EXPUNGING

Criminal Offenses Are Public Record to Discourage Repeat Performances

The Legislature was set up to examine ideas. The proposal to allow
judges to expunge criminal records is one idea that should be examined
very carefully indeed.

As proposed, judges would be allowed to seal the record of a
first-time nonviolent offense after three years. Proponents contend
that the record of a minor offense costs young people jobs
unnecessarily.

"We're trying to give people a fresh start," said Jack Rogers,
director of the Public Defenders Agency.

Adopting such a policy would show that legislators learned nothing
from the lesson of juvenile courts.

Sealing the records of criminals because of their age led to more
crimes. Drug dealers learned to use underage runners to do the dirty
work. If caught, they got lighter sentences, and as adults, faced few
consequences for their actions.

Wiping out criminal convictions, even nonviolent ones, distorts the
record. Law enforcement need to know the true history of suspects.

Expunging the record would be revisionist history. A policy of
official amnesia would also send the message that society is not
serious about certain crimes.

Possessing marijuana supports the criminal activities that brought the
contraband across the border. Drug cartels are hardly nonviolent in
protecting their product and their turf.

Drunken driving is a serious offense.

Sealing public records is just not a good idea. They're public for a
reason. Being found guilty of an offense, and knowing that will be a
matter of public record, is a deterrent to the kind of behavior
society finds objectionable.

Remove the stigma? Dismantle the deterrent?

This idea deserves thorough discussion.

Most people obey the law. It might be wiser to let the people who
don't live with the consequences.