Should criminal convictions disappear from a record after a certain amount of time?

[LostInAnomie]

I've been filling out job applications all week and it has been making me think. On every application, there is a section asking if you have ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor. With a large pool of applicants for most of the jobs I am applying for I am certain that a conviction will eliminate a lot of people. It doesn't seem fair to me that a person convicted of a crime possibly years ago and has done their time for their crime should be permanently punished.

If a person has lived a law abiding life after a conviction, should the conviction eventually be erased?

[Midlodemocrat]

1. Depends on the crime.

Some pretty violent offenders end up released from prison and I wouldn't be rushing to hire them.

[Adsos Letter]

5. What Midlo said...

As an employer I would want to know if someone had felony convictions for violence or theft.

[Gormy Cuss]

2. Some people do have minor convictions erased.

It's called expungement and requires a court proceeding and the money to pay for same.

[EFerrari]

Yes. So should first marriages and embarrassing jobs you held as a teen.

[murray hill farm]

9. Good one sfexpat!

Today's DU is just full of the funniest and wittiest replys. is it a full moon or something..ha!

[grasswire]

3. but then the profiteers of the prison industrial complex...

...would have no fodder for their mill that grinds up non-violent offenders and ruins families for generations. Follow the dollar, as always.

[MindPilot]

4. Yes, but it needs to have a very broad discretion

Maybe the judge could set the "expiry date" at the time of sentencing.

Some have committed crimes so grievous they should be marked for life, others, no.

[Hangingon]

6. Possibly for misdemeanors - if all fines and fees are paid and

all time is served. If the person re-offends it should go back on the record.

[flvegan]

7. Depends on the crime, age committed, time passed since.

I wouldn't care about some 25 year old that got busted with an ounce of pot when he was 19. Someone that embezzled 10 years ago? I'd want to know if I were considering him for a job in my accounting dept. Someone that raped/killed someone? Never gets erased.

[deadmessengers]

8. Some crimes, yes. Some, HELL NO

Interestingly enough, I just filled out a job application that said something to the effect of "misdemeanor drug convictions older than one year need not be disclosed on this form" - which gives me a little bit of hope that some companies still "get it".

Rapists? Child Molesters? (the real ones, not the "I had sex with my girlfriend who was 25-months-younger" kind) Brutal or corrupt police officers? Serial drunk drivers? Hell, repeat offenders of any kind? I really don't care if we brand the word "offender" on their foreheads. I just don't have a hell of a lot of sympathy there. People who are inclined to fuck up that profoundly shouldn't really see the light of day ever again, but in the event that they do, it's in society's best interest that everyone knows to stay the hell away from those people.

If we're talking about the distribution of pharmaceuticals without well-funded marketing and lobbying campaigns (which, in post-Reagan America, represents a truly disturbing part of the population) then yes, absolutely, there needs to be a sunset date.

[applegrove]

10. Nope.

[LostInAnomie]

11. Any reasoning behind that opinion?

[applegrove]

14. They already wipe kids records clean where I am from. And those

kids don't always stay out of trouble. For every criminal there is at least one victim..sometimes many more than one victim. Why should the criminal get out of jail and have their records erased while the victims are often stuck with PTSD?

I'm not talking minor offences here. But serious, serious crimes.

[baby_mouse]

21. Well i dunno of the OP was talking about serious crimes

Sounds as if there may be a bit talking at cross-purposes there.

[MadMaddie]

12. It depends on the crime, now having said that if an individual

who is rich comes back into society after serving time for a felony that person does not have to face the same hurdles as someone who is low or middle income. White collar criminals don't seem to have as many roadblocks as the average Joe.

If a person has lived a law abiding life after a conviction, should the conviction eventually be erased? For certain crimes, if the person has led an exemplery life maybe.

Crimes such as rape, pedophilia, murder must be divulged because it really puts a company and it's existing employees at risk.

For embezzlers etc they are a financial risk but not necessarily a physical risk, I think they have to be identified too, if an employer hires them they make sure they don't touch any financial jobs.

[Tutonic]

13. Many crimes can be expunged from one's record by submitting a

request to the courts. However, do you really want "mass murderer" or "pedophile" removed from a an application for a daycare worker? Some of these need to be left in place for a reason.

[bean fidhleir]

15. Those who want to hang the albatross of a violent event around the person's neck forever

should remember that the only difference between 2 killings might be whether the killer was wearing a uniform. Someone who kills under color of law is not less dangerous than someone who does it illegally - in both cases, the big tabu against ending someone else's life has been violated, and it's like virginity...despite any claim by pimps, it doesn't automatically regenerate. So the real question is whether the person has regenerated it by an act of will and introspection.

