6 ms·

The Boston Globe’s Fresh Start Initiative

64 points by danso 6y ago

gedy 6y ago
Will this make an actual impact, if criminal records searches are what employers, landlords, etc use?
- Waterluvian 6y ago
  I'm sure this varies from region to region, but I don't think random people like landlords and employers are just looking up whatever you're picturing a "criminal record" looks like. When volunteering at a high school, my police record check amounted to the "NO" box being checked for, "did the police find any reason to believe this individual would be a risk to vulnerable groups (elderly, children, disabled)?" That being said, a lot of criminal proceedings are public record, I think? With a PACER account I can look up a pretty wild amount of stuff.
  - gedy 6y ago
    Afaik landlords & property managers can/do use criminal records services screens before renting though. (No need to downvote this observation...)
    - ericd 6y ago
      They do, it’s a standard part of many screening packages.
- chefandy 6y ago
  Depends on the situation. If you're trying to get a job in a bank, or for a larger organization with a standard battery of checks for all new hires, this isn't going to make much of a difference for you. But let's say you're an independent plumber. There's a good chance that someone is going to google your name to see if you pop up on a review site or something similar as part of their standard, low-level vetting process. If the third hit is an article about you being involved in an out-of-character drunken bar fight years ago, it could really affect your business. How many run-of-the-mill established professionals are subject to a CORI check? I'd guess less than half. How many are the subject of pre-hire, out-of-curiosity google searches? I'd guess most. Also, old cases can be expunged or sealed by the court, if found appropriate. Your local newspaper, without a deliberate initiative like this, is unlikely update their archives even if you were completely cleared of involvement in a grisly crime for which you were a "person of interest." Hell, even dating could be an issue. Their initiative said it wasn't fair that well-heeled white professionals who could enlist the help of lawyers were far more likely to get that article about some drunk driving incident taken down while it was impossible for poorer people to do the same.
TheGrim-999 6y ago
Some really interesting perspectives from that half of the political sphere lately: "Yes, it's rewriting history, but it's for a good reason!" "Yes, it's censorship, but it's for a good reason!" "Yes, it's deplatforming and dehumanizing half the population, but it's for a good reason!" "Yes, it's removing and limiting the rights we've enjoyed for hundreds of years, but it's for a good reason!" "Yes, it's treating people differently based on the color of their skin again, but it's for a good reason!" "Yes, we're hiring people based on the color of their skin rather than their ability, but it's for a good reason!" "Yes, we're accepting people into college based on the color of their skin, but it's for a good reason!" and so on... Every evil regime thought and were constantly told they had a good reason for what they were doing. It wasn't like they were a bunch of evil people that wanted to do evil. They always were given the justification, the "good reason" for doing evil. They thought they were doing it for a good reason. They were never able to disconnect themselves from the brainwashing and really just actually look at what the factual reality of what they were doing was. I don't care how much "good reason" you think you have, it doesn't make censorship not censorship, or racist policies not racist policies, or rewriting history anything but something straight out of 1984. "We are not in the business of rewriting the past, but we want to update the record" - stuff like this just oozes doublespeak.
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  Don't know why you're getting downvoted. The cheering on of censorship is something that haunts me more daily, and will be remembered as a great failing of our civilization for hundreds of years if things get worse.
  - 0xy 6y ago
    There's already numerous cases of censorship cheerleaders getting de-platformed themselves for some minute infraction, so at least while the world witch hunts itself we can enjoy watching these people get a taste of the politics they preach.
- ccn0p 6y ago
  amen. everything seems to be getting more Orwellian by the week. Even the graphic and sub-headline of this post screams Ministry of Truth.
systemvoltage 6y ago
I am of the opinion to be able to change names frequently (lawfully ofcourse). The problem is if you try to change jobs or buy a house, even though its legal to change your name, the system is designed with a constant identity.
donohoe 6y ago
Years back I worked for customer service at The New York Times. I got a call. It was from a man asking if we could take down an article (short answer: no). It was a brief article from years back where, as a high-school teacher, he had been accused of an inappropriate relationship with a student. The charges were dropped/withdrawn at some point, the article noted that in an update. Yet there was the article, with his name and easily findable. He said it had cost him jobs, relationships, and almost his engagement. He told me charges were dropped because this person had also made false allegations against numerous others, and this was determined to be similar. Assuming thats true, should he be able to clear this? I'm still not sure. There are a lot of reasons for/against.
- random5634 6y ago
  Absolutely - and the name of the person making false charges should be known more clearly. The current risk of false charges is too low. Same thing with death penalty - if you are on death row and project innocence proves your total innocense - prosecutors should be fired.
  - danielheath 6y ago
    I mean, in this case you are talking about a crime (false charges) committed by a child. That adds a whole other level of complexity to the matter.
- DenisM 6y ago
  Well that’s just awful. Changing the name is the only thing he could realistically do. Clearing the history is dicey - internet doesn’t easily forget even when the NYT does. I believe it’s the NYT responsibility to not just report facts but to keep track of the externalities and put on work to repair them. In this case they could rewrite the article - still include the original but frame it with the context, the resolution (charges dropped), the layman explanation of resolution, etc.
- meekrohprocess 6y ago
  Well it's up to the paper, but personally, I support papers re-evaluating their positions on this sort of thing. You'll still be able to find the old article on archive.org et al, but what a paper publishes today should reflect what it stands for today. If the paper was wrong or unfair, what is wrong with modifying or removing the coverage which is served today? Is that really worse than printing a "correction" paragraph at the end of the original article? Maybe publishers could implement a sort of "timeline" feature which shows how the organization's understanding of an event changed over time. But today, I can't see anything wrong with a newspaper accepting petitions to modify outdated coverage.
DenisM 6y ago
This makes sense. I would even take it further and make it a law that if there is an online article about you, then you must be given a chance to attach your side of the story right at the last line, and if material developments have occurred (e.g. charges dropped) they must update the story at your request.
rory 6y ago
This seems like a nice gesture, but I can't bring myself to respect anything the Globe does while they STILL maintain the evilly dark pattern of allowing you to subscribe completely online, but requiring you to call and talk your way through their retention reps to unsubscribe.
- allcentury 6y ago
  The New York Times is no different.
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    Houston Chronicle too.
- bombastry 6y ago
  European newspapers can be even worse. Le Monde, one the biggest French newspapers, requires its customers to unsubscribe via registered mail. This is even the case for digital-only subscriptions.
acomjean 6y ago
While I think it can be good, I can't help its somewhat self serving from one of their editors, who seems to have cleared harassment charges: https://www.google.com/search?q=brian+mcgrory+boston+globe https://www.google.com/search?q=brian+mcgrory+boston+globe
balozi 6y ago
I for one expect this initiative to be thoroughly misused in pursuit of elitist ideological and political objectives. Keeping record is the most basic function of journalism. Without that, then what's the point?
civilized 6y ago
This is good, but why does the "racial justice" angle have to be emphasized to the exclusion of any broader vision of mercy and proportionality? If America were 100% white, would that mean that everyone's negative press should stain their reputation and impede their success forever?
aaron695 6y ago
The main objective should be to remove it from search engines. Even if you leave names in the story but you stop search engines reading the names. It feels like a lost cause, but search is the real culprit here.

