A Clean
Criminal Record Does Not Mean Absence Of Criminal Activity
Employment Screening
Clean Criminal Record Does Not Mean
Absence of Criminal Behavior
Checks of
criminal records identify only the tip of the iceberg of criminal activity. A
clean record indicates only that there are no records of criminal conduct in the
places checked. The absence of information in criminal record files should not
be viewed as positive evidence of reliability or trustworthiness.
Most crimes are not
reported to the police.
Most
reported crimes do not lead to arrest, and
many arrested persons are not
prosecuted and convicted. Even for those who are prosecuted and
convicted, the
criminal records are often incomplete or missing. As a result, the
chances are very small that an individual who has committed a single crime, even
a serious crime, will have a criminal record. The more crimes a person has
committed, the greater the odds of that person having a record. See
Prevalence of Crime for a
discussion of the percentage of the population that has a criminal record.
Much past
criminal behavior is likely to be discovered only by self-admission, interviews
with references or developed sources, or polygraph examination. This behavior
should be evaluated under the adjudication guidelines even though there may be
no criminal record.
Willingness to abide by rules is an
essential qualification for eligibility for access to the nation's secrets. A
history of illegal behavior indicates an individual may be inclined to break
rules.
Adjudication
standards that disqualify individuals with a significant criminal history are
supported by evidence that past adult criminal behavior predicts a high
likelihood of future criminal behavior. See
statistics on adult recidivism.
The picture
is different with juveniles. The vast majority of juvenile offenders get into
trouble only once or twice and stop offending as they mature. However, chronic
juvenile offenders (five or more arrests before age 18) are at high risk of
becoming adult criminals. See
statistics on juvenile recidivism.
Within the
U.S. military, a recruit with even a single pre-service arrest is far more
likely to be discharged for unsuitability prior to completion of enlistment than
a recruit with no prior arrest record. Specifically, a recruit who enters
military service with a prior arrest is 65% more likely than other recruits to
be discharged for unsuitability. This holds true whether the arrest is as a
juvenile or an adult, whether or not the arrest is followed by a conviction, and
regardless of the recruit's educational level. Factors associated with
significantly higher discharge rates are number of arrests and seriousness of
the criminal charge. Ref 1
Screening
out applicants with a significant criminal history protects the organization
against more than just espionage. Organizations are vulnerable to a wide variety
of crimes including embezzlement, procurement fraud, sabotage of computer
systems, and theft of government property. Other crimes such as drug dealing,
illegal gambling, assault on co-workers, theft from other employees, and
prostitution also affect the work place.
National
security organizations have a vested interest in maintaining high standards. A
study of dishonesty in the workplace makes this observation:
"Many
industrial security experts have warned that if an employee is exposed to
laissez faire attitudes toward honesty, there is a good likelihood that this
attitude will carry over into subsequent work experiences....we have learned
that the work environment which tacitly ignores or tolerates petty incidents
of dishonesty is also the same climate which may cultivate further unethical
activity in a variety of other settings." Ref 2
Most
government organizations and private businesses do not know and cannot measure
accurately how much they suffer from different types of crime by employees or
outsiders. "The professional business literature contains many accounts
indicating that when companies do gather the necessary data, they are often
surprised at the magnitude of losses they have been sustaining."
Ref 3
Less serious
felony offenders are often sentenced to probation rather than prison, or to a
combination of probation with a very short prison or jail term. Of 79,000
convicted felons sentenced only to probation in 1986, 46% had been re-arrested
and sent to prison or jail or had absconded (whereabouts unknown) within three
years. An additional 19% had had a disciplinary hearing within three years for
violating a condition of their probation. Ref 4
Recidivism among more serious felony offenders who serve prison terms is
substantially greater. Ref 5
Another
study analyzed male California residents born in 1956. It traced their arrest
records as adults from age 18 to age 29. It found that of those arrested as
adults (after age 18) for an offense that carried a potential sentence of
incarceration, about half were arrested only once. Ref 6
The U.S.
Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics has developed a large data
base of first-time arrestees in order to study recidivism among this group.
Unpublished results indicate findings similar to the California study, with 51%
of first-time arrestees being re-arrested within an 11 year follow-up period.
The percentages by race were 44% for whites and 56% for blacks. When this study
is completed, it may provide data on how the probability of re-arrest diminishes
with the passage of time after the first arrest. Ref 7
In Maricopa
County (Phoenix), Arizona, about half of the males and about 8% of females have
some involvement with the juvenile court system before they turn 18. In about
one quarter of those cases, the juvenile is actually adjudicated and placed on
probation or receives some other formal court disposition. Average age of first
referral to juvenile court is slightly less than 14 years. Only 4% of all the
juvenile offenders, and 16% of those who were adjudicated as juveniles, go on to
develop adult felony records. Ref 8
A study of
10,000 boys born in 1945 and who lived in Philadelphia at least from age 10 to
18 found that 35% of the boys were arrested at least once before reaching age
18, and 6% were classified as chronic offenders (five or more arrests before age
18). These chronic offenders were responsible for over half of the offenses.
Using a sample of 975 of these boys who were tracked until age 30, the study
found that 45% of the chronic juvenile offenders became chronic offenders as
adults, while 22% of the chronic juvenile offenders had no offenses at all as
adults. Of those who had no juvenile offenses, 82% remained nonoffenders as
adults. Ref 9
The same
study covered 14,000 females born in 1958, who were raised in Philadelphia and
tracked until age 27. It found that 14% were arrested as juveniles, and only
about 14% of those were arrested again as adults.
A study by
the Defense Manpower Data Center of 66,000 persons from Florida who entered the
armed services from fiscal year 1984 through 1987 found that over 11% had
criminal offense records in the Florida juvenile offender database. A large
majority concealed these offenses when filling out personal history statements
at the time of enlistment. Review of military records determined that about 30%
of those with a juvenile record were separated from the service for
unsuitability within four years, as compared with 20% for those who had no
juvenile record. This difference in unsuitability discharge rates for offenders
and non-offenders was more or less constant regardless of race, sex, marital
status, educational level, aptitude test level, and age at enlistment.
In other
words, all categories of military personnel with a juvenile record represent a
50% greater risk of unsuitability discharge than those without a juvenile
record. It should be noted, however, that 70% of those with juvenile offense
records did not leave the service for reasons of unsuitability. By this
criterion, 70% succeeded. Ref 10
Conditions
that call into question a persons reliability, trustworthiness or judgment
include:
- A single
serious crime, regardless of whether the person was arrested or convicted for
that crime. A "serious" crime is often defined as a
felony, as distinct from a misdemeanor
or ordinance violation. Conviction,
admission, or strong evidence of a felony will usually support a
recommendation for disapproval unless there are unusual mitigating
circumstances. If there is good reason to believe the person committed a
felony, but the crime was plea-bargained down to a misdemeanor, it counts as a
felony. Which crimes are considered felonies varies from one state to another
and changes over time. The following actions may be considered a serious crime
or breach of trust even if they are not categorized as a felony:
(1) Any
crime punishable by confinement for one year or more.
