The perpetrators made a bad choice or series of choices and those choices rose to the criminal level. Maybe they have reformed and want a second chance.
But what gets lost in a law that automatically white washes their record is that their victims, who also are human beings were given no choice by the perpetrators and have to live with the ripple effects of consequences for the rest of their lives! If someone stole a car at age 18 and now regrets it & would never do it again, let him be up front with prospective employers or licensing bodies and ask for a second (3rd, 4th) chance. He can even ask the courts for it -- if he can prove it. But the victim has to live with the fallout without sencond chances -- s/he may have lost his job b/c suddenly no car, or her child may have died before she could get to the hospital because someone stole her car, or the guy whose nose was broken that time you punched him at the frat house still, 30 years later suffers from chronic sinus infections one of which caused him to miss his daughter's wedding and 40 years later got resulting sleep apnea that strained his heart & killed him. That woman you stalked as a 20-something - when you got sentenced it was only for a misdemeanor & you're so different now. But she's still different now, too, in that the psychological trauma you caused her left her so agoraphobic & prone to startle that she has a hard time keeping a job, let alone the high-powered 1 she'd planned for before your "bad choice"
21
@MSW Slippery slopes, strawmen, reductio ad absurdum -- you've ticked the box on just about every rhetorical fallacy.
The point of this law is to say that everyone deserves a chance to try again. Keep your record clean, and you get a chance to try to set your life on track.
Just because you've created harm at one point in your life, doesn't mean you should be prohibited from changing your life, contributing to society and improving the world at another time in your life.
Permanently penalizing and setting felons back does nothing towards restitution to victims, and creates serious harms for society and for the convicted. We have a system of punishments, and once you've completed yours, including a period where your criminal record is visible, it seems reasonable and humane to welcome the person back into society as reformed.
12
They are welcome to apply to Court to have their records expunged or sealed; there is no need for a law that does it for everyone, carte blanch (as it were). People of a variety of SES, racial and other social categories have successfully done this. Have even half of the people this law would "help" even tried to make such a motion before the Court?
As for the cynical, age-ist, other comment, of course their is great value in second and even third chances, and in forgiveness. But forgiveness must be asked for and earned, including by making life better for those harmed or if that is not possible, then by paying it forward. Serving time in jail, in and of itself, does not make things right.
Another thought: perhaps some of the violations that get charged as misdemeanors (like some physical assaults) ought be changed to felony?
10
I would not rent an apartment or home to someone based solely on his/her ability to pay the rent. The existence of a criminal record would be a major factor in helping me evaluate the likelihood a potential renter might fail to pay rent, damage the premises, operate an illegal enterprise on my property, drive out other tenants, etc.
21
@Mal T
Just put up a sign that says, "No Riffraff"
@Aristotle Gluteus Maximus The sign would say "No Criminals;" not all riffraff are criminals.
Reading other posts, people are missing the big picture. Sure, we are asking employers and landlords to accept a certain amount of risk. However, the millions of people who cannot work are causing tremendous damage to society far outweighing these risks.
When people can't work, they are likely to commit more crime. This drains our society of productivity. When people can't work, they can't pay taxes. They can't take care of their families. They can't pay rent.
And then, let's take into account that many of our so-called "criminals" would not be considered criminals in other high-functioning democracies.
The ugly truth is that our criminal justice system manufactures more criminals, explaining why we have one of the highest prison populations per capita in the world.
For once, I wish people would think less about themselves and more about the common good.
49
One time and that's it. Any further crime and it should all come out and stay there.
1
I'm an employer. I have two candidates for a job. Both have equally excellent work records in relevant positions. One has continuous employment since college. Another has multi-year gaps due to incarceration for reasons that I am now blind to. To whom do I extend an offer? Who do I disappoint? What is my legal exposure? What is the impact on my current staff? I am not passing judgement. But these are factors that I must take into account before extending an offer of employment.
49
Since hiring the ex-con is more risky, you should be allowed to pay him or her less than the "clean" candidate, at least for some period of time. Some people will say this is unfair, but not allowing differential pay causes some ex-cons not to be hired at all.
@Frank you can always ask how the person w gaps spends his/her time, hobbies? etc.
2
@Frank Would it change your decision to know the gap was due to jail? Wouldn't your preference be the person who was continuously employed, regardless of the reason for the gap?
2
I had to expunge my record. It took almost five years and thousands of dollars. Misdemeanor assault. It was more than a scarlet letter. In this day of instantaneous background checks I had trouble just renting a home. Much less trying to get a job. They day of my expungement hearing I went last. Two dozen persons almost without the exception of one white man, African Americans. It was an epiphany for myself. If you think the criminal justice system is bad-it’s worse than that. If you think it unfairly singles out African American males- overwhelmingly it is a fact. Go to a court room. Spend a day at the expungement hearings. You will walk out of there a changed person. Not necessarily for the better. I wanted to cry. I still do. Make every first time offender spend a day there listening to the stories of those who have no life, sleep on couches and in cars who have gone above and beyond to prove themselves worthy of being called a man. Broken homes is just the tip of the iceberg. The law in this country is dysfunctional. It no longer serves its citizens.
17
I'm aware of someone who paid some online business to submit his forms and in a single try got his record expunged within a year and for not more than $1-5,000. In Cali.
The person spent a couple of years without any legal entanglements before applying. Surprised how easy it was given the person in question was a repeat offender.
Is spousal battery considered a misdemeanor? If so, I don’t think those records should be hidden from the public. Indeed, I wonder if we should seal any cases where one person has physically harmed another?
4
The bill says the relief won't be granted so long as, "Nothing in the arrest record indicates that proceedings seeking conviction remain pending"
But what about related civil cases, such as child custody proceedings, wrongful termination, negligence of some sort, breach of a business partnership contract, divorce (including alimony), eviction proceedings, civil harassment cases, insurance claims, etc.?
