Clean Slate could have a real impact

Public perception of the crime rate is mostly immune to the actual crime rate.

The actual crime rate, as measured by the FBI, has been down since the early ’90s, nationally, statewide and locally. The perceived crime rate is almost always up. In 2016, more than half of registered voters said crime in the U.S. had gotten worse since 2008, a span that saw double-digit reductions in the actual crime rate. Nearly every year, a majority of poll respondents say the problem is getting worse.

Because of that, anything considered by the public to be soft on crime or rewarding criminal behavior can be difficult to sell.

Still, there’s no one who isn’t in favor of reducing crime. So proponents need to make their case for something other than the harshest possible sentence, which in addition to costing too much isn’t usually all that effective.

That’s the goal of the Clean Slate initiative, which would effectively wipe clean the criminal records of many people who have served their sentences and stayed clean for a period of several years after their term is up. The goal would be to remove the stigma of a criminal record, which can make employment or housing difficult or impossible to get.

This is the part where dozens of keyboards across Connecticut start warming up with accusations of weak liberals ruining society and that we need to be TOUGH and that people are in this situation because they DESERVE it and to stop trying to bring the policies that RUINED our CITIES into the rest of the state.

Before those emails start flying, let’s acknowledge that they have a point.

People who are convicted of a crime are in a worse position than the rest of the population for a reason. If you don’t want to lose out on housing or jobs, then stay out of trouble. Simple as that.

Again, though, the point is to reduce crime. And key to reducing crime is keeping ex-offenders from returning to what got them in trouble. That means they need the basics — a home and a job, to start.

The Clean Slate legislation, which is winding its way through the state Legislature, would not provide amenities to ex-offenders. There are no housing set-asides or special jobs awaiting people getting out of prison. What it would do is remove the top impediment to gaining those assets, and apply to specific crimes and after a proscribed time period.

It doesn’t apply to violent felonies. Murderers aren’t going to see their records wiped clean. The law, if passed, would automatically expunge the records of ex-offenders three years after completing a sentence for a misdemeanor and five years after a nonviolent felony, all provided there is no trouble in the interim.

The advocacy group CONECT, which brings together congregations from across religions to push for social change, is putting its weight behind the plan, and it offers some compelling rationales. About 5,000 people in Connecticut will return to society in a given year, and nearly all of them will face restrictions on employment, school applications and housing. The economic loss alone from fewer people able to work is substantial.

The state of Connecticut already allows ex-offenders to have their records expunged, but it’s a cumbersome process that can be difficult to navigate without legal help, which is expensive. The state has no requirement to provide explanations when a claim is denied. Clean Slate would take the existing process and make it automatic.

Expunging a record does not mean destroying data, but it does mean it would be hidden to anyone doing a basic background check. It would not, though, remove media reports from websites, which are usually only hidden on request of the named individual if charges are dropped, not because a sentence has been served. That’s a reason to wonder how effective this plan would be.

Still, it’s worth doing. There are too many cases of people in and out of jail all their adult lives, with dozens of convictions of low-level crimes and seemingly no way to break that cycle.

A lack of a Clean Slate bill hasn’t prevented that situation from repeating itself. Passing the bill might.