Clean slate laws need deft touch
In the United States nearly one-third of the adult population has a criminal record. Many of these people are part of the 6.7 million Americans who are now or once were incarcerated or subject to some form of community supervision such as probation or parole.
Apart from the punishment a convicted criminal gets for the offense, he often suffers a number of collateral consequences as well. For example, the odds of someone with a criminal record being hired after a job interview are reduced by 50 percent, and if he was recently released from jail, he will likely remain unemployed for at least a year. People with rap sheets also have difficulty qualifying for public housing or finding a private landlord who will rent to them. Furthermore, many of these individuals cannot legally drive; are prohibited from possessing firearms; are disqualified from holding a variety of occupational licenses; or are prevented from serving on a jury or casting a ballot. These and other impediments may affect an ex-offender for long after his criminal sentence is completed.
Many states across the country, however, are adopting “clean slate” legislation to help people convicted of “minor” crimes get relief from the terrible collateral consequences of their past wrongdoing. These statutes expunge certain misdemeanor and low-level felony convictions following a specified period of time after the ex-offender completes his sentence. The expungment occurs either automatically or after the person files a written petition that is either approved or denied by a judge or a board of pardons and parole.
Criminal justice advocates say that in places where these laws exist, such as Pennsylvania and Michigan, criminal recidivism has decreased and employment has increased among people who qualify for expungement. Everyone wins, according to clean slate supporters, when ex-offenders have their history of petty criminality scrubbed because it becomes easier for them to find good jobs, decent housing, strengthen their families, and regain their dignity.
The opponents complain, however, that expungement weakens the rule of law and excuses behavior that is often atrocious. They note that drunken driving, drug dealing, sexual misconduct, and even homicide are sometimes treated as misdemeanors or low-level felonies, but are probably not the kind of offenses that should be permanently blotted from public awareness. They also assert that in the age of the internet, expungement is a “feel good” measure that can never truly eliminate online information about an ex-offender’s criminal past. Lastly, the detractors argue that clean slate laws ignore the legitimate interests of victims in ensuring offender accountability and finality of results.
There is no doubt that clean slate statutes embody an admirable attempt to help deserving ex-offenders get beyond their past and rejoin the community as productive citizens. Even so, expungement laws may impede the public’s right to know vital information about ex-offenders and diminish the valid consequences of criminal behavior. Wherever are enacted, they must be carefully written in a way that not only helps ex-offenders rebuild their lives, but simultaneously minimizes any potential risk to public safety.