Movement to Expunge Criminal Records Arises in Black America

Greed

Star
Registered
Movement to Expunge Criminal Records Arises in Black America
BY Jonathan Tilove
c.2005 Newhouse News Service

EAST ORANGE, N.J. -- If Sunni A. Salahuddin is not in when you call, his voice mail message instructs you to leave not just your name and number, but your "date of arrest or conviction." That's the kind of information Salahuddin needs, so he can make it go away.

Clear Your Record! That's the name of Salahuddin's business.

Salahuddin calls himself an "expungement technician." For a few hundred dollars, a fraction of what a lawyer would charge, the paralegal helps people scrub their records clean of arrests or convictions -- blots that can mark them for life, foreclosing opportunities to rise above their misdeeds.

Salahuddin is the manifestation of a nationwide movement to contend with a crisis: With unprecedented numbers of African-Americans carrying some kind of record, and post-9/11 employers ever more vigilant in checking backgrounds, black communities are choking with folks who remain blacklisted even after paying their debt to society. Depending on the crime and circumstance, they may be denied jobs, public housing, welfare benefits, student loans or the right to vote.

In recent months, expungement has come alive as an issue in black America.

Black elected officials are at the forefront of efforts to expand expungement opportunities in Ohio, Illinois and California, as well as on the federal level. Thousands of people have brought copies of their criminal records to "expungement summits" staffed by volunteer lawyers at schools and churches in Mississippi, Chicago and Oakland, Calif. The San Francisco public defender's office has a full-time lawyer doing nothing but expungements.

U.S. Rep. Danny K. Davis of Chicago, whose district includes stretches where 70 percent of black men aged 18 to 45 have a criminal record, began the summits a few years ago. When he arrived at the first, he recalls, "I'm thinking to myself, `Somebody must be giving out food baskets here.' There were 700 to 800 people." Subsequent events have drawn more than 3,000 each.

Earlier this year, the Rev. Mark C. Olds, who served time for bank robbery and manslaughter, launched the National Restoration Movement USA in Cleveland, holding expungement forums there and in other Ohio cities. Olds, who was inspired by a revelation while playing golf, hopes to take the movement to 150 cities nationwide, beginning with Birmingham, Ala., Lafayette, La., and Wichita, Kan.

Expungement has dubious appeal for a broader public wanting more to be safe than sorry.

"It's just a fraud to suggest that America is the land of second chances, because clearly it is not," says Margaret Colgate Love. Love, the former pardon attorney for the United States, just completed the first study to look state by state at the legal options available to ex-offenders seeking relief from the collateral consequences of their criminal conviction.

What Love discovered was a motley, ungainly collection of provisions that defy clear understanding. While many states have some sort of expungement provision, quite a few have been scaled back since the 1970s and most apply only to first offenses or misdemeanors.

Love finds expungement problematic -- first because it is based on "rewriting history," then because it assumes that in this day and age information can truly be erased.

"On the other hand, we don't seem to be able to persuade people that they should not freak out when they see that someone has an old conviction," she says. "We need a national dialogue on how we're going to neutralize a criminal record so it is not toxic."

In the meantime, there is expungement.

"Everybody deserves a second chance," says Salahuddin, dressed in a gray three-piece suit with mustard gold shirt and a knit kufi skull cap. He works from his home, a vestige of East Orange's now faded glory -- 18 rooms, four fireplaces. His sister, Frances Patterson, bought it 30 years ago, and lives there as well. It is alive with her grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Despite its suburban patina, East Orange is as chockablock with ex-offenders as neighboring Newark. Near Salahuddin's house a street is blockaded by police who have designated it a drug hot spot. Nightfall belongs to gangs.

The strength of the community is in folks like Ar-Rahiem Muhammad Lawrence.

Lawrence, who just turned 56, is a model citizen. Husband. Father. Pop Warner football coach. He was for many years the Parent-Teacher Organization president for the Dionne Warwick Institute, the public elementary school his sons attended in East Orange. He now works at an after-school program and, in the summer, a YWCA day camp.

He is the kind of figure who makes children feel safe. But when he was 20, he was arrested with some heroin and put away for two years.

"I paid for it and it never happened again," Lawrence says.

A few years ago, Lawrence was a school lunch aide when a background check turned up his record. He was fired. The pharmacy across the street wouldn't hire him as a security guard when he told them about his drug conviction. But when he went to local authorities to get a copy of his record so he could try to get it expunged, they couldn't find it, leaving him in limbo.

But here he is, 35 years later, "on pins and needles; you're afraid it's going to come up."

Salahuddin advertises with fliers he leaves at neighborhood check-cashing stores, beauty parlors and nail salons, at the Crown Fried Chicken around the corner, and pinned to the bulletin boards at local mosques. The flier features a drawing of a plaintive man in prison stripes, the ball and chain around his ankle evoking an Alabama chain gang.

Wornie Reed, former director of the Urban Child Research Center at Cleveland State University, grew up during segregation near Mobile, Ala. He says the situation is actually worse now across the nation than it was then in the South.

"An African-American male in Ohio today stands several times more likely to go to prison than a black male in the South in 1920, and the crime rate is not that much higher," says Reed, now at the University of Tennessee.

At current rates, according to the Sentencing Project, which studies alternatives to incarceration, "one of every three black males born today can expect to be imprisoned at some point in his lifetime." Many more, beyond count, will have an arrest record, which itself can cause indelible damage.

After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a bad situation got much worse. Now, Love notes, federal law mandates background checks and disqualifies anyone with a record from a huge swath of jobs in education, health care, child and elder care, financial services and transportation.

"To get a barbering license, a license to be a cosmetologist, a license to be a plumber or electrician in this state, you can't have a criminal record," says U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who plans to hold expungement summits in each of his district's 23 counties.

The first three, in July, were held in Jackson, Greenwood and Greenville -- in churches, a setting that Thompson found fitting.

"For those of us who attend church regularly, a common theme that you hear from ministers is he who is without sin should cast the first stone," Thompson says. "All of us have done wrong at some point in our lifetime, but we were blessed in some instances not to have been caught."

In New Jersey, you have to wait five years after completing the sentence to expunge a misdemeanor, and 10 years to expunge a first felony. Once the record is expunged, you can legally answer "no" when asked if you have been convicted of a crime. But Love says that is not the case in every state with an expungement law. And in most cases, she adds, law enforcement still can access the real record.

Salahuddin, 57, says he came of age at a time when you couldn't get close to a good-looking black woman without first answering the question: "What are you doing for the (black) Nation, brother?"

In 1994, he started taking the law classes that have enabled him to provide an answer.

"The Black Nation is not healing right now," he says. Expungement, he believes, heals.

He charges a flat fee of $350, unless the record is complicated by multiple jurisdictions, to guide you through petitioning the court in the county where the crime was committed for an expungement.

"You don't need an attorney," Salahuddin tells clients. "You don't even need me."

But it helps to have a wily guide.

