It is understandable for states to want to take a fair approach in considering ex-offenders for employment; however, can companies truly be certain they are making the safest choice when their potential candidates have sealed records? In an article published by The Dallas Morning News, “More than 1,500 Texas offenders who had their records sealed from public view were charged with new crimes in the past two years.  About 10 percent of their 2,300 alleged new offenses were violent, including a handful of killings and sexual assault.”  http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/121508dntswadjudication.3e18130.html   Mr. Bradley, a leader in the Texas state prosecutors group stated, “It does raise the question about the legitimacy of closing to the public information that might help them assess whether or not these people should be given jobs or places to live that could endanger other people.”   

Employers really have to be able to have a clear picture of the potential candidates they are looking to hire.  When Texas enacted the “Seal” law the Legislature was claiming that these offenders were rehabilitated and not a danger to society anymore.  How can they truly be certain of this?  It is apparent that even though not all of the 14,000 offenders who had their records sealed have continued on the criminal path, 1,500 of these offenders have become repeat offenders, and of those, 10 percent have committed violent offenses.  In my opinion, it is important for employers to be able to see the criminal history of their potential candidate; however, they must take into consideration the relevance of a candidate’s criminal history to the position that he or she is applying for, as well as the time that has passed since the offense occurred.  I feel that by sealing ex-offenders records as a form of rehabilitation there is a potential risk of being blind-sided by a possible safety threat for both the company and its employees.  What is your opinion?