This article discusses whether there is an increasing demand for criminal background checks in continental Europe. It also presents the legislative framework regulating criminal background checks in Europe where a requirement of ‘proof of a clean criminal record’ in public administration often co-exists with a situation where no specific laws regulate the rights of private employers to ask for such proof. Finally, the article suggests some legal protections for ex-offenders against the increasing use of criminal records in the job market and suggests that a law may be necessary to regulate the right of private employers to conduct criminal background checks.
AlchourronCBulyginE (1971) Normative Systems, New York: Springer.
2.
Apex Trust (1991) The Hidden Workforce: Employing Ex-Offenders – Recruitment Policy and Practice: A National Survey, London: Apex Charitable Trust.
3.
AukermanMJ (2005) The somewhat suspect class: Towards a constitutional framework for evaluating occupational restrictions affecting people with criminal records. Journal of Law in Society7(1): 1–65.
4.
Backman C (2012a) Criminal Records in Sweden: Regulation of Access to Criminal Records and the Use of Criminal Background Checks by Employers. PhD Thesis, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
5.
BackmanC (2012b) Mandatory criminal record checks in Sweden: Scandals and function creep. Surveillance & Society10(3/4): 276–291.
6.
BlumsteinANakamuraK (2009) Redemption in the presence of widespread criminal background checks. Criminology47(2): 327–359.
7.
BooneM (2011) Judicial rehabilitation in the Netherlands: Balancing between safety and privacy. European Journal of Probation3(1): 63–78.
8.
BrownSHaslewood-PócsikISpencerJ (2006) Employer Consultation Survey: Employers Attitudes towards the Employment of Ex-Offenders, IMPACT Employer Consultation: Part One, Manchester: IMPACT.
9.
BuikhuisenWDijksterhuisFP (1971) Delinquency and stigmatisation. British Journal of Criminology11(2): 185–187.
10.
BushwaySDSweetenG (2007) Abolish lifetime bans for ex-felons. Criminology and Public Policy6(4): 697–706.
11.
BushwaySDNieuwbeertaPBloklandA (2011) The predictive value of criminal background checks: Do age and criminal history affect time to redemption?Criminology49(1): 27–60.
12.
CavadinoMDignanJ (2006) Penal Systems: A Comparative Approach, London: SAGE.
13.
ChinGJ (2012) The new civil death: Rethinking punishment in the era of mass conviction. University of Pennsylvania Law Review160(6): 1789–1834.
14.
CIPD (2007) Employing Ex-Offenders to Capture Talent: Survey Report May 2007, Report. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
15.
DamaskaM (1968) Adverse legal consequences of conviction and their removal: A comparative study (part 2). Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science59(2): 542–568.
16.
DemleitnerNV (1999) Preventing internal exile: The need for restrictions on collateral sentencing consequences. Stanford Law and Policy Review11(1): 153–171.
17.
Duff A (2013) Who must presume whom to be innocent of what? Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy. Epub ahead of print 19 December 2012. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2190593 (accessed 10 July 2013).
18.
EwaldA (2012) Collateral consequences in the American states. Social Science Quarterly93(1): 211–247.
19.
FarrallS (2004) Social capital and offender reintegration: Making probation desistance focused. In: MarunaSImmarigeonR (eds) After Crime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration, Cullompton: Willan, pp. 57–84.
20.
GarlandD (2001) The Culture of Control, Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21.
GreenDA (2013) Penal optimism and second chances: The legacies of American Protestantism and the prospects for penal reform. Punishment and Society15(2): 123–147.
22.
HelfgottJ (1997) Ex-offender needs versus community opportunity in Seattle, Washington. Federal Probation61(2): 12–25.
23.
HenryJ (2012) Death-in-prison sentences: Overutilized and underscrutinized. In: OgletreeCSaratA (eds) Life without Parole: America’s New Death Penalty, New York: New York University Press, pp. 66–96.
24.
HenryJJacobsJB (2007) Ban the box to promote ex-offender employment. Criminology & Public Policy6(4): 755–762.
25.
Herzog-EvansM (2011) Judicial rehabilitation in France: Helping with the desisting process and acknowledging achieved desistance. European Journal of Probation3(1): 4–19.
26.
HolzerHJRaphaelSStollMA (2007) The effect of an applicant’s criminal history on employer hiring decisions and screening practices: Evidence from Los Angeles. In: BushwaySStollMAWeimanDF (eds) Barriers to Reentry? The Labor Market for Released Prisoners in Post-Industrial America, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 117–150.