"I do it like it's me," he says.

It once was.

Salahuddin was 13, growing up in Newark, when he and his friends came upon an abandoned Breyer's ice cream factory with "windows that just looked delicious to break." Next thing it was "jiggers, the cops." Salahuddin was the one who didn't get away. "It was like I was public enemy number one. They gave me a record," he says.

When he was arrested in his early 20s for being drunk and disorderly on a Newark bus, his juvenile record popped up.

"It's like a shadow that's always on you," he says.

http://www.newhouse.com/archive/tilove072605.html
 
<font size="5"><center>
More Job Seekers Scramble
To Erase Their Criminal Past </font size></center>



P1-AS451B_expun_NS_20091110201224.gif



Wall Street Journal
By DOUGLAS BELKIN
NOVEMBER 12, 2009


<font size="3">U.S. job seekers are crashing into the worst employment market in years and
background checks that reach deeper than ever into their pasts.

The result: a surge of people seeking to legally clear their criminal records.</font size>

In Michigan, state police estimate they'll set aside 46% more convictions this year than last. Oregon is on track to set aside 33% more. Florida sealed and expunged nearly 15,000 criminal records in the fiscal year ended June 30, up 43% from the previous year. The courts of Cook County, which includes Chicago and nearby suburbs, received about 7,600 expungement requests in the year's first three quarters, nearly double the pace from the year before.

One petitioner is Wally Camis Jr., who wanted to clear the air about the time he threatened two men with a hairbrush.

Mr. Camis was hungry for work amid a divorce last fall. The 41-year-old Air Force veteran, who had worked as a security guard and owned a restaurant, filled out an application for temporary employment in Eugene, Ore., checking a box saying he had never been arrested.

When he followed up a week later, the temp agency told him no thanks -- they'd turned up a 1986 conviction. Stunned, Mr. Camis recalled the night the two men threatened him and he pulled a silver brush from his back pocket, saying it was a knife. He called the police, he says, and later pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a misdemeanor. The judge entered a "no judgment" finding and ordered Mr. Camis to pay a $60 fine.

"I thought that was the end of it," he says.

Instead, 22 years later, Mr. Camis found himself fighting to erase traces of the arrest, joining the growing ranks of Americans who hope that clearing their records of minor crimes will boost their odds in a tough job market. To help, entrepreneurs have set up record-clearing services and local governments have passed laws to speed the expungement process.

Civil-rights organizations have long complained that young black men are disproportionately hindered when prospective employers ask about applicants' arrests or convictions. But attorneys say past offenses are increasingly catching up with blue-collar and middle-class applicants with solid work histories.

"This is affecting a whole new group," says Michael Hornung, a defense attorney in Fort Myers, Fla., who charges $1,000 to help clients clear records. "I've had more people come in to talk to me about having their records expunged in the last year than I have had in the previous 13 combined."

The increase comes as unemployment has risen above 10%, allowing potential employers to be choosier than they have been in decades. More Americans have criminal records now, criminologists say, in part because a generation has come of age since the start of the war on drugs.

These convictions are increasingly coming to employers' attention. Background checks have become more commonplace in the years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and cheaper. More than 80% of companies performed such checks in 2006, compared with fewer than 50% in 1998, according to the Society for Human Resource Management, an association of HR professionals.


<font size="4">Erased, Sealed, Blocked</font size>

Though the definition, terminology and methods of expungement vary by state, its general intent is to restore people to the legal status they enjoyed before a brush with the law -- often giving them the right to answer "no" when a prospective employer asks if they've been arrested or convicted. Most felonies, such as sexual assault or armed robberies, can't be removed. But in many states, some lesser crimes can. After a successful appeal, official records may be shredded, erased, sealed or blocked from view by anyone except entities such as police or schools.

Expungement doesn't wipe away all traces. Local news Web sites routinely post arrest mug shots, which are nearly impossible to eradicate from the Internet. Search engines can turn up a smattering of decades-old news and police reports, plus caches of newer ones. Arrests that have been legally expunged may remain on databases that data-harvesting companies offer to prospective employers; such background companies are under no legal obligation to erase them.

Some employers say background checks provide vital red flags at a time when liability fears run high. Workplace theft cost retailers $15.5 billion last year, according to the National Retail Federation. On-the-job violence costs billions in legal costs and lost work hours, says the Workplace Violence Research Institute, a California consulting firm.

"If I have a guy with four arrests and bad credit versus someone who has never been in trouble in his life, who am I going to hire? It's not rocket science," says Louis DeFalco, corporate director of safety, security and investigations at ABC Fine Wine & Spirits in Florida, which has 175 stores.

Though some employers acknowledge that workers with convictions can become trusted employees, the risk of passing over these applicants is far outweighed by the benefit of culling high-risk applicants from stacks of resumes. Companies can make hiring decisions based on conviction records, but not on arrests that haven't resulted in convictions, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Some lawyers have created services to help clients clear records, including Chicago attorney Tamara Holder's www.xpunged.com. Legal-aid organizations have created or stepped up programs to help guide people through the process. The public defender's office in San Jose, Calif., is among public organizations using federal stimulus money to hire additional attorneys to process the influx of clients.

State lawmakers have taken note. In Pennsylvania, where the state pardons board faces a three-year backlog of record-clearing requests, Democratic Rep. Tim Solobay was author of a bill permitting local courts to process the petitions as well. It passed into law last year. This year, Mr. Solobay is pushing legislation that would expand the class of misdemeanors that can be expunged to include disorderly conduct and possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Mr. Solobay says he wrote the bill after a friend told him that his son, who was convicted of disorderly conduct in college, had been turned down for several jobs.

"It kept coming back time and again and haunting him," Mr. Solobay says of his friend's son, suggesting that eventually the punishment ceased to fit the crime. "The job market is tough enough, and he's competing against people with a clean record. So he's getting disqualified."

Millions of Americans are in a similar position. In 1967, 50% of American men had been arrested. Since then, arrests made in connection with domestic violence and illegal drugs have pushed the number to 60%, estimates Alfred Blumstein, a criminologist at Carnegie Mellon University. The annual number of arrests for possession of marijuana more than tripled to 1.8 million from 1980 to 2007, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Arrests and convictions are also easier for employers to learn about. Even 10 years ago, background checks tended to be cursory or expensive. Now, database providers can quickly access information from the country's approximately 3,100 court jurisdictions, charging $10 or less for simple checks.

One Chicago 53-year-old, who has worked for an overnight delivery service and as a bricklayer, is nervous that his record's sole smudge may come back to haunt him.

In 1974, he says, he was walking down a street near his Chicago home rolling a marijuana cigarette. He was arrested by an undercover police officer and convicted of possession. "That was back in the days when I had hair, and I just said, 'Forget about it.' I was like 17 or 18 years old -- what did I care?"

