There are many instances in which doing something that many people find offensive and being a good example are the same thing, or at the very least are not oppo

There are many instances in which doing something that many people find offensive and being a good example are the same thing, or at the very least are not opposed to one another. E.g. In the 1960s, the head football coach at a recently integrated high school treats players of all races with dignity and respect; in the present day, two married men raise their child to treat others kindly; etc. It’s particularly difficult to distinguish between inoffensive activity and being a good example when the root cause of at least some offense is due to nothing more than your existence—you can be the best father to a child you can, but that will never make up for the fact that because you are gay some people do not think you should be a father at all. Turning back to the specific content of the article, I am glad that Maurice Claurett was able to use his history and his personal connection to Representative Marisco to enable the betterment of so many people’s lives. A system in which 90% of petitions result in expungement but only 10% of the eligible persons ever know they are able to make a petition is a moral wrong, and its automation (for less than $200,000) seems as if it will result in significant harm reduction for relatively little burden and risk. It also seems like the benefits of such a bill should be apparent with empathy, and that Claurett’s intervention should not have been necessary to change Rep. Marisco’s mind, but so it goes. I think a story like this, where many disparate groups generally opposed to one another worked together to effect positive change, is refreshing especially these days. Criminal justice reform has a lot of low hanging fruit and I hope this sort of progress continues (or kicks off) throughout the country.