What's Wrong with "Ban the Box" Proposals?

As "Ban the Box" proposals continue to surface in an increasing number of jurisdictions around the country, the awareness of the problem of severely restricted employment and career opportunities for convicted persons has reached an all-time high.  This development, in and of itself, suggests reason for optimism that more of us who have been unable to find and keep a steady-paying job will be able to do so soon.  My personal path has proven so problematic that I find it important to measure progress in even the smallest terms imaginable. Not everyone agrees, however, that "Ban the Box" developments constitute progress.

 When news spread of the "Ban the Box" proposal heading toward approval by the Cuyahoga County Council, which includes Cleveland, Ohio, County Council member Julian Rogers had this comment posted to his Facebook account by a disturbed citizen:

This is bad public policy. Take the people who have followed the rules. So let me get this straight. You can have broken the law taking   drugs, and robbing people to support your habit. You have the same chance to get a county job as I who have followed the rules.

Mr. Rogers, to his credit, offered a thoughtful rejoinder:

 Let me pose another senerio [sic]. I steal a car at age 19 and serve 6 months in jail. Since then I have graduated from college, raising a family and lived a crime free life. I am now 45 years old. Do I not deserve a fair chance at getting a job with the county? This legislation does not do away with background checks, nor does say [sic] that you can't ask this question later in the interview process. This legislation is meant to give people who have a felony on their record, and have served their time, a chance getting an interview without having their application thrown in the trash simply because they have a record.

While I appreciated that  response, I didn't think it succinct enough.  So, I got into the conversation with this comment:

... when the lawfully imposed penalty for the crime has been satisfied, punishment ends. [The disturbed citizen's] comment suggests that punishment never ends. Moreover, equal opportunity demands that, in his scenario, both candidates for the job are evaluated according to their qualifications for the job. Yes, both candidates must have the same chance to get the job. In most instances, however, one candidate will clearly be better qualified for the job--without any consideration of any unrelated and essentially irrelevant past misbehavior.

The objection raised by the disturbed citizen above offers an example of a lingering connection, among many persons in our society, between prisoner reentry and punishment.  In a previous post, Reentry vs. Prison Reform, I suggested that reentry advocates must understand that most of the social push back we encounter in our advocacy efforts springs from just this visceral construction, and that we must specifically oppose that construction at every opportune moment.

The answer to the question I posed in the title of this post is very simple: absolutely nothing. There is absolutely nothing, logically or morally, wrong with "Ban the Box" proposals.  Opposition to this forward thinking idea is rooted in nothing other than a persistent unwillingness--whether conscious or unconscious--to distinguish between prisoner reentry and punishment.  The simplest truths are often the most difficult to comprehend and embrace.

When the lawfully-imposed sentence has been served, in the vast majority of cases, punishment must end.