Amid growing labor shortages, once overlooked barriers to entry are finally getting their due. Today, one of the biggest obstacles to economic opportunity in Oklahoma is occupational licensing, which affects almost one-fifth of the state’s workforce. Worse, many licenses come with hefty requirements. On average, a license for lower- and middle-income occupations forces Oklahomans to complete nearly 400 days of training and experience, pay $234 in fees, and pass two exams.
Licensing laws are particularly daunting for people with criminal records, who face a dramatically higher unemployment rate. And without a steady paycheck from earning an honest living, the risk of recidivism soars. The growth in licensing, coupled with the fact that roughly one in three Americans has a criminal record of some sort, means that licensing boards have become a major gatekeeper to people with criminal records seeking a fresh start.
Fortunately, Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a major reform bill (Senate Bill 1691) on Monday. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, Barred from Working, Oklahoma’s laws now rank as some of the nation’s best, and saw its grade jump from a C to an A-.
The new law bans boards from denying licenses based on an arrest that didn’t result in a conviction, protecting the rights of people who are functionally innocent. SB 1619 also prevents licensing agencies from using old crimes to disqualify applicants, setting a time limit of five years from the date of conviction or release from prison, whichever is later. However, boards will still be able to consider violent felonies or crimes that trigger sex offender registration, no matter how long ago those offenses occurred.
When one compares these two statements:
“And without a steady paycheck from earning an honest living, the risk of recidivism soars.”
“However, boards will still be able to consider violent felonies or crimes that trigger sex offender registration, no matter how long ago those offenses occurred.”
the only logical conclusion is that there is a vested interest in increasing the chance of recidvisim for those with ‘sex offenses’. And, once again, that ‘except for sex offenders’ is tacked on there at the end, dismissing an entire group of people with the wave of a hand. Personally, I perfer the idea of *everyone* leading a stable, fulfilling life, where they are much less likely to make poor choices, because that’s the kind of world I want to live in.
Glad they mentioned that about one-third of Americans have a criminal record. Now who will mention that the United States of America has a larger jail and prison population than China, Russia, and North Korea, both per capita and total population?
Then the fact that there are about one-million U.S. Citizens required to register as a Registered Sex Offender? Or that about 4.5 million Americans are on parole and/or probation at one given time?
“Land of the Free,” they told us.
The exclusion of persons with a conviction for a violent crime and of those on the registry is just cheap political posturing. Politicians apparently understand that reducing barriers to licensing and employment will benefit society by reducing recidivism. With eyes on the next election, they are using the two aforementioned groups for political cover to avoid being labeled as soft on crime.
The terms “violent” and “sex crime” elicit strong emotional responses. It is worth noting that more and more crimes are being labeled as violent even though they don’t contain an element of what most would consider violence. The Supreme Court invalidated the “residual” clauses in the federal Armed Career Criminal Act and in 18USC 16(b) because they could be used to categorize nearly any thing as a violent crime. I suspect many states have similar provisions. As we all know, crimes triggering registration have come to include activities which most would not consider a sex crime, e.g. teen sexting, public urination or mooning.
One absurdity in the OK law is that its reach includes truly non-violent and non-sexual crimes. But it sounds great in a tough-on-crime political ad.
“Violent felonies” and “sex crimes” are being associated with each other to imply sex crimes are also violent felonies.
That’s the problem with the registry/sex crime is that they are all treated as one whole group. Sex crimes can also be violent felonies, but there isn’t a distinction with the sex crime group. There are sex crimes that are not violent felonies, not violent, or not felonies.
Every time an institution blanket excludes us as one whole entity, then they are slandering us to all be monsters. Again, this all leads back to the 2003 SCOTUS Smith v Doe decision painting sex crimes to have an 80% recidivism rate when many studies show around 3.5% or lower, like California has had under 1% recidivism rates.
Because this is an administrative category, the legislation has run wild. Whereas if it were a punishment category, then it would always be put under strict scrutiny. This is why Janice should make it a point that utilizing the administrative penalty abuses the legal system’s scrutiny because it isn’t considered punishment and the registry is the prime example of what has evolved.
I don’t believe Megan’s Law website actually claims high recidivism. In fact, their FAQ states that most offenders are close to the victim and majority of offenders are not on the registry. Which makes all the more infuriating that the law making side of all this still clings to the “high recidivism” BS. They’re literally telling the general public one set of information while literally using a different, false, set for the actual important stuff that governs out lives.
This article is another example of the stigma of the label “sex offender”. Organizations know their financial wells will dry up the moment they include offenders into their programs.
The funny thing is that so many of those contributing as well as those benefiting are likely guilty of a sex offense in their lifetime, yet will deny and hide it at all costs in order to stay in the good graces of the public rather than face the truth.