If a person is found to be innocent of a crime, all public records of the prior conviction should be expunged. This should satisfy any reasonable employer or admissions director for an educational institution. As far as other non-government sources go, I can't find anything wrong with making a statement of fact that at one time the person was convicted, but the conviction has since been overturned.
If I'm looking to hire someone, it's absolutely my business. The entire point of sealing the records is to prevent third parties from obtaining information about the offense from government sources. This doesn't stop a newspaper from reporting on the conviction at the time, however. Are you suggesting we should eliminate free speech and freedom of the press?
In theory, an individual whose record becomes sealed could dispute the veracity of information obtained from non-government sources later in life, but he'd have a hard time getting anyone to believe him if the information came from a credible source.
Once again, it's up to the individuals who form relationships with someone who has a criminal record to make their choice in how to deal with that person. Having a record doesn't necessarily mean you're never to going to work again, but those with a "negative balance sheet" should probably do everything they can to demonstrate that they're a productive member of society. The going may be tough for awhile, but it does improve with time and effort.
I know plenty of people with records who haven't adopted an "oh poor me" attitude and have gone on to build a successful life for themselves. Most of them would probably laugh at the prospect of getting laws enacted to prevent disclosure of their histories.
No. I'm advocating society's right to know about the past criminal history of a their fellow citizens. What individuals do with this information is entirely up to them; as stated in a previous post, I've hired several people with criminal records (including felonies). That decision was mine to make based on the available information, and I was able to make an informed choice. Depending upon the nature of the crime committed and after consideration of the whole person, I might have decided otherwise.
Society as a whole has no responsibility to assist those who have committed crimes with covering up their past.
I don't mean to come across as smug, just trying to make a point. To be honest, people mess up all the time, and should I fall down in the future and wind up with some less-than-savory stuff in the public record I'd be embarrassed by it. That said, I firmly believe I'd still hold the same position I do today on the matter. It's a matter of principles, and I hold the view that society as a whole benefits from this information being public.
Over the years, I've hired several people who had both misdemeanor and felony convictions on their records. Employers need to take a "whole person" approach to reviewing a candidate's history, balancing their positive aspects against the potential for harm to the organization. I feel good about having been able to give some people a "second chance" at earning a living, and none of the ones I hired let me down.
Working on winding that down now, actually. Don't care who knows.
[X] Tax records.
Yep, I pay taxes. Don't care who knows.
[X] Phone numbers.
They're all over WHOIS records for the domains I own and have owned in the past, along with fax numbers and addresses. Don't care who knows.
[X] Military records.
Served honorably in the Navy as a submariner. Don't care who knows.
[X] Property deeds.
Working on buying a house. Don't care who knows once I do.
[X] Credit information.
You're mostly wrong here. Personal credit information is not part of the public record, but may legally be requested for various reasons (prior to employment, execution of a lease agreement, prior to extension of credit). That said, I have good credit. Don't care who knows.
If I were an employer checking into your background, I'd find anything in the public record I could about you. If you don't like that, fine... I simply wouldn't employ you.
There isn't anything in public records I'm embarrassed of. What made you so sure there would be?
It'll fail, as it should. As far as enjoining publication in the meantime, this is standard practice in contentious cases.
On the off chance that is doesn't fail, don't worry. A great many people will simply publish such records outside the reach of those who would attempt to shut them down. I would fully support such measures.
As a taxpaying citizen, I strongly oppose any measure to restrict the truthful recounting of anything that resides in the public record.
He would be well-advised to get out of the country by any means available. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean he can't be found, but at least they'll have to put in some extra effort.
I agree with your position that it's wrong. I've posted both the English version and a German translation of the Wikipedia article in question to a site I operate:
As I'm in the United States, and we provide strong protections for free speech unless the material in question is provably inaccurate and causes damage to a person, I'd love to see German authorities or the individuals complaining about their "rights" getting violated do anything about it.
I don't think you understand what "public record" means. It is a statement of fact that these men committed the crime of murder. You cannot prevent people from publishing this information in any way that reflects a truthful account of it.