64 points by danso 6y ago

gedy 6y ago

Will this make an actual impact, if criminal records searches are what employers, landlords, etc use?

Waterluvian 6y ago
I'm sure this varies from region to region, but I don't think random people like landlords and employers are just looking up whatever you're picturing a "criminal record" looks like. When volunteering at a high school, my police record check amounted to the "NO" box being checked for, "did the police find any reason to believe this individual would be a risk to vulnerable groups (elderly, children, disabled)?" That being said, a lot of criminal proceedings are public record, I think? With a PACER account I can look up a pretty wild amount of stuff.
- gedy 6y ago
  Afaik landlords & property managers can/do use criminal records services screens before renting though. (No need to downvote this observation...)
  - ericd 6y ago
    They do, it’s a standard part of many screening packages.
chefandy 6y ago
Depends on the situation. If you're trying to get a job in a bank, or for a larger organization with a standard battery of checks for all new hires, this isn't going to make much of a difference for you. But let's say you're an independent plumber. There's a good chance that someone is going to google your name to see if you pop up on a review site or something similar as part of their standard, low-level vetting process. If the third hit is an article about you being involved in an out-of-character drunken bar fight years ago, it could really affect your business. How many run-of-the-mill established professionals are subject to a CORI check? I'd guess less than half. How many are the subject of pre-hire, out-of-curiosity google searches? I'd guess most. Also, old cases can be expunged or sealed by the court, if found appropriate. Your local newspaper, without a deliberate initiative like this, is unlikely update their archives even if you were completely cleared of involvement in a grisly crime for which you were a "person of interest." Hell, even dating could be an issue. Their initiative said it wasn't fair that well-heeled white professionals who could enlist the help of lawyers were far more likely to get that article about some drunk driving incident taken down while it was impossible for poorer people to do the same.