His employers never learned of the conviction, he says, nor have his own children. But, hoping to coach high-school basketball when he retires in a few years, he's working with a Chicago attorney to clear his record. "Nowadays they look for anything so I figured I better take care of this," he says.

One employer that has taken on candidates with criminal records in recent years is the U.S. military. From 2006 through 2008, the four armed-forces branches issued conduct waivers for more than 2,000 recruits with felony convictions, 3,000 recruits with felony arrests and 42,000 recruits with serious misdemeanors, according to the Department of Defense.

Now, some veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are finding their service may not make up for earlier offenses.

Osvaldo Hernandez of New York served in the Army for 15 months in Afghanistan, then, upon his return to the U.S., scored in the 98th percentile on his civil- service exam, says his attorney, Jim Harmon. Mr. Hernandez, 27, has been unable to land a job with the New York City Police Department because of a 2002 conviction of illegal possession of a gun, Mr. Harmon said.

Mr. Hernandez hasn't sought expungement because his crime doesn't qualify for it in New York. An NYPD spokesman said the department has a policy against hiring felons.

Mr. Hernandez is now serving another overseas tour, hoping "that serving twice in combat will overcome the prior conviction issue," Mr. Harmon says.

Mr. Camis, meanwhile, spent months trying to undo the legacy of one night in 1986.

Then 18, Mr. Camis was leaving his job at a movie theater in Woodridge, Ill., when he says two men threatened him. He flashed the handle of his 5-inch-long brush, he says.

The men fled. Mr. Camis says he called the police. Officers apprehended the men, who accused Mr. Camis of being the aggressor. Before a circuit court judge in Illinois's DuPage County, Mr. Camis admitted he threatened to cut the men -- assault without the battery -- and paid his fine.


<font size="4">'Never Had a Problem'</font size>

The next year he joined the Air Force, where he serviced F-15s in Okinawa, Japan, and earned an honorable discharge. He later worked as a guard, railroad brakeman, exterminator and restaurateur, he says, passing two criminal background checks along the way. "I never had a problem," he said.

In fall 2008, he says, he approached Cardinal Services Inc. in Oregon. An agent at the temp service said he had openings that might be suitable. Mr. Camis turned in his application.

Cardinal says it paid a background-search firm about $10 to examine his past. It turned up the DuPage no-judgment order -- which the court had posted online in 2004, among other records.

When Mr. Camis followed up with Cardinal a week after applying, he says, an agent there accused him of lying about his criminal history. Cardinal wouldn't help him find work, the agent said.

Cardinal Services' manager and general counsel Mike Lehman says the company's application asks prospective workers about arrests, as well as convictions. Mr. Lehman called Mr. Camis's denial of his arrest a "red flag."

"If someone has a criminal history, we can work with them," Mr. Lehman says. "But if they have one and lie to us, that's pretty ominous."


<font size="4">'No Judgment'</font size>

Mr. Camis says he had forgotten about the incident and, even when reminded, thought the "no judgment" ruling had cleared him.

A few weeks later, he called Ms. Holder of Xpunged.com. She filed an expungement petition with the DuPage court.

In April, Mr. Camis flew from Oregon to Illinois for a five-minute hearing in front of a DuPage circuit judge. The judge agreed to seal the record. Ms. Holder added that under Illinois law, Mr. Camis's charge wasn't technically a conviction.

On Sept. 8, the records supervisor of the Woodridge Police Department signed an affidavit swearing that she had shredded all identifying materials connected to case 86CM4967, "People of the State of Illinois vs. Wallace E. Camis Jr." The destroyed documents would have included the police report with details of the arrest.

Mr. Camis is back in Illinois, taking education courses and logging full-time hours at a day-care center where he is the cook and a classroom helper. He says he eventually hopes to be a teacher.

Of his police record, Mr. Camis says: "Hopefully it's gone for good."

Write to Douglas Belkin at doug.belkin@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A18


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125789494126242343.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular
 
<font size="5"><center>
More Job Seekers Scramble
To Erase Their Criminal Past </font size></center>



P1-AS451B_expun_NS_20091110201224.gif



Wall Street Journal
By DOUGLAS BELKIN
NOVEMBER 12, 2009


<font size="3">U.S. job seekers are crashing into the worst employment market in years and
background checks that reach deeper than ever into their pasts.

The result: a surge of people seeking to legally clear their criminal records.</font size>

In Michigan, state police estimate they'll set aside 46% more convictions this year than last. Oregon is on track to set aside 33% more. Florida sealed and expunged nearly 15,000 criminal records in the fiscal year ended June 30, up 43% from the previous year. The courts of Cook County, which includes Chicago and nearby suburbs, received about 7,600 expungement requests in the year's first three quarters, nearly double the pace from the year before.

One petitioner is Wally Camis Jr., who wanted to clear the air about the time he threatened two men with a hairbrush.

Mr. Camis was hungry for work amid a divorce last fall. The 41-year-old Air Force veteran, who had worked as a security guard and owned a restaurant, filled out an application for temporary employment in Eugene, Ore., checking a box saying he had never been arrested.

When he followed up a week later, the temp agency told him no thanks -- they'd turned up a 1986 conviction. Stunned, Mr. Camis recalled the night the two men threatened him and he pulled a silver brush from his back pocket, saying it was a knife. He called the police, he says, and later pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a misdemeanor. The judge entered a "no judgment" finding and ordered Mr. Camis to pay a $60 fine.

"I thought that was the end of it," he says.

Instead, 22 years later, Mr. Camis found himself fighting to erase traces of the arrest, joining the growing ranks of Americans who hope that clearing their records of minor crimes will boost their odds in a tough job market. To help, entrepreneurs have set up record-clearing services and local governments have passed laws to speed the expungement process.

Civil-rights organizations have long complained that young black men are disproportionately hindered when prospective employers ask about applicants' arrests or convictions. But attorneys say past offenses are increasingly catching up with blue-collar and middle-class applicants with solid work histories.

"This is affecting a whole new group," says Michael Hornung, a defense attorney in Fort Myers, Fla., who charges $1,000 to help clients clear records. "I've had more people come in to talk to me about having their records expunged in the last year than I have had in the previous 13 combined."

The increase comes as unemployment has risen above 10%, allowing potential employers to be choosier than they have been in decades. More Americans have criminal records now, criminologists say, in part because a generation has come of age since the start of the war on drugs.

These convictions are increasingly coming to employers' attention. Background checks have become more commonplace in the years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and cheaper. More than 80% of companies performed such checks in 2006, compared with fewer than 50% in 1998, according to the Society for Human Resource Management, an association of HR professionals.


<font size="4">Erased, Sealed, Blocked</font size>

Though the definition, terminology and methods of expungement vary by state, its general intent is to restore people to the legal status they enjoyed before a brush with the law -- often giving them the right to answer "no" when a prospective employer asks if they've been arrested or convicted. Most felonies, such as sexual assault or armed robberies, can't be removed. But in many states, some lesser crimes can. After a successful appeal, official records may be shredded, erased, sealed or blocked from view by anyone except entities such as police or schools.

