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.
People served their time. It shouldn't be a life sentence (unless it's a life sentence.) This topic was beaten to death on this board when the law was passed.
I'm just curious, did anyone here who commented bother to read the attached article? It clearly states that this aims to eliminate employment, education, and housing barriers for those convicted of low-level crimes who have finished their sentences and remained crime-free for a specific timeframe.
There's still very much a need to punish the guilty with incarceration when it's warranted, and we do (though decidedly not enough in some instances), but for those who committed lower-level crimes and have made an effort to stay out of trouble, I'm a little more sympathetic. I agree that 80,000 records is a huge amount to expunge, and it would be more realistic and practical to review ex-felons as the individual level (as this likely did not), but I also disagree with the notion that this is wholly and inherently a bad idea. A small but growing number of employers are no longer asking applicants if they have been convicted of a felony, including GOP mega-donor Charles Koch's Koch Industries, so it's not entirely a liberal concept. Many see this as a way to comabt the prison industrial complex, at least in theory. Whether or not it achieves it in practice remains to be seen. We'll see.
Last edited by MikefromCT; 12-27-2023 at 10:21 AM..
I'm just curious, did anyone here who commented bother to read the attached article? It clearly states that this aims to eliminate employment, education, and housing barriers for those convicted of low-level crimes who have finished their sentences and remained crime-free for a specific timeframe.
There's still very much a need to punish the guilty with incarceration when it's warranted, and we do (though decidedly not enough in some instances), but for those who committed lower-level crimes and have made an effort to stay out of trouble, I'm a little more sympathetic. I agree that 80,000 records is a huge amount to expunge, and it would be more realistic and practical to review ex-felons as the individual level (as this likely did not), but I also disagree with the notion that this is wholly and inherently a bad idea. A small but growing number of employers are no longer asking applicants if they have been convicted of a felony, including GOP mega-donor Charles Koch's Koch Industries, so it's not entirely a liberal concept. Many see this as a way to comabt the prison industrial complex, at least in theory. Whether or not it achieves it in practice remains to be seen. We'll see.
The problem is multiple low level criminal convictions being erased eliminates the upcharge should they violate again post erasure (especially given that recidivism rates for similar crimes are shockingly high).
In theory, this sounds great. In practice, not so great. There’s too many what ifs that I don’t think have been considered.
To get the expungement, the max prison term is 5 years. You can get expunged after 10 years. This means you need 5 years w/o reoffending. It's clear you are more worried about being able to punish people more severely who mess up again after 5 years than allowing people who are legitimately trying to improve and move on to not suffer suffer a lifetime of obstacles, stigma, embarrassment, etc. You are entitled to that opinion. Personally, I'm good with the law.
Here is a deep dive from a Harvard Law review article looking at a data from Michigan's expungement program.
"The arguments of expungement opponents do not typically focus on program expenditures, of course, but rather on public safety. Fortunately, our findings on the crime front are equally encouraging. Subsequent offending rates after expungement are extremely low. Ninety-nine percent of those who receive expungements in Michigan are not convicted of a felony anytime in the next five years; 99.4% are not convicted of any violent crime; and 95.8% are not convicted of any crime at all, even a petty misdemeanor. In fact, expungement recipients appear to be lower risk than the general public. To be sure, recidivism rates would not be as low if states made expungement available immediately following the completion of a sentence, removed judicial discretion, or extended it to a generally riskier pool, such as people with more extensive criminal records. But even in those scenarios, there is still no evidence to suggest that access to expungement would increase the recidivism risk of those groups; if anything, due to the benefits we find in terms of employment outcomes (and possible benefits in other areas), one should probably expect their recidivism rates to decline."
To get the expungement, the max prison term is 5 years. You can get expunged after 10 years. This means you need 5 years w/o reoffending. It's clear you are more worried about being able to punish people more severely who mess up again after 5 years than allowing people who are legitimately trying to improve and move on to not suffer suffer a lifetime of obstacles, stigma, embarrassment, etc. You are entitled to that opinion. Personally, I'm good with the law.
Here is a deep dive from a Harvard Law review article looking at a data from Michigan's expungement program.
"The arguments of expungement opponents do not typically focus on program expenditures, of course, but rather on public safety. Fortunately, our findings on the crime front are equally encouraging. Subsequent offending rates after expungement are extremely low. Ninety-nine percent of those who receive expungements in Michigan are not convicted of a felony anytime in the next five years; 99.4% are not convicted of any violent crime; and 95.8% are not convicted of any crime at all, even a petty misdemeanor. In fact, expungement recipients appear to be lower risk than the general public. To be sure, recidivism rates would not be as low if states made expungement available immediately following the completion of a sentence, removed judicial discretion, or extended it to a generally riskier pool, such as people with more extensive criminal records. But even in those scenarios, there is still no evidence to suggest that access to expungement would increase the recidivism risk of those groups; if anything, due to the benefits we find in terms of employment outcomes (and possible benefits in other areas), one should probably expect their recidivism rates to decline."