And here's another interesting question: will the criminal receiving the proposed automatic relief of sealed records be permitted to disclose his/her criminal history whenever it suits them? For example, the criminal history would be unknown and/or undiscoverable by a non-criminal party to a divorce case as, among other things, child custody is deciding. But could a former criminal who received proposed automatic relief choose to disclose and use his/her history to, say, make his/her case in an alimony proceeding (in order to pay less or to receive more)? Or to fight off allegations in other kinds of civil suits?
And once tendered by the "relieved" individual, would the records be unsealed? Permanently, or just for that one case (in which case it, too, would have to be sealed, leading to a cascading of secrecy in our judiciary - NOT a good thing).
Is there anything in the law or this bill that prevents another person (not of the government) from stating that they have knowledge of the relieved's criminal history?
2
Proportionality, please! Think about this: a man with a known record of stiffing employees, paid a $25 million fine for cheating students, paid off sex workers, ad infinitum....and millions of Americans hired him to run the country!
Go figure.
7
Too bad for Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen,the rest of the Trump crew, Bernie Madoff and numerous others, including people later tied to worse crimes, that they didn't commit their crimes in California!
(And by the way, contrary to what one comment claimed, most convictions are not reported in local news papers, especially those unrelated to already publicized killings or rapes, and especially in cities and their surrounding metro areas.)
1
On thing the article did not mention that is also a consequence of having a "record" is that once arrested, a lot of inmates just figure they have overstepped the rules and they may as well go down that road.
That is to say, if inmates' records were sealed from the beginning, it is more likely that a person arrested or put in jail or prison will be motivated to rehabilitate himself as he will be more employable upon release.
\The days of the scarlet letter on the forehead should have gone with the Puritans.
3
The danger is that it may backfire when "the records are sealed" becomes more of a scarlet letter!
1
As a former Parole Officer (more than 50 years ago), with the California Youth Authority, I applaud the efforts of this bill. Much needed and long overdue.
9
Can someone explain to me why we keep people shackled who have already done their time? Why should society get to continue ostracizing these people, employers continue to shun them, landlords continue to ditch them. If they have done their time, they need to be able to reintegrate into the society and they need to be given a fair chance at doing so. I can understand that continuing compulsive behavior as is the case with sexual crimes does need to be monitored heavily, but if people have done their due time behind bars, aren't they entitled to make a livelihood? And why do we keep them from being able to vote? All we are doing with these draconian policies is keeping the recidivism rates high. Something is very wrong with our collective attitudes.
13
The problem is more beyond than just the "sealing records", arrest reports are public information, in fact NYS sells them to private information groups who then sell access to the public via internet "background check" sites for profit.
In a legal system where Police regularly over-charge suspects on the pretense of the charges knock down by plea agreement & the threat of serious jail time if the alleged perpetrator decides to take it to trial, the system potential to cast a death sentence is beyond real.
Yes the disposition can be sealed but the arrest records remain & as long as that remains, anyone over-charged with for example, sexual assault, & then has the charged reduced to disorderly conduct (a violation not a crime) will be stamped for life as a felon, regardless of the particulars of the case.
Add a racist or sexist arresting law enforcement officer(s) & serious damage can be inflicted to innocent or people who just happen to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time with the wrong people.
Something during the course of a lifetime, we're all guilty of.
6
That's why I've always appreciated Superman's catchphrase "Truth, justice..... and the American way."
1
@quadgator
This is perhaps why one out of every three people has a criminal record. My God! Think of that. one out of three!
1
A great idea but how did we get here? It’s absolutely ridiculous how many people we incarcerate in this country. So now that 1 in 3 of us have a ‘rap sheet’, the answer is to expunge the record after time served? Wasn’t that the original intention of our justice system? The idea that once you served your time you had paid your debt to society? I sincerely hope that all the states and the federal government do the same thing as California.
10
As a senior hiring manager, I have always struggled with HR managers who always want to emphasize the 'right fit' or selections that meet 'all the standards'. I would be strongly discouraged from hiring anyone who might need a leg up or require investment of my time and resources -- an investment I was happy and prepared to make.
The message has been to hire the turn-key person, who can do all the work required and who will stick around. This is felt to be the perfect hire. Hiring a person who we might invest in, with a fear that they would leave and take their skills elsewhere was strongly discouraged. We look at people as widgets -- needing a person to fill the perfect role.
I would recoil. I know that community is made up all types of people, many of whom are not perfect, but most of whom are earnest and well-intentioned.
In a culture that seems to compel that employers hire the perfect person to come to the workplace, or the landlord wanting the prefect tenant or the parent who wants their child to date the best person possible, in my view, is an attitude that at its core undermines the social fabric of our community. It fails to appreciate that we all are subject to our own shortcomings, and our unwillingness to see potential in others, I believe, this attitude is an expression of denial in our own inadequacies.
Embracing the former offender, who has grown and matured will have benefits much broader than just helping that one person.
13
@Andrew
I think there is an additional reason that companies are nervous about hiring ex-offenders. if one of them turns out to commit a crime and his record is released, the company look bad. So this law would take away that responsibility form the company, and it's a win-win for all.
@Andrew This!
A big problem for California has been voter approval of Proposition 47 which changed many felonies to misdemeanors. Now shoplifting, grand theft, receiving stolen property, forgery, fraud, and writing bad checks are considered a misdemeanor if the crime was worth $950 or less. But the criminal can do as much of this as he or she wants ( do it everyday) as long as it is under $950. Many stats show property crime has risen. Also, this has been quite costly for businesses where these groups or individuals come in and do the "smash and grab" routine and steal thousands a week. Many want to repeal this proposition.
14
An important point that seems to be overlooked is that someone does not need to be convicted of an offense to be forever blacklisted. An arrest is sufficient. Even if someone is acquitted, the charges or dropped, or no charges were pressed in the first place, that arrest is sufficient to be permanently disqualified from professional licensing, a job, an apartment, or any number of things. Although the legal system theoretically assumes someone is innocent until convicted of a specific offense, an arrest is now virtually equivalent to a conviction. To me that seems a complete perversion of the legal system.
