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

[jamesrage]

Should criminal records of adults be erased after their sentence has been served? When I say erased I mean someone could do a background check and nothing shows up.There is no record, nor is there anything saying you been convicted or served time behind bars.

Yes upon release for all offenders
Yes upon release for non-violent offenders and never for violent offenders
Yes upon releases for non-violent offenders and a certain amount of time for violent offenses.
Yes after 1-5 years
Yes after 6-10 years
Yes after 11-15 years
Yes after 16-20 years
Yes after 21-30 years
Yes but time of record deletion should depend on offense.
Criminal records should never be erased.


I been thinking about this subject for a few days for a while now.If we can trust a former criminal to be in the general public,then shouldn't we erase that person's criminal so that he or she may not be impaired in getting a job or anything else someone may perform a background check for?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Ideally I'd probably say that after your sentence is served, you should be 100% equal to every other citizen. However, I think with violent offenders, especially repeat violent offenders, there could also be a long probation time.

All in all though it should be that once one is done with one's sentence, it should be ancient history. I think people should have the opportunity to pull themselves up. 'Once an offender, always an offender' isn't necessarily true.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Considering the number of ways there are to get busted and how getting busted pretty much torpedoes any chance you have of getting ahead in life, I definitely believe criminal records should come with an expiration date.

An expiration date that varies based on the crime is the only approach that makes sense, our criminal justice system has too much one-size-fits-all solutions as it is.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

My basic, but seriously-imperfect belief, is that once a convicted criminal has served his time, and “paid his debt to society”, he should be fully restored to the same status, with all the same rights, as one who has not ever committed a crime. He should be allowed, at that point to make every effort to go on and live a productive life free from any undue obstructions.

I do, however, see a few important principle that conflict rather severely with this. Certain crimes would tend to indicate a strong proclivity to repeat them, and and I think a certain amount of caution and suspicion is called-for when putting an ex-convict into a situation where he is likely to be unduly tempted to repeat his crime. Potential employers certainly have a legitimate interest in being concerned if someone they are thinking of hiring might be unduly tempted in the position for which they are being considered, to commit a crime. For example, a convicted child abuser being considered for employment in a child care facility; or a convicted embezzler being considered for a position that has access to a company's finances.

Rather than being allowed to inquire whether a prospective employer has ever been convicted of any crime, perhaps employers should be allowed to inquire whether a prospective employee has ever been convicted of a narrow range of crimes that are relevant to the specific position for which the prospective employee is being considered.

 

[Paschendale]

No. Sometimes past criminal records are necessary evidence in some judicial processes, and certainly in hiring. At what point should a child molester ever be permitted to work at a preschool? It's totally fine for them to bag groceries, drive a cab, or as a chef in a restaurant. But that conviction really ought to always be a factor in hiring for child-related fields. The same would be true of anyone convicted of fraud who wants to work as an accountant. That conviction is also permissible character evidence to impugn a witness' honesty. There are situations where that information could be needed. Perhaps limit access to that information except as necessary, though. There is no reason for the mere fact of conviction to haunt a person everywhere. It should just be a factor in certain relevant situations.

 

[Cephus]

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.

 

[Fisher]

No. They are necessary to prove second, third offenses, offenses like possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and are a way to keep track of professional crooks. That said, unlike a standard report you get for employment, the NCIC keeps track of all your charges whether you were convicted or not, and often the court, the outcome, the penalties, etc., name changes, aliases, fingerprint info. It is a lot more informative than people realize, not that I think that many realize your local prosecutor has access to the FBI criminal records as readily as they do.

 

[radcen]

Good thread question.

1. Criminal conviction records, including minor records, should never be erased.
2. Relating to #1 above, criminal records should be erased upon exoneration (for that specific conviction only, if applicable).
3. Relating to #1 above, while records should be retained, ALL rights should be re-established upon completion of sentence.
4. Relating to #3 above, determinate sentences.
5. Arrest records should be erased within 2 years, regardless any other considerations.
6. I would even advocate that all prospective employers, public and private, be prohibited from asking for, or even seeking, prior arrest status... we as a society either believe in "innocent until proven guilty", or we don't, and a conviction would show up on its own.

 

[DiAnna]

No. If I'm vetting a potential employee... or a guy my daughter is dating, for that matter... it's important to know things like convictions for domestic abuse, burglary, embezzlement, assault, DUI's, etc.

It's true that good people make dumb mistakes, but dumb mistakes for which they are convicted should be a lasting reminder for their dumbness. Especially if their record of dumbness is as long as one's arm.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I tend to believe non-violent crimes shouldn't be carried over (once you've finished all your time, including parole) unless it's a major felony - racketeering, drug dealing in large quantity, etc.

Violent crimes would depend on the offense but some, like murder, should never come off the books.

 

[M_A]

I think it should come down to a case by case basis, if someone is in jail for dealing ten pounds of cocaine, and then they get out of prison, I think that someday they should be able to get that off their record. If someone is convicted of a violent crime then I think it should stay on their record for much much longer, if forever.

I understand that people make mistakes and people can be driven to do some pretty crazy stuff, but not everyone should be able to get it off their record someday.

