Why states are rushing to seal tens of millions of old criminal records | Hacker News Reader

Why states are rushing to seal tens of millions of old criminal records

economist.com

38 pointsdcu23 comments

> InstantCheckMate

I'm sure the author of this name thought it was just a clever pun, but it's just repulsively evil.

As a non-american, how this does not run afoul of discrimination laws boggles my mind. Refusing employment on skin colour, religion, sexual orientation or indeed pretty much anything would land you in trouble, doing the same on this is seen as perfectly fine.

Back home in Sweden, records are automatically sealed after two years (if my memory serves me correctly).

It's very different to discriminate against someone for something they did than on the basis of race, sex, etc.

You might think you're making a distinction within your comparison, but you're not.

Blanket no-hire policies for felons are discriminatory because minorities are disproportionally and more harshly sentenced in the US. While you might feel justified in discriminating against a person with a felony record, you have a non-trivial probability of judging them on the racist workings of a corrupt and broken system that preys on vulnerable populations.

Fewer than 1% of cases in the US go to trial. Instead, people are forced to plead to charges instead of letting the evidence speak for itself. An innocent person who doesn't think they can afford to fight a felony charge in court might choose to take a prosecutor's plea deal to go to prison for a month instead of the mandatory minimum of 5 years. It's utterly barbaric.

What they did ? I guess you haven't read many criminal or (even worse) juvenile criminal records. Actual dangerous criminals exist but they're very rare, and yes, also in prison they're very rare.

People are in prison or "juvie" because they got caught with drugs, ran away (juvenile, although being perceived to run away from the police can land you in jail as an adult too), were caught outside while a crime happened "nearby", helped another kid run away, ...

Violent or fatal crimes are very rare. Not 10%. And even from those, the big category of "violence" is breaking and entering.

I feel like while these statistics differ from state to state, everywhere reality is very different from what people think it is.

America should not be compared to a country like Sweden. It should be compared to other giant multi-ethnic countries like Brazil or India or maybe the UK.

Also in America, states are given the freedom to create (some) of their own laws. So one state might be okay sealing records after 2 years, another state might prefer to wait 10 years. IMO this is superior to a "one size fits all" approach.

It's not superior to "one size fits all" when you have states whose history is wrapped up in terrorizing The Other with it's judicial system.

Pennsylvania started this trend. They seal records for minor offenses if you stay out of trouble for 10 years. It’s certainly a step in the right direction.

https://www.inquirer.com/news/clean-slate-criminal-record-se...

How about we disallow political discrimination as well. The left is so against discrimination when it comes to crime, yet will find every reason to not support or hire people that are against their political beliefs.

Conservatives/republicans/trump supporters face overwhelming discrimination in silicon valley.

It's why I know all of these movements are complete bullshit and just a way to get voting power and push out anyone you dislike.

If two applicants were the same except that candidate A committed a minor crime 20 years ago, it is rational for me to prefer candidate B. If A is better than B in some other way, for example having more relevant experience, I may decide that the extra experience outweighs the long-ago crime. But why do politicians assume I cannot make rational decisions and that they must decide for me what criteria for applicants are important? At the margin, removing a penalty for crime will result in more crime.

If you think that committing a minor crime 20 years ago should negatively impact a person today, then you're part of the problem, quite frankly.

It would be rational for you to employ the historically felonious candidate. They would be more likely to stick with you, if only because finding a job elsewhere is hard. If lots of people did the same, wages would experience downward pressure, because the pool of possibly successful applicants would be larger.

You might also do it because sometimes it pays to give someone a break.

To play Devil's advocate, applicant B might just be better than A at not getting caught.

This is what I want out of my employees

People change. Many believe in redemption too.

B maybe did a crime, did not get caught. Never paid a debt. Maybe never learned a lesson A did.

This is not just politicians. People have feelings about this too.

Frankly, I believe in being able to pay ones debt, mistakes having been made, growth, better experience acquired, and move on.

If it is minor, there should not be life long implications.

"B maybe did a crime, did not get caught. Never paid a debt. Maybe never learned a lesson A did."

Many crimes are not solved, and the crimes people are convicted of are a tip of the iceberg. Prosecutors commonly reduce the charge to get a guilty plea in a plea bargain. If person A has a criminal record, it's quite possible he has committed more crimes than what he has been convicted of.

If person A has a criminal record, it's quite possible he couldn't afford a good defense lawyer to be acquitted, and was better off taking the plea bargain than risking a worse conviction.

> Prosecutors commonly reduce the charge to get a guilty plea in a plea bargain.

No, commonly, they pile on every charge they can think of and come up with some ridiculous sentence for a small crime, then offer to reduce it to something reasonable in exchange for a guilty plea.

> If two applicants were the same except that candidate A committed a minor crime 20 years ago, it is rational for me to prefer candidate B

Yes if that crime was defrauding money from employers.

No if it was beating up cheating ex wife's lover.

You skipped an important step, yet made a firm decision you mistakenly believe is educated. When confronted you'll respond that you don't have resources to look into details of every candidate's crimes. Well, there's the catch-22.

> At the margin, removing a penalty for crime will result in more crime.

Making penalty inadequately high has the opposite effect of making relatives miserable and angry; affected population growing in dissent.

> No if it was beating up cheating ex wife's lover.

Well that one is indicative of a violent person, with maybe some poor impulse control. Not necessarily someone I'd want to work with. (but since I'm in a country where companies can't easily get criminal records, I don't think I'd ever be in position to make such a choice)

Isolated incidents cannot be considered a pattern of behavior. If you judge everyone by the worst day of their lives, I feel sorry for your friends.

Because people don’t make rational decisions, they make CYA decisions. And not being able to chaperone a field trip in 20 years isn’t a real deterrent.

> If two applicants were the same except that candidate A committed a minor crime 20 years ago, it is rational for me to prefer candidate B.

If you lack any instinct to fight the power, yes. Personally, I would feel dirty, like a bootlicking worm, to collaborate with authorities this way. Especially for a minor crime, that they presumably paid for already.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com