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.
For all crimes other than murder, there is an assumption built in to the justice system that a criminal's loss of liberty is temporary, and that the individual should eventually be able to rejoin society. But a large number of ex-criminals, even after completing probation or parole, are still treated as second-class citizens when applying for jobs or (in some cases) awards, scholarships, financial aid, etc. Even the right to vote in a lot of states is curtailed for people with a felony on their record.
If someone has shown that they have really changed their behavior and are no longer a "bad guy", what is the harm in giving them a second chance? If too many freedoms continue to be denied to someone with a troubled past, how do we expect them to truly re-integrate into society?
Finally, we should consider that minor children of ex-criminals are also indirectly denied equal opportunity as a result of the denial of opportunity to the parent, especially in a society with such hardcore capitalism.
So, should a reasonably humane society have any real justification for not permanently destroying the records of criminals after a reasonable time has passed (perhaps several decades for crimes such as rape, and a shorter period for lesser crimes such as shoplifting)?
Its in the best interest of profit, and govt control.
Legally speaking...once a felon completes their sentence in its entirety, they are NO LONGER a 'felon' and cannot be treated as such. (doesnt matter if the felony is theft, murder, rape, etc), this applies to ALL crimes.
For all crimes other than murder, there is an assumption built in to the justice system that a criminal's loss of liberty is temporary, and that the individual should eventually be able to rejoin society. But a large number of ex-criminals, even after completing probation or parole, are still treated as second-class citizens when applying for jobs or (in some cases) awards, scholarships, financial aid, etc. Even the right to vote in a lot of states is curtailed for people with a felony on their record.
If someone has shown that they have really changed their behavior and are no longer a "bad guy", what is the harm in giving them a second chance? If too many freedoms continue to be denied to someone with a troubled past, how do we expect them to truly re-integrate into society?
Finally, we should consider that minor children of ex-criminals are also indirectly denied equal opportunity as a result of the denial of opportunity to the parent, especially in a society with such hardcore capitalism.
So, should a reasonably humane society have any real justification for not permanently destroying the records of criminals after a reasonable time has passed (perhaps several decades for crimes such as rape, and a shorter period for lesser crimes such as shoplifting)?
Some good points, but there must be some degree of protection afforded to society by identifying career criminals, or those who perpetrate serious crimes against multiple victims over a period of time.
Granted, their should be some latitude in cases involving first offence, victimless crimes (drug possession, statutory 'rape' between consenting 17/18-year -olds, some vehicular offences). And, in effect there is some protection afforded by a system that deals differently with youthful offenders and their 'sealed' records.
As you point-out, a lifetime of rights denial or career prejudice, seems too harsh for some youthful or first-time perpetrators. On the other hand, the lines between 'forgivable and unforgivable offences' -- and between 'sealing versus permanently deleting records' are too vague to be consistently apply. Therein lies the problem of 'blanket solutions'. Thus, the default is trusting our judicial system to apply varying standards based on circumstances, remains in effect.
When compared with the rest of the world, it's quite clear that America confines more people behind bars, for longer periods ... than most countries (who also seem to treat their prisoners more humanely).
Far more expensive to keep felons that have completed their sentence apart from society and forced to live under a bridge and beg. You pretty well are going to force them back to a life of crime as the ONLY way to make any kind of living. So current system truly ensures a criminal will become lifelong criminal. And face it, some are going to stick with crime as way of life no matter what, but assuming all are like that and excluding them from the workaday world, just means you better get your checkbook out to fund more prisons.
Its in the best interest of profit, and govt control.
Legally speaking...once a felon completes their sentence in its entirety, they are NO LONGER a 'felon' and cannot be treated as such. (doesnt matter if the felony is theft, murder, rape, etc), this applies to ALL crimes.
There is nothing under the federal Constitution that prohibits states from continuing to impose certain restrictions on "rights" for those who have completed the terms of their felony sentence. Think about those states that have chosen to completely deprive ex-felons of the ability to vote, which the Supreme Court has upheld numerous times.
As to whether this is wise policy, I submit not. If someone has served their time, I think that it is appropriate to restore their position in society to as whole as the law allows. Now, whether the people will treat such a person the same if/when they find out about such person's past is another story.
What about the ex-banker who was convicted of embezzlement? Should financial institutions pretend it never happened and take a chance on that person?
What about someone convicted of child abuse? Should they be able to work in a day care or school? If so do the parents have a right to know about this person's criminal history? Even if they didn't have a right they could probably find out using public records.
What about the character and fitness test given to prospective lawyers? Should someone who previously pretended to be a lawyer (I can site examples if you are asking) be allowed to practice law?
What about the ex-banker who was convicted of embezzlement? Should financial institutions pretend it never happened and take a chance on that person?
Why should the ex-banker who was convicted of embezzlement, be deprived of the right to own a firearm? Or the opportunity to do consulting-work for a defense contractor, that requires a security clearance? I might not trust the ex-embezzler with the company cash-register, but then again, I'd not trust anyone freshly off of the street (meaning, out of college); there would be an internal probationary period.
We too often forget, that many white-collar crimes of considerable severity, are technicalities, or politically-motivated. Consider Martha Stewart or Scooter Libby. Or more recently, Michael Cohen. Would you do business with Martha Stewart? I would. Would you hire Scooter Libby as a security consultant? I would. Would you hire Michael Cohen as, say, company vice president for human resources? No, I don't mean that as a joke... because yes, I'd hire him.
Ban the box was counter productive for hiring with regard to race. Ban the box for publicly available information like criminal history would have no impact except to slow recruitment down.
There is nothing under the federal Constitution that prohibits states from continuing to impose certain restrictions on "rights" for those who have completed the terms of their felony sentence. Think about those states that have chosen to completely deprive ex-felons of the ability to vote, which the Supreme Court has upheld numerous times.
As to whether this is wise policy, I submit not. If someone has served their time, I think that it is appropriate to restore their position in society to as whole as the law allows. Now, whether the people will treat such a person the same if/when they find out about such person's past is another story.
Look at this way, in the days before internet and automatic background checks, it was very easy for former criminals to just lie about their past, many moved around, starting over in each new place, it was simple for them do...
However, today, when its simple to check someones past and their criminal history, we have MUCH MORE problems than we did in the past! (when it was technically more dangerous!)
What about the ex-banker who was convicted of embezzlement? Should financial institutions pretend it never happened and take a chance on that person?
What about someone convicted of child abuse? Should they be able to work in a day care or school? If so do the parents have a right to know about this person's criminal history? Even if they didn't have a right they could probably find out using public records.
What about the character and fitness test given to prospective lawyers? Should someone who previously pretended to be a lawyer (I can site examples if you are asking) be allowed to practice law?
Should the ex-banker be prevented from working in a day care or school?
Should the child abuser be prevented from working at a financial institution?
I have no problem with preventing people convicted of certain crimes from working in certain industries. But.. Let's be logical about it. Someone convicted of a financial crime, yes, I would have a problem with them working anywhere they'd be dealing with money. That includes as a cashier at a convenience store where they'd be taking customers credit card numbers.
Preventing someone convicted of a crime from voting I am totally against. In fact, my opinion is that allowing them to vote and participate is better than restricting them from doing so.
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.
