wipe a "not guilty" criminals record clean ?

Godfather.

what do you guy's think ?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-public-records-sealed-bill-20170428-story.html

tempo_n_groove

To show you how much I know about getting arrested I always thought if you were not convicted there was no "record".

I'd be pissed to know that if I was falsely accused or arrested that I would still have it on my record even though the charges were bogus.

tbergs

Hmmm, the law enforcement background in me says that even dismissed or not guilty verdicts should be accessible since you would then mainly only be seeing the records of those not financially capable of affording good representation or the less legal system savvy who can get the record quashed while the average joe would still have his stay of adjudication or plea deal conviction show up. Basically, I see this as a way for white privilege to really shine through because they are more likely to get a dismissal or not guilty in those instances. While this would not eliminate certain employers from finding these charges or police contacts through a full background, it would make it harder for those not able to afford obtaining a true background. I find that a lot of employers only do the basic public record check, which would become even less accurate.

One huge benefit would be increased privacy from fellow coworkers or neighbors being able to see dropped charges or dismissed cases, which usually turns in to gossip or character assassination once word gets around.

mrussel1

tbergs said:

Hmmm, the law enforcement background in me says that even dismissed or not guilty verdicts should be accessible since you would then mainly only be seeing the records of those not financially capable of affording good representation or the less legal system savvy who can get the record quashed while the average joe would still have his stay of adjudication or plea deal conviction show up. Basically, I see this as a way for white privilege to really shine through because they are more likely to get a dismissal or not guilty in those instances. While this would not eliminate certain employers from finding these charges or police contacts through a full background, it would make it harder for those not able to afford obtaining a true background. I find that a lot of employers only do the basic public record check, which would become even less accurate.

One huge benefit would be increased privacy from fellow coworkers or neighbors being able to see dropped charges or dismissed cases, which usually turns in to gossip or character assassination once word gets around.

I'm not certian if it's white privilege or class privilege (lots of intersection of course), but that doesn't mean not guilty's should not be wiped from the record. To me, it should be wiped and the objective should be to have better representation for the lower class. I don't feel like having a not guilty arrest on record solves anything.
Regarding the background checks, I work in financial services and that means bonding is required along with FDIC minimum requirements. So we do full 10 year nationwide checks every year on everyone. Not guilty's charges are not disqualifiers; however pre trial adjudication, plea deals, etc. are grounds for removal or non-hiring if for breach of trust misdemeanors or felonies.

tbergs

mrussel1 said:

tbergs said:

Hmmm, the law enforcement background in me says that even dismissed or not guilty verdicts should be accessible since you would then mainly only be seeing the records of those not financially capable of affording good representation or the less legal system savvy who can get the record quashed while the average joe would still have his stay of adjudication or plea deal conviction show up. Basically, I see this as a way for white privilege to really shine through because they are more likely to get a dismissal or not guilty in those instances. While this would not eliminate certain employers from finding these charges or police contacts through a full background, it would make it harder for those not able to afford obtaining a true background. I find that a lot of employers only do the basic public record check, which would become even less accurate.

One huge benefit would be increased privacy from fellow coworkers or neighbors being able to see dropped charges or dismissed cases, which usually turns in to gossip or character assassination once word gets around.

I'm not certian if it's white privilege or class privilege (lots of intersection of course), but that doesn't mean not guilty's should not be wiped from the record. To me, it should be wiped and the objective should be to have better representation for the lower class. I don't feel like having a not guilty arrest on record solves anything.
Regarding the background checks, I work in financial services and that means bonding is required along with FDIC minimum requirements. So we do full 10 year nationwide checks every year on everyone. Not guilty's charges are not disqualifiers; however pre trial adjudication, plea deals, etc. are grounds for removal or non-hiring if for breach of trust misdemeanors or felonies.

I agree that in a perfect world, the not guilty charges shouldn't be accessible to the public. Thanks for the reminder on class privilege. I was trying to think of how to explain it, but couldn't come up with the term I was looking for. I think this is a good idea when coupled with the continued improvement of equal access to quality counsel and not just some public defender trying to manage his 30 client case load for the day and making as many plea deals as possible. The legal system is set up like a fast food restaurant so it's more about getting through the quantity instead of focusing on quality on a daily basis, which gets back to my main hang-up; the lower class/less privileged suffer.

brianlux

tempo_n_groove said:

To show you how much I know about getting arrested I always thought if you were not convicted there was no "record". I'd be pissed to know that if I was falsely accused or arrested that I would still have it on my record even though the charges were bogus.

I knew a guy who, in his early 20's, was convicted of stealing cardboard from behind a grocery store but because he admitted it in court, he was told the infraction would not go on his record.  I think you have to commit a crime worse than stealing cardboard to have a record. 

Degeneratefk

If you're found not guilty, it should be cleared from your record and you should be reimbursed for lawyer fees and any bond you had to post. This would force prosecutors to ensure they are actually getting thebright person. 

tbergs

Degeneratefk said:

If you're found not guilty, it should be cleared from your record and you should be reimbursed for lawyer fees and any bond you had to post. This would force prosecutors to ensure they are actually getting thebright person. 

OJ was found not guilty. I don't think it's always that simple. Cops fuck up, lawyers find loopholes and not guilty or dismissed doesn't always mean innocent. I wouldn't blame that all on the prosecution.

Degeneratefk

tbergs said:

Degeneratefk said:

If you're found not guilty, it should be cleared from your record and you should be reimbursed for lawyer fees and any bond you had to post. This would force prosecutors to ensure they are actually getting thebright person. 

OJ was found not guilty. I don't think it's always that simple. Cops fuck up, lawyers find loopholes and not guilty or dismissed doesn't always mean innocent. I wouldn't blame that all on the prosecution.

I'm not blaming it all on prosecutors. Cops and lawyers do make mistakes. OJ may be the most ridiculous example of a guilty party being acquitted. But it's not the celebrity criminal I'm really advocating for. It's the poor to middle class minorities that are wrongly accused and convicted every day in this country. If there was a system in place where everyone involved with trying to convict an innocent person, the mistakes may become few and far between.

mickeyrat

due process. petition for removal.

PJ_Soul

I absolutely think that no conviction should = a completely clean record. I also actually think that with some non-violent crimes - a very limited amount of them that are considered on a case-by-case basis - a record should be wiped clean even if there was a conviction and the penalty was served. I'm talking about shit like personal marijuana possession charges and shit like that, as well as convictions that happened because things went sideways, i.e. someone is convicted of some kind of involuntary manslaughter charges stemming from what was actually self-defense and whatnot, since people who really aren't at fault still do get convicted and carry a record around with them. Essentially crimes that the convicted person should not suffer for in any way, or should not be harassed about when crossing borders or should never be denied a job because of the conviction. So given that I think that, of course I think that those who are found to be innocent of a crime they are convicted of should have their record wiped clean. That they don't is yet another profound injustice piled upon them.

HughFreakingDillon

mickeyrat said:

due process. petition for removal.

agreed.