JacobsJB (2006) Mass incarceration and the proliferation of criminal records. University of St. Thomas Law Journal3(3): 387–420.
29.
JacobsJBBlitsaD (2012) US, EU and UK employment vetting as strategy for preventing convicted sex offenders from gaining access to children. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice20(3): 265–296.
30.
JacobsJBLarrauriE (2012) Are criminal convictions a public matter? The US and Spain. Punishment and Society14(1): 3–18.
31.
KPMG (2009) Disclosure of criminal records in overseas jurisdictions: Summary of findings. Report. KPMG LLP, UK, March.
32.
KurlychekMBrameRBushwayS (2007) Enduring risk? Old criminal records and predictions of future criminal involvement. Crime and Delinquency53(1): 64–83.
33.
LacombeD (2008) Consumed with sex: The treatment of sex offenders in risk society. British Journal of Criminology48(1): 55–74.
34.
LamHHarcourtM (2003) The use of criminal record in employment decisions: The rights of ex-offenders, employers and the public. Journal of Business Ethics47(3): 237–252.
35.
Langenhoff G, Haslewood I, Hégely P and Wolters R (2007) Transitions in prison (TIP): Involvement of employers. Final report. Transitions in Prison Program, September.
36.
LarrauriE (2011) Conviction records in Spain: Obstacles to reintegration of offenders?European Journal of Probation3(1): 50–62.
37.
LarrauriEJacobsJB (2013) A Spanish window on European law and policy on employment discrimination based on criminal record. In: DaemsTvan Zyl SmitDSnackenS (eds) European Penology?, Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 293–310.
38.
LeithPMcDonaghM (2009) New technology and researchers’ access to court and tribunal information: The need for European analysis. SCRIPTed6(1): 33–56.
39.
LeverentzA (2011) Easing the strains of prisoner re-entry. Offenders Programs Report14(5): 65–80.
40.
LouksNLynerOSullivanT (1998) The employment of people with criminal records in the European Union. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research6(2): 195–210.
41.
LoveCM (2002) Starting over with a clean slate: In praise of a forgotten section of the model penal code. Fordham Urban Law Journal30(5): 1705–1741.
42.
Love CM (2005) Relief from the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction: A state-by-state resource guide. Report for the Sentencing Project, USA, August.
43.
LoveCM (2011) Paying their debt to society: Forgiveness, redemption, and the uniform collateral consequences of conviction act. Howard Law Journal54(3): 753–793.
44.
Love CM and Chin G (2010) Padilla v. Kentucky: The right to counsel and the collateral consequences of conviction. Arizona Legal Studies, Discussion Paper no. 10–16. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1591264 (accessed 10 July 2013).
45.
MarunaS (2009) Virtue’s door unsealed is never sealed again: Redeeming redemption and the seven-year itch. In: FrostNAFreilichJDClearTR (eds) Contemporary Issues in Criminal Justice Policy: Policy Proposals from the American Society of Criminology Conference, Belmont, CA: Cengage.
46.
MarunaSLeBelTP (2003) Welcome home? Examining the ‘reentry court’ concept from a strengths-based perspective. Western Criminology Review4(2): 91–107.
47.
MasonS (2010) A Common Sense Approach. A Review of the Criminal Records Regime in England and Wales, Report. London: Home Office.
48.
McAlindenAM (2012) The governance of sexual offending across Europe: Penal policies, political economies and the institutionalization of risk. Punishment and Society14(2): 166–192.
49.
McEvoy K (2008) Enhancing Employability in Prison and Beyond: A Literature Review. Report for Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO), July. Belfast: NIACRO.
50.
Metcalf H, Anderson T and Rolfe H (2001) Barriers to Employment for Offenders and Ex-Offenders. Report for the Department for Work and Pensions. Research Report no. 155. Leeds: Department for Work and Pensions.
51.
MorgensternC (2011) Judicial rehabilitation in Germany: The use of criminal records and the removal of recorded convictions. European Journal of Probation3(1): 20–35.
52.
MustafaNKingstonPBeestonD (2013) An exploration of the historical background of criminal record checking in the United Kingdom: From the eighteenth to the twenty-first century. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research19(1): 15–30.
53.
