Your right to know: Don’t purge records of expunged cases

 

April Barker

 

By APRIL BARKER

Wisconsin legislators are looking to reform current law governing the expungement of criminal records.

Among other things, SB-39 would allow those convicted of crimes for which the maximum term of imprisonment is six years or less (including some felonies) to ask a judge to expunge their convictions even if they fail to do so at the time of sentencing, as is currently required.

It would also allow those older than age 25 at the time of an offense to request expungement, and expressly provide that an expunged record cannot be considered a conviction for purposes of employment. The standard under present law would be carried forward, which lets judges grant expungement if they determine “that the person will benefit and society will not be harmed.”

The rationale for the bill, which has broad bipartisan support, is to give those who have made minor mistakes a fresh start, including supposedly enhanced employment opportunities. It is one of several current proposals to expand the availability of expungement. Gov. Tony Evers has called for expunging convictions for individuals convicted of possessing small amounts of marijuana, and legislators are looking to allow expungement for first-offense drunken driving.

Currently, when a case is expunged, the court file is sealed and the record removed from the state’s online court records system, Wisconsin Circuit Court Access program. Supporters of these bills consider this removal of records an essential component of expungement. (Last year, in a similar vein, the director of state courts implemented a policy removing, after two years, dismissed criminal cases from WCCA.)

While the goal of assisting people in moving past their pasts is laudable, we would do well to remember the words of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, who wrote, “Experience teaches us to be most on our guard … when the government’s purposes are beneficent.”

Wisconsin’s open records law declares that denying access to information about the actions of government is generally contrary to the public interest. That may be especially true when the information being removed involves the actions of law enforcement agencies and courts, both of whom are entrusted with great powers that are subject to abuse.

The goal of erasing criminal convictions for those who are deserving can be accomplished without removing records from public view. Employers already may not legally discriminate in hiring unless the circumstances of the conviction “substantially relate to the circumstances” of the job, or in other similarly limited instances.

Proponents of removing information assert that people are frequently denied employment because of minor or long-ago criminal convictions. But in fact, the vast majority of people with criminal convictions do manage to find work. The state has 1.4 million people with criminal pasts, according to one group pushing for expungement reform; the state’s unemployment rate is 3 percent, or about 94,000 workers.

Ceding the right to know what our government is doing is a slippery slope that has no identifiable stopping point. The denial of access to information about government activity unquestionably undermines our ability to know what our government is doing and has done.

In this case, there is little empirical evidence supporting the reasons for limiting access, however honorable the government actors’ intentions may be.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. April Barker, the Council’s co-vice president, is an attorney with Schott, Bublitz & Engel of Brookfield.

 

 

 

Comments are closed.

  • Your right to know: Records fees mean records denials

    February 13th, 2020
    by

    As founder of We the Irrelevant, a website that tracks how well (or poorly) the actions of legislators match up with what the public has asked them to do,


    Letter to the editor: Impeachment and Black History Month highlight Republican sexism and racism

    February 13th, 2020
    by

    Aside from the corruption of the Republican Party, the impeachment proceedings of President Donald Trump highlighted the party’s racism and sexism, with one notable exception.


    Letter to the editor: Thirty pieces of silver

    February 13th, 2020
    by

    Truth reflects fact and reality. Lasting relationships depend on truth. Persons of faith should recognize truth as the cornerstone of their belief system.


    Editorial cartoon

    February 13th, 2020
    by

    Editorial cartoon

    January 20th, 2020
    by

  • Letter to the editor: We should be proud, but what’s changed?

    January 16th, 2020
    by

    I am very proud of the good people of our community who care for the needy.


    Your right to know: Pollution records must be open

    January 9th, 2020
    by

    Just shy of two years ago, this column explored the heightened importance of open government when public health is at risk.


    Twomey: Purchasing flood insurance has many benefits

    January 9th, 2020
    by

    Matt Gabrielson, writing in the La Farge Episcope, advised that it was “never too early to be thinking about flooding.” His weather and climate page are essential reading in that newspaper.


    Letter to the editor: Looking for new people on the Norwalk Village Board

    January 9th, 2020
    by

    Here we are; it is caucus time already. Where did the year go? It would be great to see another good turnout like last year.


    Letter to the editor: Trump starts war to save his presidency

    January 9th, 2020
    by

    In November 2017, I sent a letter to the County Line predicting that if President Donald Trump was threatened with impeachment, he would start a war with North Korea to distract Americans.


    Letter to the editor: Texas shooting has stirred up gun debate

    January 9th, 2020
    by

    The recent shooting in a Texas church has stirred up the gun debate.


  • Archives