Open Records
Records Proposal Pulled After Protests
Posted Aug 11, 2007, 05:57 pm CDT
By Molly McDonough
A controversial proposal to limit access to criminal records to make it easier for convicts to find jobs and housing is being withdrawn by the entities that intended to bring it before the ABA's policymaking body next week.
ABA's Commission on Effective Judicial Sanctions and the Criminal Justice Section were going to ask the ABA to take a stand in favor of legislation that would limit public access to criminal conviction records and make confidential many of the criminal records that are now readily available under laws of some states.
Staff for the House of Delegates Committee on Rules and Calendar confirmed Saturday that the recommendation is being withdrawn. The House of Delegates meets on Monday and Tuesday during the ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco.
The move comes after press advocacy groups protested the recommendation, with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press saying such legislation "would roll back 40 years of First Amendment jurisprudence creating a presumption of openness in criminal proceedings, violate state open records laws and eliminate the ability of the public and press to act as watchdogs of the criminal justice system."
The Blog of Legal Times reported that business groups also began to oppose the proposal because it would limit information needed for employment and housing background checks.
With ABA Journal assistant managing editor James Podgers contributing from San Francisco.
Related Stories
- Ginsburg: War Crimes Against Bush Officials Unlikely
1 hour, 13 minutes ago - ‘Profile’ Investigations By FBI Being Considered at DOJ
Jul 3, 2008, 02:04 pm CDT - Judge v. Judge: Banned Florida Jurist Sues Courthouse Chief
Jul 3, 2008, 01:31 pm CDT - World Justice Project Reveals ‘Rule of Law Index’
Jul 3, 2008, 01:09 pm CDT
Commenting has expired on this post.
Comments
Posted by Paul - 10 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 16 hours, 35 minutes ago
I have ever been mystified by the idea that persons convicted of crimes have expectations of privacy about those convictions. We used to have a concept called “shame” in our community. It helped discourage crime and bad behavior. It helped a community look out for itself. While we no longer put people in stocks, we have a right to know what public records show and what happens to convicted persons. There are two good reasons to know outcomes: transparency helps protect our society; transparency protects the accused (so they do not become “disappeared").
Posted by Tony - 10 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 14 hours, 56 minutes ago
Sadly we did not have computers. Shame wasn’t meant to last a lifetime. It is nearly impossible for someone to get a fresh start after a felony conviction.
We also had a concept that jail paid one’s debt to society. That too is no longer the case.
The policy we need to seek should allow felon’s to petition the court to seal their records so that employment is available. We should encourage re-employment for those convicted because we are not just sentencing them to a life of poverty but their families too. We in fact are probalby making it likely that they will return to a life of crime.
Without a concept of forgiveness, justice is just tyranny. Sorry Paul, but I respectfully disagree.