Expungement doesn't wipe away all traces. Local news Web sites routinely post arrest mug shots, which are nearly impossible to eradicate from the Internet. Search engines can turn up a smattering of decades-old news and police reports, plus caches of newer ones. Arrests that have been legally expunged may remain on databases that data-harvesting companies offer to prospective employers; such background companies are under no legal obligation to erase them.

Some employers say background checks provide vital red flags at a time when liability fears run high. Workplace theft cost retailers $15.5 billion last year, according to the National Retail Federation. On-the-job violence costs billions in legal costs and lost work hours, says the Workplace Violence Research Institute, a California consulting firm.

"If I have a guy with four arrests and bad credit versus someone who has never been in trouble in his life, who am I going to hire? It's not rocket science," says Louis DeFalco, corporate director of safety, security and investigations at ABC Fine Wine & Spirits in Florida, which has 175 stores.

Though some employers acknowledge that workers with convictions can become trusted employees, the risk of passing over these applicants is far outweighed by the benefit of culling high-risk applicants from stacks of resumes. Companies can make hiring decisions based on conviction records, but not on arrests that haven't resulted in convictions, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Some lawyers have created services to help clients clear records, including Chicago attorney Tamara Holder's www.xpunged.com. Legal-aid organizations have created or stepped up programs to help guide people through the process. The public defender's office in San Jose, Calif., is among public organizations using federal stimulus money to hire additional attorneys to process the influx of clients.

State lawmakers have taken note. In Pennsylvania, where the state pardons board faces a three-year backlog of record-clearing requests, Democratic Rep. Tim Solobay was author of a bill permitting local courts to process the petitions as well. It passed into law last year. This year, Mr. Solobay is pushing legislation that would expand the class of misdemeanors that can be expunged to include disorderly conduct and possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Mr. Solobay says he wrote the bill after a friend told him that his son, who was convicted of disorderly conduct in college, had been turned down for several jobs.

"It kept coming back time and again and haunting him," Mr. Solobay says of his friend's son, suggesting that eventually the punishment ceased to fit the crime. "The job market is tough enough, and he's competing against people with a clean record. So he's getting disqualified."

Millions of Americans are in a similar position. In 1967, 50% of American men had been arrested. Since then, arrests made in connection with domestic violence and illegal drugs have pushed the number to 60%, estimates Alfred Blumstein, a criminologist at Carnegie Mellon University. The annual number of arrests for possession of marijuana more than tripled to 1.8 million from 1980 to 2007, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Arrests and convictions are also easier for employers to learn about. Even 10 years ago, background checks tended to be cursory or expensive. Now, database providers can quickly access information from the country's approximately 3,100 court jurisdictions, charging $10 or less for simple checks.

One Chicago 53-year-old, who has worked for an overnight delivery service and as a bricklayer, is nervous that his record's sole smudge may come back to haunt him.

In 1974, he says, he was walking down a street near his Chicago home rolling a marijuana cigarette. He was arrested by an undercover police officer and convicted of possession. "That was back in the days when I had hair, and I just said, 'Forget about it.' I was like 17 or 18 years old -- what did I care?"

His employers never learned of the conviction, he says, nor have his own children. But, hoping to coach high-school basketball when he retires in a few years, he's working with a Chicago attorney to clear his record. "Nowadays they look for anything so I figured I better take care of this," he says.

One employer that has taken on candidates with criminal records in recent years is the U.S. military. From 2006 through 2008, the four armed-forces branches issued conduct waivers for more than 2,000 recruits with felony convictions, 3,000 recruits with felony arrests and 42,000 recruits with serious misdemeanors, according to the Department of Defense.

Now, some veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are finding their service may not make up for earlier offenses.

Osvaldo Hernandez of New York served in the Army for 15 months in Afghanistan, then, upon his return to the U.S., scored in the 98th percentile on his civil- service exam, says his attorney, Jim Harmon. Mr. Hernandez, 27, has been unable to land a job with the New York City Police Department because of a 2002 conviction of illegal possession of a gun, Mr. Harmon said.

Mr. Hernandez hasn't sought expungement because his crime doesn't qualify for it in New York. An NYPD spokesman said the department has a policy against hiring felons.

Mr. Hernandez is now serving another overseas tour, hoping "that serving twice in combat will overcome the prior conviction issue," Mr. Harmon says.

Mr. Camis, meanwhile, spent months trying to undo the legacy of one night in 1986.

Then 18, Mr. Camis was leaving his job at a movie theater in Woodridge, Ill., when he says two men threatened him. He flashed the handle of his 5-inch-long brush, he says.

The men fled. Mr. Camis says he called the police. Officers apprehended the men, who accused Mr. Camis of being the aggressor. Before a circuit court judge in Illinois's DuPage County, Mr. Camis admitted he threatened to cut the men -- assault without the battery -- and paid his fine.


<font size="4">'Never Had a Problem'</font size>

The next year he joined the Air Force, where he serviced F-15s in Okinawa, Japan, and earned an honorable discharge. He later worked as a guard, railroad brakeman, exterminator and restaurateur, he says, passing two criminal background checks along the way. "I never had a problem," he said.

In fall 2008, he says, he approached Cardinal Services Inc. in Oregon. An agent at the temp service said he had openings that might be suitable. Mr. Camis turned in his application.

Cardinal says it paid a background-search firm about $10 to examine his past. It turned up the DuPage no-judgment order -- which the court had posted online in 2004, among other records.

When Mr. Camis followed up with Cardinal a week after applying, he says, an agent there accused him of lying about his criminal history. Cardinal wouldn't help him find work, the agent said.

Cardinal Services' manager and general counsel Mike Lehman says the company's application asks prospective workers about arrests, as well as convictions. Mr. Lehman called Mr. Camis's denial of his arrest a "red flag."

"If someone has a criminal history, we can work with them," Mr. Lehman says. "But if they have one and lie to us, that's pretty ominous."


<font size="4">'No Judgment'</font size>

Mr. Camis says he had forgotten about the incident and, even when reminded, thought the "no judgment" ruling had cleared him.

A few weeks later, he called Ms. Holder of Xpunged.com. She filed an expungement petition with the DuPage court.

In April, Mr. Camis flew from Oregon to Illinois for a five-minute hearing in front of a DuPage circuit judge. The judge agreed to seal the record. Ms. Holder added that under Illinois law, Mr. Camis's charge wasn't technically a conviction.

On Sept. 8, the records supervisor of the Woodridge Police Department signed an affidavit swearing that she had shredded all identifying materials connected to case 86CM4967, "People of the State of Illinois vs. Wallace E. Camis Jr." The destroyed documents would have included the police report with details of the arrest.

Mr. Camis is back in Illinois, taking education courses and logging full-time hours at a day-care center where he is the cook and a classroom helper. He says he eventually hopes to be a teacher.