Maybe take it by a case by case basis, such as someone who are convicted of racketeering or dealing drugs should be able to get it off their record, but it should depend on the severity of the offense. While, as stated previously in this thread, if someone is convicted of murder, then it should never come off their record. It's a really difficult decision though.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

"If you can't do the time don't do the crime". Think about how your crime will follow you your entire life, then don't do it.

 

[Carjosse]

All non-violent offenders should have it erased after 3 years. Violent offenders of things like one charge of assault or things like that should have it erased after 5 years. All other should should not have their records deleted.

 

[Cardinal]

Should criminal records of adults be erased after their sentence has been served? When I say erased I mean someone could do a background check and nothing shows up.There is no record, nor is there anything saying you been convicted or served time behind bars.

Yes upon release for all offenders
Yes upon release for non-violent offenders and never for violent offenders
Yes upon releases for non-violent offenders and a certain amount of time for violent offenses.
Yes after 1-5 years
Yes after 6-10 years
Yes after 11-15 years
Yes after 16-20 years
Yes after 21-30 years
Yes but time of record deletion should depend on offense.
Criminal records should never be erased.


I been thinking about this subject for a few days for a while now.If we can trust a former criminal to be in the general public,then shouldn't we erase that person's criminal so that he or she may not be impaired in getting a job or anything else someone may perform a background check for?

No. I have the right as an employer to make an informed decision on who I'm hiring and any potential damage they may bring to my business as exemplified by past bad judgment.

 

[radcen]

No. I have the right as an employer to make an informed decision on who I'm hiring and any potential damage they may bring to my business as exemplified by past bad judgment.

Will you investigate circumstances so that you can make a truly informed decision, or will you take the knee-jerk narrow-minded easy way out and reject based simply on inclusion on the list?

 

[Helix]

i think we should probably offer having a record expunged for at least a decade of no criminal activity. that gives released offenders motivation to go straight. this could be done for the less heinous crimes.

the way it stands now, if you get popped for some non-violent crime when you're young, every future employer is going to know about it. that's stupid policy, and it probably creates more criminals than it prevents.

 

[radcen]

i think we should probably offer having a record expunged for at least a decade of no criminal activity. that gives released offenders motivation to go straight. this could be done for the less heinous crimes.

the way it stands now, if you get popped for some non-violent crime when you're young, every future employer is going to know about it. that's stupid policy, and it probably creates more criminals than it prevents.

Problem is, there are people who have had certain records expunged, and prospective employers were still able to find them. Without much real difficulty, too. If we did this, and I'm not automatically opposed to it, we'd have to tighten up what 'expunged' really is and means.

 

[Fisher]

i think we should probably offer having a record expunged for at least a decade of no criminal activity. that gives released offenders motivation to go straight. this could be done for the less heinous crimes.

the way it stands now, if you get popped for some non-violent crime when you're young, every future employer is going to know about it. that's stupid policy, and it probably creates more criminals than it prevents.

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.

 

[Cardinal]

Will you investigate circumstances so that you can make a truly informed decision, or will you take the knee-jerk narrow-minded easy way out and reject based simply on inclusion on the list?

I guess if I'm hard up for applicants, sure, I guess I'd take the time to look into it if everything else about their qualifications are fine. But compared to an applicant with the same qualifications without the criminal record? Pretty much a no-brainer.

 

[DA60]

I voted for #2.


Btw - there are people that get criminal records without having to spent any time in jail or have any 'sentence' to serve.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

No. I have the right as an employer to make an informed decision on who I'm hiring and any potential damage they may bring to my business as exemplified by past bad judgment.

Overcriminalization means that criminal records are no longer a sign of bad judgement.

 

[Fisher]

Overcriminalization means that criminal records are no longer a sign of bad judgement.

What you call "overcriminalization" I call people taking a stand against that which causes negative consequences for others and/or society.

 

[Cardinal]

Overcriminalization means that criminal records are no longer a sign of bad judgement.

I think I addressed this in my response to Radcen.

 

[What if...?]

Keep them for law enforcement purposes.

And I like the idea of offense specific availablility to employers.

A bank can check for fraud, etc., and a child care place can check for child abuse related offenses.

Extremely violent offenses could have a "permanent" status applied at sentencing.

That way, someone busted for a joint in a felony state can get a job.

Continuing criminal sanctions for life, loss of the right to own firearms, the vote, background checks by ANYBODY, just creates actual second class citizens. And keeps them from ever fully reassimilating. Even FORCING some back to crime who wouldn't have otherwise.

 

[Cardinal]

Keep them for law enforcement purposes.

And I like the idea of offense specific availablility to employers.

A bank can check for fraud, etc., and a child care place can check for child abuse related offenses.

Extremely violent offenses could have a "permanent" status applied at sentencing.

That way, someone busted for a joint in a felony state can get a job.

Continuing criminal sanctions for life, loss of the right to own firearms, the vote, background checks by ANYBODY, just creates actual second class citizens. And keeps them from ever fully reassimilating. Even FORCING some back to crime who wouldn't have otherwise.

This sounds very fair.