"court records are public forever" and "records of crimes expunged after X years" are incompatible.
Instead, we should make it illegal to discriminate based on criminal conviction history. Just like it is currently illegal to discriminate based on race or religion. That data should not be illegal to know, but illegal to use to make most decisions relating to that person.
Even if made illegal, how does enforcement occur? The United States, at least, is notorious for HR being extremely opaque regarding hiring decisions.
Then there's cases like Japan, where not only companies, but also landlords, will make people answer a question like: "have you ever been part of an anti-social organization or committed a crime?" If you don't answer truthfully, that is a legal reason to reject you. If you answer truthfully, then you will never get a job (or housing) again.
Of course, there is a whole world outside of the United States and Japan. But these are the two countries I have experience dealing with.
The founders of modern nation-states made huge advancements with written constitutions and uniformity of laws, but in the convenience of the rule of law it is often missed that the rule of law is not necessarily the prevalence of justice.
The question a people must ask themselves: we are a nation of laws, but are we a nation of justice?
Seems like a false dichotomy. You can be both, based on how you apply the laws.
The parent comment is not presenting a false dichotomy but is making precisely the point that it is how you apply the laws that matter; that just having laws is not enough.
Jesus ... that gives me a new perspective on Japan ...
The situation in the US is significantly worse, and probably numerous other countries I haven't experience with. Rather than asking if you've committed a crime, American employers/landlords will do a background check and are liable to turn you down if you've ever been arrested, even if the charges were dropped or you were found not guilty. Comparatively, the reason Japanese employers/landlords may even ask about having committed crime is because they can't find that information on their own freely. This is a fairly ridiculous criticsm, if you ask me. Nobody in any country wants to associate with criminals, often to an unfairly punitive degree, but at least in Japan you are not punished merely for being arrested. And while I don't doubt it happens, it's also far from a universal experience, despite Westerners loving to talk about Japan in broad sweeping generalizations. I have personally never been asked whether I've committed a crime.
One of the ways they keep crime so low. Being convicted destroys your reputation in a country where reputation is extremely important. Everyone loves saying it would be great to have lower crimes like Japan, but very few would really want the system that achieving that requires.
Their system seems to work better for them than our system does for us, so...
>Instead, we should make it illegal to discriminate based on criminal conviction history
Absolutely not. I'm not saying every crime should disqualify you from every job but convictions are really a government officialized account of your behavior. Knowing a person has trouble controlling their impulses leading to aggrevated assault or something very much tells you they won't be good for certain roles. As a business you are liable for what your employees do it's in both your interests and your customers interests not to create dangerous situations.
This is an extremely thorny question. Not allowing some kind of blank slate makes rehabilitation extremely difficult, and it is almost certainly a very expensive net social negative to exclude someone from society permanently, all the way up to their death at (say) 70, for something they did at 18. There is already a legal requirement to ignore "spent" convictions in some circumstances.
However, there's also jobs which legally require enhanced vetting checks.
> However, there's also jobs which legally require enhanced vetting checks.
I think the solution there is to restrict access and limit application to only what's relevant to the job. If someone wants to be a daycare worker, the employer should be able to submit a background check to the justice system who could decide that the drug possession arrest 20 years ago shouldn't reasonably have an impact on the candidate's ability to perform the job, while a history of child sex offenses would. Employers would only get a pass/fail back.
>If someone wants to be a daycare worker, the employer should be able to submit a background check to the justice system who could decide that the drug possession arrest 20 years ago shouldn't reasonably have an impact on the candidate's ability to perform the job, while a history of child sex offenses would. Employers would only get a pass/fail back.
Welcome to the world of certificates of the good conduct and criminal record extracts:
- https://www.justis.nl/en/products/certificate-of-conduct
- https://diia.gov.ua/services/vityag-pro-nesudimist
Other people have rights like freedom of association. If you’re hell-bent on violating that, consider the second-order effects. What is the net social negative when non-criminals freely avoid working in industries in which criminals tend to be qualified to work?
What do you mean by that?
Assuming you're asking in good faith, the parent could be referring to the 'market for lemons' in employment, where in lieu of being able to easily determine worker quality, employers start using second- or third-order- proxies for questions about, say, a candidate's likelihood of having a criminal record.
Or, you might just be doing the meme: https://x.com/MillennialWoes/status/1893134391322308918?s=20
> "court records are public forever" and "records of crimes expunged after X years" are incompatible.
Exactly. One option is for the person themselves to be able to ask for a LIMITED copy of their criminal history, which is otherwise kept private, but no one else.