(2) Any
crime involving the use of force, coercion or intimidation; violence against
persons; or the use of firearms or explosives;
(3) A
violation of parole or probation.
(4) Any
criminal or civil offense involving breach
of trust or fiduciary duty, including embezzlement, bribery, insurance
fraud, or falsification of documents or statements for personal gain of more
than $500.
(5)
Obstruction or corruption of government functions or deprivation of civil
rights.
- Two or
more lesser crimes or civil offenses that
indicate a pattern of illegal or irresponsible behavior, regardless of whether
the person was arrested or convicted for any of these offenses. A violation of
parole or probation suggests a possible pattern of criminal behavior. Multiple
offenses indicate intentional, continuing behavior that raises serious
questions about the person’s trustworthiness, reliability, and judgment. A
pattern of disregard for the law is more significant than the monetary value
or penalty ascribed to a given crime. See
Pattern of Dishonest, Unreliable, or Rule-Breaking Behavior under
the Personal Conduct guideline.
- A close
and continuing voluntary association with persons known to be involved in
criminal activities. Association with family members is generally considered
non-voluntary in this context.
The security
significance of criminal behavior does not depend on whether the person was
caught or upon the final outcome of legal action. It depends only on the
individual's intentions and actions, and what these show about reliability,
trustworthiness, and judgment.
A criminal
record that falls below the threshold for adverse action under the Criminal
Conduct guideline may nevertheless be relevant under the Personal Conduct
guideline,
Pattern of Dishonest, Unreliable, or Rule-Breaking Behavior.
A couple misdemeanor offenses, for example, when combined with derogatory
information in other issue areas, may add up to a pattern of unreliability,
untrustworthiness, or poor judgment that is a basis for adverse action under
Personal Conduct.
In the
absence of any other criminal behavior, misdemeanor offenses related to driving
under the influence would not be grounds for disqualification under Criminal
Conduct. They may be a more serious concern when evaluated under the Alcohol
Abuse guideline if they are part of a pattern of alcohol abuse, or under the
Personal Conduct guideline if they are part of a pattern of unreliability,
untrustworthiness, or poor judgment.
Sex crimes
involving the use of violence are a particularly serious concern under the
Criminal Conduct guideline. Sex crimes that do not involve violence, coercion or
intimidation should be evaluated from a criminal perspective as well as from
sexual and emotional/mental perspectives.
Multiple
property crimes such as burglary, robbery, and theft could indicate drug abuse.
Many property crimes are motivated by a need to obtain money for drug purchases.
The 1994
National Crime Victimization Survey found that only 36% of crimes against
individuals are reported to police. Broken down by type of crime, 42% of violent
victimizations and 34% of all property crimes were reported.
Ref 11
Even fewer
crimes against businesses are reported to police. For example, shoplifting and
theft by retail employees are very common, but even those few offenders who are
caught are seldom reported to police. Most businesses handle these and other
economic crimes such as fraud and embezzlement internally (through job
termination, restitution, demotion), through civil litigation, or by writing
them off as a cost of doing business.
The FBI's
annual report on crime in the United States reports that only 22% of Crime Index
offenses (the most serious offenses) reported during 1990 were "cleared," which
in most cases means the offender was arrested and turned over to the court for
prosecution. The clearance rate was 46% for violent crimes and 18% for property
crimes. Ref 12
If only 38%
of crimes are reported and only 22% of those reported lead to arrests, this
suggests that the chances of a crime leading to arrest are only about 8%. Owing
to significant differences in procedures between the FBI reporting and the
National Crime Victimization Survey, this 8% figure is only a very rough
approximation.
For each 100
persons arrested by the police on felony charges, about 45 are typically
released due to insufficient evidence or legal technicalities unrelated to guilt
or innocence. About 55 are prosecuted, with one acquitted and 54 convicted.
To avoid the
cost and uncertainties of a trial, more than half the prosecuted cases are
plea-bargained down to
conviction for a misdemeanor rather than a felony, which generally involves far
less serious consequences for the defendant. Only about 32 of every 100 persons
arrested on felony charges actually spend any time in a correctional
institution. Ref 13
Records of
cases that are dismissed without prosecution or that are plea-bargained may be
incomplete or misleading. When evaluating criminal conduct, the individual's
behavior is the primary consideration, not whether the individual was prosecuted
or convicted. If there is good reason to believe the person committed a felony
but plea-bargained down to a misdemeanor, it counts as a felony.
The vast
majority of youths processed by the juvenile court system get into trouble only
once. A significant number get into trouble twice, but it drops off sharply
after that. Most juvenile delinquents do stop committing crimes as they mature.
See statistics on
juvenile recidivism.
As a general
rule, youthful indiscretions should not be held against an individual. However,
chronic juvenile offenders and those who start offending at the earliest ages
are likely to continue committing crimes as adults, and such a record should be
considered by the adjudicator. Also, if an individual has one or more offenses
as an adult, a juvenile record becomes relevant to a judgment about a pattern of
unreliability and untrustworthiness.
Juvenile
records are becoming increasingly available to investigators. Until recently,
confidentiality of juvenile record systems was ensured de facto because
the systems were so primitive that the information could not be retrieved
anyway. Currently, attention is focused on reducing crime by identifying career
criminals and keeping them off the streets with longer sentences. This increases
the pressure for judges, parole boards and others to have prompt access to
accurate juvenile records. Efforts are under way in many states to improve the
quality and retrievability of these records, and past practices of restricted
access to juvenile records are being reviewed.
Ref 14
The quality
of criminal records leaves much to be desired. Although many
efforts
are under way to automate and centralize criminal records, it will be
years before a single check of criminal records at the national level provides
reasonably complete coverage.
The National
Agency Check (NAC), which includes a check of FBI Headquarters records, is
normally the first step in the investigative process. For the following reasons,
the FBI records contain only a fraction of the data on criminal offenses
available through state and other local agencies:
- Only
felonies and serious misdemeanors are recorded in FBI files.
- Juvenile
arrest records are not normally forwarded to the FBI, and juvenile crime
represents a large part of the criminal history of military enlistees.
