Should a Criminal Record eventually "go away"?

[BuckNaked]

A felony conviction should follow you for life. It's what background checks are all about.

For lesser crimes I think it should depend on the crime.

I also think this is why false accusers should be treated more harshly. Even false accusations can follow a person these days.

I agree on all points, most especially the last one.

 

[BuckNaked]

It's a tough call, but sometimes we make life altering decisions in our lives and no matter how much we regret it later, you can't turn the clock back. He made a conscious decision to do what he did and sadly, he is paying for it now.

This reminds me of what DH often says - there are some mistakes you can't ever walk away from.

 

[meandtheguys2]

I would say that a felony should always follow you, but that a felony should really be something bad. A friend has a felony, because he hit a neighbors mailbox (on purpose) when he was 16. That is silly.

 

[Charade]

A felony conviction should follow you for life. It's what background checks are all about.

For lesser crimes I think it should depend on the crime.

I also think this is why false accusers should be treated more harshly. Even false accusations can follow a person these days.

I agree.

 

[MamaLema]

It depends on the crime.

In my opinion, murder should be on your record forever. So what if he was a teenager at the time? That is far from the stupid things teenagers do like steal a popsicle from a variety store.

 

[tkd lisa]

I've got mixed feelings on this.

My ex-husband was convicted of a felony. It will follow him forever. He lost his federal job, will lose his VA compensation (should have lost it a year ago, but their system is slow), and will probably never be able to get a security clearance or gun permit again. It was a serious crime, and he knew the consequences. I don't think that should be dropped after a period of time.

A young man who grew up in our church got involved in drugs and a gang as a 17 year old. As part of a gang situation, he was involved in a nasty drug deal. The people he was with shot the buyer and shoved him into his car. They "made" this kid torch the car by threatening his girlfriend and her baby. He went straight to the police and turned himself in. He straightened his life completely out, but was just convicted of two counts of murder (it happened 3 years ago). In my mind, this would be the situation where maybe clearing his record should be considered. Yes, he should pay some penalty. But the threat he was under, and his actions in cooperating with the police over the last three years (they broke up this gang completely with his cooperation) make a statement.

I guess my bottom line opinion is: there is a process to expunge your record. It should be more clear cut and fairly applied than it is, but that's a different question.

 

[poohandwendy]

A felony conviction should follow you for life. It's what background checks are all about.

For lesser crimes I think it should depend on the crime.

I also think this is why false accusers should be treated more harshly. Even false accusations can follow a person these days.

I agree too.

People have to accept that some decisions have life long repercussions. Murder is one of them. I think that when you make a decision that permanently negatively affects another person you should, at the very least, expect to also have permanent consequences.

 

[jgmklmhem]

Something to consider is this person in the OP has not served their debt to society. JUst because he served his jail time does not mean he is done. Under our current system the debt is never fully served on a felony. You do not get to vote again and your record follows you forever. Just because the jail time is over does not necessarily mean your punishment is over, only just that segment.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

A felony conviction should follow you for life. It's what background checks are all about.

For lesser crimes I think it should depend on the crime.

I also think this is why false accusers should be treated more harshly. Even false accusations can follow a person these days.

Agree 100%. I especially agree with the last statement, if someone falsely accuses another on purpose, there should be strict penalties.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I agree too.

People have to accept that some decisions have life long repercussions. Murder is one of them. I think that when you make a decision that permanently negatively affects another person you should, at the very least, expect to also have permanent consequences.

The consequences for the murderer should go away at the same time that the consequences for the victim and their family go away. NEVER.

 

[va32h]

Prisons used to be called "penitentiaries" and now they are called "correctional facilities" - a change in semantics that was presumably meant to indicate a belief that people who commit crimes can be rehabilitated, not just punished.

Every person is different, every crime is different, personally I am not comfortable making a blanket statment that all murderers or all felons or all cirminals should be treated one way or another.

 

[cardaway]

Prisons used to be called "penitentiaries" and now they are called "correctional facilities" - a change in semantics that was presumably meant to indicate a belief that people who commit crimes can be rehabilitated, not just punished.

Every person is different, every crime is different, personally I am not comfortable making a blanket statment that all murderers or all felons or all cirminals should be treated one way or another.

I think all we are talking about is having their record follow them around. I have no problem saying a felony record should always follow them around.

