Proponents of bills now before the Legislature to strike from public view -- also called expunging -- criminal records of people in an attempt to remove a barrier in seeking jobs are on the right track, but go too far.
A Senate panel earlier this week heard a bill authored by Sen. Julianne Ortman, R-Chanhassen, which would establish a new process by which people would seek to have their criminal convictions expunged and courts would be required to consider their requests.
It's true that criminal records often play a considerable role in a business decision to hire someone. And, in more cases than we'd like, people who have committed a crime years before continue to receive punishment when an employer refuses to hire on that basis. There ought to be a way that a person's bad judgment that got them into trouble 10, 15 or 20 years ago -- and nothing since -- can be forgiven and not part an employment application or the interview process.
But how does one define a criminal conviction as a "bad judgment"? The Ortman bill, we fear, leaves the door open to just about any past crime, no matter how serious. It only specifically excludes from expungement convictions for sex offenses, if the person is under correctional supervision, or is currently charged with a crime. The person may otherwise file a petition to have sealed records of convictions for misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors and felonies.
While there are still a lot of hoops to go through before the court may expunge records -- and law enforcement agencies always retain access -- the public safety isn't served with such a blanket process.
ADVERTISEMENT
A 21-year-old man who is convicted of furnishing alcohol to his 20-year-old girlfriend is perhaps an indiscretion that can best be left in one's past. But the same 21-year-old who served time for aggravated robbery has crossed the line of social acceptability, and his record should stand and be judged. Likewise, a bank needs to know if a job applicant has served time for embezzlement, whether it was five years ago or 15 years ago.
A line should be drawn that prohibits felonies from being expunged, and even perhaps a record with multiple gross misdemeanors.
We agree that most people shouldn't be denied a second chance, but the Ortman bill needs to be tightened up. Or we need to loosen up a bit the current policy for expunging records.
At one time, many job applications simply wrote yes or no to the question, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" To be fair, an employer should be mandated to listen to the applicant if the answer is "yes," and make a judg-ment whether the matter is a serious consideration in hiring that person. The Ortman bill attempts to reach those employers who simply see the "yes" and show the applicant the door, but it shouldn't create new problems for public safety in the process.