Of his police record, Mr. Camis says: "Hopefully it's gone for good."

Write to Douglas Belkin at doug.belkin@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A18


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125789494126242343.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

good post
 
If you serve your time, then it shouldn't be a factor in employment decisions. Further punishment on top of the time served. LE and the judicial system is flawed, and shouldn't be used as a basis to judge a person character. Most people will commit a crime if given the opportunity.

Your employer will know what you got convicted of (expunged or not) and any crimes suspected but they didn't bring charges up; behind your back. Roll you out on your first performance review if they had to hire you. You will get yoru foot in the door, but be pushed right back out.

This guy stole $300,000 (white collar crime) from the state, however, the state is willing to pay $700,000 locking this person up, instead of just firing and blacklisting. Lock em all up, 2 million is not enough, how about 100 million like Nazis.
 
Last edited:
Trust. This will be the new hustle for the court system. If convicted felon can pay their way out of their criminal past, he/she will paying up for their economic freedom hand over fist.
 
Liberalism’s unfinished agenda

And the article that reminded me of this thread.

Liberalism’s unfinished agenda
Obama can't rest on his laurels. He still needs to fix our broken criminal justice and child care systems
BY MICHAEL LIND
TUESDAY, JAN 22, 2013 04:18 PM CST

What remains undone by American liberalism after Barack Obama completes his second term? Some commentators have suggested that, with the passage of Obamacare, the basic architecture of America’s system of economic security for citizens is now complete. And the strong support for gay rights expressed by the nation’s first black president is proof that the definition of American community has become far more inclusive. But with respect both to inclusion and economic security, there remain challenges enough to engage the next generation of American reformers.

American liberalism (or “progressivism,” as it is called by those embarrassed to use the L-word) has always been characterized by its commitment to reform in two areas: caste and class. Think about caste as rules restricting those allowed to play the game, and class as the rules of the game itself. The project of American liberalism is to allow everybody to play — and everybody to win, at least at the level of a decent minimum.

In combating the injustices of caste and class, American liberals find what allies they can. On caste issues like nativism, racism and discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation, American liberals often find allies among libertarians who do not share their commitment to a fairer and more inclusive economic system. On class issues like generous public retirement and health and unemployment insurance programs, American liberals often find allies among populists who may at the same time be nativist, racist and hostile to gays and lesbians.

Each wave of liberal reform since the 1930s has combined efforts to combat the evils of both caste and class. Although he appeased Southern racists opposed to black rights and West Coast racists who profited from the internment of Japanese-Americans, Franklin Roosevelt broke down barriers to the full acceptance of non-British white Americans both by appointing unprecedented numbers of “ethnic” whites to high office and combating nativist attitudes, as he did when he told the Daughters of the American Revolution in 1941: “Remember, remember always that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.” On the “class” side, FDR presided over the creation of federal-state unemployment insurance and Social Security.

The next wave of American reform culminated during the presidency of Roosevelt’s protégé and disciple Lyndon Johnson, the second greatest liberal president in American history. While the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act shattered the structure of racial segregation, Johnson expanded the American social insurance system by pushing for the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid.

Although his achievements are not on the scale of those of FDR and LBJ, Barack Obama has already accomplished more in the way of liberal reform than the two center-right, Reagan-era Southern Democratic governors between him and Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. In the realm of caste, the new consensus in favor of ending discrimination against gays and lesbians matured under Obama, who boldly linked gay rights to women’s rights and the rights of nonwhite Americans in his second inaugural when he spoke of “Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall.” In the area of class reform, Obamacare is certain to be modified in the years ahead, but it is likely to be as permanent an element of the American middle-class welfare state as Social Security and Medicare.

But liberals should not rest on their laurels. Two great battles remain to be fought, one in the area of caste and the other in the area of class.

A caste system requires a population of “untouchables” with few or limited legal, political and civil rights. They are permanent outsiders, barred from the community. In the past, the victims of caste in America have included slaves and victims of racial segregation as well as women denied legal and voting rights, white men without property, and gays and lesbians whose private lives were criminalized. Today’s American untouchables are criminals — suspects, prisoners and ex-convicts.

Society must be protected against criminals. At the same time, a democratic republic cannot afford a large, permanent population of untouchables or outcastes who lack most or all of the rights of citizenship. Any caste system creates an anomalous, arbitrary zone of tyranny and mobocracy, embedded like a black hole or Bermuda Triangle inside an otherwise law-abiding constitutional state.

Under state laws that mandate permanent or temporary forfeiture of voting rights, millions of Americans, disproportionately poor, are consigned to the status of something less than full citizens and subjected to a criminal justice that is worthy of a backward third-world banana republic rather than a modern, civilized country. The conservative publisher Conrad Black, who was imprisoned after being found guilty of corporate malfeasance, has a useful summary of the arbitrary and tyrannical features of America’s system of criminal justice:

The United States has five per cent of the world’s population, 25 per cent of the world’s incarcerated people, and 50 per cent of the world’s lawyers (who account for nearly 10 per cent of the country’s GDP, an onerous taxation of American society).

Almost everything about the American system is wrong. Grand juries are a rubber stamp for the prosecutors; assets are routinely frozen or seized in ex parte actions on the basis of false government affidavits, so targets don’t have the resources to pay avaricious American counsel and are thrust into the hands of public defenders, who are usually just Judas goats for the prosecutors…The plea bargain system, for which prosecutors would be disbarred in most other serious countries, enables prosecutors to threaten everyone around the target with indictment if they don’t miraculously recall, under careful government coaching, inculpatory evidence. Prosecutors win 95 per cent of their cases, 90 per cent of those without a trial, and people who exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to go to trial receive more than three times the sentence they receive if they cop a plea, as a penalty for exercising their rights.

The right to life is the most basic of all, so the abolition of the death penalty at the federal and state levels should be at the top of a new agenda of criminal justice reform. According to Amnesty International, 140 countries have abolished the death penalty. The U.S. is consistently among the countries with the greatest number of executions — joined by those paragons of liberty and democracy, Iran and China.

Second only to the abolition of the death penalty in the United States should be an end to the permanent forfeiture of voting rights. People who have served out their punishment should be allowed to return to society as fully functioning citizens, not permanently relegated to a legal and political underclass. And tyrannical majorities should not be allowed to disenfranchise specific populations indirectly, as white majorities have sometimes sought to do, by connecting the forfeiture of voting rights to minor offenses like drug possession committed disproportionately by minorities and the poor. According to the Sentencing Project, one in 13 African-Americans is disenfranchised as a result of a prior conviction; the numbers are even higher in Virginia (20 percent), Kentucky (22 percent) and Florida (23 percent).

