Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
What is the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974? Click Here
When an individual is convicted and sentenced for a criminal offence, the conviction will be recorded with the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), as part of the sentencing procedure.
A key element of sentencing is the requirement of (ex) offenders to disclose their conviction (s) to any potential employer, for a specific period of time.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (the ROA) provides necessary legislation for the courts and criminal justice agencies to impose disclosure of any convictions held by the CRB; making it a criminal offence if an (ex) offender does not disclose the information required by law.
The ROA four main objectives are protection, punishment, recognised rehabilitation and guidance. The ROA provides statutory law to ‘protect’ the public and employers (private and public), including licensing agencies (firearms, finance, insurance and Hackney Carriages) from potentially harmful offenders; specifically where there may be a particular risk of danger to children and vulnerable adults.
The act provides exceptions, whereby any organisation or person who has a ‘duty of care’, is obliged by law to ask for disclosure, even if the conviction is considered ‘spent’. Having a spent conviction is the point when an ex-offender has reached the end of the rehabilitation period and in normal circumstances (no risk of harm), the ex-offender would not have to disclose previous conviction (s).
It should be noted, that any person sentenced to prison (or institution) for 30 months or more, the conviction will never become spent; i.e. the ex-offender will never be considered rehabilitated within the eyes of the law. It should also be noted, the length of the rehabilitation period is dependent on the sentence given, taking account of the length of custodial sentence, or type of non-custodial sentence. The age of an offender is another important factor.
People aged 17 or under are given shorter rehabilitation periods compared with those people aged 18 or above.
Taking account of ‘punishment’, the original sentence given to the offender determines how long the ex-offender is burdened with disclosure. The ROA burdens an offender by forcing them to acknowledge previous criminal behaviour within the community, specifically when applying for employment. Moreover, an offender could have their employment terminated, or be taken back to court, if the act is not adhered to.
In the United Kingdom over one-quarter of the working population has a previous conviction. Every one of those people would be obliged to disclose their convictions as described earlier. It as been found that 22% of men and 5% of women aged between the ages of 10-45 have a criminal record, it’s also been found that 25% of those men and 7% of women had criminal careers for more than 10 years (HMSO, 2002).
In consideration of the statistics and earlier assertions concerning the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, in terms of continued ‘punishment’, could it be found that the ROA is a factor in amplifying criminality? Moreover, does the ROA hinder an offender’s ability to desist.
The fact that ex-offenders are burdened with disclosure for up to 10 years or life, whilst trying to secure employment, survive and still walk a straight path to rehabilitation, could be argued to cause ‘strain’ and pressure to commit further crime. If an ex-offender is unable to secure employment, because employers don’t recruit ex-offenders, the pressure to act criminally could be argued to be greater, especially if the offender was previously an habitual, ‘recidivists’ offender.
It is clear that the ROA is part of the government’s need to socially control those who have committed crimes. Stanley Cohen’s (1979, 1985, 1987) ‘dispersal of discipline’ thesis, describes ‘control mechanisms’ are dispersed from custody into the community, Cohen stated:
The price paid by ordinary people is to become either active participants or passive receivers in the business of social control {Cohen, 1985, p. 233).
In taking account of the ROA, Cohen’s theory would suggest employers and others are responsible for controlling (ex) offenders within the community, either by only allowing a proletarian position or none at all; thus giving the community the power to control undesirable elements within the community. Since the 1990′s a ‘Communitarian’ political approach as been adopted in the UK. Looking at criminal justice, the Communitarian approach gives the community responsibility to tackle offenders and crime, rather than the state.
Lowman et al., (1987) argues that the development of ‘control mechanisms’ within the community is now confronted with a:
Peno-judicial, mental health, welfare and tutelage complex…for criminals, deviants and dependants this means that their careers are likely to be characterised by institutional mobility as they are pushed from one section of the help-control complex to another. For control agents, this means that control will essentially have no locus and the control mandate will increasingly entail the ‘fitting together’ of subsystems” (Lowman et al., 1987, p.9).
Unfortunately for the ex-offender seeking to desist from criminal behaviour, the ROA looks increasingly to create fertile ground for ex-offenders to be socially excluded and marginalized, possibly helped unknowingly by the community. However, as the community gains power and gets use to controlling the undesirable, the community will increasingly label, exclude and reinforce discrimination and marginalization.
It could be found that the act promotes, if not helps the production owners to exploit the (ex) offenders through labour exploitation. For example, the ex-offender is restricted to what type of employment is available to them. It should also be taken into account as discussed earlier, ex-offenders are unlikely to get a good position at work, and even less likely to have skills or have been able to gain skills to improve the potential for income. Ultimately, restricting ex-offenders to menial manual work, restricting lifestyle and material aspirations. The ex-offender would more than likely have to work harder, longer and for much less remuneration, leading to the wealthy production owners and the state gaining much more control and capital.
It is clear that the act legitimately discriminates against ex-offenders, however that is its purpose, even though the word ‘discrimination’ is not used within any part of the act.
Social control theory, is a valid example to show how Governments propose to control certain groups with pejorative legislation, particularly the ROA, because of the legal obligation for those affected could lead to further punitive measures, if the ex-offender does not adhere to statutory legislation.
Latest Revised Version of the ROA (1974) Here
Full list of changes to the ROA (1974) Here