Of course, for most people who are arrested, conviction of some offense is a foregone conclusion. The inequality that effectively defines our country is particularly extreme in the criminal justice system. Although the right to a jury trial is theoretically the cornerstone of our system, in practice that's a privilege reserved for the relatively few defendants who can afford to hire a lawyer. Most everyone else gets a public defender, who can only expedite the plea bargain that efficiently disposes of most criminal cases.
In fact, our court system depends on that efficient disposition, as it lacks the capacity to provide trials for even a fraction of criminal defendants. In the country that so proudly leads the world in incarceration, justice has inevitably yielded to efficiency and expedience.
9
I would feel better fining and work release options and delaying a sentencing hearing. If restitution and fines are paid, the charges should be dropped, and all records sealed Any time in jail on non violent crimes reduces the probability of rehabilitation. Incarceration should be for criminals whose records shouldn’t be sealed. It would save/raise billions of dollars and keep families together too.
4
Try getting a mug shot off of local internet news sites such as The Patch. Good luck. Once it’s out there, it’s out there forever. And that’s not even a conviction, just an arrest.
Nice idea to seal records, but it won’t help keep someone’s criminal history private. Which unfortunately will be easily found with a simple search. That’s a crime.
11
Some people on this board obviously have no experience with the criminal justice system (good for you!). To summarize what I’ve learned.. what you end up being convicted of depends on how much money you have. For example DUI’s. I hired a DUI lawyer for 12,000 almost 20 years ago. He told me as certain as we could be that the the sun will rise, we could be sure I will not be convicted. I was guilty but guess what? I was convicted of a lesser charge. Just like that. That’s how it works.( Plus I was only convicted because the police officer showed up for the trial, the same police officer I later ran into as he was selling stolen drugs to my friend that would then resell them. He told me it was too bad I hadn’t met him before the arrest or it would have never happened. That’s just one tiny anecdote of someone who has been “justice” involved.)
Overall race and inequality have everything to do with criminal records. If one doesn’t thoroughly see and understand that (I work in this field) then any conversation about criminal records is missing a major point.
10
If you were guilty of the exact charge, the ethical thing for you to do was to accept responsibility by pleading guilty, not using your wealth to warp justice.
Your double selfishness (driving drunk and using money to thwart justice and escape responsibility for a life-endangering crime) is part of the problem. The measures proposed in this bill only make such problems worse.
No wonder you favor the bill -- it would wipe your "lesser charge" off the books, adding salt to the wound of injustice you already caused.
1
If such a person is hired and later is caught stealing on the job, would the employer then have access to sealed records?
3
@Lane Why would the sealed records be relevant? The person who stole could be prosecuted for the theft, but we should not be allowed to punish people forever for past infractions. If the record is sealed, it's because the person met all the requirements for that condition.
3
@Lane It would let that employer off the hook from public condemnation of hiring a person with a criminal record.
1
The best predictor of an individual’s future behavior is his past behavior. People who have committed crimes are statistically more likely to commit new crimes than people who have never committed crimes. It is for this reason, and not for any irrational prejudice, that employers, if given the choice, will typically choose the latter sort of candiate rather than the former, all else being equal. Furthermore, a democratic society should strive for transparency in its judicial system. All court decisions should be a matter of public record.
14
The best predictor of no criminal history is growing up in a supportive, affluent household.
Well, I admit I'm not that sure, though it seems intuitively obvious, bankster types and upper middle class/white collar cheaters who get caught from time to time notwithstanding.
On the other hand, I do feel comfortable saying the best predictor of writing off people with petty crimes in their past and smugly being prepared to see them consigned to lives on the margins of society is probably having been brought up in a supportive, affluent household. Congratulations on that good fortune, David.
By the way, as to whatever affluent career you are probably comfortably ensconced in, I wonder if you ever once cheated on a test or term paper to credential your way there (Most students have at some/many point/s). If so, with your outlook, ask what kind of cosmic punishment you would deserve. If not, then I congratulate you again.
I recently saw the film "Ben Hur." Maybe we should re-institute galley slavery so former criminals, suitably chained to their oars, can make themselves useful.
5
@David, A person's future behavior can be best predicted by their past behavior, is to me complete garbage. At 18, my two friends and I got into a lot of trouble. Suffice to say the three of us have never got into trouble again almost 40 years later. One of the guys hasn't even had so much as a traffic ticket. The idea that, "once a drunk always a drunk, or once a thief always a thief is a fallacy.
4
@David
Trump is a great example!
1
How many people plea to a lesser charge rather than face a trial? Don’t be suprized when more people get fewer offers to a lesser offense. Sentences will be greater and prosecutors will take more cases to trial. Then, prosecutors will have even more power to determine a defendants future than the current policy.
3
Does it matter? It is almost certainly the case that a local paper somewhere reported on the arrest and conviction and a quick google search of a prospective employee’s name will reveal his or her crime.
2
Court records in the USA have generally been open and public. If these bills pass they will become secret—but only inasmuch as they pertain to certain criminals.
Of course, if the records are to be "scrubbed" only after the sentence is served, the opportunity will be opened to private data managers: scrape the arrest and conviction records and archive them now; sell access to it later.
(This is already a pretty healthy business).
The upshot: people and businesses that can afford to do a thorough background check using private sources will quickly discover the basic facts about a given job candidate, professional service provider, troublesome neighbor or new acquaintance with a can't-miss investment opportunity. Those who merely rely on public records...won't.
Sounds just like justice to me.
3
It is fair that non-violent crimes long-past should be sealed from the general public, but an immediate seal goes too far. There are good reasons why certain types of employers - schools, banks, security providers, etc.. want to know if a potential or new employee has any recent incidents. Two to five years would have been a better choice.
4
Make it 10-15 years, and I'll sign.
2
The assumption seems to be that these crimes were,"one off". Given that the successful arrest and then prosecution of offenders is the exception and not the norm there is every likelihood that there were many more crimes committed by these individuals that will never be taken into consideration. Whining about the negative implications of a conviction and then blaming society for being unfair is the same attitude that got most of them in trouble in the first place.
