into a working life and who cause little risk to companies. They should be sent out of jail without a stigmatizing criminal record and permitted to get on with their lives. The service providers move quickly to redesign themselves in the new representation of well-being to work commanded by the new government are hastening to work with many groups. But true intervention should be more difficult than this. Many ex-offenders don't have the emotional stability to work all day and they need therapeutic interventions, not shallow classes in interviewing methods. Associations that commission services should discuss with the service users what their needs are (Johnson, 2010).
People who are released from prison are always going to have the occasion to recidivate and commit new crimes. This likelihood is great enough on its own and should not be increased because of company policies that promote discrimination. It has been shown that when companies are allowed to look at a person's criminal background they are less likely to hire a person with a criminal past. Ex-offenders who cannot find employment once they are released are more likely to re-offend than those who manage to find a job. Thos who can't find a job often feel that they have to return to crime in order to support themselves.

Policies need to be put into place that takes away the unfair advantage that companies have of criminal background checks. These background checks often lead to employment discrimination, in that a perfectly capable and qualified person does not get a position simply because they have a criminal history. These criminal background reports to do look at the circumstances that surround an applicant's life, then or now. There are many people who committed crimes in the past and have reformed and are now perfectly capable of living a very productive life, if only they could get a job. The discrimination that offers in employment because of the social stigma that is associated with ex-offenders in itself can be seen as a contributor to crimes being committed.

The majority of companies are well aware of the value of employment screening. Whether they've been the victim of embezzlement by an dishonest employee, had client relations disengaged by someone with an unstable character, or have merely had a difficult person generate unconstructiveness in the working environment, employers know that employee background checks are necessary to running an efficient business. Background check services become particularly important for those businesses that handle sensitive information and secure services. Furthermore, high turnover is expensive, both in terms of financial value and company spirits. And it's too easy for people to camouflage or maneuver information such as employment history, educational activities, or even criminal histories. With an employer background check, though, you can flush out those candidates who are harboring histories of work-related issues and high recidivism rates (Employment Screening, 2006).

Polices regarding criminal background checks should not eliminate these checks altogether, but should work to make them less discriminatory. There are times when employers should be provided with a person's background when working in certain industries. For example for those who are trying to get employment in the childcare field should be checked in order to make sure that there are no crimes against children in their past. For this reason, background checks should be regulated and the reports that are provided to employers should come with guidance on how to use them in their employment decisions.