This way it remains private, the HR cannot force the applicant to provide a detailed copy of their criminal history and discriminate based on it, they can only get a generic document from the court via Mr Doe that says, "Mr Doe is currently eligible to be employed as a financial advisor" or "Mr Doe is currently ineligible to be employed as a school teacher".
Ideally it should also be encrypted by the company's public key and then digitally signed by the court. This way, if it gets leaked, there's no way to prove its authenticity to a third party without at least outing the company as the source.
Are you suggesting that I cannot refuse to hire a bookkeeper that has multiple convictions for embezzlement?
If you embezzled money at your last company, I shouldn't be able to decline to hire you on my finance team on that basis?
In many sane countries, companies can ask you to provide a legal certificate that you did not commit X category of crime. This certificate will then either say that you did not do any crimes in that category, or it will say that you did commit one or more of them. The exact crimes aren't mentioned.
Coincidentally these same countries tend to have a much much lower recidivism rate than other countries.
This doesn't seem better?
I'm an employer and I want to make sure you haven't committed any serious crimes, so I ask for a certificate saying you haven't committed violent crimes. I get a certificate saying you have. It was a fistfight from a couple of decades ago when you were 20, but I don't know if it's that or if you tortured someone to death. Gotta take a pass on hiring you, sorry.
Seems like the people this benefits relative to a system in which a company can find out the specific charges you were convicted of would be the people who have committed the most heinous crimes in a given category.
Everything should remain absolutely private until after conviction.
And only released if it's in the public interest. I'd be very very strict here.
I'm a bit weird here though. I basically think the criminal justice system is very harsh.
Except when it comes to driving. With driving, at least in America, our laws are a joke. You can have multiple at fault accidents and keep your license.
DUI, keep your license.
Run into someone because watching Football is more important than operating a giant vehicle, whatever you might get a ticket.
I'd be quick to strip licenses over accidents and if you drive without a license and hit someone it's mandatory jail time. No exceptions.
By far the most dangerous thing in most American cities is driving. One clown on fan duel while he should be focusing on driving can instantly ruin dozens of lives.
But we treat driving as this sacred right. Why are car immobilizers even a thing?
No, you can not safely operate a vehicle. Go buy a bike.
Arrests being a matter of public record are a check on the government's ability to make people just disappear.
But the Internet's memory means that something being public at time t1 means it will also be public at all times after t1.
You can have custody information be open for query without exposing all of the circumstances, and without releasing mugshots to private sites that will extort people to have them taken down.
You can do something very simple like having a system that just lists if a person is - at that moment - in government custody. After release, there need not be an open record since the need to show if that person is currently in custody is over.
As an aside, the past few months have proven that the US government very much does not respect that reasoning. There are countless stories of people being taken and driven around for hours and questioned with no public paper trail at all.
There is an entire world where arrests are not a matter of the public record and where people don't get disappeared by the government. And then there is US where it is a matter of public record and (waves hand at the things happening).
They can disappear you indefinitely regardless.
Democrats love it too.
They call em Jump Outs. Historically the so called constitution has been worth less than craft paper. From FDRs executive order 9066 to today, you have no rights.
So here in the U.S., the Karen Read trial recently occupied two years of news cycles— convicted of a lesser crime on retrial.
Is the position that everyone who experienced that coverage, wrote about it in any forum, or attended, must wipe all trace of it clean, for “reasons”? The defendant has sole ownership of public facts? Really!? Would the ends of justice have been better served by sealed records and a closed courtroom? Would have been a very different event.
Courts are accustomed to balancing interests, but since the public usually is not a direct participant they get short shrift. Judges may find it inconvenient to be scrutinized, but that’s the ultimate and only true source of their legitimacy in a democratic system.
Let's say a cop kills somebody in your neighborhood. Some witnesses say it looked like murder to them, but per your wishes the government doesn't say who the cop was and publishes no details about the crime.. for two years, when they then say they cop was found not guilty. And as per your wishes again, even then they won't say anything about the alleged crime, and never will. Is this a recipe for public trust in their government?
Making the laws apply to the police the same as other citizens is, at least in the US, unlikely.
To be this brings in another question when the discussion should be focused on to what extent general records should be open.
It is also possible to apply a higher standard to the government employees and force greater transparency on them, up to treating them as de-facto slaves of the society.
Yeah okay, different standard just for government employees... So consider the same scenario above except instead of a cop its the son of a politician or the nephew of a billionaire. Not government employees. Are you comfortable with the government running secret trials for them too? Are you confident that the system can provide fair and impartial judgments for such people when nobody is allowed to check their work?