18
@Tony Francis This is simply not how the foundations of the US justice system work: you are innocent until proven guilty. Assuming that just because someone was convicted of one crime, they must have been convicted of many runs headlong against the fundamental values of mercy, even handedness, and fairness that make the system (as flawed as it is) work.
In my opinion, it's pretty callous of you to think of people who have a criminal conviction as "whining" just because they would like to get a job or rent a house.
12
"science" is so obviously correct that I'm flabbergasted, and deeply saddened so many could agree with the original comment. While that comment speaks volumes of thoughtless, insensitivity, and callousness -and utter indifference and/or contempt for basic principles of fairness, mercy and *legality* our criminal justice system aspires to, I can ascribe such a mentality to the fact that there will always be pretty weird (sadly so) outliers on any ethical question. But the large number of people agreeing shows a pattern of moral impoverishment that makes me wonder how our culture can have been so contaminated.
In California now if you want to get a credential to be a school teacher you have to answer whether you’ve been convicted of anything or not and if so explain. If records are sealed will school kids just have to take applicants at their word?
9
@John Doe These records are not going to be sealed against law enforcement. So applying for sensitive jobs can still produce the records. That said, I am not sure if a public school educator will have to disclose their sealed criminal record.
3
@science, even if its been expunged LAUSD still requires disclosure.
1
More than 15 years ago I was barely an adult and struggling with mental health/addiction issues. For a period of time I stole from stores to get money to buy drugs. Ultimately I was arrested and confessed to what I did, which lead to three felony convictions. Sadly, it took things getting that bad for me to finally get better.
It's hard to believe that I did those things now. I've achieved a number of things that I'm proud of and give back to my community and fellow humans whenever I can.
That said, I just began graduate school to pursue a profession where the jobs are competitive. I've been lucky with employment thus far, but I dread the thought of future job interviews. People will be judging my application before they ever even speak to me, since most states still allow the question "have you ever been convicted of a felony?" on job applications.
This article gives me a bit of hope. Commenters here say that a felon should forever be forced to convince others of their trustworthiness, but that isn't right. Yes we committed crimes, but we paid for them. If the goal is rehabilitation, then allowing discrimination based on a criminal record (particularly non-violent offenses) isn't doing anyone any favors. It harms society and perpetuates the cycle of recidivism. I have the advantage of being white and educated, but I have been rejected for jobs and housing. Thankfully I had a supportive family to help me get by, especially at the beginning. Many aren't so lucky.
30
Jen, wonderful in every way (that is. as to how you'ved moved forward and your perspective on it and how your reflections and progress make you see this issue). I wish you all the success in the world. You very much deserve it!
3
Apply to have record expunged. THAT is the remedy for people like you who can show that they have changed and that expungement will further their rehabilitation.
Automatic and immediate sealing of records is "fixing" a process that is not broken and in so doing is making the whole thing worse.
1
The commenters on this article seem mostly to fall into one of two camps: those who favor punishment and those who favor rehabilitation. I’m proud of California, a state whose legislators see the wisdom of the latter approach.
12
I like rehabilitation. A blanket law that in effect pardons all but those extremely violent criminals who prosecutors choose to and are able to prosecute and get convictions for, does not guarantee rehabilitation (or even understanding and admission they did something wrong, not remorse). Rehabilitation is an important goal for all, but not at the cost of endangering victim-survivors or other vulnerable people.
8
Getting convicted of a crime isn't a trip to the principal's office in elementary school. It's an interaction with one of three co-equal branches of the US government (or the state and county equivalents) and it is a public process involving enormous Constitutional protections of people who are presumed innocent. Your trial and the outcome of it cannot (for your protection and the protection of society as a whole) be held in secret or hidden from the press. So turning around after the fact and hiding the results of this government process we've all paid for with our tax dollars and defended with our lives for over two hundred years is flat out censorship. It's information about something your government did in the name of all of us at our direction and expense that you will no longer have the right to access even though anybody sitting in the courtroom that day could have seen all of it occur in real time. How is that a good idea in the United States of America? Furthermore, this cuts both ways. When you can't look up the truth in a public record yourself then you are at the mercy of what someone else tells you they "recall" or "happen to know" about somebody. Want to scuttle someone's chance at a job or a professional license? Just mention to a potential employer that you know some inside dirt on them, not they nor any local news reporter will be able to look it up and prove differently. Well played California.
4
@Eric The truth isn't being hidden outright, it's being closed from public view after an appropriate period of time. If criminal convictions were not made available at all, that would be problematic, and supportive of your argument. However, protecting people who have had a conviction free life for years or decades from discrimination based on a long-past history, seems supportive of the fundamental American values of reinvention and forgiveness.
4
This makes good sense. Who cares about misdemeanor offences. Better to help people get a job and stay out of trouble. Sorry private prison operators, you don't need everyone in jail.
17
Sorry, I don't agree with this. If they did it once, they are likely to to do it again. Business owners, home owners etc have a right to know. I would not want an ex con doing work in my home or making deliveries and doing setups of equipment in my home....too creepy.
20
@SMA They can already seal their records. They just have to go through a dozen steps and pay $150 to do so. This just makes the process automatic. They've done the time, let them rebuild their lives.
10
@Cam California has changed some felonies to misdemeanors with Proposition 47. One of the things it did....if you steal $999 of store merchandise you are just given a slap on the wrist even if you continually do this and steal a lot with the smash and grab technique as long as each is less than a $1000. So you can steal all you want. Most Californians are sick of it. Where are victims rights and store owner rights in all of this. Don't care about doing away with weed convictions but what California labels as a misdemeanor is an open question.
3
The concept of sealing and expunging a criminal record, and the ability of people with prior felonies to obtain professional licenses, are two separate things. I would argue that the latter presents an equal or greater barrier to re-entry into productive society for California ex-convicts.