On some issues of criminal justice reform, progressives may find common cause with conservatives. Newt Gingrich has supported the NAACP’s call for imprisoning fewer Americans for minor offenses, a crusade also taken up by a conservative group titled Right on Crime, which has published this statement:

One out of every one hundred adults in America is incarcerated, a total population of approximately 2.3 million. By contrast, according to a report published in The Economist, the number of imprisoned adults in America in 1970 was only one out of every 400. The United States has 5% of the world’s population, but 23% of the world’s reported prisoners. It is not clear, however, that these high rates of imprisonment are leading to safer communities. One study by two professors at Purdue University and Rutgers University has estimated that were we to increase incarceration by another ten percent, the subsequent reduction in crime would be only 0.5%. The state of Florida provides a useful example. Over the past thirteen years, the proportion of prisoners who were incarcerated for committing non-violent crimes rose by 189%. By contrast, the proportion of inmates who committed violent crimes dropped by 28%.

Former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia is right — fixing America’s criminal justice system is a central challenge for reformers in the generation to come.

If criminal justice reform is the next step in the crusade against caste in America, the class reform agenda does not end with the guarantee of healthcare coverage for all citizens that the Affordable Care Act seeks to provide. Paid family leave and childcare are the still-missing components of the American system of economic security.

In all OECD countries except the U.S., there is mandatory paid maternity or parental leave for the parents of newborn infants. The only other countries that join the U.S. in not having paid parental leave are Lesotho, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea. How paid parental leave in the U.S. should be designed can be debated. The simplest and most business-friendly method is to run it through the payroll-tax-based unemployment insurance system, as states like California and New Jersey already do.

In addition to lacking paid leave for parents of newborns, the U.S. lags behind other democracies in lacking an adequate system of childcare, a necessity now that most American children have two working parents or a single working parent. Here again, there can be debate about how universal childcare should be structured. The simplest and most cost-effective method might be universal preschool and day care centers, run out of the existing K-12 system, with state and federal funding equalizing local school district budgets.

Barack Obama has secured his place in American liberal history, in the tradition of the two Roosevelts and Johnson. By the time he leaves office, America’s caste system will have shrunk and its safety net will have expanded. But plenty of work will remain to be done by American liberals, in opportunistic alliances with libertarians, populists and enlightened conservatives.

Michael Lind is the author of Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States and co-founder of the New America Foundation.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/22/liberalisms_unfinished_agenda/
 
What responsibility does conservatism have to rectify this issue?
Why don't you ask the governors and state houses of the 5 states I listed above? They are, presumably, governing in a conservative way and passing bills as they see fit.

Can you explain to everyone why the articles above are not a good enough indiction of what conservatism thinks about it's duty?
 
Why don't you ask the governors and state houses of the 5 states I listed above? They are, presumably, governing in a conservative way and passing bills as they see fit.

Can you explain to everyone why the articles above are not a good enough indiction of what conservatism thinks about it's duty?


Are you a conservative?
 
<IFRAME height=1000 src="http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286" width=1015></IFRAME>
 
Presumed guilty: Ex-felons face barriers to voting rights

<IFRAME height=1000 src="https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/presumed-guilty-ex-felons-face-barriers-to-voting-rights" width=915></IFRAME>
 
Ex-Convict Hire Hurdle Draws U.S. Suits Against Employers

Ex-Convict Hire Hurdle Draws U.S. Suits Against Employers
By Jeanna Smialek
Jan 30, 2014 11:01 PM CT

Destinee Evans says she is striving to move past her 2010 marijuana trafficking conviction. The job market at first made that difficult.

After her October 2012 release following more than two years in prison, she applied for more than a half-dozen jobs. She landed a second interview with a telemarketer -- and then the company checked her background. “They called and told me they didn’t need me,” said Evans, 24.

The U.S. population of former inmates has swelled after incarceration rates more than tripled over the past three decades. Meanwhile, job seekers outnumber openings 2.7 to 1, making it easier for employers to pass up marred resumes.

As companies including Target Corp. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. remove questions about criminal history from applications, state and local governments are passing laws that could help ex-offenders get job interviews.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is also scrutinizing hiring practices, saying policies that bluntly screen out former criminals can disadvantage minorities. Suits are pending against a Bayerische Motoren Werke AG U.S. auto plant in South Carolina and Goodlettsville, Tennessee-based Dollar General Corp. Both companies say they follow the law.

Businesses face a conundrum: they must comply with more restrictive rules on treatment of applicants with prior arrests and convictions, yet hiring someone with a record who commits a crime against a customer or colleague could leave them liable.

‘Risky Environment’

“There really is a sense that we need to find ways for people to make a living,” said Elizabeth Torphy-Donzella, a labor and employment lawyer and partner at Shawe & Rosenthal LLP in Baltimore. At the same time, regulation “creates a risky environment for employers.”

Target Corp., the second-largest U.S. discount retailer, said in October that it will bar queries about prior convictions and arrests from job applications. Target still views a background check after a conditional employment offer.

Five states last year created policies prohibiting check-off boxes about criminal history on applications, bringing the total to 10. Another 56 local governments have similar bans, based on an analysis this month by the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group focused on work-related issues including minimum wage and criminal records.

Some rules apply only to public agencies. In Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island and 15 localities, private employers must also comply, NELP reports show.

The momentum is carrying into 2014. In an address this month, Delaware Governor Jack Markell said his state should “ban the box” for government hires.

A Model

“Let’s stop denying ex-offenders their first interview,” said Markell, a Democrat, adding that the state could be a model for the private sector.

“We expect to see more cities and counties that are adopting this,” said Michelle Natividad Rodriguez, a staff attorney for NELP, which estimated in 2011 that one in four U.S. adults had a criminal record, based on Department of Justice figures. “It doesn’t do our communities any good to squash the potential of those people.”

Evans in September began working the front desk at Towards Employment, a Cleveland nonprofit where she took classes following her release. She said her job has enabled her to make a legitimate living, and without it she would have thought of returning to crime to earn money.

“Would I have acted on it? Probably not,” she said, because she has a child and is working toward regaining custody. “It’s hard for a person who’s constantly being told no.”

Criminal History

Rejection concerns Arch Murphy, 48. He left prison for the sixth time in 2010 and landed a job with a reintegration program in Minnesota. As a next step, he’s looking for a janitorial job and has applied for 11 positions. Companies have said they’re open to hiring ex-offenders, yet four asked about criminal history on their applications, he said.

The EEOC issued guidance in April 2012, making it clear that it sees many broad policies against hiring former criminals as having a discriminatory effect based on race, violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The commission enforces laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age in the workforce, and has authority to investigate and file lawsuits.

The commission said that if the conduct signaled by a record makes someone “unfit for the position in question,” an employer can reject an applicant and justify the action. Unless they can prove it’s a business necessity, companies can’t make hiring decisions solely based on criminal history, because doing so has “disparate impact” on minorities.

Higher Rates

Black men were imprisoned at more than six times the rate of white men in 2010, and Hispanic men at about 2.6 times the rate of white males, based on a Pew Research analysis of Bureau of Justice Statistics data.

