4 ms·

I think there is an important word missing from the title, it is Police /Disciplinary/ Records that are being referenced. That is a significant difference and

by swlp21 5y ago

I think there is an important word missing from the title, it is Police /Disciplinary/ Records that are being referenced. That is a significant difference and there is a very strong case that these should be retained in exactly the same way criminal records are retained (essentially forever) and for the same purpose - so they can be looked up and referenced should any officer come to attention and a fuller picture of their character is required.

alphabettsy 5y ago
Good point. Done.
onphonenow 5y ago
Is this the case with criminal records? There was a rumor that in the Rittenhouse case, one of the other folks involved had a much much larger actual criminal history then the one they released, but that a lot of the history was hidden in various ways? This was supposedly misinformation but the details were pretty specific, and they seemed to indicate that there might be a method to basically hide past convictions so a full picture would not be available. Has anyone heard of something called "Expungement"? Google got me to these guys: https://www.record-clear.com/ https://www.record-clear.com/ They claim even felonies can be removed, even if there are probation violations etc.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >There was a rumor that in the Rittenhouse case, one of the other folks involved had a much much larger actual criminal history then the one they released, but that a lot of the history was hidden in various ways? As an aside, there's a ~2hr video floating around the internet of bodycam footage from arm guy's DUI arrest between the shooting and the trail. They dropped it, presumably because an active DUI case makes for a crappy prosecution witness. Police officers don't even get treatment that good. If they get as far as being cited (vs a free ride home, which is what they often get) the prosecution typically makes them plead down and spend thousands doing so rather than just dropping it. That said, the DUI in question is an example of a lot of things that are wrong with policing (the cops in the video are professional and civil the whole time) and I think it's worth watching just for that.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Looks like those guys only handle California. Seems like it's a CA specific law, unsure if available in other states
- jcrawfordor 5y ago
  Most US states have some form of expungement law which allows past criminal records to be cleared. It's mostly intended to help ex-cons with reintegration, because it can be so difficult to get employment (and in many cases voting rights, public services, housing, etc) with a criminal history. Basically criminal records are a major part of the "cycle of criminality" that causes recidivism because former criminals are unable to support themselves by means other than crime (can't get a job, etc), and so expungement policies are expected to have a positive impact on both crime and social welfare. The details all vary from state to state, often there's a limit on how severe of an offense can be expunged, it has to be a certain time in the past, and typically the records are not really "expunged" but removed from public reports---law enforcement and judges can often still see them, as well as federal background checks, and sometimes anyone can ask for a court order to unseal. The expungement itself usually requires a court order, so the court makes a judgment whether or not expungement serves the public interest (i.e. will allow the person to contribute more fully to society). There are a lot of law firms like that that specialize in expungement because there are many people with criminal records and in most cases the process is a pretty straightforward paperwork exercise, so you can make a steady profit stream with a few paralegals preparing form letters. It becomes a different matter for people who are charged with crimes and otherwise in court, as courts have rules about what criminal history can or cannot be introduced in the court. There's a general principle that a jury shouldn't know about a person's unrelated previous convictions, since it will bias them towards the person being a criminal despite not actually being evidence relevant to the case in question. But I think there are plenty of exceptions, i.e. if the person has been convicted for pretty much the same crime before it can usually be introduced by the prosecution as circumstantial evidence that they apparently have the skills/means/motivation to commit such a crime. But you can't just tell the jury that they have a rap sheet a mile long. I'm not a lawyer and only know so much about this but I believe that usually pretty much the same rules apply to witnesses. You can bring up that a witness has a criminal record if it's somehow directly relevant to their testimony (i.e. they have lied to a court in the past) but you can't just tell the jury that they have a criminal record to try to ruin their reputation. Although it usually fails in practice, the justice system is at least theoretically built around the principle that people can and do change, and so prior criminality shouldn't be held against them if it isn't somehow contributory to the current situation.
- alphabettsy 5y ago
  Expungement is a thing, but even more importantly in court it’s usually at a judges discretion whether or not evidence is allowed and criminal history is a type of evidence. Sometimes evidence is not allowed because it is considered prejudicial. The purpose of a criminal trial is to determine guilt on a specific crime rather than character. That excluded evidence is sometimes allowed at sentencing. There was controversy in the Rittenhouse case about his prior comments and actions not being allowed into evidence. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/09/17/kenosha-county-judge-denies-series-motions-kyle-rittenhouse-case/8380214002/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/09/17/kenosha...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by swlp21 5y ago

alphabettsy 5y ago

Good point. Done.