I agree that it would be a shame to see somebody who really has changed, and only did a few years for a minor felony, treated like a murderer who just gets out after a long sentance. But that's the ways thing have to be IMO so we can be sure background checks have some meaning.

 

[cardaway]

I wonder if the OP would be questioning it if it was some stranger instead of a "very nice man" her son knows. Would the OP care if it was some tough looking, tattoo'd person instead of someone who was "cleaning their life up"?

I doubt it. I even wonder if this isn't one of those "I have a friend" stories.

Is a DUI a felony? Would a parent be concerned if their child's DUI conviction would follow them for life.

 

[Missy Mouse]

I think it depends on the crime. I don't think murder should ever just disappear. You had enough rage inside you to kill someone, there is a chance, albeit sometimes tiny, that it could surface again. I see it as the same thing as a sex offender...that should always be known.

On the other hand, if you do stupid things while you're a teenager I can see how that should get washed. I know someone who stole a car (for fun with his friends as a teenager), got caught doing donuts with it, and then got into an accident with the car while followed by the police when he was 17. He got community service and had to pay thousands in restitution. He's actually still paying for it now and it was 15 years ago. He has grand larsony and a few other charges on his record and always will. I think after a certain point records need to be looked at for a seal. If it was a first-time offense and the person has stayed clean and gotten into no further trouble, why should that inhibit them from getting a job or something of that nature? It must be difficult to have to explain to potential employers about the reason, and it must always put a doubt in their minds about the credibility of the person who has any kind of record.

 

[DawnCt1]

I doubt it. I even wonder if this isn't one of those "I have a friend" stories.

Is a DUI a felony? Would a parent be concerned if their child's DUI conviction would follow them for life.

Wonder no more cardaway. This was actually a person thatuse to work at a different location in the company that DS works for and is now working somewhere else, which is where we ran into him. Not a "I have a friend" story.

 

[shirleyb]

You know, most companies these days do a credit check before they hire someone and if your credit is bad enough, they won't hire you. So I guess I certainly don't see an issue with not being hired for murdering someone, if we won't hire someone because their mortgage was late!

 

[DawnCt1]

You know, most companies these days do a credit check before they hire someone and if your credit is bad enough, they won't hire you. So I guess I certainly don't see an issue with not being hired for murdering someone, if we won't hire someone because their mortgage was late!

Now THAT is a good point!

 

[Chloe'sMom]

Um.... What crazy liberal has dawn tied up and is posting under her SN?



This liberal thinks a Murder should always be a murderer...Some crimes should never go away.

Okay good - I wasn't the only one thinking your first post.

I don't know how I feel about this topic. I think murder in self-defense should be esponged after so much time.

~Amanda

 

[va32h]

Okay good - I wasn't the only one thinking your first post.

I don't know how I feel about this topic. I think murder in self-defense should be esponged after so much time.

~Amanda

Well, if it was truly self-defense the person probably wouldn't have been charged in the first place, would they? So it wouldn't be on their record.

I suppose there is a difference between always having to disclose your criminal past, and always having it held against you. Job applications ask you to declare if you have been convicted of a felony, but they also ask for an explanation - giving reformed the opportunity to explain themselves to a hopefully understanding potential employer.

I would like to think that I am capable of recognizing change and giving a person a second chance...of course it would depend on the crime committed and the job being hired for. No, I wouldn't hire a convicted child molester to babysit, nor a convicted embezzler to be my accountant.

But let's say a kid was 15 or so, and happened to be sitting in the backseat of his friends' car, when said friends rob a liquor store and shoot the clerk. By law, all three could be convicted of felony murder, but I'd be more likely to give a second chance to the kid in the backseat, even though the same felony is on all three of their records.

 

[MyGoofy26]

This liberal thinks a Murder should always be a murderer...Some crimes should never go away.

Same here. Reading the thread title I was thinking it'd be about something relatively minor (well, minor when compared to murder) but I'm a little horrified that anyone would think that 12 year in prison for MURDER is enough and it should be wiped from their record all because they *seem* like a good person on the street in conversation.

He created his own challenges when he took another person's life. It's his job to figure out how work with those challenges, not our job to give him a free pass and a pat on the back saying, "way to go! you haven't killed anyone in 15 years! go make all your dreams come true!"

At 15 his brain is developed enough to know that you don't pull a knife on someone and stab them to death.