The commission has been enforcing the guidance with lawsuits, so it is “going to be an issue that employers need to wrap their heads around” this year, said Lester Rosen, founder of background check company Employment Screening Resources in Novato, California.

Even before the April announcement, EEOC had reached a $3.13 million settlement with PepsiCo Inc.’s bottling unit Pepsi Beverages Co. in January 2012. The commission had said that the company’s background screening policy disproportionately affected black applicants.

Pepsi Response

“We have always maintained a neutral criminal background check policy that included an individualized candidate assessment and the EEOC did not find any intentional discrimination by the company,” Pepsi said in an e-mailed statement. The company worked with the commission to “revise our policy to further advance our efforts to create a workplace that is as diverse and inclusive as possible.”

In the pending civil suits, the EEOC said in a release that the BMW plant’s hiring policy is a “blanket exclusion without any individualized assessment.” Dollar General conditioned all job offers on background checks that screened for certain crimes, “which results in a disparate impact against blacks,” the EEOC said.

BMW “complied with the letter and spirit of the law” and the plant “employs thousands of people, and providing a safe work environment is one of the company’s highest priorities,” spokeswoman Kelly Wamsley said in an e-mail.

Dollar General denies the EEOC’s allegations and its background check “is intended to foster a safe environment for its employees and customers and to protect its shareholders’ assets,” the discount retailer said in a statement.

States Object

Nine state attorneys general sent the EEOC a letter in July, urging it to reconsider the BMW and Dollar General lawsuits and rescind its guidance. Employers may have “business-driven reasons” for not wanting to hire individuals with criminal convictions, particularly for violent crimes, and forcing individual assessments of applicants “will add significant costs” the letter said.

In a response a month later, EEOC Chairwoman Jacqueline Berrien said the commission encourages a two-step process to ensure employers aren’t “mistakenly screening out qualified applicants or employees based on incorrect, incomplete, or irrelevant information.” Since case-by-case assessment is encouraged just on those screened out, it “should not result in ‘significant costs’ for businesses,” she wrote.

Increases Risk

The EEOC stance increases the risk that employers will be sued for bypassing applicants because of their criminal records, said Richard Mellor, senior adviser for asset protection at the National Retail Federation. Companies remain liable if they hire an ex-offender who harms customers or coworkers or steals.

“We’re caught in the middle,” Mellor said. “When you say, ‘Give someone a chance,’ you’re making a decision to increase risk.” Employers have adjusted hiring practices on their own as applicants with criminal records abound, Mellor said.

About 1 in 35 U.S. adults was incarcerated at a state, federal or local level or on probation or parole in 2012, based on a Bureau of Justice Statistics report. That’s down from a high of 1 in 31 in 2006 and 2007.

Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, in 2010 decided to remove crime-related questions from applications, spokeswoman Tara Raddohl said in an e-mail.

Offers Chance

“The removal does not eliminate the background check or drug test but it offers those who’ve been previously incarcerated a chance to get their foot in the door,” she wrote.

Minneapolis-based Target said it realized after complying with a new ban-the-box law in its home state of Minnesota that “this shift would not dramatically impact the needs of our business,” and last year moved to implement the change nationwide, spokeswoman Molly Snyder said in an e-mail.

For people like Evans, a chance at steady work can be transformative, she said. “During my time in prison, I learned that I can’t get through life that way; I’m a different person now,” said Evans. “I feel more productive, like I have a purpose.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...hurdle-draws-u-s-suits-against-employers.html
 
I got to check more into this. I myself know that young blacks are being romanced into jail and prison or they are being straight railroaded. Yet the government and other rich powerful people are committing murders, rapes,etc. and make millions of dollars for doing it, instead of jail. And also they are being armed and given power to do more raping and murdering and robbing. Yet others have to remain inferior to the system after they get out of prison or jail.

Shooting and killing unarmed blacks is re-appearing in America, and was promoted by America in Libya.

http://oneblacknation.webs.com/

http://blacknation.vpweb.com/default.html
 
Get it done. Traffic related arrests, family violence, possession of marijuana charges, j walking, disorderly conduct, etc is not a good reason IMO not to hire someone. Cycle needs to be broken and no one can be trusted. . Record or not. These white folk crazy.. been going on too long.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
 
The Latest Phase of Rand Paul's Minority Outreach Is Voting Rights for Felons

The Latest Phase of Rand Paul's Minority Outreach Is Voting Rights for Felons
By Arit John
April 15, 2014 1:02 PM

Rand Paul, the unofficial leader of the GOP's minority outreach efforts, is setting aside the party's tough-on-crime mantra to help convicted criminals regain the right to vote. While that may not go over well with members of his own party, it's an intentional step toward 2016 for Paul. Instead of trying to convince minority voters that the GOP is committed to their causes, he's decided to make himself their champion by addressing a civil rights violation that disproportionately affects blacks, especially in his home state.

Paul has mentioned the idea before. At CPAC in March, several 2016 hopefuls emphasized their stances on judicial reform. But Paul took the idea a step further this weekend. The Republican party has been focused on expanding voter ID laws to curtail (almost entirely invisible) voter fraud. Paul thinks this is a secondary concern. "Voter ID is one-one thousandths of the problem compared to felony disenfranchisement," Paul said on Friday in New Hampshire. "I think there’s 150,000 people in Kentucky who can’t vote because of a felony conviction. Probably half or more are black.” Kentucky is one of only three states in which anyone with a felony conviction is permanently disenfranchised, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Like voter ID laws, felony disenfranchisement laws tend to disproportionately affect minorities and be more strict in red states. Currently, about 20 percent of voting age black men are disenfranchised in Kentucky, Florida and Virginia, according to the Star Tribune. Last week, theTribune noted that advocate groups like Restore the Vote-Minnesota argue that voting rights reforms would "eliminate inadvertent illegal votes by released felons who don’t understand the law, help with felons’ transition to life in their communities and reverse a growing disenfranchisement of black males, who are overrepresented in the criminal justice system." Their opponents argue that ex-cons shouldn't have a say in crafting current laws, even after they've served their time.

On Sunday, Paul managed to slip in a reference to felony disenfranchisement during an appearance on ABC's This Week. Jonathan Karl noted that Eric Holder mentioned "there was a racial dimension to the intensity of the criticism that he has faced and Barack Obama has faced," and asked if that made it harder for him, as a Republican, to reach out to minorities, according to The Washington Post. Paul's response illustrated his commitment to the disenfranchisement issue, but also the reason why Republicans find it so hard to outreach to minorities. Paul said he's willing to work with liberals on issues "like getting people back the right to vote when they’ve done their time, getting people a second chance, trying not to put people in jail for 50 years for youthful mistakes." If Paul keeps this up, he'll be second only to Jeb Bush on the compassion front.

http://news.yahoo.com/latest-phase-rand-pauls-minority-outreach-voting-rights-170249300.html
 
While the right is campaigning the President is acting.

source: Daily Kos

President Obama to Pardon/Commute "Hundreds, Perhaps Thousands" of Nonviolent Drug Offenders

It appears that President Obama is poised to grant clemency to a substantial number of people thrown in jail as a result of asinine "mandatory minimum" sentences imposed on non-violent drug offenders during the last twenty-thirty years.
Obama...wants to use his previously dormant pardon power as part of a larger strategy to restore fairness to the criminal-justice system. A senior administration official tells Yahoo News the president could grant clemency to "hundreds, perhaps thousands" of people locked up for nonviolent drug crimes by the time he leaves office — a stunning number that hasn't been seen since Gerald Ford extended amnesty to Vietnam draft dodgers in the 1970s.