The reason is simple: In a state with a sprawling bureaucracy like California, virtually every trade or occupation requires a license of some kind - everything from cosmetologists to landscapers. Now, there are often very good reasons to bar people with certain convictions from certain occupations. We don't want sex offenders running day cares. We don't want former drug dealers operating pharmacies.
But please tell me what great, pressing need of public protection should prevent a former auto thief, who's done his time and lead a crime-free life thereafter, from working as a barber? Perhaps somebody at the state licensing board saw Sweeney Todd a few too many times?
Honestly, which is more likely to protect the public: Allowing a former convict to run an honest business, make a decent living, and afford the basic necessities of life? Or seeing to it that he has no way to earn a living, nowhere to live, and no prospect of changing his situation? Sure, that set of circumstances won't tempt him to return to a life of crime.
30
I wouldn't want someone with a criminal record of any kind, except maybe for ethical civil disobedience such as a sit-in outside a WMD manufacturer, from being my accountant, therapist, lawyer, doctor, nurse, childcare provider, school teacher or pastor or youth group leader unless they sought and earned their licensing board's waiver by, among other things: admitting to and acknowledging the impact of the crime of which they were committed, proving that they have completed any required restitution, demonstrating that for at least several years after completing their sentence they have done nothing criminally or civilly unlawful and that they consistently exercise good judgement and have worked to better not just themselves, but society, that they have successfully completed a rigorous and in-depth course of study on their profession's ethics, have sought and successfully completed any related, scientifically credible and valid course of mental health treatment, that they have written and if requested in person character references from members of the community (and profession?) not related to or friends of them and whose own behavior and character would withstand an ethics committee vetting.
There's a reason some jobs require a license. & There are important public welfare reasons for people who have criminally (and sometimes civilly) violated the public & professional trust to have to jump through some additional hoops in order to attain a license or have one reinstated
2
Giving people a second chance is a noble goal, but keep in mind the possible unintended consequences. Due to ongoing biases, the end result could be to make it easier for whites and Asians with criminal records to get a job and make it harder for blacks and Hispanics without a criminal record to get hired.
2
Marijuana possession. The disobeying of the meddling Prohibitionist's evil laws against a natural herb, one that helps so many people.
These persecuted souls are owed reparations. How much is each year in a cage worth?
Let the funds come from the prohibitionists themselves.
2
Anyone posting negative reactions to this are saying "Crimes can never be paid for." Once you pay your debt you should be free. If you pose a danger to anyone as in a violent crime this does not apply to you. Law and punishment is to serve and protect, not destroy.
11
What would this do about the horrible extortion outfits that publicize the mug shots of persons arrested? Many local law enforcement agencies make these public records and put them on line. They are then scooped up by these extortion outfits, who put them on line and then offer to take them offline for a fee of several hundred dollars.
It would be great if this legislation could get at this problem.
8
As someone who helps those with past incarcerations find meaningful employment, this is something that is a long time coming. How long should someone pay for a mistake they made while young, on drugs, or in a difficult time in their life? Isn't jail, parole, probation and all the fees that come with it, the loss of voting rights, etc enough of a punishment? The current system does nothing to motivate people to rejoin society. Once you've "repaid your debt to society" you should be able to move forward with the lessons you've learned and contribute. I personally know and have known hundreds who are waiting for that chance.
17
As an employer, why would I not want to know if a job candidate stole cars?!? Perhaps this would be an issue if the perpetrator never stole a car in the first place? Sorry, no sympathy here.
16
In Madison, you are only allowed to ask about a former inmate's record at the END of a job interview. After watching those with records truly suffer as they hunt for jobs -- being honest about their past, getting hired, and then fired a few weeks later because someone up the corporate ladder objected to their old misdemeanor charge -- I'm glad they're considering this.
7
Because we all know - of course - that recidivism for convicted felons is modest and decreasing - right?
But no - it is neither/nor:
According to the National Institute of Justice, about 68 percent of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of their release from prison, and 77 percent were arrested within five years.
9
@SteveRR
How many of them would have gotten a job and turned their lives around if they weren't turned away at every opportunity? If you beat a dog every time you see it, don't be surprised when it decides to attack first.
8
@Rick Damiani
Sure - because the natural reaction of a future law-abiding citizen the moment he is turned away from a job is to commit another crime.
I look forward to a halving of these recidivism rates in Cali.
3
@SteveRR Perhaps recidivism rates are so high because people are never allowed to move beyond their misdemeanor and non-violent felony convictions. You cannot rebuild your life if you cannot support yourself and your family. They'v done the time, let them re-enter society without stigmatizing them.
8
Horrible, horrible idea. This proposed move would endanger law-abiding and other citizens. For example: There are many perpetrators of domestic violence, criminal harassment, and even certain sex crimes who would the.n be able to hide that information from would-be dates, would be spouses, and would be employers -- including those hiring to serve vulnerable populations such as children, elderly, and disabled people or in other areas of trust. It could also complicate child custody cases and thereby put innocent children (and by extension the rest of their family community) at risk.
In the effort to ease the burden on our jails and to ease the impact of some problems in our criminal justice system, please, let's not throw our most vulnerable and innocent under the bus by creating new problems!
And just as organized crime perpetrators often are caught and incarcerated for relatively minor crimes such as tax evasion, rather than for the numerous brutal murders they committed or commissioned, so to are perpetrators of intimate partner abuse/violence and other crimes sometimes clever enough to remain uncharged or un indicted on felony counts, but can be indicted and charged and convicted for related misdemeanors. Those crime cases should not be sealed.
15
@Mama You missed the sentence early on that said this is only for less serious crimes, and those with violence or sexual assault will be maintained as discoverable.
I, for one, see people who have made poor choices who have the rest of their lives influenced, despite truly having learned from their mistakes, yet continue to receive social punishment despite having served the time that the judicial system deems adequate.
This is entirely unfair.