- Many
adult arrest records are not forwarded to the FBI for a variety of reasons
that differ from state to state. A principal reason is that many reports
received by the states from their local jurisdictions are not complete enough
to meet requirements for inclusion in the FBI data base.
Several
Defense Department studies have provided insight into how much criminal history
data is missed when a check is limited to the national level.
Automated
military records were compared with state criminal records for several hundred
thousand recruits who entered military service between 1979 and 1988 from the
states of Florida, Illinois, and California. About 30% of the recruits had at
least one arrest as a juvenile or adult. Self-disclosure during enlistment
processing and the Entrance NAC combined identified less than half of
those with a history of arrest. More than half were identified only by checking
the state criminal records repository. Ref 15
The records
that were missed during the FBI check were not just juvenile arrests or minor
misdemeanor arrests. For the state or Illinois, for example, 35% of arrests of
adults for robbery or burglary that were recorded in the Illinois files were not
recorded in the FBI files. Ref 16
There is
also considerable slippage at the local and state level; that is, most
centralized state files are also quite incomplete. The most common failing is
lack of reporting on the disposition of those who have been arrested. Only about
half of all arrests lead to conviction. Many who are arrested, fingerprinted,
and reported to the state's central criminal records repository are subsequently
not charged with a crime, are charged but not prosecuted, or are prosecuted
unsuccessfully, and these subsequent actions are often not reported to the state
repository.
Across the
nation, including the FBI's Identification Division and state repositories, the
disposition of cases during the past five years is reported for only about 65%
of reported arrests. The figures are lower when arrests older than five years
are considered. Ref 17
Another
weakness is that expunging, setting aside, or pardoning felony convictions may
not be recorded in the state repository, or it may result in the record of the
felony conviction being removed from the file.
Ref 18
The
Department of Justice started in 1991 an aggressive program to assist states in
upgrading the quality of criminal records at their central repositories.
Ref 19
In 1991 and
again in 1995, the Department of Justice published a comprehensive survey of
criminal history information systems in each of the U.S. states and territories.
The survey provides data on degree of automation, completeness and timeliness of
criminal history information systems. Copies may be ordered free of charge from
the Bureau of Justice Statistics Clearinghouse. To order Bureau of Justice
Statistics reports, call toll-free 800-732-3277
Twenty-nine
states which account for 74% of the nation's population now participate to some
degree in the Interstate Identification Index (III), a national index being
developed to link together the state repositories. The national index will
contain personal identification data on individuals whose criminal records are
maintained in state record repositories or by the FBI. At present, access to the
Interstate Identification Index is restricted to law enforcement purposes.
The effort
to improve state criminal history records is driven by recent federal and state
laws that focus on keeping repeat offenders off the streets, by the Anti Drug
Abuse Act of 1988 which mandates development of "a system for immediate and
accurate identification of felons who attempt to purchase" handguns, and by the
mobility of the criminal population across county and state lines, The goal is
automated linkage of state systems to permit prompt and efficient retrieval of
information on criminal offenses, with emphasis on felonies, committed anywhere
in the country.
Shoplifting,
theft by employees, and family abuse are the most common unreported crimes.
Because an individual's participation in such crimes is unlikely to be uncovered
by a criminal records check, interviews of applicants and sources should,
perhaps, focus on these areas. For additional information, see shoplifting and
employee theft.
Shoplifting
of small, concealable items is extremely common and is estimated to cost
retailers $5 billion to $25 billion annually.
Since the
late 1980s, most states have developed a new and far more effective procedure
for dealing with shoplifting. Store owners themselves in 43 states can now
impose civil fines on shoplifters. The fines range from $40 to three times
"actual damages," depending on the state. Without ever going into the criminal
court system, the store owner may impose the fine and turn over collection to a
lawyer or collection agency. In the case of a juvenile, the store owner may
collect from the shoplifter's parent. If the fine is not paid, the store owner
can then sue in civil court. Ref 20
This
procedure is noteworthy, as it makes it even less likely than before that past
shoplifting offenses will be identified by a criminal records check.
Although a
large portion of shoplifters are juveniles, a majority are adults. Most
shoplifters are from the middle class, not from the lowest socioeconomic groups.
This is not a crime motivated largely by economic need. A majority of
shoplifters have on them the cash or credit cards needed to pay for the stolen
items. Ref 21 Although it is a minor
offense, shoplifting by an adult not in desperate need reveals very important
information about an individual's trustworthiness and reliability.
Various
studies have shown that about 20% of fifth- and sixth-graders, 47% to 63% of
high school students, and 40% of college students admit to having shoplifted at
least once, although in many cases it was a one-time offense.
The
impression of security personnel and retail store managers is that employee
theft outranks shoplifting as a source of loss to retail merchants. Most authors
agree that between 50% and 60% of retail employees steal, in one form or
another, from their employers, but in this context "stealing" includes misuse of
the employee discount, selling merchandise to friends at a discount, and
reporting incorrect hours worked. In many cases, the items taken have minimal
value. Many rationalize their actions as not stealing.
In a survey
of 1,408 retail employees in the Minneapolis area, 60% admitted at least one
type of illegal activity, but only 12% admitted taking merchandise without
paying for it. The most common activity was misuse of the employee discount,
with 57% engaging in this behavior. Ref 22
In many cases, misuse of the employee discount may be beneficial to the store,
as merchandise is still sold at a profit and the alternative may be no sale at
all.
For employee
theft, like shoplifting, a check of criminal records is a very imperfect source
of information on past transgressions. Information is likely to be obtained only
through self-disclosure, source interviews, or polygraph examination.
It is often
said that the way people drive is a reflection of their personalities. Various
types of high-risk behavior often appear together as part of a general
personality syndrome. Persons arrested for high risk driving (speeding, unsafe
lane changes, tailgating, driving under the influence, etc.) are more likely
than others to abuse alcohol, use drugs, and engage in high risk sexual
behavior, fighting, stealing, and vandalism. Males involved in auto crashes are
more likely than others to have problems controlling hostility and anger, have
difficulty with authority figures, and be more impulsive and immature.
Ref 23
A record of
two or more moving violations during the past three years, or three or more
during the past five years, suggests the possible existence of relevant
derogatory information in other issue areas. If other derogatory information is
available, all of the derogatory information should be evaluated together under
Personal Conduct,
Pattern of Dishonest, Unreliable, Rule-Breaking Behavior.
Many traffic
citations for things such as reckless driving originate as arrests for driving
under the influence. They are plea-bargained down to a lesser offense to avoid
the cost of trial. When identified for what they are, such an offense should be
evaluated as a DUI under Alcohol Consumption or Drug Involvement, as
appropriate.