NatapoffA (2012) Misdemeanors. Southern California Law Review85(5): 1313–1375.
54.
NaylorB (2011) Criminal records and rehabilitation in Australia. European Journal of Probation3(1): 79–96.
55.
NaylorBPatersonMPittardM (2008) In the shadow of a criminal record: Proposing a just model of criminal record employment checks. Melbourne University Law Review32(1): 171– 198.
56.
NelkenD (2011) Why compare criminal justice? In: BosworthMHoyleC (eds) What Is Criminology?, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
57.
O’KeefeK (2010) Two wrongs make a wrong: A challenge to plea bargaining and collateral consequence statutes through their integration. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology100(1): 243–276.
58.
PadfieldN (2011) Judicial rehabilitation? A view from England. European Journal of Probation3(1): 36–49.
59.
PagerD (2007) Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
60.
PatersonMNaylorB (2011) Australian spent convictions reform: A contextual analysis. UNSW Law Journal34(3): 938–963.
61.
PetersiliaJ (2003) When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry, New York: Oxford University Press.
62.
PinardM (2010) Collateral consequences of criminal convictions: Confronting issues of race and dignity. New York University Law Review85(2): 457–534.
63.
RadiceJ (2012) Administering justice: Removing statutory barriers to reentry. University of Colorado Law Review83(3): 715–780.
64.
RichardsSJonesR (2004) Beating the perpetual incarceration machine: Overcoming structural impediments to re-entry. In: MarunaSImmarigeonR (eds) After Crime and Punishment Pathways to Offender Reintegration, Cullompton: Willan, pp. 201–232.
65.
RobertsJ (2008) Mythical divide between collateral and direct consequences of criminal convictions: Involuntary commitment of sexually violent predators. Minnesota Law Review93(2): 670–740.
66.
SalibaA (2013) The national police certificate is a significant barrier to employment for ex-offenders. European Journal of Probation5(1): 25–43.
67.
SampsonRLaubJ (1993) Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68.
SilvaLR (2010) Clean slate: Expanding expungements and pardons for non-violent federal offenders. University of Cincinnati Law Review79(1): 155–205.
69.
Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) (2004) SHRM finds employers are increasingly conducting background checks to ensure workplace safety. Press release, 20 January.
70.
Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) (2012) SHRM finds fewer employers using background checks in hiring. Press release, 7 July.
71.
StollMBushwayS (2008) The effects of criminal background checks on hiring ex-offenders. Criminology and Public Policy7(3): 371–404.
72.
ThomasT (2002) Employment screening and the Criminal Records Bureau. Industrial Law Journal31(1): 55–70.
73.
ThomasT (2007) Criminal Records, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
74.
ThomasT (2011) The Registration and Monitoring of Sex Offenders: A Comparative Study, New York: Routledge.
75.
ThomasTHebentonB (2012) Dilemmas and consequences of prior criminal record: A criminological perspective from England and Wales. Criminal Justice Studies26(2): 228–242.
76.
ThomasTThompsonD (2010) Making offenders visible. Howard Journal49(4): 340–348.
77.
TonryM (2007) Determinants of penal policies. In: TonryM (eds) Crime, Punishment and Politics in Comparative Perspective, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–48.
78.
TravisJ (2002) Invisible punishment: An instrument of social exclusion. In: MauerMChesney-LindM (eds) Invisible Punishment, New York: The New Press, pp. 15–36.
79.
UggenC (2000) Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration model of age, employment and recidivism. American Sociological Review65(4): 529–546.
80.
UggenC (2008) The effect of criminal background checks on hiring ex-offenders. Criminology & Public Policy7(3): 367–370.
81.
Uggen C (2013) Public criminology and the civic reintegration. In: 2013 ICCJ Annual Lecture. Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, 21 May. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTZJu-GmOng (accessed 10 July 2013).
82.
UggenCManzaJThompsonM (2006) Citizenship, democracy and the civic reintegration of criminal offenders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science605(1): 281–310.
83.
Von HirschAWasikM (1997) Civil disqualifications attending conviction: A suggested conceptual framework. Cambridge Law Journal56(3): 599–626.
84.
WesternB (2008) Criminal background checks and employment among workers with criminal records. Criminology & Public Policy7(3): 413–417.
85.
ZalnieriuteM (2013) Blanket criminal record data disclosure system incompatible with privacy rights. International Data Privacy Law3(3): 197–201.
