• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should criminal records of adults be erased after their sentence has been served?

Should criminal records of adults be erased after their sentence has been served?

  • Yes upon release for all offenders

    Votes: 3 5.7%

  • Yes upon release for non-violent offenders and never for violent offenders

    Votes: 6 11.3%

  • Yes upon releases for non-violent offenders and a certain amount of time for violent offenses.

    Votes: 2 3.8%

  • Yes after 1-5 years

    Votes: 1 1.9%

  • Yes after 6-10 years

    Votes: 3 5.7%

  • Yes after 11-15 years

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes after 16-20 years

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes after 21-30 years

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes but time of record deletion should depend on offense.

    Votes: 15 28.3%

  • Criminal records should never be erased.

    Votes: 23 43.4%
  • Total voters
    53
Fisher said:
Yeah I think making excuses for criminal behavior and enabling it by covering it is a more stupid policy. Thieves will steal again and people who hit people will hit again.
Click to expand...

i think criminals have a better chance of going straight if there's a path forward. if somebody hasn't stolen anything in ten years, that person is a lot less likely to go back to that activity. i can't see shutting someone out of the workforce for life unless they do something absolutely horrible. the way it stands now, small offenses can seriously limit potential. i think that's stupid.
 
Fisher said:
What you call "overcriminalization" I call people taking a stand against that which causes negative consequences for others and/or society.
Click to expand...

I guess you haven't done any reading on the subject then, because otherwise you would know that overcriminalization goes far, far beyond legislators up for re-election who hastily enact legislative solutions to politically charged problems.
 
Cardinal said:
I think I addressed this in my response to Radcen.
Click to expand...

No, you really didn't -- in today's tide of overcriminalization, it's quite easy to acquire a criminal record which says absolutely nothing about your judgement and as such shouldn't be a criteria in your employment process.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
No, you really didn't -- in today's tide of overcriminalization, it's quite easy to acquire a criminal record which says absolutely nothing about your judgement and as such shouldn't be a criteria in your employment process.
Click to expand...

Well, first of all I agree with What If's compromise in that it balances the needs of the ex-offender (having some hope for a post-prison career) against the needs of an employer (to protect themselves against an ex-offender who may have a proclivity for specific crimes). That being said, it is grossly negligent to opt for a system that allows a child molester to look after children. That, of course, is just the emotional hot button example of this thread, but there are others, such as the already mentioned embezzler working in a bank; or someone with a DUI record driving a limo, cab or airplane.

Believe it or not I don't advocate the punitive treatment of ex-cons just for my own personal ****s and giggles, but you have to balance their needs (the right to the pursuit of freedom and happiness) with the rights of others to be informed and to choose not to take potential dangers into their homes or companies.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I guess you haven't done any reading on the subject then, because otherwise you would know that overcriminalization goes far, far beyond legislators up for re-election who hastily enact legislative solutions to politically charged problems.
Click to expand...

I know that "overcriminalization" has put food on my table :)
 
Fisher said:
I know that "overcriminalization" has put food on my table :)
Click to expand...

Goodie for you. I've read about and met people whose lives were all but destroyed by overcriminalization. I'm far less interested in your paycheck than I am in wanting our criminal justice system to focus on actual criminals.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, first of all I agree with What If's compromise in that it balances the needs of the ex-offender (having some hope for a post-prison career) against the needs of an employer (to protect themselves against an ex-offender who may have a proclivity for specific crimes). That being said, it is grossly negligent to opt for a system that allows a child molester to look after children. That, of course, is just the emotional hot button example of this thread, but there are others, such as the already mentioned embezzler working in a bank; or someone with a DUI record driving a limo, cab or airplane.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm 100% happy with it, but it would be much much better than what we have now.

Cardinal said:
Believe it or not I don't advocate the punitive treatment of ex-cons just for my own personal ****s and giggles, but you have to balance their needs (the right to the pursuit of freedom and happiness) with the rights of others to be informed and to choose not to take potential dangers into their homes or companies.
Click to expand...

See, that's the thing -- I don't think employers have an inherent right to know anything about an employee beyond what the law requires them to know. I don't think they have a right to educational transcripts, a work history, credit report, criminal record, or anything else. All records talk about is what you've done, not what you're planning to do. A records check doesn't protect you against a first-timer in any way, and it could easily prevent someone from rebuilding their life after screwing up.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I'm not sure I'm 100% happy with it, but it would be much much better than what we have now.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with taking incremental steps to improve a situation. If we waited for the "perfect solution" we'd never get anywhere, so I think it would be great if we started with that solution, see what issues it has, and further improve upon it.


