5 ms·

> "As part of the new law, those with prior convictions could now seek to have them struck off their record." I really don't get the thought process that leads

by erentz 8y ago

> "As part of the new law, those with prior convictions could now seek to have them struck off their record." I really don't get the thought process that leads to this kind of thing. "Let's make it so we have to have to implement a new system that people petition and we review to determine if we expunge their record." Versus: "The new standard is if the conviction was for X, and the person does not have Y on their record, (etc.), then the record of X conviction is considered expunged. And then behind the scenes automatically make it so."

rtkwe 8y ago
Not sure a record can be expunged without an order from a court targeting a specific conviction/record in the separated system in the US.
- anticensor 8y ago
  Here in Turkey, we just disregard government records older than a certain age (80 years past crime for criminal records for instance). If a record is completely disregarded in proceedings, it could be separated into archive or expunged safely. It is just one more day job for your faithful computer.
  - rtkwe 8y ago
    That's not the case in the US. The only real automatic sealing is that the criminal records of kids are generally sealed.
    - anticensor 8y ago
      One of the reasons they can do that in Turkey is Turkish government is structured in such a way that most records of even local government organisations are required to be entered into central database. USA lacks that.
turc1656 8y ago
I could be wrong, but I believe the logic behind this is that the law is still paramount and because the person did in fact break the law (in this case a felony crime), they should have to apply for their conviction to be expunged and make the case in court. Because at the end of the day, while we might not consider what they did a big deal now, when they committed the act it was a serious crime. I also think they want manual reviews because there could be plenty of cases where they only charged the person with possession for personal use but might actually suspect them of worse crimes like intent to distribute or something else like possible gang affiliation. So I don't think they ever really want there to just be a blanket "oh there's no charge of a violent crime so we can wipe it" because they might be wiping the record of a known gang member or serious criminal but didn't have quite enough evidence to charge and convict them on the other offenses.
- 4ntonius8lock 8y ago
  So basically, don't expunge records for people who are innocent of other crimes, but who we think are bad people? How is this not a punishment outside of due process?
  - steve76 8y ago
    Terms of a plea bargain? State brought charges, and did not seek trial due to a plea of possession is different than just possession. I'm more concerned that we are rapidly turning into a society where the murderer gets the job, and the MongoDB developer gets sent out on an ice float.
- monocasa 8y ago
  > but might actually suspect them of worse crimes like intent to distribute or something else like possible gang affiliation. I come from a police district where that that probably just means they're non-white.
- delinka 8y ago
  Presumably this "new standard" GP mentions would be codified into law. And the law would still be 'paramount.' I think procedures to effect expunging records follow the requirements of paper. If you have tens-/hundreds- of thousands of paper files, a law to require physical removal of the specific convictions is burdensome to whomever maintains the archive. A law that simply dictates ignoring old convictions under certain circumstances is bound to be misused (whether intentionally or unintentionally.) Since we're now in a digital age of keeping these records, I believe that automating the 'deletion and cleanup' of files under specific conditions is laudable. Addressing your comments about 'only charged ... but suspected of': this reeks of discrimination masquerading as safety. If you can prove it, charge the suspect and give them their day in court. If you can't prove it, a LEO's own suspicions have no place in the decision making process of other cases.
CPLX 8y ago
You don’t want a criminal justice system where any decisions of consequence are made “behind the scenes automatically” no matter how solid your intentions.
Nasrudith 8y ago
I think it is a matter of practicality and old systems. Not to mention the headaches if something is supposed to be auto-done but wasn't. I think the legal system could use through computerization personally but I am biased and recognize that would be one hell of a project to transition and avoid disaster - let alone the political capital involved. It would be a bueraceatic task in a non-perojative sense - it is dull and not something impressive but if you are stuck doing it anyway it could make things easier for you.
rhizome 8y ago
>then the record of X conviction is considered expunged What exactly do you mean by "considered," here? By whom/what?

by erentz 8y ago

rtkwe 8y ago

Not sure a record can be expunged without an order from a court targeting a specific conviction/record in the separated system in the US.

anticensor 8y ago
Here in Turkey, we just disregard government records older than a certain age (80 years past crime for criminal records for instance). If a record is completely disregarded in proceedings, it could be separated into archive or expunged safely. It is just one more day job for your faithful computer.
- rtkwe 8y ago
  That's not the case in the US. The only real automatic sealing is that the criminal records of kids are generally sealed.
  - anticensor 8y ago
    One of the reasons they can do that in Turkey is Turkish government is structured in such a way that most records of even local government organisations are required to be entered into central database. USA lacks that.

turc1656 8y ago

I could be wrong, but I believe the logic behind this is that the law is still paramount and because the person did in fact break the law (in this case a felony crime), they should have to apply for their conviction to be expunged and make the case in court. Because at the end of the day, while we might not consider what they did a big deal now, when they committed the act it was a serious crime. I also think they want manual reviews because there could be plenty of cases where they only charged the person with possession for personal use but might actually suspect them of worse crimes like intent to distribute or something else like possible gang affiliation. So I don't think they ever really want there to just be a blanket "oh there's no charge of a violent crime so we can wipe it" because they might be wiping the record of a known gang member or serious criminal but didn't have quite enough evidence to charge and convict them on the other offenses.

4ntonius8lock 8y ago
So basically, don't expunge records for people who are innocent of other crimes, but who we think are bad people? How is this not a punishment outside of due process?
- steve76 8y ago
  Terms of a plea bargain? State brought charges, and did not seek trial due to a plea of possession is different than just possession. I'm more concerned that we are rapidly turning into a society where the murderer gets the job, and the MongoDB developer gets sent out on an ice float.
monocasa 8y ago
> but might actually suspect them of worse crimes like intent to distribute or something else like possible gang affiliation. I come from a police district where that that probably just means they're non-white.
delinka 8y ago
Presumably this "new standard" GP mentions would be codified into law. And the law would still be 'paramount.' I think procedures to effect expunging records follow the requirements of paper. If you have tens-/hundreds- of thousands of paper files, a law to require physical removal of the specific convictions is burdensome to whomever maintains the archive. A law that simply dictates ignoring old convictions under certain circumstances is bound to be misused (whether intentionally or unintentionally.) Since we're now in a digital age of keeping these records, I believe that automating the 'deletion and cleanup' of files under specific conditions is laudable. Addressing your comments about 'only charged ... but suspected of': this reeks of discrimination masquerading as safety. If you can prove it, charge the suspect and give them their day in court. If you can't prove it, a LEO's own suspicions have no place in the decision making process of other cases.

CPLX 8y ago

You don’t want a criminal justice system where any decisions of consequence are made “behind the scenes automatically” no matter how solid your intentions.

Nasrudith 8y ago

I think it is a matter of practicality and old systems. Not to mention the headaches if something is supposed to be auto-done but wasn't. I think the legal system could use through computerization personally but I am biased and recognize that would be one hell of a project to transition and avoid disaster - let alone the political capital involved. It would be a bueraceatic task in a non-perojative sense - it is dull and not something impressive but if you are stuck doing it anyway it could make things easier for you.

rhizome 8y ago

>then the record of X conviction is considered expunged What exactly do you mean by "considered," here? By whom/what?