3
There are many forms of domestic violence that are not the victim being beaten to a pulp or murdered. In fact, one of the problems customs face in court if they garner the courage and support to leave before they are brutally and repeatedly beaten senseless or murdered, is that judges don't believe them that they were abused. It sets victims up, as in rape, to have to choose between sticking around long enough to suffer dire physical harm and maybe be believed or run for submit to they attacker in order to save your life but then be told there aren't enough signs of force to convict of rape.
And financial and verbal and psychological and mental violence are seriously traumatizing but don't leave blood trails or broken bones.
5
@ Reid
It is unfair, which is why those people can and do apply to have their records expunged. I've seen that happen. If you can show a judge the you have truly changed long term, you can have your record cleared for the most part. The thing that is NOT fair is automatically expunging or sealing criminal records. Because many people DO continue to commit crimes, including similar crimes and the public and police and DAs and would be spouses and would be employers and grantors of fiduciary powers have a need to know that and a right to protect themselves!
8
FINALLY!!! :)
This still has some kinks or stuff to work out, HOWEVER it’s been a long time coming!
This is brilliant and I fully support it. Especially because certain demographics of youth at 18-25, are not completely prepared to make wise choices, and a lot of it stems from poverty which encompasses a huge amount of different people no matter the ethnic or racial background, but most especially those in marginalised society.
By ensuring the system starts to work the way it was intended, perhaps this will create better demographics so that people as they’ve changed and corrected themselves may then have a REAL fighting chance and move onwards and upwards rather than sideways and downwards.
Also another thing, perhaps it would eventually stifle the privatisation of prison systems to stop making money on repeat offenders that are in precarious predicaments that ensures their return.
Also as this gets figured out, there will be simultaneously growth and setbacks BUT eventually the growth will supersede the setbacks and thus create positive changes in the culture and mindset of the next generation. After all as they see their family members growing in good direction because of real opportunities then that may just slow down the influence of their younger members from choosing to follow in the and footsteps. This programme will work for the betterment of all, as long as the media is made to be responsible too.
2
That one third of Americans statistic is misleading and ambiguous. It includes arrests even if it didn't lead to convictions, misdemeanors, and juvenile records.
A better number is what the US Justice Statistics uses, about
3 in 100 Americans have been incarcerated, on probation, or on parole.
If we go with the one third number, that means 1/3 of my friends, family members and neighbors are jailbirds. Impossible.
8
I had to go three levels of links to find the original study. The DOJ did not do the study. It cited it. The source was a pediatrics journal with a sample of 10,000 with self reported results and some multi year follow ups. You would think the DOJ, if it really wanted, could do a study using actual data.
The results do not make any sense. Pick 3 adults people in a row in a movie theater, in every row in every movie theater in the country and one of them has been arrested? I go to Mass with 300 people. 100 have been arrested? Ridiculous.
7
@Michael Blazin: To say that "1 out of 3 Americans has ________" or "1 out of 3 Americans has done _________" does not, in fact, mean that any random sampling of 3 Americans will have __ or will have done ____. That isn't how that works.
You are right. The probability of finding at least 1 arrested person in any sample of three is 50%. It is still a ridiculous conclusion.
Google is a huge problem for people who’ve paid their debt to society. I’m the founder of a reputation management agency. Once time has been served, it hasn’t really because court records, and especially the journalists who write about arrests and convictions, are unwittingly (or not) turning the event into a life sentence. Court records may be sealed, but articles about the arrest are forever. The real damage happens when HR Googles a persons’ name and denies them a job due to a past conviction. Our services are out of reach for most of these people. Journalists and the publications that employ them could help by placing expiration dates on their articles to automatically delete once time has been served.
13
I agree with the general idea of this but my sticking point would be which crimes does it apply to? Anything involving a weapon or assault or physically violating another person - no way. Yes, people should be given second chances after they have served their time, but not for violent offenses. And never for crimes against children.
11
If employers unwittingly hire those whose criminal records have been hidden by the State of California, and who then go on to commit crimes or other harm against the employers or the employers' staff or customers, the State of California should then pay for any damages and legal expenses incurred by the employers and any harmed employees and customers.
Why do I think this will never happen?
15
@Mal T or maybe if they commit a crime again they can once again pay their debt to society. If you did the time, that's it. Your punishment is over. Why should you continue to face even more harsher punishment once you are done? Why do you think prison recidivism rates are so high? If you can't find honest work and still need to feed yourself, you'll turn to dishonest work. Try exhibiting some empathy and forgiveness for people.
17
@shut up
The recidivism rates for all criminals are easily googleable - maybe look at them before attacking someone else's empathy.
According to the National Institute of Justice, about 68 percent of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of their release from prison, and 77 percent were arrested within five years.
3
@shut up Too bad convicted criminals don't have to pay restitution to their victims.
1
This is so great! I'm so happy to hear about this project. Jay Jordan spent seven years in prison for his crime. Punishment done! Give him his life back--it's good for him and good for the community.
No one should serve a life sentence for stealing a car when their brain has not even fully developed (science shows that brains do not fully develop until age 21) and without this legislation that's essentially what the punishment is.
It's unjust and unfair to expect someone who has served their time to be able to find housing, find a job, and find services while they have a felony conviction. It just perpetuates the punishment and that's wrong.
After an individual has served their time, let them re-enter society with a clean slate. Otherwise you create a revolving door because if you can't get a legitimate job when you get out of prison (due to a felony record), then you either become homeless or return to crime.
This legislation will reduce crime by offering a real second chance, which is what people deserve.
The film, 16 Bars, is excellent and addresses some of these issues. http://16barsthefilm.com/
18
@BlueBird AMEN!
2
Can't happen soon enough. We penalize people for the rest of their lives and then wonder why they end up angry, or fail, or go back to crime. I mean, if judges can decide that rapists on college campuses have too much to lose if they are convicted, and if Manafort can be deemed someone who has led an 'otherwise blameless life' and get a slap on the wrist for crimes that usually land you in jail for many years, and these miscarriages of justice go uncontested, then the least we can do is not ruin the life of someone caught carrying a dime bag of weed.