Mitigating
circumstances that might justify approval despite a criminal record include age
at time of offense, nature and circumstances of the offense, and amount of time
elapsed since the offense. People do change, but as a general rule adjudicators
should require positive evidence of change, not simply the passage of time.
Evidence of change might be a change in associates and lifestyle, repayment or
remorse, a pattern of responsible behavior, or results of detailed psychological
evaluation. Continuing evidence of any form of antisocial, irresponsible,
violent or high risk behavior may contribute to a decision against approval
despite the passage of time since the criminal offense.
Mitigating
conditions include:
Passage of
time since committing a criminal offense may be a mitigating factor that allows
approval. The question is, how much time needs to elapse before it is reasonable
to conclude that a person has demonstrated sufficient reliability,
trustworthiness, and good judgment to outweigh a prior criminal offense? This
varies depending, in part, on the seriousness and circumstances of the offense,
including age at the time of the offense, and evidence of positive change in
attitudes or lifestyle since the offense was committed.
Example 1.
The answer
to this question is also influenced by statistics on recidivism -- the
repetition of criminal behavior. Briefly, roughly 50% of first-time offenders in
California age 18 or over are arrested for a second offense prior to age 29. The
chances of an offender being returned to jail or prison drops off with the
passage of time. It drops off considerably after three years, and the chances of
a return to prison are small after 10 years have elapsed. See
statistics on adult recidivism.
State
statutes and court decisions relating to fairness and privacy issues in the use
of criminal records may also be relevant.
At least
seven states have passed statutes that recognize the small risk of recidivism by
offenders with old criminal history records and no recent offenses. These
statutes permit "old" records to be sealed or purged, either automatically
through administrative action or selectively through court petition. These
statutes generally apply to records that are either 5 years old or 10 years old
with no subsequent offenses. Ref 24 On
the other hand, courts in about 15 states have addressed the question of whether
the passage of time alone can deprive the public of its right to access to
criminal records; in most cases, they have determined that it cannot.
Ref 25
Subject
committed a single crime six years ago and completed parole six months ago.
Interview of the parole officer revealed that the subject repeatedly violated
the parole up until three months before the parole was to be completed. Subject
was warned that another violation would cause the parole to be revoked and
subject returned to prison.
Although
subject's crime was committed six years ago and subject "successfully" completed
parole, subject was not rehabilitated. He was failing to comply with terms of
the parole less than one year ago. Repeated parole violations suggest that
subject's attitudes and life style have not changed since the original offense
was committed.
Many people
commit an occasional dishonest act while continuing to see themselves as
law-abiding, honest citizens. They make an impulsive decision, have an
uncharacteristic lapse of judgment, or use a convenient rationalization -- that
everyone is doing it, they are only taking what they deserve, or it is not
harming anyone.
If the
offense is an isolated incident in an otherwise exemplary personal history, this
may be considered as a mitigation. For discussion of favorable information that
might mitigate an isolated offense, see the
Whole Person Concept. Also see Example 2.
One or two
misdemeanor offenses younger than age 25 may be discounted on grounds that most
youths do mature and grow up to be responsible citizens. Misdemeanor arrests at
age 25 or older are much less common. They are more predictive of future
behavior problems than misdemeanor arrests at ages younger than 25.
Ref 26 More than two misdemeanor arrests under age 25,
or any significant criminal activity at age 25 or older, should be assessed
under Personal Conduct,
Pattern of Dishonest, Unreliable, or Rule-Breaking Behavior. When
combined with current derogatory information in other issue areas, this may be a
basis for adverse action.
Criminologists believe that an overwhelming majority of people have committed at
least one crime without detection, and a substantial proportion have broken the
law more than once. Ref 27
An
often-cited 1947 study, entitled Our Law-Abiding Lawbreakers, found that
99% of respondents admitted committing at least one offense from a list of 49
such offenses that carried sentences of not less than one year. None of the
respondents had been arrested or classified as a criminal. Ref
28
Offenses may
take various forms. Many such as malicious mischief, disorderly conduct,
bribery, perjury, indecency, or assault may result from an uncharacteristic
lapse in judgment or discretion, often during one's youth.
Pilfering
such as taking ashtrays or towels from a hotel room is common. Security experts
estimate that one of every three hotel guests takes some piece of hotel property
upon departure. Ref 29
It may be a
financial offense such as padding an insurance claim or failing to report income
on an income tax return. After the Internal Revenue Service first required banks
and corporations to report all interest and dividend payments to individuals so
that these payments could be matched against what the recipients report, the
amount of interest and dividends reported on individual tax returns increased by
45%. Ref 30 When the IRS first began in 1988 to
require that names and Social Security numbers of all dependents be entered on
tax returns, seven million bogus dependents vanished from the tax rolls.
Ref 31
In some
cases, the individual may be unaware the action is illegal -- for example,
failure to pay required Social Security and unemployment compensation insurance
for a maid or regular baby-sitter.
Subject was
arrested while in college, four years ago, for stealing a professor’s payroll
check and then attempting to cash this check using a false identification card
in the professor’s name. When questioned by police, he tried to convince them he
was the person to whom the check was made out.
For this one
offense, he was charged with forgery, possession of a forged instrument,
possession of stolen property, criminal impersonation, and attempted grand
larceny. Several of these are felonies.
On the
advice of other inmates, subject told his attorney that he has a drug problem
and should be placed in an alternative sentencing program for first-time drug
offenders. He was in this program for only two months due to negative drug test
results. There is no evidence that drug dependency influenced subject’s
behavior. He explained that his motivation for committing the crime was desire
for money during the Christmas holidays.
When
considering mitigating factors, the adjudicator assesses the behavior in a whole
person context. On the favorable side of the ledger, this was a single offense
four years ago when subject was 22 years old, with no evidence of subsequent
criminal conduct.
On the
negative side, subject lied to the police when questioned and lied about having
a drug problem in an effort to receive a lighter sentence. This indicates a
pattern of dishonest behavior and lack of remorse for his offense.
Further, a
collection agency is pursuing subject for $800 in delinquent payments to a
retail store, and subject has other long-overdue bills as well. Although
subject’s overdue debts alone are not sufficient for disqualification under
Financial Considerations, they do indicate indifference to financial
obligations. They suggest a possible current pattern of continuing unreliable or
antisocial behavior.
Under these
circumstances, subject does not qualify for mitigation under the isolated
incident criterion.
It may be
inappropriate to hold an individual responsible for behavior under duress, for
example actions taken on the basis of threats to one's family. This mitigation
does not apply if the person's own behavior was responsible for provoking the
threats, for example threats made in an effort to collect gambling debts.
