Alas, it was too good to be true. As I’ve written in the past, they’ve paid their debt to society and need a way to avoid going back to crime. Sure, it was controversial, as is any move that doesn’t put people in jail longer or make their lives impossible until they day they die. But this is the ABA, made up of folks smarter than that, and who can appreciate higher order thinking. Right? Well, maybe not. They abandoned the position.
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…”
After all, what really matters in this society. The ability of a former convict to create a new life as a law abiding citizen, or the media to get their hands on old criminal records to bolster the latest piece of sensationalism so they can make their stories really, really juicy? I mean, really, where are our priorities?
If you ever needed proof of the existence of the slippery slope, this is it. When the first amendment jurisprudence developed, it was never for the purpose of branding former convicts forever and ever with the mark of Cain. But according the media, denial of access to criminal records will “eliminate the ability of the public and press to act as watchdogs of the criminal justice system.” Yeah, that’s why the want access. They’re our watchdogs. And apparently the ABA is their lapdogs. And what are former convicts? Mutts.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
People who have paid their debt for a crime should be able to start over, but not on an equal basis with someone who spent the equivalent amount of time in a seminary. They have to work their way back into society and earn the trust that they forfeited.
I had an ancestor branded with an ‘M’ for murderer on the brawn of the thumb.
Seems entirely reasonable to me.
George,
I’m not too clear on what you’re advocating. Should they be branded? How does someone start over, on any footing, if you won’t let them start over? No one suggests that they be allowed to pretend they have a doctorate from Harvard, but should their criminal history, after they have paid their debt to society, remain an open and obvious blight on them forever?
How do they “work their way back into society” if they can never get a legitimate job, housing, etc.? And does the media’s interest in being “watchdogs” trump society’s interest in not creating a permanent underclass of unemployable and undesireables?
SHG
Faulkner wrote, “The past is never dead; it’s not even past.” Those words ring true for too many folks.
Even assuming “40 years of First Amendment jurisprudence” grants the press access to criminal records, such access is not without limit. The ABA Committee to which you refer was proposing, as far as I can tell, some fairly reasonable post-conviction access restraints. The role of the press as a criminal justice disinfectant protecting the integrity of the system and/or defendants from the government is important before trial (Duke Lacross), during trial (Scopes), during the appeal (Genarlow Wilson), and until the completion of the sentence (Timothy McVeigh). But the argument that the press continues on as a criminal justice “watchdog” after someone has paid his or her debt to society is specious at best. Whatever marginal value a prying press has during the post-game of someone’s criminal justice journey should be weighed against the value of fully integrating folks back into society, which really can’t be done without letting the past die for some.
Great comment, Adam. Thanks.
SHG