Do you see a lot of billionaries and their nephews in the public trials right now? The one which definitely didn't kill the insurance ceo is going pretty good, judging from all the paid shilling on *grams and such.
Now for a serious answer, what happens in practice in Europe is not secret trials, because trials are very much public. Since there is only so many billionaries, their nephews, actual mafiosi and people with political exposure prosecution, the journalists would monitor them closely, but will not be there on a hearing about your co-workers (alleged) wife-beating activities.
It's all reported, surname redacted (or not, it depends), but we all know who this is about anyways. "Court records says that a head of department at a government institution REDACTED1 was detained Monday, according to the public information, the arrests happened at the Fiscal service and the position of the department head is occupied by Evhen Sraka".
What matters when this is happens is not the exact PII of the person anyways. I don't care which exact nephew of which billionarie managed to bribe the cops in the end, but the fact that it happened or not.
Rank and file cops aren't that interesting by the way, unless it's a systemic issue, because the violence threshold is tuned down anyway -- nobody does a routine traffic stop geared for occupational army activities.
Like everything, privacy is not an absolute right and is balanced against all other rights and what you describe fits the definition of a legitimate public interest, which reduces the privacy of certain people (due to their position) by default and can be applied ad-hoc as well.
[dead]
You'd need so many exceptions to such a law it would be leakier than a sieve. It sounds like a fine idea at ten thousand feet but it immediately breaks down when you get into the nitty gritty of what crimes and what what jobs we're talking about.
Problem is it's very hard to prove what factors were used in a decision. Person A has a minor criminal record, person B does not? You can just say "B was more qualified" and as long as there's some halfway credible basis for that nothing can really be done. Only if one can demonstrate a clear pattern of behavior might a claim of discrimination go anywhere.
If a conviction is something minor enough that might be expungable, it should be private until that time comes. If the convicted person hasn't met the conditions for expungement, make it part of the public record, otherwise delete all history of it.
> You can just say "B was more qualified"
Sometimes can you can't prove B was more qualified, but you can always claim some BS like "B was a better fit for our company culture"
Curious, why should conviction history not be a factor? I could see the argument that previous convictions could indicate a lack of commitment to no longer committing crimes.
I couldn't parse the intended meaning from "lack of commitment to no longer commiting crimes"), so here's a response that just answers the question raised.
Do you regard the justice system as a method of rehabilitating offenders and returning them to try to be productive members of society, or do you consider it to be a system for punishment? If the latter, is it Just for society to punish somebody for the rest of their life for a crime, even if the criminal justice considers them safe to release into society?
Is there anything but a negative consequence for allowing a spent conviction to limit people's ability to work, or to own/rent a home? We have carve-outs for sensitive positions (e.g. working with children/vulnerable adults)
Consider what you would do in that position if you had genuinely turned a corner but were denied access to jobs you're qualified for?
The short answer is that it's up to a judge to decide that, up to the law what it's based on and up to the people what the law is.
Sure there is still some leeway between only letting a judge decide the punishment and full on mob rule, but it's not a slippery slope fallacy when the slope is actually slippy.
It's fairly easy to abuse the leeway to discriminate to exclude political dissidents for instance.
Because we as a society decided it creates externalities we don't want to deal with. With a list of exceptions where it actually is important because risk-reward balance is too much.
We as a society have decided no such thing, it is in fact legal to refuse somebody a job for having a criminal history, and will remain so.
that depends on a society, right?
Discrimination could be very hard to prove in practice.
> Instead, we should make it illegal to discriminate based on criminal conviction history.
Good luck proving it when it happens. We haven't even managed to stop discrimination based on race and religion, and that problem has only gotten worse as HR departments started using AI which conveniently acts as a shield to protect them.
Which is why in any country where criminal history is considered discrimination, this information is simply not provided. Because these companies have learned over the years that "please don't do X" just doesn't work with corporations.
right, for example someone convicted of killing their parents should fit right into an elderly care home staff team and convicted child rapists should not be barred from working in an elementary school, protecting honest and innocent people from criminals is basically the same thing as racism!
it's hilarious that "people" downvote comments pointing out the logical conclusion of the policies they defend
wouldn't making it illegal to discriminate based on criminal records prevent an elementary school of refusing to employ a candidate that is "fit for the job" (graduated from a good university, has years of experience in the field, etc) who just happens to have a child rape conviction on the basis that he has a child rape conviction? doesn't 1 + 1 equal 2?