Transitory
conditions such as severe provocation or desperate financial need to pay a
medical bill may lead an otherwise honest person to suffer a lapse in judgment
and commit a crime. If the offense is explained by extenuating circumstances
that are unlikely to occur, and if the whole-person evaluation is favorable,
this may be a mitigating condition.
Subject is a
31-year-old data entry clerk. She was arrested three years ago for welfare fraud
-- failing to report income and thereby receiving $1,300 in overpayment of
welfare assistance during a four-month period. She was allowed to participate in
a diversion program in lieu of prosecution.
Two years
ago, she was arrested again for the same type of offense. This time she was
charged with 1st degree theft, which is a felony. Again, instead of being
prosecuted, she was placed in a diversion program on condition that she repay
the $1,809 in overpayments. At about the same time, she was charged with two
other offenses. She issued a non-sufficient funds check to a grocery store; the
check was subsequently paid prior to court action. And she was arrested, found
guilty, fined, and given a 30 day suspended sentence for shoplifting. Subject
explained that she plead guilty to shoplifting because she was present at the
scene of the crime, although she did not participate in it.
Subject has
exhibited a pattern of criminal conduct, including a felony offense, which is
disqualifying. She also has problems on financial issues. However, there are a
number of extenuating circumstances. At the time of the crimes, subject was
raising two small children while working two part-time jobs and attending
school. There is no evidence that the money obtained illegally was spent for
anything other than supporting her children. By attending school, subject was
making a clear effort to improve her long-term prospects in life. She made a
favorable impression during personal interview and received a good work
performance evaluation from her supervisor.
She has
taken commendable steps to make restitution for previous offenses and to develop
stable finances. She has made full restitution for one of the welfare fraud
offenses and is maintaining a schedule of payments for the other. Most other
debts have either been paid or are being paid.
In summary,
there is mitigating evidence to outweigh the disqualifying evidence.
Successful
rehabilitation may be demonstrated by the passage of time leading a productive
life with no further violations. This is, in essence, the same as the recency
guideline. Alternatively, rehabilitation may be demonstrated more rapidly by a
significant improvement in life style and in attitudes toward social
responsibility. Successful completion of a job training or higher education
program in prison (other than studying law to learn how to beat the legal
system) might be one indication of rehabilitation. Religious conversion might be
another.
This
glossary is based on FBI Uniform Crime Reports, information provided by
Department of Defense Security Institute, and legal dictionaries. These
definitions are quite general. Some terms may have specific definitions under
various state or federal laws. For additional information, consult a legal
dictionary available in many adjudication facilities and most public libraries.
Acquittal
means the case went to trial and the defendant was found not guilty because all
elements of the crime were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Acquittal
applies to criminal cases only.
Arraignment is where an accused person is brought before a court to enter a
plea in response to a criminal charge presented by a prosecutor.
Arrest
is the taking of a person into physical custody to answer a criminal charge or
civil demand.
Article
15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice defines procedures for
nonjudicial punishment for minor offenses. See nonjudicial punishment.
Assault
(aggravated) is an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the
purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault
usually is accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to
produce death or great bodily harm.
Assault
(simple) is an assault or attempted assault where no weapon is used and
which does not result in serious or aggravated injury to the victim.
Bad
conduct discharge is a punitive discharge from military service that is less
serious than a dishonorable discharge. It may be imposed for bad conduct by
either a general or special court-martial.
Breaking and entering is the unlawful entry of a structure, similar to
burglary, except that there is no intent to commit a felony.
Burglary
is the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony.
Captain’s
Mast is a U.S. Navy term for nonjudicial punishment.
Civil case is a legal action based on a
complaint lodged by one individual against another. The action is brought by a
plaintiff seeking compensation for injury, damages or performance of a contract.
Conspiracy is an agreement to engage in criminal activity by two or more
persons.
Conviction is the result of a criminal trial in which the court finds the
accused person guilty of a criminal offense. The conviction may come about by
trial, guilty plea, plea of "no contest" or a plea bargain.
Court-martial is a military court that decides guilt or innocence and
determines the punishment for offenders. There are three levels of
court-martial: summary court-martial for the least serious offenses, special
court-martial for moderate to serious offenses, and general court-martial for
the most serious offenses. See separate descriptions for each type of
court-martial.
Court of
inquiry is a formal fact-finding body convened under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice.
Crime
is an act or omission that is punishable on conviction in judicial proceedings
in the name of the government. The case is brought by a government prosecutor
defending the interests of society as a whole. A crime differs from a civil
offense in which a complaint is lodged by one individual against another.
Decline
Prosecution is a decision of a prosecutor to not prosecute.
Prosecution may be declined for many reasons, including insufficient evidence,
the crime is not serious, and the prosecutor's caseload.
Discharge
means to release or extinguish an obligation. Discharge of bankruptcy means the
debtor has been relieved of the debts identified by the bankruptcy proceedings.
Do not confuse with dismissal of a bankruptcy proceeding, which is just the
opposite. Discharge from military service means termination of service. For
types of military service discharge, see Dishonorable Discharge, Discharge under
Other than Honorable Conditions, General Discharge, and Honorable Discharge.
Dishonorable discharge is the most serious form of punitive discharge from
military service. It is reserved for those convicted of offenses usually
recognized by civil law as felonies or offenses of a military nature requiring
severe punishment.
Discharge under other than honorable conditions is a form of discharge
given to a member of the military services when the reason for discharge from
military service is either a pattern of behavior, or one or more acts or
omissions, that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of
members of the military services. It is a less severe form of punishment than a
dishonorable discharge. This type of discharge is awarded only if the individual
has been afforded the opportunity to request an administrative board or a
discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.
Dismissal
is the final disposition of an action, suit, or motion by sending it out of
court without a trial. Dismissal of a bankruptcy proceeding is the opposite of
discharging a bankruptcy. The bankruptcy petition has been rejected.
Due
process is a course of legal proceedings which provides for the protection
or enforcement of individual or private rights under the law.
Embezzlement is taking or misapplying money or property entrusted to one's
care, custody, or control.
Felony is the most serious category of crime. It is
usually defined as a criminal act for which the maximum sentence is imprisonment
for one year or more or by death. A federal felony is a violation of federal law
such as espionage, counterfeiting, kidnapping, bank robbery, postal fraud, or
interstate transportation of stolen goods. A state felony is a violation of
state law such as murder, burglary, aggravated assault and battery, grand
larceny, auto theft, or rape. Conviction for a federal or state felony causes an
individual to lose certain civil rights, i.e., a convicted felon cannot vote,
hold public elective office, practice certain professions and occupations, or
purchase a gun.