Doing the time means more than simply serving a prison sentence. If you're convicted of fraud, should prospective employers not be permitted to know about it? People need to understand that committing serious crimes will have an effect on their ability to secure decent employment later. If they feel there were mitigating circumstances surrounding the crime, they are likewise free to make public statements to that effect.
No. That includes me. I don't care if it's me, my brother, my father, my mother, or anyone else I care deeply about. A conviction is a conviction; it's part of the public record and should not be suppressed.
I think every single member of society has a right to know the past criminal history of someone they're in any kind of relationship with. This is completely different from saying someone shouldn't be allowed to re-enter society, but the fact that may people have a hard time getting better than a minimum wage job after committing murder isn't something I feel bad about.
You haven't lived until you've seen the look on a guy's face when he realizes his utilities have been compressed with lockwire into a ball approximately three inches in diameter.
Really? There are numerous retired subs around the country that you can tour five days a week. I'm not suggesting making an attempt to take a tour of an SSBN in port; rather well-armed Marines on duty would probably take exception to that... although it would be a great way to get some first-hand knowledge of security force response methods and a nice tour of a different type of facility.
Speaking as a guy who's spent time on modern boats, anyone who can get the opportunity to tour a submarine should do so without delay. It's awesome to see photos, but it's even better when you seen the insides at work.
I'll bet a paycheck that prior art in various incarnations would handily dispatch any such patent. As for it already being done by VMware, a lot of organizations prefer a purely open source solution, and Xen works extremely well for many companies.
Slashdot Mirror
If a person is found to be innocent of a crime, all public records of the prior conviction should be expunged. This should satisfy any reasonable employer or admissions director for an educational institution. As far as other non-government sources go, I can't find anything wrong with making a statement of fact that at one time the person was convicted, but the conviction has since been overturned.
Ah, we have the "think of the children" angle.
If I'm looking to hire someone, it's absolutely my business. The entire point of sealing the records is to prevent third parties from obtaining information about the offense from government sources. This doesn't stop a newspaper from reporting on the conviction at the time, however. Are you suggesting we should eliminate free speech and freedom of the press?
In theory, an individual whose record becomes sealed could dispute the veracity of information obtained from non-government sources later in life, but he'd have a hard time getting anyone to believe him if the information came from a credible source.
Once again, it's up to the individuals who form relationships with someone who has a criminal record to make their choice in how to deal with that person. Having a record doesn't necessarily mean you're never to going to work again, but those with a "negative balance sheet" should probably do everything they can to demonstrate that they're a productive member of society. The going may be tough for awhile, but it does improve with time and effort.
I know plenty of people with records who haven't adopted an "oh poor me" attitude and have gone on to build a successful life for themselves. Most of them would probably laugh at the prospect of getting laws enacted to prevent disclosure of their histories.
No. I'm advocating society's right to know about the past criminal history of a their fellow citizens. What individuals do with this information is entirely up to them; as stated in a previous post, I've hired several people with criminal records (including felonies). That decision was mine to make based on the available information, and I was able to make an informed choice. Depending upon the nature of the crime committed and after consideration of the whole person, I might have decided otherwise.
Society as a whole has no responsibility to assist those who have committed crimes with covering up their past.
I don't mean to come across as smug, just trying to make a point. To be honest, people mess up all the time, and should I fall down in the future and wind up with some less-than-savory stuff in the public record I'd be embarrassed by it. That said, I firmly believe I'd still hold the same position I do today on the matter. It's a matter of principles, and I hold the view that society as a whole benefits from this information being public.
Over the years, I've hired several people who had both misdemeanor and felony convictions on their records. Employers need to take a "whole person" approach to reviewing a candidate's history, balancing their positive aspects against the potential for harm to the organization. I feel good about having been able to give some people a "second chance" at earning a living, and none of the ones I hired let me down.
Please mod parent "+1 Win". I think there should be a text-to-speech site dedicated to Liptonizing any given block of text.
[X] Birth records.
Yep, I'm alive and well.
[X] Divorce records.
