4 ms·

What they’re referring to is the court records that show whether someone was ever put through any kind of criminal justice process. If someone is arrested and c

by ttul 3y ago

What they’re referring to is the court records that show whether someone was ever put through any kind of criminal justice process. If someone is arrested and charged, that record is publicly accessible to anyone for a few dollars. If the charges go nowhere, the record of the arrest and charge remains on the public record forever. It is indeed an unfair system.

mapreduce 3y ago
It really is so unfair! Is it like this in other countries too? Like US, UK, Germany, etc.? I'd really like to know how this system works in other developed countries of the world.
- fnimick 3y ago
  It is very much the same in the US. Some states and cities have implemented a so called "ban the box" law, but most of the country has not. I've filled out many background check, employment applications, rental application etc that will ask "have you ever been arrested or charged with a crime", and regardless of circumstance will deny you if you say yes. If you are found innocent, or charges dropped because they messed up the evidence etc, doesn't matter.
  - leros 3y ago
    In the US, as I understand it, you can go through a process (not free) to get your arrest record expunged and then you can legally answer no to that question. Still messed up but there is a path at least.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  Well, not a developed country, but in Brazil the government can only disclose convictions (outside of the government, internally there are a few exceptions), only to the person or a security-related organization, and it's illegal to even ask for a record in a work related process unless it's about one of those security-related organizations (the Federal Police maintains a list of them). Also, the data stays there starting at the conviction and only up to the point the person is found innocent in another ruling or the penalty ends. But the one things that keeps surprising me about the other countries isn't any of that discrimination against minor misbehaving. It is that justice promoters so often see their roles on society as harassing suspects until they break down. This seems to be the norm, and it's completely ridiculous.
_nqfy 3y ago
[dead]
- belval 3y ago
  > a person's record of charges that did not lead to a conviction is not publicly available, but rather requires an individual's consent. Unless I misunderstood isn't that almost the exact same thing though? When getting hired they will ask you to fill out some forms prior to your background check that explicitly give the permission to run a background check. I never tried to refuse but I doubt it would be welcomed.
  - _nqfy 3y ago
    It's still a problem for Barker, and I don't want at all to discount that his situation is unjust. However, the non-conviction records will not necessarily show up on his report. If the employer requests the base level of a background check, the records will not show up. If the employer instead requests a more in-depth check (a PIC), the records may or may not show up. Not all employers would request the more in-depth check. Barker is therefore not at a disadvantage for all jobs for a non-convicted charge, but it is completely unjust that he can potentially be at a disadvantage for a fair number of jobs. Barker deserves recourse and more awareness of his case. But at the same time, the potential impression that any Canadian resident that is charged-but-not-convicted will have a publicly-available record that bars them from work, is not a correct one.
- mcv 3y ago
  Requiring consent doesn't make a difference when it's about employment. If you don't give consent, you don't get the job.
  - _nqfy 3y ago
    It's true that Barker is now disadvantaged for certain types of jobs for an accusation he was never convicted of, which is completely unjust. He deserves far better treatment. However, requiring consent means that the records are not publicly available, so he is not immediately disqualified when he applies. In addition, a company has to specifically request for a deeper background check for this to appear—the base level of a background check only includes convictions. No person in Canada who is charged yet not convicted is therefore barred from work, which is an impression made from Barker's quote and a previous comment. A more precise understanding of the system is important for advocacy to change it. It's more effective to argue for reforms related to Police Information Checks (such as for more transparency) to be specific, and this requires a specific awareness of how Canada's process for background checks works.
papercrane 3y ago
> If the charges go nowhere, the record of the arrest and charge remains on the public record forever. This isn't necessarily true. It's dumb that it's not automatic, but you can request in the destruction of non-conviction information.
- pi-e-sigma 3y ago
  And they can deny the destruction of that non-conviction information without having to explain why. https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/managing-criminal-record https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/managing-criminal-record

by ttul 3y ago

mapreduce 3y ago

It really is so unfair! Is it like this in other countries too? Like US, UK, Germany, etc.? I'd really like to know how this system works in other developed countries of the world.

fnimick 3y ago
It is very much the same in the US. Some states and cities have implemented a so called "ban the box" law, but most of the country has not. I've filled out many background check, employment applications, rental application etc that will ask "have you ever been arrested or charged with a crime", and regardless of circumstance will deny you if you say yes. If you are found innocent, or charges dropped because they messed up the evidence etc, doesn't matter.
- leros 3y ago
  In the US, as I understand it, you can go through a process (not free) to get your arrest record expunged and then you can legally answer no to that question. Still messed up but there is a path at least.
marcosdumay 3y ago
Well, not a developed country, but in Brazil the government can only disclose convictions (outside of the government, internally there are a few exceptions), only to the person or a security-related organization, and it's illegal to even ask for a record in a work related process unless it's about one of those security-related organizations (the Federal Police maintains a list of them). Also, the data stays there starting at the conviction and only up to the point the person is found innocent in another ruling or the penalty ends. But the one things that keeps surprising me about the other countries isn't any of that discrimination against minor misbehaving. It is that justice promoters so often see their roles on society as harassing suspects until they break down. This seems to be the norm, and it's completely ridiculous.

_nqfy 3y ago

[dead]

belval 3y ago
> a person's record of charges that did not lead to a conviction is not publicly available, but rather requires an individual's consent. Unless I misunderstood isn't that almost the exact same thing though? When getting hired they will ask you to fill out some forms prior to your background check that explicitly give the permission to run a background check. I never tried to refuse but I doubt it would be welcomed.
- _nqfy 3y ago
  It's still a problem for Barker, and I don't want at all to discount that his situation is unjust. However, the non-conviction records will not necessarily show up on his report. If the employer requests the base level of a background check, the records will not show up. If the employer instead requests a more in-depth check (a PIC), the records may or may not show up. Not all employers would request the more in-depth check. Barker is therefore not at a disadvantage for all jobs for a non-convicted charge, but it is completely unjust that he can potentially be at a disadvantage for a fair number of jobs. Barker deserves recourse and more awareness of his case. But at the same time, the potential impression that any Canadian resident that is charged-but-not-convicted will have a publicly-available record that bars them from work, is not a correct one.
mcv 3y ago
Requiring consent doesn't make a difference when it's about employment. If you don't give consent, you don't get the job.
- _nqfy 3y ago
  It's true that Barker is now disadvantaged for certain types of jobs for an accusation he was never convicted of, which is completely unjust. He deserves far better treatment. However, requiring consent means that the records are not publicly available, so he is not immediately disqualified when he applies. In addition, a company has to specifically request for a deeper background check for this to appear—the base level of a background check only includes convictions. No person in Canada who is charged yet not convicted is therefore barred from work, which is an impression made from Barker's quote and a previous comment. A more precise understanding of the system is important for advocacy to change it. It's more effective to argue for reforms related to Police Information Checks (such as for more transparency) to be specific, and this requires a specific awareness of how Canada's process for background checks works.

papercrane 3y ago

> If the charges go nowhere, the record of the arrest and charge remains on the public record forever. This isn't necessarily true. It's dumb that it's not automatic, but you can request in the destruction of non-conviction information.

pi-e-sigma 3y ago
And they can deny the destruction of that non-conviction information without having to explain why. https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/managing-criminal-record https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/managing-criminal-record