Fraud
is obtaining or converting to one's own use money or property by
misrepresentation or false statements. Confidence games and bad checks are
included; counterfeiting is excluded.
General
court-martial is the military court that considers the most serious cases
such as murder, rape, and robbery. It is composed of a military judge, five or
more members who serve as a jury, and prosecuting and defense counsels. This
court may impose the death penalty if legally allowed for the offense in
question.
General
discharge is a form of discharge given to a member of the military services
whose service has been honest and faithful, but for whom significant negative
aspects of the member's service, conduct or performance of duty outweigh the
positive aspects of the member's military record. It is an administrative
discharge that may be given, for example, to an individual who is unable to
adapt or is otherwise unsuitable for military service.
Homicide
is the killing of a human being. It includes criminal charges of murder,
nonnegligent manslaughter (willful killing of one human being by another), and
manslaughter through gross negligence.
Honorable
discharge is a form of discharge given to a member of the military services
whose service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and
performance of duty, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other type of
discharge would be inappropriate.
Indictment is an accusation of a crime to be proven at a trial. Indictments
are considered by grand juries. If an indictment is made by a grand jury, the
grand jury returns a "True Bill." If a grand jury does not believe the person
committed a crime, it returns a "No Bill" finding.
Larceny
is the unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away with property from the
possession of another person. Examples are thefts of property such as bicycles
or automobile accessories; shoplifting; pocket-picking, or the stealing of any
property or article which is not taken by force and violence or by fraud. Motor
vehicle theft is usually considered a separate category of offense.
Misdemeanor is a category of crime less serious
than a felony. It is usually defined as an offense for which the maximum
sentence is a fine or imprisonment for up to one year. Time is usually served in
a city or county jail rather than in a state prison. Examples of misdemeanors
are retail theft, petty larceny, trespassing, possession of small amounts of
marijuana, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest. The distinction between a
felony and misdemeanor varies from state to state. For example, some states
(primarily Michigan and New Jersey) have a category of high misdemeanor or gross
misdemeanor crimes that would be less-serious felonies in other states. The
federal system has a lesser category of petty offenses for which the maximum
penalty is a fine of $500.
Nolo
Contendere means "I will not contest it." It is a plea to a criminal charge
that has a similar effect to pleading guilty. If the court accepts the plea, the
person will be convicted and sentenced. The "nolo" procedure is used when the
accused does not want to admit the crime. It is often called a "no contest"
plea.
Nolle
Prosequi is the same as a decision not to prosecute.
Nonjudicial punishment is imposed under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice for minor offenses (for example, unauthorized absence) without
the intervention of a court-martial. Rules of evidence do not apply. Offenders
have an incentive to accept punishment under Article 15 rather than court
martial, as Article 15 punishment is recorded as administrative rather than
criminal in nature.
Ordinance violations are prosecuted in
local or municipal court, not state court. Ordinance violations are minor
offenses such as violation of local health codes, noise restrictions, etc.
Penalties vary by jurisdiction.
Parole
is release from prison after serving a portion of the sentence or upon meeting
certain specified conditions. Violation of parole could result in the person
being returned to prison for the remainder of the sentence.
Plea Bargain is the process whereby the
accused and the prosecutor in a criminal case agree on a disposition of the case
without trial, subject to the court's approval. It often involves the accused
person pleading guilty to the crime or to a lesser offense in return for a
lighter sentence. There are many different reasons for a plea bargain. A plea
bargain avoids the need for a trial, thereby significantly reducing the work
load for the court system. In some jurisdictions, up to 75% of the cases may be
plea bargained. A problem for adjudicators is that the plea bargain agreement,
which is part of the court record, may not always contain the reasons for the
plea agreement, just that an agreement has been made. A guilty plea through a
plea bargain generally has the same legal effect as a guilty verdict in a trial.
Probation
is a sentence, after a criminal conviction, that releases the person into the
community under the supervision of a probation officer instead of sending the
person into confinement or imposing a fine. The person is required to comply
with certain terms of the probation, such as community service and good
behavior. Violation of probation could result in the person being sent to
prison.
Punitive
discharge is a discharge from military service imposed as a punishment,
either a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge.
Recidivism is relapse into crime by a previous offender.
Record
expunged means the criminal record has been removed from those records
available for public release. Many states have laws that provide for sealing,
purging, or expunging certain criminal records -- generally those of juveniles,
first offenders, or offenses more than 5 or 10 years old. In order to have a
record expunged, the offender may be required to petition the court to remove
the record.
Restriction is a form of punishment for military personnel. It is less
severe than arrest. The individual may not leave a military installation or
facility unless required to do so pursuant to military duties and activities.
Robbery
is taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or
control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by
putting the victim in fear.
Special
court-martial is the military court that handles moderate to severe
offenses. There is a military judge and three or more persons serving as a jury.
The accused has the right to an attorney. The maximum punishments that can be
imposed are a bad conduct discharge, confinement for six months, forfeiture of
two-thirds of pay for six months, and reduction in grade to E-1.
Summary
court-martial is the lowest of the three levels of military courts. A single
presiding officer serves as prosecution and defense, judge and jury. This
officer takes evidence and passes judgment. The court can impose one month’s
confinement at hard labor, 45 days hard labor without confinement, restriction
for 60 days, forfeiture of pay, or reduction in grade.
Uniform
Code of Military Justice is the body of criminal statutes that applies
uniformly to all the military services. It is commonly abbreviated UCMJ.
Vagrancy
is begging, loitering, aimless wandering, etc.
Vandalism
is willful or malicious destruction, injury, disfigurement, or defacement of any
public or private property without consent.
Willful
refers to an action which is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposefully,
not accidentally or thoughtlessly.
There are
two principal sources of statistics on prevalence of crime in American society.
The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) published annually by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) since the early 1930s collates information on crimes
reported to police and on arrests nationwide. Federal, state and local law
enforcement agencies voluntarily transmit to the FBI information on 29 types of
offenses. For eight major crimes, known as "index offenses," the data include
information on age, race, and number of reported crimes solved. Data are not as
complete for the other 21 offenses.
In 1973, the
Bureau of the Census began the annual National Crime Survey (NCS), which was
subsequently renamed the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). In the 1994
survey, about 120,000 people age 12 and over in a representative sample of
56,000 housing units were interviewed about crimes directed against them
personally during the previous six months.
The
Uniform Crime Reports and the Crime Victimization Survey each have marked
strengths and weaknesses. Most crimes are never reported to the police, so they
are not included in the UCR. Many of these unreported crimes against individuals
are reflected in the NCVS, but the NCVS covers only household and personal
crimes where the individual is the victim; it does not cover crimes against
organizations such as embezzlement, fraud, shoplifting, or arson.
