[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by nico7

I haven't read the details, but am wondering what the arguments are *for* this, and if there are conditions and requirements to be met before erasure can be considered. From the headlines it sounds too much like a free pass.

I'd bet most likely they have relatives and friends who are convicts, hoping for a free pass.

I however, want all 34 of Milford's residents on the sex offenders list tracked the rest of their lives.

[mdovell]

Well let's be a bit honest here folks. Is it REALLY going to go away given that police logs are public? Let's say some place finds information and denies. Who exactly is going to sit there with a felon and say you *MUST* house? Remember they'd have to hire a lawyer for this or find some probono non profit one.

I said this before on this board and someone kinda snapped at me but basically this. I know from housing training that in Mass online searches can be part of a reputation for public housing, they can even ask a local police chief. So as long as you can google someones name and it comes up well that's it. Unless CT is going to go to every single search engine that posts crime data and asks for it to be scrubbed without a court order that's going to be hard to demand. Technically speaking Google data for newspapers goes back to 1970. So technically if someone spat at some vet combing back from nam in '71 yeah one might argue they can't qualify for housing...but in CT...

So even if this passes and the issue isn't so much criminals in CT but rather those outside of it that come in.

If you have really strict laws in one state and really lax ones in another there's going to be problems no matter what the issue. Vermont has hardly any gun laws. Mass and CT have pretty strict ones. There is a huge firearms for drugs industry. Ma and Ct state police go up and down I91 like AWACS during the cold war. Look at where the guns come from and chance are it's CT. Ok that's the activity by itself. Where are they going to go to live?

The problem with criminality is multifold. Criminals can't really do business legally so they hire other criminals which further makes problems. Gang fights, drug turf you name it.

Is prison for rehabilitation, detention or punishment? If we put anyone in prison the idea is that it is safer for society as a whole to keep some people locked up (especially violent or sexual in nature). Ok fine but for what time and what happens after time is served? If it's a long time they don't have work history and it is hard to find any form of work.

Let me tell you of a few people I know
I have a bad apple in my family...really bad. He's an addict and has been so I think for probably 15 or so years, he's in his mid 30's. He used to be violent but he hasn't for quite some time. He CANNOT be trusted with any form of money or credit. Cash, credit cards, social security information etc He had some work while in prison but of course it wasn't much and it wasn't much money. Years ago he was offered a job at Kohl's...until they saw the violent record. he was offered a landscaping job and then...then.... he didn't show up!! :-( he basically just steals for a drug habit. We're talking at least 49 felonies. He goes to prison in and out but gets released because he's not violent. This has been 15 years. Thankfully it's the midwest and I don't have to deal with him. But assuming he can get clean then what. No degree, not really any job skills and how do you explain the past 15 years of his life.

An old friend of mine hurt me almost 20 years ago when he was caught dealing. Long story short but he had a number of charges and the cops screwed up in the search so evidence was tossed. I thought he'd get decades but it was one year suspended license. Anyways he worked for a company that frankly didn't care....until it was bought out by European one that later *did* care. So he left the place and tried to find another job. he had no responses because the record wasn't sealed, he thought it was. No violent record at all but it was still there.

Some kinda just retire from crime. I've had my hair cut a few times by a guy that supposedly was a loanshark back in day. Now they don't advertise that but I read about it later on, obviously I'm not going to mention that I know. Background checks exist for a reason. Long ago in retail as a chain we started to do criminal background checks on our contractors. Our major competitor didn't and later they sent a rapist to a single womans house. Obviously they started, especially after being reported. The difference between us and them was luck. Years later I worked within the processing of some of these. We couldn't have people that didn't pass it anywhere near kids. For the most part it isn't an issue, just explain to contractors what they look for and that should weed out ones that shouldn't be there. An over generalization of crime can lead to some continuing to do crime.

the chambers of commerce have to chime in on this one and private sector HR. What are the terms of hiring for background checks by employers in CT? is there a survey out there on this?

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by mdovell

Well let's be a bit honest here folks. Is it REALLY going to go away given that police logs are public?

Yes. Police logs are available due to the FOI Act, however when a record is sealed or expunged, nobody is able to access them. This includes police department employees. It is legally binding.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by mdovell

So even if this passes and the issue isn't so much criminals in CT but rather those outside of it that come in.