The scope of the new clemency initiative is so large that administration officials are preparing a series of personnel and process changes to help them manage the influx of petitions they expect Obama to approve. Among the changes is reforming the recently censured office within the Justice Department responsible for processing pardon petitions. Yahoo News has learned that the pardon attorney, Ronald Rodgers, who was criticized in a 2012 Internal watchdog report for mishandling a high-profile clemency petition, is likely to step down as part of that overhaul. Additional procedures for handling large numbers of clemency petitions could be announced as soon as this week, a senior administration official said, though it could take longer.
Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed today that "at the request of the White House," the criteria for clemency consideration would be expanded with new guidelines to be issued this week. The link to the Justice Department's video message can be found here.
From a personal perspective, the inanity of these draconian laws has become all too apparent to me as I've grown into middle age. Nearly all of my friends in college and high school during the late 70's and 80's were drug users. Most at one point or another in their late teens or early twenties would have been in possession of amounts of illegal drugs sufficient to have resulted in their incarceration for years if not decades under "mandatory minimum" statutes. The following is a list of just a few of their current professions:

State Representative
Colorectal surgeon
Environmental scientist
Psychologist
Attorney (several)
CEO of multimillion dollar government contractor
English Professor
Computer programmer, nuclear facility
Chief Attending Physician, ER, major Philadelphia hospital
Realtor

These people are not only pillars of their communities, they are their communities. None of them has committed an offense against the public. All of them have stable families and coach their kids' Little League teams, along with all the other former drug user parents sitting in the stands and volunteering for the PTA. Alternatively, each one of these people could be rotting in jail at the taxpayers' expense, contributing absolutely nothing to humanity (or the country, for that matter), their lives and futures effectively nullified.

The last three Presidents have been admitted drug users. Wikipedia has even compiled a list of admitted cannabis users in the U.S. Congress and Senate. Based on sheer statistical odds, at least 50% of the current makeup of Congress and the Senate are former or current users of illegal drugs. The real figure is probably quite higher. A complete overhaul of these insane, discriminatory, antiquated, reactionary drug laws is long, long past overdue. Many states are beginning to take the hint, as has the Justice Department. However, the Presidential Pardon power would be the most visible manifestation of the need to get rid of these laws.

The number of clemencies authorized by this Administration has up to this point been abysmal. Beyond his support for the Fair Sentencing Act, signed into law in 2010, which reduced the racially-motivated disparity between sentences involving "crack" vs powder cocaine users, Obama's efforts to reduce the inequities meted out to nonviolent offenders has been relatively non-existent. According to a study by ProPublica:
[Obama] has given pardons to roughly 1 of every 50 individuals whose applications were processed by the Justice Department. At this point in his presidency, Ronald Reagan had pardoned 1 of every 3 such applicants. George H.W. Bush had pardoned 1 in 16. Bill Clinton had pardoned 1 in 8. George W. Bush had pardoned 1 in 33.
The Yahoo News article linked above clearly shows that the Administration was well aware of how poorly this issue was being handled, but it wasn't until shortly before the end of his first term that the President began to pay serious attention to the issue. Whether that was his own fault or that of his advisors isn't crystal clear but the most than be charitably gleaned from the article is that the pace of change has been glacial up to this point, and riven by internal feuding. The most recent initiative grew out of discussions between Obama, the Whte House Counsel and the Justice Department and it now appears (hopefully) that the number of commutations and pardons will increase dramatically.
According to former and current administration officials, the fault for this lay mostly at the feet of the Office of the Pardon Attorney, a small corner of the Justice Department that sifts through thousands of pardon and commutation petitions each year. The pardon attorney, former military judge Ronald Rodgers, sends his recommendations of whether or not to grant the petitions to the Deputy Attorney General’s office, which then sends them on to the White House. The pardon attorney was recommending that the president deny nearly every single petition for a pardon or a reduced sentence, according to one senior official in the Obama administration
The article suggests that the Pardon Office, responsible for vetting and recommending individual cases to the President, had an entrenched history of stonewalling and at the outset of the Obama Administration appeared to focus on wealthy, well-connected and largely white offenders. According to the article, Rodgers, a Justice "holdover" from the Bush Administration, will be stepping down shortly, in part as a result of an internal Justice Department inquiry into his ineffectiveness. It can't be soon enough.
From Anthony Papa of the Drug Policy Alliance:
“This would be a positive step toward righting the wrongs of our broken criminal justice system,” said Anthony Papa, Media Relations Manager for the Drug Policy Alliance, who was granted clemency in New York State in 1997 after serving 12 years under the notorious Rockefeller Drug Laws. “I hope governors with the same power at the state level follow his lead and reunite more families.”
“With half a million people still behind bars on non-violent drug charges, clearly thousands are deserving of a second chance. Congress should act immediately to reduce the draconian federal mandatory minimum sentences that condemn thousands to decades behind bars for non-violent drug offenses,” added Papa.
 
While the right is campaigning the President is acting.
Tell me again why you're not part of the reason this isn't promoted to be a bipartisan issue.

While you're at it, tell me more about how your priority is black people and not Democrats.
 
You should do your time and not have it hanging over your head anyway....you make a mistake and live with it forever? That's not just in any sense.
 
Tell me again why you're not part of the reason this isn't promoted to be a bipartisan issue.

While you're at it, tell me more about how your priority is black people and not Democrats.


Tell me where a republican legislator or a republican Governor has pardon a group of "Black" people based on reducing the state's prison population.

6a00d8341c7be853ef017d3f442d27970c-pi
 
Tell me where a republican legislator or a republican Governor has pardon a group of "Black" people based on reducing the state's prison population.
Since when has that been the expectation of Republicans or Democrats?

The efforts of Republicans AND Democratic states and their motivations are in the Prison thread. I've already encouraged you three times to actually read what's there since you're pretending to care about the issue.
 
Since when has that been the expectation of Republicans or Democrats?

The efforts of Republicans AND Democratic states and their motivations are in the Prison thread. I've already encouraged you three times to actually read what's there since you're pretending to care about the issue.


Just give it up. Action speaks louder than words.

The wing nuts can unilaterally restrict voter's rights in the red states, thy can unilaterally relive the prison populations in the red states.

All of this is not going to result in one more "Black" vote for Rand Paul.

You republicans are becoming extinct!
 
Back
Top