The
victimization studies were started in 1973 because so much crime was believed to
be going unreported. The first victimization survey confirmed this belief,
showing that the number of robberies and aggravated assaults was about four
times the number recorded by local police departments. This prompted programs to
encourage reporting of crime to the police, to keep better local records on
crime, and to standardize procedures including reporting to the FBI.
The steady
increase in crime shown in the FBI's annual reports reflects, in part, the
success of programs to improve reporting procedures rather than an increase in
crime. Improvements in reporting procedures for the UCR significantly reduce the
validity of comparisons over time, especially when comparing current crime rates
with the rates of 10 to 20 years ago. The victimization surveys rely on data
collected the same way year after year, so this is the preferred source when
analyzing changes in the crime rate over time.
Most crimes
against businesses, such as shoplifting and employee theft are handled outside
the criminal justice system and are not captured by either the UCB or NCVS. They
are handled internally (job termination, restitution, demotion, etc.), through
civil litigation, or are written off as a cost of doing business.
Most studies
of the prevalence of crime count the number of crimes committed. Of course, one
person may commit many crimes. Few studies analyze what percentage of the
population has participated in committing crimes. Such studies tell us what
percentage of the population we should expect to have a criminal record.
One of the
more useful studies of criminal participation looked at all males born in 1956
and arrested as adults in California for "retainable offenses" between 1974 and
1985. This includes most felonies and misdemeanors for which the defendant is
booked and fingerprinted and subject to incarceration. It excludes juvenile
offenses. It also excludes most misdemeanor traffic offenses including DUI,
public drunkenness, possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, and
violations of local ordinances.
In other
words, the study tracked the more serious adult offenses for this group from age
18 to age 29. The number of arrests was compared with the total California
population in this age group to determine the percentage arrested for the first
time during any given year and the cumulative percentage arrested at least once
by age 29.
The study
found that 35.4% of California males born in 1956 had been arrested at least
once for a felony or serious misdemeanor after age 18 and before they reached
age 29. Almost half of these were arrested for one of the most serious offenses
(the eight FBI Crime Index offenses). Ref 33
Caution is
appropriate when using statistical data about the prevalence of any type of
behavior, as such information may be misleading and can be misused. For example,
statistics that apply to the general population will usually be different from
frequency rates found in a self-selected and pre-screened pool of persons
undergoing security processing..
In response
to the high cost of employee theft, many businesses, especially retail stores,
have sought additional means to screen out job applicants most likely to engage
in theft or other dishonest practices. A number of psychological tests, commonly
called integrity or honesty tests, have been developed for this purpose.
There are
two general types of tests. One type asks direct questions about attitudes
toward dishonest behaviors, such as: What percentage of people do you think
steal from their employer? Do you know for certain that some of your friends
steal from their employer? What punishment is appropriate for a person caught
stealing $5?
This line of
questioning is based on the theory that people tend to assume that other people
are much the same as themselves. That is, the dishonest person is likely to
believe that dishonesty is common, to know people who are dishonest, and to
believe that petty dishonesty does not deserve severe punishment.
A second
type of test measures personality characteristics such as conscientiousness,
reliability and trustworthiness. These tests aim to predict a broad range of
counterproductive work behaviors including absenteeism, disciplinary problems,
and drug abuse as well as theft.
The American
Psychological Association (APA) formed a Task Force on the Prediction of
Dishonesty and Theft in Employment Settings to assess the accuracy of integrity
tests and the social policy questions associated with them. The task force
identified many problems with these tests, but found that the best tests are
useful and have predictive validity.
However, the
APA found little information is available to justify the cutoff scores marking
success or failure on the tests, and no information is available on how many
potentially honest employees are lost for each potentially dishonest one who is
excluded. Although the purpose of many test questions is transparent, lying on
the test does not seem to be as much of a problem as many people fear.
Ref 34
A recent
review of all previous analyses of integrity tests also concludes that these
tests have some predictive validity, but that they are better at predicting
organizationally disruptive behaviors in general than the more specific behavior
of employee theft. Ref 35
Although
integrity tests purportedly identify an individual as honest or dishonest, or
high, medium or low risk, the result is actually a probabilistic judgment. A
more careful scoring might indicate, for example, a 60% or 70% chance that a
given employee will or will not steal merchandise from the store. Integrity
tests have a large number of what are called false positives, that is, cases in
which an individual is identified incorrectly as high risk. Others may be
identified as low risk when they are really high risk.
All
screening mechanisms are fallible to some degree. An integrity test may be
appropriate when many applicants are being screened for just a few jobs, or when
it is used as only one of many variables in the employment decision. For a
retail store seeking to hire honest sales clerks, a simple paper-and-pencil
integrity test will be at least as effective and objective as a personal
interview, and more effective than simply hiring the first qualified applicant
for the job.
The
integrity test does not appear to be sufficiently sophisticated and
discriminating to be used in the security clearance process.
The
Department of Justice maintains the Bureau of Justice Statistics Clearinghouse,
which is a central location for ordering a wide variety of studies and reports
dealing with the criminal justice system. Reports are sent free of charge. The
address is P.O. Box 179, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701-0179. Phone: 800-732-3277.
Fax: 410-792-4358. The Internet address, which has lists of publications, is
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/.
For data on
drugs and crime, information is available from the Drugs & Crime Data Center &
Clearinghouse, 1600 Research Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850. Phone: 800-666-3332.
Most reports are free.
The FBI's
annual Uniform Crime Reports may be purchased from the Government
Printing Office.
1. Flyer, Eli S. (February 1995). Recruits with a Preservice
Arrest History: Identification, Characteristics and Behavior on Active Duty.
Report prepared for Directorate for Accession Policy, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Defense (Force Management Policy). Contract No. DAAL03-91-C-0034.
Conclusions are based on automated records analysis of over 300,000 recruits who
entered military service between FY 1977 and FY 1988 from the states of Florida,
Illinois and California. Prior arrests were identified through self-reporting by
recruits, Entrance NAC, and automated check of state criminal history records.
2. Hollinger, R. C. (1989). Dishonesty in the workplace: A
manager's guide to preventing employee theft. Park Ridge, IL: London House
Press, pp. 10-11.
3. Baker, M., & Westin, A. (1987). Employer perceptions of
workplace crime. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of
Justice.
4. Langan, P. A., & Cunniff, M. A. (1992). Recidivism of
felons on probation, 1986-89. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report).
Washington, DC: Department of Justice.