It has already passed since every democratic politician voted Yes. Usually, that means Ned will sign it.

[mdovell]

What I meant was the issues isn't so much in state but how many other criminals might come in. Is this under the basis of where the crime occurred? Ok so a mugging in hartford is ok but if it's say in Agawam over the boarder or NY is it treated the same?

When you say no one has records of them it gets a bit hard because well the media already has reporting and then there's social media on top of that. We can say it's legally binding but people tend not to forget.

If someone does release a record being a criminal by itself is not a protected class in any court of law. You also have to figure what if someone or something simply accesses these systems and dumps the files. Remember the DMV a few months back?
https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/...V-16080894.php

Reading the bill itself it looks like government is exempt from this. Meaning they can still do background checks.

"This subsection shall not apply in the case of an agency or
632 department of the United States government seeking to obtain and use
633 a consumer report for employment purposes if the head of the agency
634 or department makes a written finding pursuant to 15 USC "

But here's a cluster
"On and after January 1,
664 2023, it shall be a discriminatory practice for any association, board or
665 other organization the principal purpose of which is the furtherance of
666 the professional or occupational interests of its members, whose
667 profession, trade or occupation requires a state license, to refuse to
668 accept a person as a member of such association, board or organization
669 solely on the basis of that person's erased criminal history record
670 information."

So if a lawyer loses the law license they get it back in seven years? If a contractor can't frame something right leading to a lawsuit it's ok'd after seven years?

But it also says
"(d) If [a conviction of a crime] conviction information is used as a
858 basis for rejection of an applicant, such rejection shall be in writing and
859 specifically state the evidence presented and reasons for rejection. A
860 copy of such rejection shall be sent by registered mail to the applicant."

So which is it?

If someone is arrested by itself that doesn't mean guilt or innocence and it doesn't even mean that charges will be filed. Pepsi I think got into huge trouble by rejecting applicants that had an arrest (but not charged) record. Even with charges that doesn't mean guilty and then there's an appeals process.

[Route7toRoute202]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Considering one of our most populated cities hires ex cons as mayors, this , sadly, is not surprising. We've gone crazy in this state, appeasing the radical left. This is the AOC wing style taking over (ideology, not the bartender herself).

Excellent point, and the worst part is that we can't do anything about it.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by mdovell

What I meant was the issues isn't so much in state but how many other criminals might come in. Is this under the basis of where the crime occurred? Ok so a mugging in hartford is ok but if it's say in Agawam over the boarder or NY is it treated the same?

When you say no one has records of them it gets a bit hard because well the media already has reporting and then there's social media on top of that. We can say it's legally binding but people tend not to forget.

If someone does release a record being a criminal by itself is not a protected class in any court of law. You also have to figure what if someone or something simply accesses these systems and dumps the files. Remember the DMV a few months back?

If someone is arrested by itself that doesn't mean guilt or innocence and it doesn't even mean that charges will be filed. Pepsi I think got into huge trouble by rejecting applicants that had an arrest (but not charged) record. Even with charges that doesn't mean guilty and then there's an appeals process.

Each state holds its own criminal record. If I committed Robbery and was convicted of such in California, but moved to Texas, an NCIC check of my criminal history by Texas law enforcement would show my California conviction. This erasure affects other states because when that convicted felon travels, the Connecticut criminal history, which is owned and maintained by the state of Connecticut, won’t exist since it has been erased.

It doesn’t matter what the media has reporting of or what police departments have posted on Facebook. All that matters is a person’s criminal history background. The media and social media usually only report arrests, and not convictions. Arrests don’t matter. Convictions do.

And if someone is arrested, that absolutely means charges are filed. There is an appeals process if they are convicted but the vast majority of convictions are unsuccessful in their motion to appeal.

I’m not sure you fully understand how the judicial system works.

[MrGompers]

Google doesn't forget and no one can erase that.


If someone has a unique name they will never be able to hide.


If someone has a common name they may be able to explain it away, but double checking birthday and/or SSN will clear that up too.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

It has already passed since every democratic politician voted Yes. Usually, that means Ned will sign it.

Ned is a puppet. He will sign anything they send him.

[Beeker2211]

... aren't the worst case scenarios bring posted here class A and B felonies which are not included? An I missing something?