23
Could a person be convicted of a misdemeanor for violent behavior? What about assault or domestic abuse? What about drunken driving? Should a person with a record of drunken driving be allowed to drive a school bus?
6
California is so great! I can't imagine living anywhere else under Trump.
5
Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen are probably thinking about moving to California after they get out of prison.
7
If it is good that states make an effort to sunset the disclosure of crimes whose guilt was determined in a court of law, then how could it be good that they are stepping up efforts to force permanent disclosure of so-called "crimes" on college campuses, which are overwhelming sex and dating related?
The former are determined in a court of law, with a jury, legal representation, and evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt." The latter are judged by ideologically motivated campus employees, with no jury, no legal representation, a standard of "more likely than not," and campus activists pressuring the employees to rule against the defendant.
Surely, if we think that the move to moderation proposed in the California bill is worthwhile, we should be concerned with what TIX administrators are increasingly doing to young men on college campuses.
4
How can one in three Americans have a criminal record? If this statistic includes minors and if one assumes that women are less likely than men to have records, this would suggest that more than half of all adult men have criminal records, which is absolutely amazing, unless the statistic includes persons who have had minor traffic offenses. But persons who have received tickets for petty traffic violations would not seem likely to be among those whose chances of getting a job offer or callback are reduced by 50 percent. I would like to know more about the survey to which the article refers, particularly how the Justice Department defines a "criminal record."
21
@Cromer
I believe it’s referring to the broadest definition of having a criminal record which means that there is literally a record of involvement with the criminal justice system i.e. an arrest. I also believe the statistic is explained in more detailed sources as 1 in 3 Americans under age 65. These numbers sound about right to me. I have a criminal record and about 1/3 of people I know do. And we are mostly white (mainly women) and middle class.
3
States are now increasing the use of criminal background checks when people apply for a real estate license. Louisiana has changed it's real estate licensing requirements in recent years. Applicants are required to submit fingerprints as part of a perfunctory criminal background check. Some major companies like USAA require it of any real estate agents working with their clients. There is a great deal of public trust involved with the practice of residential real estate. There is also a great deal of potential liability involved too, not to mention many dollars. People buying or selling their family home have a right to know and to choose who they are willing to trust with such transactions.
It is universally held that the best predictor of a person's future behavior is their past behavior. I'm quite sure the liberal controlled state of California does not want that expungement of criminal records to apply to people who wish to buy a gun. Such restrictions apply to anyone convicted, or arrested, for a crime that would result in a jail sentence of one year or more regardless if the sentence was shortened, served or plea bargained to a lesser sentence.
5
The key here is "low level felony or misdemeanor" records. I suspect that if the legislation is limited initially to misdemeanor records it will pass easily. Maybe "felony" needs to be better defined. It surely is true that people can change and that employment can help do that. Screening out of people with low level infractions can be like the permanence of having a scarlet letter branded on one's forehead.
This can be a very good change but it should not become another level of protected class opening employers to another kind of lawyer-chasing discrimination complaints.
@Ed Marth
with the move in many cities, including SF, to not arrest people for low level crimes, this additional move will see hookers and drug dealers, known to the cops, setting up shop in your neighborhood or building
5
sounds to me that someone like Mr. Jordon should not be eligible if he was convicted of robbery and was given seven years in prison. seven years is a long term and seems to have convinced a Judge that he needed to be locked up for a long time. i certainly see that a prospective employer would want to know that they were hiring a person who had convicted of robbery and went to prison for 7 years.
8
@john boeger he served his time and is obviously emerged a changed person.
3
@john boeger What one has done at 18, is not a real indicator of what they do as an adult with a fully developed frontal lobe. I would have no problem hiring someone with his background. He's done the time and has worked hard to move past the foolish decisions he made as a kid. At what point do we give people a fresh start? As for getting 7 years, I'm sure if an 18-year-old white kid (with the same record) had stolen the car the time sentenced would be far less. The system is biased against people of color. It's just not fair. One terrible decision made at the age of 18 should not ruin your entire life. If you have done the work to change, taken responsibility, and overcome the odds of recidivism we should be supportive.
22
@ReaderJoy Right, it's that underdeveloped frontal lobe that leads young people to commit crimes. How is it then that the large majority of young people of all races and income levels do not commit crimes?
3
An equally terrible record is newspaper articles that record all sorts of suspected crimes. An arrest in college one evening that didn't lead to any conviction has remained as a record for any casual search on line - a grave adverse effect on someone reputation. Newspapers have a right record whatever they report, but they should have no right to avail every record especially where there were no convictions to forever tarnish someone's reputation. It should be archived, just like they archive paper records period. Lives have been ruined for on line criminal records that have no basis to be availed to everyone in the whole world.
6
Probably, on balance, a good idea.
But there will be injustices because of this. Folks without any criminal record are going to come under suspicion because of this change.
Before they could at least get the credit of not having any record. Now they won’t even have that.
But still, probably, on balance, a good idea, I guess, perhaps.
This should be put on the ballot, not decided by the politicians. Last week, there were several violent smash and brag robberies in Southern California. Officials have determined through the films and fingerprints that these robberies are being committed by gangs from the Houston Texas area. From previous cases earlier last year, the gang member have told police that California businesses rather than Texas businesses were targeted due to Ca's Prop 47 , which lowered the sentences for these crimes. If I was hiring for a business, I would be foolish not to know if someone had a criminal past; the risk would have to be accessed.
10
Great idea to seal criminal records, but what about a three-year gap on a resume?
I was once a member of a California municipal personnel panel – where we interviewed applicants for managerial jobs. While reading a fellow’s resume I saw that he had not been employed for three years. I asked what he did during that time: travel; go to school? His response: “I’d rather not say.” Even though a criminal record is sealed, how does someone explain a lengthy absence from employment?
6
I don't think of robbery as a minor crime or low level felony, also than how should we reward those who did the right thing stayed in school and managed not to rob anyone come on give me a break do want a felon working for someone than allowing that person into your house where your wife and kids could be what my rights
6
Talk about your slippery slope!
does this law protect employers who hire a criminal suspected of rape, arrested but not convicted, from civil lawsuits if the clown does it to a coworker?
