3 ms·

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

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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.
MisterTea 7y ago
> 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 "Serious crime" Tell that to people who were in possession of some cannabis flowers and are now sitting next to rapists and murderers in federal prison.
perfmode 7y ago
Hacker News is a gang affiliation. FANG employment is a gang affiliation.

4ntonius8lock 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.

MisterTea 7y ago

> 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 "Serious crime" Tell that to people who were in possession of some cannabis flowers and are now sitting next to rapists and murderers in federal prison.

perfmode 7y ago

Hacker News is a gang affiliation. FANG employment is a gang affiliation.