Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many states have a process where either automatically (such as with juvenile records) or through a legal process one can under circumstances have their criminal history removed from the public record. Additionally some of those states have a law whereby you can answer (most) questions regarding your criminal history as if the offense never happened without any consequences. However, from what I've heard there are some people opposed to that idea, arguing that it amounts to a "legally sanctioned lie" while others think it's a proper legal fiction to help those people re-integrate into mainstream society if they've learned from their wrongs and haven't re-offended.
What do you think of these kinds of laws?
Note: I'm referring to when someone is duly convicted of a crime (that remains such in said place and time), and at some point in the future has their record pulled from public view and can pretend that it never happened. Sealing arrests after an acquittal, and special circumstances like a law that is repealed or declared unconstitutional are different (and I do honestly think that people in those circumstances should have their record removed and not be obligated to disclose their wrongful presumptions).
P.S. Since the federal government in most cases does not "recognize" expungements, some people also don't like how it can create an illusion of contradictory statements on various legal documents where one might for example say they've been convicted of a felony on a federal form but not on a state one issued at a similar time (similar to how when DOMA was in effect you'd in some cases see same-sex couples file as single at the federal level but married at the state level, or vice-versa after the federal part was struck down in 2013 but before all states were obligated to recognize SSMs in 2015).
If a young person makes a few mistakes early in life, there's still plenty of time to clear the record, but only if the system imposes some sort if immediate, substantial (but not too severe) punishment early-on -- and consistently raises the ante if the behavior persists.
If a group of the local wise guys, or gangbanger-wannabees steal a car to go joyriding, they should have to spend at least one weekend as guests of the local authority -- and with some simple, but not-very-pleasant labor thrown in -- and (absolutely!) on the first offense . Gang colors should bring an additional sanction, and while it's not likely that they can be encouraged to turn in their "mentors", the police need the tools to push the pressure further up into the pyramid -- if an increasing amount of evidence points in the same direction.
Post-industrial economic trends make it increasingly likely that in future years, one of our biggest problems is going to be finding someone to saddle with the work that nobody wants -- but everybody knows has to be done. And the surest, and fairest way to allocate the burden is to impress upon persistent delinquents and non-contributors that further criminal behavior will only deepen the hole they're digging for themselves.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 08-21-2016 at 03:28 PM..
I think that people who have been convicted of non-violent crimes and have no further criminal activity should be able to expunge their records. If they've done their time they have already faced their punishment. I don't see how society benefits from people with relatively minor infractions being punished forever.
I think that people who have been convicted of non-violent crimes and have no further criminal activity should be able to expunge their records. If they've done their time they have already faced their punishment. I don't see how society benefits from people with relatively minor infractions being punished forever.
But at the same time employers should have as much information about applicants as necessary to make a hiring decision. If someone applies to be a school teacher shouldn't the school be able to find if the applicant was ever convicted of a sex crime? I know in Texas they do.
Expunging is a weird concept, unless it can be proven there was something amiss in the original conviction. Employers should be able to decide for themselves what their standards are; how much risk they should take; and what types of convictions would affect the viability of a candidate. I think for gov't hiring you could argue more for the former felon's case, but private businesses have no obligations to aid in reintegration. A compromise could be a tax write off for businesses that hire convicted felons.
I like how the default was gang bangers in a comment above 🙄
Anyhoo, Yes this should be allowed and so what if its lying. People make mistakes and no need to have them pay for it for THE REST OF THEIR LIVES
I cant tell u how many times ive been turned down for a job because I tried to steal a sweater wen I was 19 or lied about who I was during a traffic stop at 20. Im 34 now and this still comes up. Its anmoying as all get out.
Re: the last two comments - I think a good compromise would be to allow the expungment of some crimes. I agree with vereybadgnome that most violent offenses should stay on one's record, but allow relatively minor offenses done years ago to be expunged like stationplay said.
I think a matrix of crime type, severity, multiple convictions and time since conviction could work. Sort of like a point system.
But bear in mind that businesses bear full liability for who they hire. Here in Oregon they have a "ban the box" law now. It's terrible. As an example, if a convicted pedophile wanted to work at a day care center, they cannot inquire if they have a criminal record. If they then hire this pedophile and they molest kids, the business owner is 100% responsible and liable for hiring a pedophile- even if they weren't allowed to know it.
I think a matrix of crime type, severity, multiple convictions and time since conviction could work. Sort of like a point system.
But bear in mind that businesses bear full liability for who they hire. Here in Oregon they have a "ban the box" law now. It's terrible. As an example, if a convicted pedophile wanted to work at a day care center, they cannot inquire if they have a criminal record. If they then hire this pedophile and they molest kids, the business owner is 100% responsible and liable for hiring a pedophile- even if they weren't allowed to know it.
What you fail to mention is that Oregon law specifically requires that those working with children in day-cares undergo a background check, and the 'ban the box' law does absolutely nothing to change that. So the only way a day-care can be negligent is if they fail - as required by law - to do a background check. And, frankly, even were they not required by law to do so, they would still be negligent if all they did to vet employees working with young children was to ask them. Why would any reasonable person - or legitimate business - rely on the word of a potential pedophile, rather than actually doing a background check? Because there may be pedophiles out there, but at least we can trust them to be honest on their applications?
What you fail to mention is that Oregon law specifically requires that those working with children in day-cares undergo a background check, and the 'ban the box' law does absolutely nothing to change that. So the only way a day-care can be negligent is if they fail - as required by law - to do a background check. And, frankly, even were they not required by law to do so, they would still be negligent if all they did to vet employees working with young children was to ask them. Why would any reasonable person - or legitimate business - rely on the word of a potential pedophile, rather than actually doing a background check? Because there may be pedophiles out there, but at least we can trust them to be honest on their applications?
But at the same time employers should have as much information about applicants as necessary to make a hiring decision. If someone applies to be a school teacher shouldn't the school be able to find if the applicant was ever convicted of a sex crime? I know in Texas they do.
Expunging is a weird concept, unless it can be proven there was something amiss in the original conviction. Employers should be able to decide for themselves what their standards are; how much risk they should take; and what types of convictions would affect the viability of a candidate. I think for gov't hiring you could argue more for the former felon's case, but private businesses have no obligations to aid in reintegration. A compromise could be a tax write off for businesses that hire convicted felons.
If people with things on the record cannot find a job, it becomes a public issue, not just an issue between the (prospective) employers and employees. The interest of future employers must be carefully weighed against the interest of the public regarding the employability of these individuals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