How can a bank be forced to hire someone without a background check to see if they have been convicted of stealing? even at a misdemeanor level?
Further, if someone spent 3 years in jail instead of state prison, there is a work gap. Can an employer research the claimed reason for the gap? if so and they don't believe the answer or research outcome do they still have to hire that person?
even if they order the records sealed, millions of records are already in public data sets they cannot control, so what do they think will happen there? will they go after Spokeo and First Data for reporting someones criminal history to any stranger for 99 cents?
who will be screaming discrimination next? the poor criminals are so taxed with having to ask to have their records sealed. Will they now seal them the day after they are sent to prison or wait until the criminal is released onto the streets again?
2
An employer and employees, as well as homeowners or other neighbors have every right in this society to expect some sense of safety from the enormous number of men in America who are felons, 100% disinterested in their victims and society they harm. The wretched son culture everywhere on the planet has produced centuries of this malignant male entitlement.
7
@Maggie The system is unfair and many men of color are given far harsher sentences from the beginning of their trip through the justice system. I think we would have far fewer felons if the system didn't treat the young men of color differently.
2
@ReaderJoy
Simple - don't prey on society; be an honest, decent human being.
5
This sounds just like the attempt to bar employer's from looking at applicants credit records.
Employers won't just open their doors wider to people they would have previously rejected, they will just look for other indicators of the same thing, that being a history of criminality.
They will be forced to use less exact measures of this and will probably throw out CV's that they wouldn't have previously, since they previously would have been able to say that these people had no criminal record. But now they will have no way of obtaining that information, so they will err on the side of caution and reject anyone they suspect of having a record. Meaning that it will probably hurt the people it is intended to help.
The Minneapolis Federal Reserve in 2018 said of the banning of credit checks "[t]he evidence suggests that, counter to their intent, employer credit check bans disrupt labor and credit markets, especially for subprime workers."
Good intent does not make for good policy.
10
Since employment is the biggest factor is preventing recidivism, this is a good idea - I am not sure it is the wisest course of action in ALL jobs - for example, would you want to tempt someone is recovery with a nursing job with access to narcotic medication? Maybe the answer to be able to access drug related crimes within the last 5 years only for such a job, or similar limitation might be wise, but over all, I think this will decrease the huge unseen cost of having people with minor criminal or very long ago records that have turned their life around unemployable - we pay for this as a society dearly. Increased back to prison rate, increased welfare, increased cost for kids whose parents are not able to make child support payments, more mental health costs for the kids whose parents went back to prison a second time after not being able to find gainful employment, etc, etc. Keeping people permanently in a state of second class citizenship benefits no one. However, I can see some pitfalls with this law, but maybe there are ways to migrate these pitfalls.
13
@Sarah
Too bad the biggest factor isn't some sense to avoid being a repeat criminal loser that society will forever rightfully assign to the felon, or, you know, because breaking the law isn't enough of a reason. No society on the planet has ever know what to do with its significant numbers of miscreants. Just because those number are in the millions does not make those voluntary sociopaths and degenerates the same as the decent, law abiding and sane.
@Maggie Wow, where to begin. First, not every felon is a degenerate, miscreant, or sociopath. Most, in fact, are not. For many, it's one wrong decision (drugs possibly) or to steal something while trying to impress someone else. This leads them down the path into the very broken justice system which only seems to mete out fair punishments to caucasian people. Then, when they are lucky enough to get out, no one will give them a job, which leads them back to crime because who else will give them a chance. I highly recommend that you read Tattoos on the Heart by Greg Boyle. He runs the foundation, Homeboy Industries in Los Angeles; the mantra is Jobs, not Jail.
See another perspective, it may change your world view.
7
@Maggie I'd rather be a co-worker of someone with a relatively minor criminal history who is honestly trying to turn their live around, and keep gainful employment and be a better person than someone who already thinks they are the best person, and has written off millions of people she has never met as "sociopaths." We cannot rehabilitate all criminals, but on the other hand positivity, and positive reinforcement is more likely to promote positive law abiding behavior than shunning and shame, not to mention substance abuse. Would you like to be judged your entire life on the worst thing you ever did? Despite your moral highground, it just becomes incredibly unproductive after a while.
8
Problem is in SF, where the strict rent control laws strongly favor renters, knowing a potential tenant's criminal history is impt. If he robbed a store at gunpoint, even decades back, he's more likely to not pay rent. A landlord should be able to make a choice w/ that info. since, in SF, it can take a year, easy, to evict a tenant who doesn't pay rent. The city just passed a law giving any tenant w/ eviction notice, for any reason, a free lawyer. So, expect that year to be on the short side. Yes, it's unfortunate 4 those who served their time, and if SF rental laws were equitable, I'ld be for this law. They aren't.
26
@ray stein I am not sure what are you basing your presumption on. Landlord rent out only if they are satisfied with someone’s ability to pay the rent. It is be based on w-2, paystubs, jobs, and letters of recommendations etc.
8
@Amit Goel
you either have no experience as a landlord or haven't come across a nightmarish tenant. W-2 etc can change, a person's attitude much less likely to
4
@Amit Goel The "etc." at the end of your comment includes criminal record.
I would not knowingly rent to someone based solely on his/her ability to pay the rent; criminal record would be a major factor in helping me evaluate the potential for a renter to fail to pay, damage the premises, operate an illegal enterprise on my property, etc.
4
Let people and businesses use their judgement about when a person's criminal record is still relevant. A paper by Jennifer L. Doleac and Benjamin Hansen found that "removing information about job applicants' criminal histories could lead employers who don't want to hire ex-offenders to try to guess who the ex-offenders are, and avoid interviewing them. In particular, employers might avoid interviewing young, low-skilled, black and Hispanic men when criminal records are not observable." The paper is at https://www.nber.org/papers/w22469 .
33
@Beliavsky Then a pattern would emerge and hopefully they would be sued for racial discrimination.