TheGrim-999 6y ago

Some really interesting perspectives from that half of the political sphere lately: "Yes, it's rewriting history, but it's for a good reason!" "Yes, it's censorship, but it's for a good reason!" "Yes, it's deplatforming and dehumanizing half the population, but it's for a good reason!" "Yes, it's removing and limiting the rights we've enjoyed for hundreds of years, but it's for a good reason!" "Yes, it's treating people differently based on the color of their skin again, but it's for a good reason!" "Yes, we're hiring people based on the color of their skin rather than their ability, but it's for a good reason!" "Yes, we're accepting people into college based on the color of their skin, but it's for a good reason!" and so on... Every evil regime thought and were constantly told they had a good reason for what they were doing. It wasn't like they were a bunch of evil people that wanted to do evil. They always were given the justification, the "good reason" for doing evil. They thought they were doing it for a good reason. They were never able to disconnect themselves from the brainwashing and really just actually look at what the factual reality of what they were doing was. I don't care how much "good reason" you think you have, it doesn't make censorship not censorship, or racist policies not racist policies, or rewriting history anything but something straight out of 1984. "We are not in the business of rewriting the past, but we want to update the record" - stuff like this just oozes doublespeak.

throwaway3699 6y ago
Don't know why you're getting downvoted. The cheering on of censorship is something that haunts me more daily, and will be remembered as a great failing of our civilization for hundreds of years if things get worse.
- 0xy 6y ago
  There's already numerous cases of censorship cheerleaders getting de-platformed themselves for some minute infraction, so at least while the world witch hunts itself we can enjoy watching these people get a taste of the politics they preach.
ccn0p 6y ago
amen. everything seems to be getting more Orwellian by the week. Even the graphic and sub-headline of this post screams Ministry of Truth.

systemvoltage 6y ago

I am of the opinion to be able to change names frequently (lawfully ofcourse). The problem is if you try to change jobs or buy a house, even though its legal to change your name, the system is designed with a constant identity.

donohoe 6y ago

Years back I worked for customer service at The New York Times. I got a call. It was from a man asking if we could take down an article (short answer: no). It was a brief article from years back where, as a high-school teacher, he had been accused of an inappropriate relationship with a student. The charges were dropped/withdrawn at some point, the article noted that in an update. Yet there was the article, with his name and easily findable. He said it had cost him jobs, relationships, and almost his engagement. He told me charges were dropped because this person had also made false allegations against numerous others, and this was determined to be similar. Assuming thats true, should he be able to clear this? I'm still not sure. There are a lot of reasons for/against.

random5634 6y ago
Absolutely - and the name of the person making false charges should be known more clearly. The current risk of false charges is too low. Same thing with death penalty - if you are on death row and project innocence proves your total innocense - prosecutors should be fired.
- danielheath 6y ago
  I mean, in this case you are talking about a crime (false charges) committed by a child. That adds a whole other level of complexity to the matter.
DenisM 6y ago
Well that’s just awful. Changing the name is the only thing he could realistically do. Clearing the history is dicey - internet doesn’t easily forget even when the NYT does. I believe it’s the NYT responsibility to not just report facts but to keep track of the externalities and put on work to repair them. In this case they could rewrite the article - still include the original but frame it with the context, the resolution (charges dropped), the layman explanation of resolution, etc.
meekrohprocess 6y ago
Well it's up to the paper, but personally, I support papers re-evaluating their positions on this sort of thing. You'll still be able to find the old article on archive.org et al, but what a paper publishes today should reflect what it stands for today. If the paper was wrong or unfair, what is wrong with modifying or removing the coverage which is served today? Is that really worse than printing a "correction" paragraph at the end of the original article? Maybe publishers could implement a sort of "timeline" feature which shows how the organization's understanding of an event changed over time. But today, I can't see anything wrong with a newspaper accepting petitions to modify outdated coverage.

DenisM 6y ago

This makes sense. I would even take it further and make it a law that if there is an online article about you, then you must be given a chance to attach your side of the story right at the last line, and if material developments have occurred (e.g. charges dropped) they must update the story at your request.

rory 6y ago

This seems like a nice gesture, but I can't bring myself to respect anything the Globe does while they STILL maintain the evilly dark pattern of allowing you to subscribe completely online, but requiring you to call and talk your way through their retention reps to unsubscribe.

allcentury 6y ago
The New York Times is no different.
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  Houston Chronicle too.
bombastry 6y ago
European newspapers can be even worse. Le Monde, one the biggest French newspapers, requires its customers to unsubscribe via registered mail. This is even the case for digital-only subscriptions.

acomjean 6y ago

While I think it can be good, I can't help its somewhat self serving from one of their editors, who seems to have cleared harassment charges: https://www.google.com/search?q=brian+mcgrory+boston+globe https://www.google.com/search?q=brian+mcgrory+boston+globe

balozi 6y ago

I for one expect this initiative to be thoroughly misused in pursuit of elitist ideological and political objectives. Keeping record is the most basic function of journalism. Without that, then what's the point?

civilized 6y ago

This is good, but why does the "racial justice" angle have to be emphasized to the exclusion of any broader vision of mercy and proportionality? If America were 100% white, would that mean that everyone's negative press should stain their reputation and impede their success forever?

aaron695 6y ago

The main objective should be to remove it from search engines. Even if you leave names in the story but you stop search engines reading the names. It feels like a lost cause, but search is the real culprit here.