TacticalEvilDan said:
See, that's the thing -- I don't think employers have an inherent right to know anything about an employee beyond what the law requires them to know. I don't think they have a right to educational transcripts, a work history, credit report, criminal record, or anything else.
Click to expand...

Oy...I just can't agree with that. Do you believe you should be able to know anything about a potential girlfriend's past? As your relationship with her deteriorates, do you think it might have helped if you had known since the beginning that she had a severe meth addiction problem, or that she's been in and out of state prison for violent behavior?

TacticalEvilDan said:
All records talk about is what you've done, not what you're planning to do. A records check doesn't protect you against a first-timer in any way, and it could easily prevent someone from rebuilding their life after screwing up.
Click to expand...

Well, that's just not true. If I see someone with a clean record it tells me they've thus far lived a life of good judgment and behavior, and that there are fair odds they'll continue that pattern of good behavior when working with/for me. Hell, why do you think everyone wants the contractor or baby sitter who doesn't overcharge, doesn't do a shoddy job or is always late, and why do you think those people tend to be learned of through word of mouth? Past records matter.
 
Cardinal said:
Oy...I just can't agree with that. Do you believe you should be able to know anything about a potential girlfriend's past? As your relationship with her deteriorates, do you think it might have helped if you had known since the beginning that she had a severe meth addiction problem, or that she's been in and out of state prison for violent behavior?
Click to expand...

I think you certainly have an interest in knowing about someone's past, but I don't think you have a right to it.

Cardinal said:
Well, that's just not true. If I see someone with a clean record it tells me they've thus far lived a life of good judgment and behavior, and that there are fair odds they'll continue that pattern of good behavior when working with/for me.
Click to expand...

A clean record tells you only that they haven't been arrested or prosecuted. That's all it tells you. In short, you only know they haven't been caught.
 
I can think of several cases where it would be major foolishness to erase past records. How about alarm/security companies. I'm sure they'd like to know if someone applying had a history of burglary and theft. How about schools? I'm sure they would need to know if a prosepective hire has a record of molesting children.
 
clownboy said:
I can think of several cases where it would be major foolishness to erase past records. How about alarm/security companies. I'm sure they'd like to know if someone applying had a history of burglary and theft.
Click to expand...

Sort of like we'd never ever want to hire reformed hackers to help secure our information systems against foreign hackers -- right?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I think you certainly have an interest in knowing about someone's past, but I don't think you have a right to it.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If someone has disregarded the rights of another vis-a-vis their body or their property, they've broken a trust.

TacticalEvilDan said:
A clean record tells you only that they haven't been arrested or prosecuted. That's all it tells you. In short, you only know they haven't been caught.
Click to expand...

I never claimed it would raise my odds of hiring a completely trustworthy person to 100%, only that the odds would be fair. Making an informed decision doesn't require omniscience.
 
Last edited:
TacticalEvilDan said:
Sort of like we'd never ever want to hire reformed hackers to help secure our information systems against foreign hackers -- right?
Click to expand...

Slightly different. There are also situations where you'd want to hire former theifs to help you secure against future thiefs. However, their criminal records then become necessary as their curriculum vitae.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Goodie for you. I've read about and met people whose lives were all but destroyed by overcriminalization. I'm far less interested in your paycheck than I am in wanting our criminal justice system to focus on actual criminals.
Click to expand...

Oh please. The reason a great many things are criminalized is because regulatory pressures like fines were not working. This is nothing more than code for "I should be able to buy pot at the 7-11".
 
clownboy said:
Slightly different. There are also situations where you'd want to hire former theifs to help you secure against future thiefs. However, their criminal records then become necessary as their curriculum vitae.
Click to expand...

But I thought an alarm company wouldn't want to hire a burglar or a thief. Will you make up your mind?
 
Fisher said:
Oh please. The reason a great many things are criminalized is because regulatory pressures like fines were not working. This is nothing more than code for "I should be able to buy pot at the 7-11".
Click to expand...

Like I said, you haven't done any reading on overcriminalization. I wasn't talking about drugs, as evidenced by the fact that I didn't even mention them in passing.
 
Cardinal said:
I disagree. If someone has disregarded the rights of another vis-a-vis their body or their property, they've broken a trust.
Click to expand...