Working on winding that down now, actually. Don't care who knows.
[X] Tax records.
Yep, I pay taxes. Don't care who knows.
[X] Phone numbers.
They're all over WHOIS records for the domains I own and have owned in the past, along with fax numbers and addresses. Don't care who knows.
[X] Military records.
Served honorably in the Navy as a submariner. Don't care who knows.
[X] Property deeds.
Working on buying a house. Don't care who knows once I do.
[X] Credit information.
You're mostly wrong here. Personal credit information is not part of the public record, but may legally be requested for various reasons (prior to employment, execution of a lease agreement, prior to extension of credit). That said, I have good credit. Don't care who knows.
Anything else you'd like to add?
If I were an employer checking into your background, I'd find anything in the public record I could about you. If you don't like that, fine... I simply wouldn't employ you.
There isn't anything in public records I'm embarrassed of. What made you so sure there would be?
It'll fail, as it should. As far as enjoining publication in the meantime, this is standard practice in contentious cases.
On the off chance that is doesn't fail, don't worry. A great many people will simply publish such records outside the reach of those who would attempt to shut them down. I would fully support such measures.
As a taxpaying citizen, I strongly oppose any measure to restrict the truthful recounting of anything that resides in the public record.
He would be well-advised to get out of the country by any means available. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean he can't be found, but at least they'll have to put in some extra effort.
Minor correction: here's the English version:
Walter Sedlmayr (English)
I agree with your position that it's wrong. I've posted both the English version and a German translation of the Wikipedia article in question to a site I operate:
Walter Sedlmayr (English)
Walter Sedlmayr (German translation)
As I'm in the United States, and we provide strong protections for free speech unless the material in question is provably inaccurate and causes damage to a person, I'd love to see German authorities or the individuals complaining about their "rights" getting violated do anything about it.
I don't think you understand what "public record" means. It is a statement of fact that these men committed the crime of murder. You cannot prevent people from publishing this information in any way that reflects a truthful account of it.
Doing the time means more than simply serving a prison sentence. If you're convicted of fraud, should prospective employers not be permitted to know about it? People need to understand that committing serious crimes will have an effect on their ability to secure decent employment later. If they feel there were mitigating circumstances surrounding the crime, they are likewise free to make public statements to that effect.
Double-replying to your comment here due to the fact that I forgot to provide a link to the Freedom of Information Act site.
Not only are you an idiot, you can't read.
This story has been on the front page for almost 24 hours, and I'm the second poster? Wow, somebody please tag this one "nobodygivesashit".
Sounds like it's time to submit a FOIA request.
No. That includes me. I don't care if it's me, my brother, my father, my mother, or anyone else I care deeply about. A conviction is a conviction; it's part of the public record and should not be suppressed.
I think every single member of society has a right to know the past criminal history of someone they're in any kind of relationship with. This is completely different from saying someone shouldn't be allowed to re-enter society, but the fact that may people have a hard time getting better than a minimum wage job after committing murder isn't something I feel bad about.
You haven't lived until you've seen the look on a guy's face when he realizes his utilities have been compressed with lockwire into a ball approximately three inches in diameter.
Really? There are numerous retired subs around the country that you can tour five days a week. I'm not suggesting making an attempt to take a tour of an SSBN in port; rather well-armed Marines on duty would probably take exception to that... although it would be a great way to get some first-hand knowledge of security force response methods and a nice tour of a different type of facility.
That's kind of my point; there are plenty of subs you can tour :).
Someone else already mentioned the Nautilus, but it's a great piece of history. My family enjoyed it greatly.
Speaking as a guy who's spent time on modern boats, anyone who can get the opportunity to tour a submarine should do so without delay. It's awesome to see photos, but it's even better when you seen the insides at work.
and contacted the DMV four or more times a year
That, sir, sounds like an outstanding opportunity for a community campaign. I'd make it four or five times a week though... per person.
I'll bet a paycheck that prior art in various incarnations would handily dispatch any such patent. As for it already being done by VMware, a lot of organizations prefer a purely open source solution, and Xen works extremely well for many companies.