onphonenow 5y ago

Is this the case with criminal records? There was a rumor that in the Rittenhouse case, one of the other folks involved had a much much larger actual criminal history then the one they released, but that a lot of the history was hidden in various ways? This was supposedly misinformation but the details were pretty specific, and they seemed to indicate that there might be a method to basically hide past convictions so a full picture would not be available. Has anyone heard of something called "Expungement"? Google got me to these guys: https://www.record-clear.com/ https://www.record-clear.com/ They claim even felonies can be removed, even if there are probation violations etc.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>There was a rumor that in the Rittenhouse case, one of the other folks involved had a much much larger actual criminal history then the one they released, but that a lot of the history was hidden in various ways? As an aside, there's a ~2hr video floating around the internet of bodycam footage from arm guy's DUI arrest between the shooting and the trail. They dropped it, presumably because an active DUI case makes for a crappy prosecution witness. Police officers don't even get treatment that good. If they get as far as being cited (vs a free ride home, which is what they often get) the prosecution typically makes them plead down and spend thousands doing so rather than just dropping it. That said, the DUI in question is an example of a lot of things that are wrong with policing (the cops in the video are professional and civil the whole time) and I think it's worth watching just for that.
netizen-936824 5y ago
Looks like those guys only handle California. Seems like it's a CA specific law, unsure if available in other states
jcrawfordor 5y ago
Most US states have some form of expungement law which allows past criminal records to be cleared. It's mostly intended to help ex-cons with reintegration, because it can be so difficult to get employment (and in many cases voting rights, public services, housing, etc) with a criminal history. Basically criminal records are a major part of the "cycle of criminality" that causes recidivism because former criminals are unable to support themselves by means other than crime (can't get a job, etc), and so expungement policies are expected to have a positive impact on both crime and social welfare. The details all vary from state to state, often there's a limit on how severe of an offense can be expunged, it has to be a certain time in the past, and typically the records are not really "expunged" but removed from public reports---law enforcement and judges can often still see them, as well as federal background checks, and sometimes anyone can ask for a court order to unseal. The expungement itself usually requires a court order, so the court makes a judgment whether or not expungement serves the public interest (i.e. will allow the person to contribute more fully to society). There are a lot of law firms like that that specialize in expungement because there are many people with criminal records and in most cases the process is a pretty straightforward paperwork exercise, so you can make a steady profit stream with a few paralegals preparing form letters. It becomes a different matter for people who are charged with crimes and otherwise in court, as courts have rules about what criminal history can or cannot be introduced in the court. There's a general principle that a jury shouldn't know about a person's unrelated previous convictions, since it will bias them towards the person being a criminal despite not actually being evidence relevant to the case in question. But I think there are plenty of exceptions, i.e. if the person has been convicted for pretty much the same crime before it can usually be introduced by the prosecution as circumstantial evidence that they apparently have the skills/means/motivation to commit such a crime. But you can't just tell the jury that they have a rap sheet a mile long. I'm not a lawyer and only know so much about this but I believe that usually pretty much the same rules apply to witnesses. You can bring up that a witness has a criminal record if it's somehow directly relevant to their testimony (i.e. they have lied to a court in the past) but you can't just tell the jury that they have a criminal record to try to ruin their reputation. Although it usually fails in practice, the justice system is at least theoretically built around the principle that people can and do change, and so prior criminality shouldn't be held against them if it isn't somehow contributory to the current situation.
alphabettsy 5y ago
Expungement is a thing, but even more importantly in court it’s usually at a judges discretion whether or not evidence is allowed and criminal history is a type of evidence. Sometimes evidence is not allowed because it is considered prejudicial. The purpose of a criminal trial is to determine guilt on a specific crime rather than character. That excluded evidence is sometimes allowed at sentencing. There was controversy in the Rittenhouse case about his prior comments and actions not being allowed into evidence. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/09/17/kenosha-county-judge-denies-series-motions-kyle-rittenhouse-case/8380214002/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/09/17/kenosha...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]