TESTIMONY BY REV. JACK JOHNSON TO
THE MASSACHUSETTS JOINT JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
FOR CORI REFORM
JULY 27, 2009
Representative O’Flaherty
Senator Stone Creem
And members of the Joint Judiciary Committee.
My name is Jack Johnson, I am the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches, an organization representing seventeen Protestant and Orthodox denominations here in the Commonwealth, as well as affiliated with the four Roman Catholic Diocese here in the Commonwealth.
Our Council, I would underscore, represents churches throughout the Commonwealth, churches located in urban, suburban, and rural settings; small towns and large cities. I note this, in that the issue we are addressing today is not only an urban issue, rather an issue that effects citizens throughout the whole Commonwealth, citizens whose church affiliation is representative of the seventeen denominations here in the Commonwealth that are invested in the concerns of social and economic justice.
While there are many factors you are hearing today, being addressed by a broad range of people, I would especially like to underscore the need in addressing CORI reform in asking for the removal of the criminal question from employment applications.
Might I define this issue as a moral issue, an issue rooted in a question of justice and fairness related to justice. Our judicial system has always been grounded in an understanding that there is a penalty for those who would violate the law. This penalty built upon the principal that one convicted of a crime pays a price, a price that can be both monetary as well as imprisonment. Foundational to this principle is the understanding that when one has paid for their wrong doing they again are returned to society and given a second opportunity to begin again. Perhaps a theological term for the moment is the act of redemption.
Yet the odds one faces in seeking to begin again are overwhelmingly against succeeding in becoming a good citizen who may contribute to the common good.
Specifically, he or she is discriminated against in the context of the criminal question from employment applications. The reality is that this question, when viewed by a prospective employer, most likely eliminates the applicant for consideration for the potential employment opportunity. The question is, the question of fairness and justice to one who has already paid their debt to society. I believe you can correct this injustice, this matter of fairness by the removal of this question from employment applications. It is an issue of social justice.
The other fact of this matter, which I am certain you will hear today, is the fairness for our common good. Studies continue to show that a significant reason for recidivism is the lack of employment opportunity for the ex-offender. While it is not an excuse to return to crime, it is a likely reality if one cannot find gainful employment and thereby be a contributor to the common good over and against breaking the law. Is it not a matter of fairness in protecting the well being of our citizenry by giving ex-offenders the opportunity to be a contributor to the common good? Again, I believe fairness for all would be manifested in removing the criminal question from the employment application.
Members of the committee, we as the Council, and I speak on their behalf, seek to bring a moral perspective to the complexity of this issue you address today. It is a question that addresses right from wrong. Is it right to further penalize one who has already paid their debt to society? Is it right in so doing to further penalize family and ultimately the community by such a penalty? We believe the answer is no.