"Clare's Law" allowing women to check police records of new

[Purple]

In that case I think that should qualify quite well for the title of cruel and unusual punishment. You are basically pouting a brand on the persons forehead that tells anyone who can be bothered to look it up that this person is a criminal to be shunned.

By that logic newspapers shouldn't be allowed to report on criminal trials, since that means anyone can look up the verdict and who was convicted.

Yes. That is correct. There should be a degree of transparency to ensure the system is not being usurped by the state to convict anyone they want but not to the extent of letting everyone know everything.

[TheHammer]

I see some of our European friends being someone appalled that in the US court cases being a matter of public record, and thus publicly available. However, one could argue that having a public record of crimes of which they were convicted is part of the sentence (rather than in addition to).

In that case I think that should qualify quite well for the title of cruel and unusual punishment. You are basically pouting a brand on the persons forehead that tells anyone who can be bothered to look it up that this person is a criminal to be shunned.

It's neither cruel nor unusual. Nor is it putting a brand on anyone's forehead. You don't have to announce your status as a convict (unless its a sex crime), nor do you have to wear any identifying clothing. And as I noted later in my post, many such convictions can be expunged after a period of a few years. And the ones that aren't capable of being expunged are that way for good reason, and if anyone cares enough about you to look into your background, chances are they have a good reason for doing so. If after they have done so they wish to treat you differently, then tough shit. The only thing "serving your time" entitles you to is getting out of prison. The rest of society doesn't have to "forgive and forget" what you did.

[Ralin]

Hell, take it to the extreme. By that logic someone who was raped or in an abusive relationship that led to a conviction couldn't warn other people in their social circle off from their attacker. You're opening a can of worms that I don't think you've thought all the way through.

[Grumman]

Because it is not up to a judge to say. Here in the western world, we recognise that a person has an absolute right to reject potential romantic partners.

And no one is denying that. What I am saying thou is that we also hold that a person has the right to be judged based on who they are and not have a single mistake from their past forever scar and ruin their life.

That is who they are. If they were not the sort of asshole capable of beating up their girlfriend, conning the elderly out of their life savings or operating heavy machinery after drugging themselves, they would not have committed the crime. Any crime that is worthy of the name is not a thunderbolt from a clear sky, it is a symptom of a deeper problem.

It is possible for a convicted criminal to change. That is not the same thing as saying that all released criminals have changed. You don't wipe the slate clean just by running out the clock.

Actually you do. That is sort of one of the basic tenants of modern justice systems. That after you have done your time you are actually truly free to go on living your life. Especially in civilized nations that emphasize rehabilitation over punishment. Once again this is why we don't brand criminals on the forehead any more. You are supposed to do your time and be able to return to a normal life afterward.

You want to give criminals a right that does not exist for non-criminals. Like I said, the right to refuse a romantic partner is absolute. You can turn someone away because their breath smells like garlic if you want; why the fuck would you want the fact that they once pushed their girlfriend down the stairs to be off limits?

I see some of our European friends being someone appalled that in the US court cases being a matter of public record, and thus publicly available. However, one could argue that having a public record of crimes of which they were convicted is part of the sentence (rather than in addition to).

In that case I think that should qualify quite well for the title of cruel and unusual punishment. You are basically pouting a brand on the persons forehead that tells anyone who can be bothered to look it up that this person is a criminal to be shunned.

You're suggesting that it is cruel to allow innocent people to make an informed decision as to how to interact with someone who has proven themselves willing to throw them under the bus. As if it's immoral to not let a convicted embezzler mind the till, or to not let a rapist into your house.

[Lagmonster]

What I am saying thou is that we also hold that a person has the right to be judged based on who they are and not have a single mistake from their past forever scar and ruin their life. That's why we don't brand criminals on the forehead any more.

What defeats your argument is the fact that a person has to be determined to be a likely threat or risk before information can be disclosed. Unless you have a problem with criminal behaviour risk assessments, the kind of people affected by these disclosures are people who have NOT changed (even though you keep repeating that we ought to assume they have for some reason).

What makes this program good, and this is important, is the fact that it treats women like adults who can make their own decisions about their own life, and who can - so informed - come up with a plan to manage the risk. While potentially continuing the relationship, if they so choose.

[Broomstick]

I see some of our European friends being someone appalled that in the US court cases being a matter of public record, and thus publicly available. However, one could argue that having a public record of crimes of which they were convicted is part of the sentence (rather than in addition to).

In that case I think that should qualify quite well for the title of cruel and unusual punishment. You are basically pouting a brand on the persons forehead that tells anyone who can be bothered to look it up that this person is a criminal to be shunned.

Just continue to ignore that these records are easily looked up only for a limited period of time after which you have to go through a much more involved process to access them.

[Enigma]

I see some of our European friends being someone appalled that in the US court cases being a matter of public record, and thus publicly available. However, one could argue that having a public record of crimes of which they were convicted is part of the sentence (rather than in addition to).

In that case I think that should qualify quite well for the title of cruel and unusual punishment. You are basically pouting a brand on the persons forehead that tells anyone who can be bothered to look it up that this person is a criminal to be shunned.

Just continue to ignore that these records are easily looked up only for a limited period of time after which you have to go through a much more involved process to access them.

What's the time limit? Here in my part of Ohio, I can see court records for the past 20 years I believe. Or is it different with criminal cases?

[Broomstick]

Well, that does get back to things being different depending on which US state you're in...

[salm]

What they do here is that the media abreviates the names of crminals to a single letter when reporting them unless the names are allready publicly known.
I dont know the specifics of this and what the law says exactly about this, though. Maybe Thanas knows.

It is also illegal to show trials on tv