I'd say a record should be sealed (effectively evaporate) not later than the length of the (cumulative) sentence(s) of good behavior after release. So if someone gets sentenced to 5 years, gets out after 2 and goes straight, then the record should be sealed at year 7. Of course, if the person reoffends at year 7 and gets another 5, of which he does 4 let's say, the record should seal up at year 21 (5+5 years after the year-11 release, not just 5).

On the other hand, I have a strong feeling that people who have trouble finding work because of their record are due public support to tide them over. If they've "paid their debt" then they're presumptively clean and are, on some level, disabled by their past and are in a situation not unlike that of a person who can't find work because of some disfiguring condition. It's not fair to penalize someone for not being able to overcome the prejudices of others.

[eilen]

16. Even some old felony convictions should have a shelf life

I know someone who was convicted of stealing, a felony count because it included breaking and entering when he was young and with his brother (who continues to be a lowlife). Since that time (he served some time in jail) he has been an exemplary citizen, husband, father and an asset to his community. This happened over 16 years ago. I think he should not have to claim it anymore. He is a totally different person now then he was then and I believe at the time he was heavily influenced by his brother. He still is not able to be bonded.

[bean fidhleir]

17. I agree with you. Your acquaintance is exactly the sort of person I was thinking of

Sixteen good years should certainly be enough to evaporate a burglery charge.

[baby_mouse]

24. I know this is going to be unpopular

But I'd rather it was a character assessment, one of some value, that erased the conviction than just the passage of time. I know it's a bit intrusive but it seems to me that it'd be a lot more reliable.

[bean fidhleir]

25. Isn't continued good behavior a sufficient character assessment in itself?

Many people, while honest, are unpreposessing, surly, the wrong color, or have some other characteristic that displeases highheidyins - who are, of course, the people likely to sit in judgement. "Character" is such an ill-defined ...er, characteristic.

[baby_mouse]

27. Certainly the assessment woud have to be of some value.

Whoever did the assessing would have to demonstrate that they were some use at judging character, so we would hope to assume that they would not fall prey to the foolishness of ascribing criminal propensities to citizens blessed with the attributes you describe.

GOD that was flowery.

Sorry.

In essence, yeah, you're right, assessor guy would have to have a clue, but I think thats possible. Most ordinary professions these days have appraisals of their staff, I don't see why training in how to avoid useless bigotry and other faults of reasoning couldn't be made a mandatory requirement for licensing of such individuals to practice. That'd be better than just grabbing someone off the street to see of th ex-convinct is "funny-lookin'".

And I don't know about continued good behaviour, for all we would know that could be a selection artefact, they may just not have got caught. It should be considered to be a factor, obviously.

I can see that it's a little cumbersome looking, what I'm proposing, and I wouldn't be surprised if its already been considered by many justice system professionals and abandoned on logistical grounds. The main reason I favour it is that it might capture instances of the genuine reformation of the perpetrators of serious crimes.

[LostInAnomie]

23. I agree completely.

The county next to mine has put in place a program where "violent criminals" have to register on a website so that everyone can know where they live and what they were convicted of. No matter how long ago the offense too place and no matter what your record has been since you have to register or face jail time. The local news interviewed a man that was around 45 that had been notified that he had to register. Apparently, when he was a senior in high school he got in a fight and was arrested for felony assault. He has a spotless record since then, but is still being forced to register on a website as a violent criminal.

I think that after 5-7 years records should be expunged (except for rape, murder, and molestation) if there has been no recidivism.

[Danger Mouse]

18. I disagree. If you kill or rape someone, that should be on your record and stay there.

Some things are too dangerous to be forgotten.

[Danger Mouse]

19. It depends on the nature and severity of the crime.

I'd say yes for most things, really...aside from violent crimes like rape or murder.

[mudesi]

20. Yes, immediately after they served their time

Any crime so heinous that the conviction should never be erased ought to be a life sentence anyway.

The whole point of jail time is punishment. Once that punishment has been served, the slate is clean as far as I'm concerned. If they're not ready to be reintegrated back into society, why are they being released at all?

Making it harder for ex convicts to gain meaningful employment only encourages them to re offend. It's idiotic.

[LisaL]

22. Would you hire a burglar to work in a bank?

Might not be such a good combination.

[old mark]

26. You can have some convictions expunged legally,

but it is not always successful.
If you are convicted of a felony or a violent crime or threats, etc, it should stay on your record forever.

mark