4 ms·

Here's another interesting fact. Once the arrested bit is set, it is immutable in the eyes of the State of California. Law enforcement knows if you have been a

by hwstar 11y ago

Here's another interesting fact. Once the arrested bit is set, it is immutable in the eyes of the State of California. Law enforcement knows if you have been arrested in the past even if the specific reasons are expunged at the request of the arrestee. Also, there's a very narrow window to request that arrest records be expunged. If you are arrested and acquitted or the charges are dropped, get in contact with the court as soon as possible to make sure you are within the window.

hansjorg 11y ago
That seems directly opposed to the presumption of innocence. I guess the lawyers have a way of justifying this by separating different states of being "in the eyes of the law".
- maxerickson 11y ago
  As a practical matter, how do you make officers forget who they have arrested? Which of course is not an argument in favor of permanent electronic records, but I wonder if the principle can really be applied like you are saying.
  - dublinben 11y ago
    Only the arresting officer(s) would directly "remember" your arrest if it were not permanently recorded in a database. California is a very large state. Your unofficial reputation shouldn't follow you from San Diego to San Francisco.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      Yes, I understand that only the people involved in an arrest would have recollection of it. But that is just the point. A database differs in degree from personal memories (it follows you around), but it is not different in the sense raised by a statement like That seems directly opposed to the presumption of innocence. (a second interaction could be colored by an officer's memory just the way an interaction could be colored by an entry in the database).
      - nitrogen 11y ago
        In the case of surveillance and databases, a difference of degree is a difference of kind. Having perfect memory stored for all time, accessible to all of a class of people, is not remotely comparable to a few people with fuzzy memories that fade over time.
- hwstar 11y ago
  The way it was explained to me by law enforcement people is that law enforcement has a right to know if you have ever been arrested so that they can take safety precautions if you are ever arrested again. IMHO, that's a weak argument.
- brownbat 11y ago
  > I guess the lawyers have a way of justifying this... Lawyers have other safeguards in the courtroom, so that random police habits don't mess up the entire system. For example, prior arrests are generally inadmissible. It doesn't mean this is a nonissue for citizens, but it blunts its ability to corrupt the entire process.
  - mkempe 11y ago
    Connecting your statement with the dominating use of "plea deals" one sees that these "courtroom safeguards" mean pretty much nothing.
    - brownbat 11y ago
      > plea deals There are more violent crimes than can be tried. This is a _hard_ problem. Of the options, simplified a bit: a) try fewer crimes and let more suspects free b) try all crimes and forgo the right to a speedy trial c) increase the funding of the criminal justice system by a factor of 10-100 d) allow prosecutors and defense attorneys to negotiate settlements in easy cases, to avoid wasting court resources, and providing a path for leniency for certain defendants (d) has flaws, but I'm not surprised our system has opted for it as the least bad solution. Legal scholars have struggled to find a better approach for decades. Curious to hear your recommendation, really interested in novel approaches to this issue.
      - mkempe 11y ago
        The problem in the USA is not violent crime. The problem is that there are too many arbitrary laws that are applied capriciously by prosecutors who don't care whether people are innocent or guilty, that these same prosecutors don't care whether the due process of law is fact not fiction, and finally that when these prosecutors deliberately subvert the process or threaten people with horrendous consequences unless they sign a plea deal (even when they know the accused is innocent), these people suffer no consequences.
        11y ago

by hwstar 11y ago

hansjorg 11y ago

That seems directly opposed to the presumption of innocence. I guess the lawyers have a way of justifying this by separating different states of being "in the eyes of the law".

maxerickson 11y ago
As a practical matter, how do you make officers forget who they have arrested? Which of course is not an argument in favor of permanent electronic records, but I wonder if the principle can really be applied like you are saying.
- dublinben 11y ago
  Only the arresting officer(s) would directly "remember" your arrest if it were not permanently recorded in a database. California is a very large state. Your unofficial reputation shouldn't follow you from San Diego to San Francisco.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Yes, I understand that only the people involved in an arrest would have recollection of it. But that is just the point. A database differs in degree from personal memories (it follows you around), but it is not different in the sense raised by a statement like That seems directly opposed to the presumption of innocence. (a second interaction could be colored by an officer's memory just the way an interaction could be colored by an entry in the database).
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      In the case of surveillance and databases, a difference of degree is a difference of kind. Having perfect memory stored for all time, accessible to all of a class of people, is not remotely comparable to a few people with fuzzy memories that fade over time.
hwstar 11y ago
The way it was explained to me by law enforcement people is that law enforcement has a right to know if you have ever been arrested so that they can take safety precautions if you are ever arrested again. IMHO, that's a weak argument.
brownbat 11y ago
> I guess the lawyers have a way of justifying this... Lawyers have other safeguards in the courtroom, so that random police habits don't mess up the entire system. For example, prior arrests are generally inadmissible. It doesn't mean this is a nonissue for citizens, but it blunts its ability to corrupt the entire process.
- mkempe 11y ago
  Connecting your statement with the dominating use of "plea deals" one sees that these "courtroom safeguards" mean pretty much nothing.
  - brownbat 11y ago
    > plea deals There are more violent crimes than can be tried. This is a _hard_ problem. Of the options, simplified a bit: a) try fewer crimes and let more suspects free b) try all crimes and forgo the right to a speedy trial c) increase the funding of the criminal justice system by a factor of 10-100 d) allow prosecutors and defense attorneys to negotiate settlements in easy cases, to avoid wasting court resources, and providing a path for leniency for certain defendants (d) has flaws, but I'm not surprised our system has opted for it as the least bad solution. Legal scholars have struggled to find a better approach for decades. Curious to hear your recommendation, really interested in novel approaches to this issue.
    - mkempe 11y ago
      The problem in the USA is not violent crime. The problem is that there are too many arbitrary laws that are applied capriciously by prosecutors who don't care whether people are innocent or guilty, that these same prosecutors don't care whether the due process of law is fact not fiction, and finally that when these prosecutors deliberately subvert the process or threaten people with horrendous consequences unless they sign a plea deal (even when they know the accused is innocent), these people suffer no consequences.
      - 11y ago