5. See Bureau of Justice Statistics (1989). Recidivism of
prisoners released in 1983. (Special Report). Washington, DC: Department of
Justice, and Greenfield, L. A. (1985). Examining recidivism. (Bureau of
Justice Statistics Special Report). Washington, DC: Department of Justice.
Secondary analysis of Table 3.
6. Tillman, R. (1986). The prevalence and incidence of arrests
among adult males in California. BCS Forum. Sacramento: California
Department of Justice, Bureau of Criminal Statistics.
7. Telephone communication from Dr. Allan Beck, U.S. Department
of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, to Richards J. Heuer, Jr., Defense
Personnel Security Research Center, July 1995. Dr. Beck is the principal
researcher for the study of recidivism of first-time arrestees. The study uses a
sample of persons from eight states arrested for the first time for a felony or
misdemeanor in 1978 and 1984 and tracks them through 1991. The preliminary
results are based on a sample of 23,371 persons arrested in 1978.
8. Garcia, E. (1990). An integrated county court system. In
Proceedings of a Bureau of Justice Statistics/SEARCH Conference, Juvenile and
adult records: One system, one record? Washington, DC: Department of
Justice.
9. Wolfgang, M. E. (1990). The nature and severity of juvenile
crime and recidivism. In Proceedings of a Bureau of Justice Statistics/SEARCH
Conference, Juvenile and adult records: One system, one record?
Washington, DC: Department of Justice. Also see Wolfgang, M., Thornberry, T., &
Figlio, R. (1987). From boy to man, from delinquency to crime. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
10. Defense Manpower Data Center (1990). Juvenile offenders
in the military: Summary of fiscal year 1984-1987 Florida accessions.
Monterey, CA: Author. Also Flyer, E. S. (1991). Juvenile offenders in
military service: Florida delinquency study. Report prepared for the
Directorate of Accession Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Force Management and Personnel).
11. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1996). Criminal
victimization in the United States, 1994. (NCJ-158022) Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.
12. Federal Bureau of Investigation (1991). Crime in the
United States: Uniform crime reports, 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, Table 1.
13. Boland, P., Mahanna, P., & Sones, R. (1992). The
prosecution of felony arrests, 1988. (Report No. NCJ-130914). Washington,
DC: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
14. Belair, R. R. (1990). The future availability of juvenile
records. In Proceedings of the Bureau of Justice Statistics/SEARCH Conference on
Juvenile and adult records: One system, one record? Washington, DC:
Department of Justice.
15. Flyer, Eli S. (February 1995). Recruits with a
Preservice Arrest History: Identification, Characteristics and Behavior on
Active Duty. Prepared for Directorate of Accession Policy, Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy), Contract No.
DAAL03-91-C-0034.
16. Data developed by E. S. Flyer for his previously cited
study on Recruits with a Pre-Service Arrest History. Flyer provided the
data to R. J. Heuer, PERSEREC, in July 1992.
17. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1995). Survey of criminal
history information systems, 1993, (NCJ-148951). Washington, DC: Department
of Justice.
18. SEARCH (1985). Criminal justice information policy:
Data quality of criminal history records. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
19. See Bureau of Justice Statistics (1991). National
conference on improving the quality of criminal history records: Proceedings of
a BJS/SEARCH conference. (Report No. NCJ-133532). Washington, DC: Department
of Justice.
20. Woo, J. (1992, Sept. 9). Most states now have laws
permitting stores to impose civil fines on shoplifters. The Wall Street
Journal, p. B1.
21. Baumer, T. L., & Rosenbaum, D. P. (1984). Combating
retail theft: Programs and strategies. Boston: Butterworth Publishers,
Chapters 2 and 3.
22. Clark, J. P., Hollinger, C., Smith, L. F., Cooper, P. W.,
Parilla, P. F., & Smith-Cunnien, P. (1979). Theft by employees in work
organizations--a preliminary final report. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
23. COMSIS Corporation (1995). Understanding youthful risk
taking and driving. DOT HS 808 318. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
24. Snyder, J. M. (1988). The private employer and criminal
history records, p. 33, in Bureau of Justice Statistics (1988). Open vs.
confidential records, conference proceedings,. (NCJ-113560). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, p. 57.
25. Kirtley, J. E. (1988). Media access to criminal history
records. In Bureau of Justice Statistics (1988). Open vs. confidential
records, conference proceedings. (NCJ-113560). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.
26. COMSIS Corp. (1995). Understanding youthful risk taking
and driving. DOT HS 808 318. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
27. Pursley, R. D. (1984). Introduction to Criminal Justice
(3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan, p. 90.
28. Wallerstein, J. & Wyle, C. J. (1947). Our law-abiding
lawbreakers. Probation, 25, 107-112.
29. Lasky, M. S. (1974, January 27). One in three hotel guests
is a towel thief, Bible pincher or worse. The New York Times Travel Section.
30. The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the
Administration of Justice (1967). Task force report: Crime and its impact --
an assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 103.
31. McNamee, M. (1996). A flat tax might make Apr. 15
trickier. Newsweek, Apr. 8, p. 135.
32. Provided by Defense Investigative Service with additions
from undated FBI publication Reference Guide to Aid in Understanding Arrest
Abbreviations.
33. Tillman, R. (1986). The prevalence and incidence of
arrests among adult males in California. BCS Forum. Sacramento:
California Department of Justice, Bureau of Criminal Statistics.
34. Goldberg, L. R., Grenier, J. R., Guion, R. M., Sechrest,
L. B., & Wing, H. (1991). Questionnaires used in the prediction of
trustworthiness in pre-employment selection decisions: An A.P.A. task force
report. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. For different
assessment of integrity tests, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology
Assessment (1990). The use of integrity tests for pre-employment screening.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. For recent literature reviews
on integrity testing, see O'Bannon, R. M., Goldinger, L. A., & Appleby, G. S.
(1989). Honesty and integrity testing: A practical guide. Atlanta, GA: Applied
Information Resources. And Sackett, P. R., Burris, L. R., & Callahan, C. (1989).
Integrity testing for personnel selection: An update. Personnel Psychology,
37, 491-529.
35. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1992).
Meta-analysis of integrity test validities (Final Technical Report prepared
for Defense Personnel Security Research Center). University of Iowa: Department
of Management and Organizations.
Also refer to limitations of FBI criminal record data base:
Click Here
The Attorney General’s Report on Criminal History Background Checks:
Click Here
Home
FAQ
Site Map
Disclaimer
None of the information in this web site should be construed as legal advice.
All forms policies, terms, information and procedures should be reviewed by your legal counsel before being used in any
way.
| 