That's why we have prison and parole and probation. In a society of law, which I believe ours purports to be, we're supposed to leave punishment to the authorities.

Cardinal said:
I never claimed it would raise my odds of hiring a completely trustworthy person to 100%, only that the odds would be fair. Making an informed decision doesn't require omniscience.
Click to expand...

The problem is that all too often we look at criminal records as if they were a red-letter sign that someone is unemployable. Too few consider the possibility that someone could turn over a new leaf after a conviction or simply avoid conviction.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Like I said, you haven't done any reading on overcriminalization. I wasn't talking about drugs, as evidenced by the fact that I didn't even mention them in passing.
Click to expand...

I don't need to "do any reading" on the subject. It is nothing but a movement by the conservative corporate puppets hiding behing the Heritage Foundation to do away with criminal penalties for business folks who do not like that they cannot drag out the regulatory process for 20 years before they have to just pay some slap on the wrist fine for dumping toxic chemicals into rivers and crap. Now they can be held accountable much sooner by going to prison for their torts. As for criminalizing feeding the bears in Yellowstone, society will survive.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
That's why we have prison and parole and probation. In a society of law, which I believe ours purports to be, we're supposed to leave punishment to the authorities.



The problem is that all too often we look at criminal records as if they were a red-letter sign that someone is unemployable. Too few consider the possibility that someone could turn over a new leaf after a conviction or simply avoid conviction.
Click to expand...

Your way guarantees that an ex-con has a completely fresh start in every field every time, which in principle is fine, but the extent of that would prevent me from making an informed decision which would help me keep potential risks from my life or business. We're just going to have to agree to disagree, as your position doesn't help me in in any concrete way, and in fact only helps to undermine me.

Your position is not well balanced.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
But I thought an alarm company wouldn't want to hire a burglar or a thief. Will you make up your mind?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, there's more than one position, more than one job in virtually any company. I could see hiring someone with a master thief background to tell you how it's done and to advise in preventing fture theft. But hiring a former serial bank robber to guard the money is probably off the table.
 
clownboy said:
Hmmm, there's more than one position, more than one job in virtually any company. I could see hiring someone with a master thief background to tell you how it's done and to advise in preventing fture theft. But hiring a former serial bank robber to guard the money is probably off the table.
Click to expand...

There are too many shows and movies to count where ex-thieves have been hired to test (or even head) a company's security. I wonder how that sort of thing pans out in real life, or how they get around the fact that, you know, they've hired ex-thieves to supervise their security.
 
I can agree conditionally to this concept to a certain degree within the current system, perhaps with the most minor offenses. However, I would personally prefer to see an across the board de criminalization of non-violent crimes. By this I mean that instead of property crimes and non-violent traffic crimes receiving jail time you enhance the duration of punishment but instead require community service (a conviction that might call for 30 days in jail would be converted to 60 days of community service). Multiple offenses could further increase the duration of service, and perhaps a "three strikes" type rule be imposed on repeat offenders. This would reduce the burden on the prison system and with prisons primarily being filled with malicious criminals there will be less demand for "prisoners rights" and we can cut costly amenities that the law-abiding poor cant even afford for themselves. And we'd get low cost labor to help the community in basic beautification and maintenance projects.
 
Absolutely not, just like a credit history your criminal past indicates your future behavior
 
Cardinal said:
There are too many shows and movies to count where ex-thieves have been hired to test (or even head) a company's security. I wonder how that sort of thing pans out in real life, or how they get around the fact that, you know, they've hired ex-thieves to supervise their security.
Click to expand...

It doesn't is the plain answer. They may hire ex-thieves as consultants when evaluating their security, but as head of security, or giving them knowledge of the new design - no.

However, on the hackers thing, there's a range of thought on the issue. Symantec used to hire old virus/trojan writers to help them write the code for detection of new viruses/trojans in the wild. McAfee would not. That's why, during those years McAfee yanked goats and symantec was more effective (at actual detection).
 
Cephus said:
I don't think the records should ever be scrubbed. That said though, I think that once someone is out of prison and has gotten through a probationary period, they shouldn't have to report felony convictions to employers and they should get back all the rights they lost while in prison. That doesn't mean that if they get picked up for another crime, a complete history of their criminal convictions shouldn't be available to the courts or that it shouldn't be taken into account for future convictions.
Click to expand...

I think making criminal records only available to the courts would be a good compromise.They don't have thier employment prospects hurt and if they commit another crime it will reflect their sentencing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom