Posted on 08/08/2007 1:09:30 PM PDT by SmithL
Text of a proposed American Bar Association resolution urging state and federal officials to close public access to criminal court records.
RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges federal, state, territorial and local governments to limit access, to the extent permitted by the First Amendment, except by agencies and employers that are engaged in law enforcement, to:
(I) Records of closed criminal cases in which charges were dismissed, nol prossed, or otherwise not pursued; cases that resulted in acquittal; cases in which the judgment of conviction was reversed or vacated; or cases in which a guilty plea was set aside; and
(II) Records of misdemeanor and felony convictions after the passage of a specified period of law-abiding conduct, which may vary depending upon the seriousness of the offense, unless the conviction involves substantial violence, large scale drug trafficking, or conduct of equivalent gravity.
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges federal, state, territorial and local governments to adopt the following policies in connection with limits on access to criminal records:
(I) Any limitation on access to conviction records may have the effect of lifting collateral sanctions and disqualifications, but it should not preclude reliance on the conviction in a subsequent prosecution or sentencing;
(II) Any person or entity may file in the court in which the conviction occurred or in any other court specified by statute or regulation a petition seeking access to a conviction record to which access has been limited, and for good cause shown the court may give the moving party access to the record;
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Can anyone explain to me why the want to close off access to public records to me? This does not make much sense to me.
ABA...Uh, no. This is a bad idea.
Protect clinton’s and basically all politicans from revealing court cases.
Because, you see, it just makes people hate lawyers all the more to see would-be criminals get off scot-free
To protect criminals and create more lawsuitsm, such as when you hire a child rapist to work at your day care -— but don’t know it because you can’t check criminal records.
Because idiots are using the mere fact people have been arrested to deny them things.... Regardless of whether they are convicted or not.
IE if you are ever arrested, for any reason any more, it can harm your credit score, your ability to get employed, to get a loan etc etc etc.
Only way we, the public, can know if these things are happening to an intolerable level is if we have access to the court records.
We just went through this business of what happens when lawyers sign agreements with people to suppress knowledge of bad Firestone tires ~ even more people get hurt and killed because such actions distort even Firestone's quality control systems.
Not a good idea. These guys should be sent to Cuba or something.
And not allowed to return.
Guess:
(1)Install judges who will provide you “cover” by dismissing all charges.
(2)Automatically seal all court records if charges are dismissed.
(3)Use lawyers to sue anyone who calls into question the verdict as slander and libel.
Recipe for corruption.
Not sure which way to fall on this. Don’t like seeing the public excluded from seeing public records, but in light of how the media, overzealous employers, and ex-spouses, to name a few, use nonconvictions for insinuation, blackmail, or whatever, I can see why some would want those records nonaccessible.
It sounds as though it is to protect those wrongly accused or those who have “paid their dues and done their time” the way an order of expungement does now.
Ah yes, the ABA, arbiters of an open process truth and the furtherence of law and odor...
If the records are sealed, then doesn’t that mean that the exonerated party will not be able to use them to prove that they didn’t get off on a technicality? Sealed court records could also hide malicious prosecution.
That seems exactly right to me. CUrently the onus is on he person falsely accused etc. to petition the court to have teh records expunged, and there are cases where people whose records have allegedly been expunged who have been harmed when secondary sources revealed the information that was supposed to have been expunged. This would make it automatic that records that really ought not to be used against you or certain purposes are not made available for such inappropriate purposes.
This proposal has nothing to do with criminal records of convicted child rapists.
The guilty verdict is reversed, his record expunged, etc.
When we hide the existence of this sort of thing we are hiding the misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance of corrupt cops, corrupt prosecutors, corrupt judges and false witnesses.
Best the business of the courts be kept well within the public eye.
Does this mean all of Dr. J's court stats with the Nets before 1976 will no longer be available?
Not yet.
Read the rest of the article at the link for the reason why.
This resolution should be called the “Criminal Full Employment Resolution.”
In the past, I would have expected this to be derided or at least ignored at the federal, state, county, and local level. However, given the level of PC credulousness currently being displayed by office holders these days, I’m not so sure...
This one would, eventually:
Records of misdemeanor and felony convictions after the passage of a specified period of law-abiding conduct, which may vary depending upon the seriousness of the offense, unless the conviction involves substantial violence, large scale drug trafficking, or conduct of equivalent gravity.
This one would, eventually:
Records of misdemeanor and felony convictions after the passage of a specified period of law-abiding conduct, which may vary depending upon the seriousness of the offense, unless the conviction involves substantial violence, large scale drug trafficking, or conduct of equivalent gravity.
Necessary step in restoring voting rights to serial killers, rapists, other Democrats.
Yeah, think Duke rape case and Nifong’s long career.
I agree with (I) but not (II). If a criminal charge isn't pursued then it should be sealed to everyone but the parties involved. Statistics should be available but no personal identifying information. Just my opinion.
In most states child rape is second only to homicide in seriousness. I think it would be "conduct of equivalent gravity" to large scale drug trafficking. It is also usually, by definition, considered a "crime of violence".
I see a lot of good stuff in there, especially for people who were never tried. For example, this would seal information about the Duke Lacrosse players, making the ordeal not show on background checks. I remember one lady who was arrested for cable TV theft although she repeatedly tried to get the cable company to turn off the cable she hadn't ordered (she ordered only cable broadband). That shouldn't be on her record either, and she shouldn't have to do the work necessary to have the arrest expunged.
As far as child rapists, this proposal allows that by law they stay open forever.
As far as convicts, do we really need to have this come up on record checks for a 60 year-old man who stole a car when he was 18, but has been an upstanding citizen since?
However, I'm not so sure about sealing records for all convictions overturned on appeal. Many cases are overturned on purely technical grounds, leaving open the very real possibility that the guy did it.
This one is easy to explain. It’s part of the continued effort to give power to the government at the expense of the governed. Giving the state the ability to conceal government records and actions from public scrutiny allows prosecutors, district attorneys, and judges to have more latitude to do what they want without complaint from the public. I’m connecting this effort with efforts to ban speech based on content (”hate speech”), to control what people can say, print, and broadcast during an election (”campaign finance laws”), to prevent people from saying what they want on college campuses (”campus speech codes”), and trying to change proper voting outcomes in places like Florida and the House of Representatives (”let every vote count”).
I used to be a reporter, and court records were a wealth of information about public officials, especially the ones who were rascals. Hiding that information would not serve the public well.
Just another sign of the erosion of the republic here on view.
I think they are not opposing access to criminal records of those found guilty. However I have a problem with the resolution. It would be nice if anyone who was not found guilty really was innocent. But in these days of plea deals, techincal SNAFU’s and decisions being overturned there can be a lot of meanings in the words Not Guilty. And too often Not Guilty does not mean Innocent.
It would be very scary to find out the person hired by a school had been arrested for sexual assault on a minor but had the charges dismissed because paperwork was filed too late.
If a person was charged with a crime and later found not the charges were dropped then full information needs to be given as to why they were dropped. Let us common folks be the judge of whether the person was truly innocent. Unlike ABA we have to live with the decisions we make.
Sending them to Cuba would not work. They would not know it was a punishment.
The real reason is this one:
I) Any limitation on access to conviction records may have the effect of lifting collateral sanctions and disqualifications
That is, letting felons vote.
An important Dim voting block, taht.
as a lawyer I think this is long overdue.
The fact is that some records have no public value other than nusance. It also takes away from the frivilous prosecutor (see nifong) or divorce attorneys from using bad public record as an intimidation tactic.
I have seen a DRAMATIC rise in people demanding their records be expunged or sealed. It is their right after an aquital, dismissal, or nole prosse. Keep in mind this is not for convictions.
The ABA’s recomendation of sealing or expunging records after a set amount of time makes further sense when you consider that after a set number of years (usually 8-10) most crimes do not even register for sentencing guideline points.
If anything the ABA is LATE to the party.
Without access to these records, how in hell are we supposed to know who we're voting for?
The ABA is behind the curve on this one.
A number ofstte bars are already moving or moved into this direction.
Consider how California has divorce records partially sealed.
We ALREADY seal court records sealed when dealing with minors.
Expunging dead end prosecutions is very reasonable considering how many frivilous prosecutions happen in the criminal context.
IMO, we have an open court system so that we can assure a fair and reasonable process. How would sealing records contribute to that effort?
I think this is a lousy idea.
You do realize that for purposes of mandatory sentencing score sheets this already happens.
Take a VERY simply example. If you have a DWI from 11 years ago, it will not be considered in factoring the pushment for a new DWI. It is treated the same as a first time.
Removing that 11 year old inadmissible DWI really does nothing to the administration of justice.
No, I have no idea how mandatory sentencing works.
I’m an engineer, not a lawyer, dammnit Jim.
You do realize that restoration of voting rights after completion of a sentence, even a felony sentence, is ROUTINE?
There is nothing special in voting rights being restored. What the democrats want is for people IN jail/prison to vote.
Looks like the Clinton’s are trying to head off any public release of court documents, courtesy of the ABA.
No, I don’t know that, and I think that is highly state-dependent.
While the ABA might sometimes be OK, almost anything the ABA is for is generally bad for the USA.
I also note the ABA is about 99.99% aligned with Hillary, John Edwards, & Co.
I start with that presumption, and work forward, regarding anything they propose.
No doubt the ABA is going to argue “it’s for the clients”, but the fact is it’s “for the judges and prosecutors”.
And politicians, downtrodden minority religious extremists,
all manner of crooks and pervs....
Pretty much ~ you have the idea.
Beat me to it!
short version:
Upon conviction or plea:
a defendant’s past criminal conduct has point values for each crime. Crimes which are too old by state or federal rules are not scored. Misdemenors give less points than felonies.
Once a total score is achieved, those points are added to the point value of the current crime being sentenced.
That TOTAL score provides the range of time a judge can and can not sentence.
It limits a judges discretion so a judge in theory can not go crazy and sentence a jaywalker to life or a career criminal serial killer to one month probation.
example
Those career criminals in connecticut who killed the family will have their criminal histories factored into their sentencing point scores.
It’s is a lot easier to rewrite history when news junkies can’t post public records all over the Net ;)
First, lawyer deals, like fish, smell in strong sunlight. Second, it may be the only way to get Mrs. Clinton out of the felonies that she committed in California.
Third, they don’t like it if their names are attached to cases as defendant.
Finally, it would prevent people from knowing when they hire an ax murderer or pedophile for a nanny.
If the ABA likes it, look out!
IT IS THE DEFENDANTS RIGHT TO EXPLUNGE not the state.
IF the Defendant wants it gone it is that defendant’s right to do so. It is not our right to be voyeurs.
The misdeeds of the courts and their running dog lackeys is public business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.