5 ms·

"Nearly half of U.S. children now have at least one parent with a criminal record." That's somewhat dystopian.

by drpgq 10y ago

donald123 10y ago
Here is the link of the report referenced in the article. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2015/12/10/126902/removing-barriers-to-opportunity-for-parents-with-criminal-records-and-their-children/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2015...
chucknelson 10y ago
Definitely, but they keep it pretty vague. I'm assuming they're not just counting felonies, but also maybe someone who had some minor incident when they were a teenager. I could see a lot of parents having some stupid minor on their record from when they were a bit more reckless.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Most crimes committed by minors in the US are expunged from their records when they come of age.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    I believe you're slightly misreading chucknelson. I don't think he said "minor" to mean "underage", but rather "not felony". ("Minor" may have a distinct meaning from "misdemeanor", but IANAL.) And unfortunately, teenage bad judgment doesn't automatically end on the 18th birthday...
    - sp332 10y ago
      If the crime was committed when they were 13-17, it would usually be erased when the person turns 18. And then it wouldn't show up in any studies.
watty 10y ago
They're including everything from traffic violations to felonies. I guess it wouldn't be as interesting of a statistic if they explained what it actually was.
- jweir 10y ago
  > between 70 million and 100 million Americans, or as many as one in three American adults—have some type of criminal record. Many have been convicted of only minor offenses, such as misdemeanors—and many only have arrests that never led to a conviction. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2015/12/10/126902/removing-barriers-to-opportunity-for-parents-with-criminal-records-and-their-children/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2015... This is the source of the stat.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Traffic violations now count as "criminal record"? According to what definition of "criminal"? I mean, I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is so intuitively wrong that I wonder if you (or the article) is using a non-standard definition of "criminal". If not, is this a change? Has it always been defined this way?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - amyjess 10y ago
    Two thoughts: 1. I guess this is the origin of "lies, damn lies, and statistics". You can manipulate statistics to paint any picture you want, really. 2. They're probably pulling the information from the number of people who have an FBI number or an SID number. You get one of those if you've ever been so much as charged, regardless of whether or not you get convicted. Here's an example of a source that cares whether or not you even have such a number: when I legally changed my name a few years ago, my court petition had a section that said "Have you ever been charged with a Class A or B misdemeanor or a felony? [] Yes [] No. If yes -- write your FBI or SID numbers, if known: FBI #_______ SID#_______"
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
Has anyone advocated, in states where the war on drugs is receding, retroactively sealing (and banning discrimination based) nonviolent drug offenders' records?
- dsg42 10y ago
  Yes, although advocacy has been much broader than that. It's generally called, "Ban the Box," (for the checkbox asking about recent felony convictions you often see on job applications). Perhaps it would be more successful if it were more targeted. That's an interesting thought.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    No, "ban the box" is not about sealing records, or even prohibiting background checks, it simply is about prohibiting "have you ever been convicted of a crime?" (which is not restricted to either recent or felony convictions) as a front-end filtering question.
tomcam 10y ago
It's also untrue.
knieveltech 10y ago
One of the fun side effects of living in a country with the highest number of prisoners (by total count and per capita) in the world. "For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them." - Thomas More
senorjazz 10y ago
really? Surely not. I hope not

"Nearly half of U.S. children now have at least one parent with a criminal record." That's somewhat dystopian.

by drpgq 10y ago

"Nearly half of U.S. children now have at least one parent with a criminal record." That's somewhat dystopian.

Here is the link of the report referenced in the article. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2015/12/10/126902/removing-barriers-to-opportunity-for-parents-with-criminal-records-and-their-children/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2015...

chucknelson 10y ago

Definitely, but they keep it pretty vague. I'm assuming they're not just counting felonies, but also maybe someone who had some minor incident when they were a teenager. I could see a lot of parents having some stupid minor on their record from when they were a bit more reckless.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Most crimes committed by minors in the US are expunged from their records when they come of age.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  I believe you're slightly misreading chucknelson. I don't think he said "minor" to mean "underage", but rather "not felony". ("Minor" may have a distinct meaning from "misdemeanor", but IANAL.) And unfortunately, teenage bad judgment doesn't automatically end on the 18th birthday...
  - sp332 10y ago
    If the crime was committed when they were 13-17, it would usually be erased when the person turns 18. And then it wouldn't show up in any studies.

watty 10y ago

They're including everything from traffic violations to felonies. I guess it wouldn't be as interesting of a statistic if they explained what it actually was.

jweir 10y ago
> between 70 million and 100 million Americans, or as many as one in three American adults—have some type of criminal record. Many have been convicted of only minor offenses, such as misdemeanors—and many only have arrests that never led to a conviction. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2015/12/10/126902/removing-barriers-to-opportunity-for-parents-with-criminal-records-and-their-children/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2015... This is the source of the stat.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Traffic violations now count as "criminal record"? According to what definition of "criminal"? I mean, I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is so intuitively wrong that I wonder if you (or the article) is using a non-standard definition of "criminal". If not, is this a change? Has it always been defined this way?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- amyjess 10y ago
  Two thoughts: 1. I guess this is the origin of "lies, damn lies, and statistics". You can manipulate statistics to paint any picture you want, really. 2. They're probably pulling the information from the number of people who have an FBI number or an SID number. You get one of those if you've ever been so much as charged, regardless of whether or not you get convicted. Here's an example of a source that cares whether or not you even have such a number: when I legally changed my name a few years ago, my court petition had a section that said "Have you ever been charged with a Class A or B misdemeanor or a felony? [] Yes [] No. If yes -- write your FBI or SID numbers, if known: FBI #_______ SID#_______"

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

Has anyone advocated, in states where the war on drugs is receding, retroactively sealing (and banning discrimination based) nonviolent drug offenders' records?

dsg42 10y ago
Yes, although advocacy has been much broader than that. It's generally called, "Ban the Box," (for the checkbox asking about recent felony convictions you often see on job applications). Perhaps it would be more successful if it were more targeted. That's an interesting thought.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  No, "ban the box" is not about sealing records, or even prohibiting background checks, it simply is about prohibiting "have you ever been convicted of a crime?" (which is not restricted to either recent or felony convictions) as a front-end filtering question.

tomcam 10y ago

It's also untrue.

knieveltech 10y ago

One of the fun side effects of living in a country with the highest number of prisoners (by total count and per capita) in the world. "For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them." - Thomas More

senorjazz 10y ago

really? Surely not. I hope not