• 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 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%

  • Total voters
    53
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.

And so the child molester gets a job a your children's school. When discovered the horrible way (when they re-offend) you'll be one of the crowd asking why they hired a child molester that had done this before.
 
And so the child molester gets a job a your children's school. When discovered the horrible way (when they re-offend) you'll be one of the crowd asking why they hired a child molester that had done this before.

This. And it's exactly the sort of incident that results in a new law being passed, one that invariably goes by the catchy title of "Sarah's Law" or something.
 
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.

In other words, you are completely ignorant of the subject and are happy with that because you know which side of your bread the butter is on. That's fine. Don't even bother denying it, because every time you characterize overcriminalization you focus on very specific areas of the problem which you can easily mischaracterize.

Enjoy your willful ignorance, and drafting what no doubt will be a witty retort.
 
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.

My position, which I voted for prior to my first post in this thread, is that the length of time for the erasure of records should vary based on the offense. Given the many and varied imperfections in the system we have yet to overcome, it's the best we can do at the moment.
 
My position, which I voted for prior to my first post in this thread, is that the length of time for the erasure of records should vary based on the offense. Given the many and varied imperfections in the system we have yet to overcome, it's the best we can do at the moment.

I didn't look at the poll so I didn't see that, and the above is obviously a lot more tempered, but I never would have gotten that from your arguments in the last couple pages .
 
And so the child molester gets a job a your children's school. When discovered the horrible way (when they re-offend) you'll be one of the crowd asking why they hired a child molester that had done this before.

Personally, I don't think child molesters should *EVER* get out of prison, it ought to be a death penalty case. One and done.
 
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.
Just an FYI on the hacker position ...

NSA wants to hire hackers | CNN.com
 
I didn't look at the poll so I didn't see that, and the above is obviously a lot more tempered, but I never would have gotten that from your arguments in the last couple pages .

I'm just sick and tired of how a criminal record totally ruins your chances to get ahead in life, especially when you look at how easy it is to get one. :)
 
I'm just sick and tired of how a criminal record totally ruins your chances to get ahead in life, especially when you look at how easy it is to get one. :)

Funny, I don't know anyone who has one. It clearly isn't that easy.
 
Lucky you.

No, not lucky me, lucky lots of people. I bet there are tons of people out there who have never, and don't know anyone who has ever seen the inside of a police station.

Ah yes, personal experience -- the DP gold standard.[/QUOTE]

I prove you wrong and you try to diminish that. No surprise there.
 
If a complete list were dropped on your desk right now, I bet you'd be surprised.

Bet I wouldn't. But then again, I haven't had so much as a speeding ticket in the last 25 years.
 
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?

Yes for non-violent crimes.

I'm not comfortable about violent crimes being erased.
 
Lucky you.



Ah yes, personal experience -- the DP gold standard.

The figures of those in the US who have criminal records ranges from 45 million (Daily KOS) to 65 million (National Employment Law Project) among those with a political stake in the numbers.

There are 310 million citizens in our country. It's easy to see that even using the high and perhaps inflated number, the vast majority of Americans have no criminal record. Also easy to see how Cephus could not know anyone who has one.

I don't have a criminal record, heck, never had so much as a speeding ticket and I drove around with long hair and a full beard when those things were not acceptable - IOW, I stuck out like a sore thumb.

Here's a hint - don't do the crime in the first place.
 
Criminal records should be based on tangible damages to society. Criminals convicted or violent crimes or felonies with high impact should have permanent records.

People arrested for petty crimes, small drug possession, etc. should have an expiry date on their records. Of course, it would make a lot more sense if we consolidated our legal system to eliminate the bloated and unnecessary laws on the books. That, combined with the Patriot Act, means a person could be arrested for practically anything. Our government is becoming truly oppressive.

There are those who cannot even enter the United States because they were convicted of possessing a small amount of cannabis 25 years ago. That's just ridiculous.
 
In reality, employment applications are pretty much broilerplate, have been for quite some time. They've always included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony" followed by a blank space titled, "If so, please explain:". If you were arrested for possession of pot in a state that considers/considered that a felony, the applicant can explain that. Most businesses I've seen will evaluate the explanation and decide if your felony is germaine to their business and if it is behind you.

I know quite a few people working for tech giants that had non-violent felonies disclosed at application time. Obviously they got the job anyway.
 
Keeping criminal records on the majority of criminals only ensures that they will remain criminals.

An alternative, would be to keep an in house record, meaning that employment background checks wouldn't be able to see but should the perp be a repeat offender than this will be viewable by the police and court.
 
No, not lucky me, lucky lots of people. I bet there are tons of people out there who have never, and don't know anyone who has ever seen the inside of a police station.

You are very, very wrong.

The United States represents roughly 5% of the population of Earth, and yet of all the people in prison around the world, 25% of them are here. The sum total of everyone here in the states who is in prison, on parole or on probation works out to roughly 3% of the population. Roughly one in three Americans have been arrested by age 23.

In Search of a Job: Criminal Records as Barriers to Employment | National Institute of Justice
Criminal Justice Fact Sheet | NAACP
The Prison Crisis | American Civil Liberties Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate

You're welcome to take shots at my sources, if you can either prove them untrue or find better sources. If you take shots at my sources just because you don't like them, I will laugh at you and then forget you said anything. Seeing as how the first source is a .gov, I wish you luck.

I prove you wrong and you try to diminish that. No surprise there.

You didn't prove anything. You invoked your own personal experience as if it were an authoritative source on what's going on across the country.
 
The United States represents roughly 5% of the population of Earth, and yet of all the people in prison around the world, 25% of them are here. The sum total of everyone here in the states who is in prison, on parole or on probation works out to roughly 3% of the population.

Has it ever occurred to you that part of the reason is a lack of enforcement and incarceration capacity in the developing world?



Regarding the thread (it seems I haven't commented):

I'm against the removal of voting rights, at all ever. People should be allowed to vote in prison. The political process is an avenue of assimilation and becoming a productive member of society and should not be removed in spite for punishment - that's vindictive and counter productive. Prison should be about public safety, rehab and re-assimilation not punishment. What kind of a "justice" system is based on punishment and not public safety? A backwards one.

I would also restore self defense (gun) rights to most criminals after their sentence is served.
 
Last edited:
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.



........
 
Here's a hint - don't do the crime in the first place.

The Federal government itself can only estimate how many criminal statutes it has on the books. It can only estimate how many regulations have criminal penalties. If you call a Federal agency looking for a binding interpretation of the regulations they themselves wrote, they'll tell you that it's up to the DoJ to decide who to prosecute when for violating what regulations.

While I'm sure you know you haven't murdered or assaulted or raped or robbed anyone, I guarantee you that you do not know whether or not you have broken a law that would net you prison time if the authorities bothered to catch up to you.
 
You didn't prove anything. You invoked your own personal experience as if it were an authoritative source on what's going on across the country.

You said it was easy to get one. No, it's only easy to get one if you're willing to break the law. I'm not. Neither are lots of people. In fact, by your own statistics, the majority of Americans are not willing to do so.

You are simply wrong and not honest enough to admit it.
 
I've never received a ticket. Ever. I'm not naive enough to believe that reflects the experiences of others in any way.

You're the one arguing that a criminal record is ridiculously easy to get, why don't you have one?
 
Back
Top Bottom