I mean, yes, I’m all for punishing people more severely who continue to reoffend. That’s how it works in a civilized society.
We see what’s happened in our cities re: crime rates - and criminals are emboldened now more than ever thanks to the demonization of law enforcement by politicians. Now’s now the time for crime erasure.
But hey, as Steve said, you guys vote for it? Don’t complain about the consequences, because there will be consequences.
I mean, yes, I’m all for punishing people more severely who continue to reoffend. That’s how it works in a civilized society.
We see what’s happened in our cities re: crime rates - and criminals are emboldened now more than ever thanks to the demonization of law enforcement by politicians. Now’s now the time for crime erasure.
But hey, as Steve said, you guys vote for it? Don’t complain about the consequences, because there will be consequences.
"I mean, yes, I’m all for punishing people more severely who continue to reoffend. That’s how it works in a civilized society."
See, I think a civilized society doesn't make things harder for people who have served their time and stayed out of trouble for a decent amount of time. A civilized society cares more about rehabilitation than retribution. A civilized society forgives when someone has earned it. You don't get the expungement unless you stay out of trouble for 5 years at minimum. As a justice system, we have the presumption of innocence. To me, this is an extension of that. You take the approach that once you've been convicted, you are presumed guilty for the rest of your life. That's the opposite of civilized.
"I mean, yes, I’m all for punishing people more severely who continue to reoffend. That’s how it works in a civilized society."
See, I think a civilized society doesn't make things harder for people who have served their time and stayed out of trouble for a decent amount of time. A civilized society cares more about rehabilitation than retribution. A civilized society forgives when someone has earned it. You don't get the expungement unless you stay out of trouble for 5 years at minimum. As a justice system, we have the presumption of innocence. To me, this is an extension of that. You take the approach that once you've been convicted, you are presumed guilty for the rest of your life. That's the opposite of civilized.
A civilized society also has an obligation to ensure safety of their citizens that don’t commit felonious crimes. Unsurprisingly, the victims of these crimes don’t seem to even be a thought to those rallying in support of the criminal.
A civilized society also has an obligation to ensure safety of their citizens that don’t commit felonious crimes. Unsurprisingly, the victims of these crimes don’t seem to even be a thought to those rallying in support of the criminal.
"I mean, yes, I’m all for punishing people more severely who continue to reoffend. That’s how it works in a civilized society."
See, I think a civilized society doesn't make things harder for people who have served their time and stayed out of trouble for a decent amount of time. A civilized society cares more about rehabilitation than retribution. A civilized society forgives when someone has earned it. You don't get the expungement unless you stay out of trouble for 5 years at minimum. As a justice system, we have the presumption of innocence. To me, this is an extension of that. You take the approach that once you've been convicted, you are presumed guilty for the rest of your life. That's the opposite of civilized.
There's one important thing to remember about rehabilitation: In order for any sort of rehabilitation to be even remotely successful, the participant has to do their part. If they're not willing to even lift a finger to help themselves, then rehabilitation is a waste of time. And some people just can't be rehabilitated, so it's not a one-size-fits-all approach that will work here. Sometimes the answer is rehabilitation, other times it's incarceration which is not retribution, but justice served.
On the other hand, for those who have done their time for less serious offenses and not returned to their old habits, I'd be more inclined to give them another chance. One way to keep them out of trouble is to give them a job. When you're working, you have a task, you're making money, you're participating in society – all of this is a diversion and a deterrent from criminal activity. Certainly, not everyone adheres to this, but I still believe that the vast majority of people out there, including many ex-cons, want this. They want to make money and do something with their lives.
There's one important thing to remember about rehabilitation: In order for any sort of rehabilitation to be even remotely successful, the participant has to do their part. If they're not willing to even lift a finger to help themselves, then rehabilitation is a waste of time. And some people just can't be rehabilitated, so it's not a one-size-fits-all approach that will work here. Sometimes the answer is rehabilitation, other times it's incarceration which is not retribution, but justice served.
On the other hand, for those who have done their time for less serious offenses and not returned to their old habits, I'd be more inclined to give them another chance. One way to keep them out of trouble is to give them a job. When you're working, you have a task, you're making money, you're participating in society – all of this is a diversion and a deterrent from criminal activity. Certainly, not everyone adheres to this, but I still believe that the vast majority of people out there, including many ex-cons, want this. They want to make money and do something with their lives.
I agree with every word. Yes, some people aren't interested in helping themselves. These people will reoffend and not get expunged. Absolutely, to be successful at rehabilitation, the offender/ex-offender needs to do their part. This law allows people who have already done their part (by not reoffending for a lengthy period) to move on with their lives. There should be more jobs programs, more three-quarter house, supports to help with reintegration. On the flip side, it's madness right now how difficult it is for parole or probation officers to lock up people who are already convicted and keep screwing up.
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.
