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

[EnterpriseSovereign]

...boyfriends is to be extended

"Clare's Law" which allows women to check the criminal record of a new boyfriend, is to be extended across England and Wales.

The policy is named after Clare Wood was killed by her ex-boyfriend George Appleton in 2009.

The scheme has been piloted in Greater Manchester, Wiltshire, Nottinghamshire and Gwent since September 2012 and is due to be extended to the rest of England and Wales in March, the BBC reports.

Before meeting Appleton, mum-of-one Clare, 36, had gone looking for love online, through Facebook and dating site Zoosk, where she wrote: “I would love to hear from someone who is relatively sane in my area.

“I would like to meet a respectful, affectionate man. Not looking for a one-night stand.

"Also someone who likes a larger lady is an advantage but they must be flexible as I am shrinking.”

One of the men she made contact with was Appleton. He admitted he had been behind bars but assured Clare it was for driving offences.

But the reality was that unemployed Appleton had a history of violence against women.

He was jailed for three years in 2002 for harassing a woman and for six months a year earlier after breaching a restraining order.

Agency cleaner Clare eventually broke off their relationship after he became violent towards her. But it was too late.

For four months, Appleton made her life hell, harassing her and even smashing down her front door.

Then he strangled Clare and set her body on fire in her home in Salford, Greater Manchester, in February 2009 before hanging himself.

After a campaign led by Michael and Clare’s MP Hazel Blears, police in four forces trialled Clare’s Law – also known as the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme.

This allows someone to ask police if the person in their life has a history of violence.

Source

[Patroklos]

Outside privacy issues it seems like a good idea for the ends sought but I can't see any reason to restrict it to just women looking up men. I would also like to know what you have to do to prove someone is you "boyfriend" to get access to search. Besides having the man volunteer that his in fact her boyfriend which probably defeats the purpose of the law. If its loose enough in its application its really just a means for women to stalk themselves or get the information for purposes other than intended (checking out men applying for employement for instance, or your daughters husband).

Does anyone know more details?

EDIT: Apparently you have to convince an inspector level officer or above that you need the info and there is no set criteria for who qualifies for access or not.

[Agent Fisher]

In Sacramento County, California, court records are public. All you need to do is go to the website, type in a name and DOB and you can get their history.

[Zaune]

Great. Another way in which a criminal record is a millstone round someone's neck until the day they die. Just what we fucking needed!

[Lagmonster]

Well, before anyone goes nuts, the Greater Manchester Police have an online leaflet explaining the basics. It's here.

Some highlights:

1) Anyone can make an inquiry about anyone, so friends and family can inquire if they're worried about someone else. However, information isn't released willy-nilly. Apparently, the police will determine who it is best to release information to.

2) Requests involve a face-to-face with the police, and they will verify your identity and perform a risk assessment of the victim's situation.

3) The police don't get to decide to release information on their own, but have a 'multi-agency' meeting to discuss the merits of the request and whether or not to disclose. Records are considered confidential except if it is determined that releasing the information will 'help prevent a crime'.

4) The 'right to know' clause allows police to send disclosures to people even if they don't ask for one, where the police feels that an individual is at risk and doesn't know it.

5) People who get disclosures are not allowed to reveal the information to anyone without speaking to the police first, as per the confidentiality of the material. They cite laws which, at a glance, seem to make it a crime to release the information without consent to anyone other than the approved party.

[Broomstick]

Great. Another way in which a criminal record is a millstone round someone's neck until the day they die.

You can look up police records here in Indiana, too, but such records are only made public for a certain number of years. You can see if there have been offenses in the last 7-10 years, and what they are, but beyond that the records are no longer easily accessible.

[Thanas]

I don't think this law is necessary. It may be helpful, but it runs into a whole lot of privacy issues.

Also, good luck ever proving who leaked info about you. Once it is out there, it is out there.

[Zaune]

You can look up police records here in Indiana, too, but such records are only made public for a certain number of years. You can see if there have been offenses in the last 7-10 years, and what they are, but beyond that the records are no longer easily accessible.

Compare and contrast our system, as described here. (Blog entry, but written by a serving Justice of the Peace so probably reliable.)

[Simon_Jester]

Having it be a matter of public record who made the inquiry about you would help with proving who leaked it.

Great. Another way in which a criminal record is a millstone round someone's neck until the day they die. Just what we fucking needed!

Conversely: Another way for chronically stalked, abused, or harassed women to protect themselves from random lunatics.

That really is just what we need; it's been a real problem for millennia.

I'm not saying this system is right, but I very much understand and sympathize with the desire to have it. One unfortunate reality of our society is that women are in much more danger from men than vice versa, and a decent law code should recognize that and make allowances.

[Purple]

I'm not saying this system is right, but I very much understand and sympathize with the desire to have it. One unfortunate reality of our society is that women are in much more danger from men than vice versa, and a decent law code should recognize that and make allowances.

I understand where you are coming from completely. But if you would allow me to ask a question.
How much of ones freedom should one be asked to give up for someone others safety? And who gets to chose where to draw that line?

Consider this a hypothetical if you would. As in, not related to the specific case at hand in terms of the actual law and it's enforcement but as a general principal.

[Thanas]

Having it be a matter of public record who made the inquiry about you would help with proving who leaked it.

A) The damage would already be done
B) You would have a suspicion. You would have no way of proving who exactly leaked it (drunk cop in a bar, angry civilian, wronged file clerk) etc. Before that you knew that at least the department would be liable as one of their employees must have done so.

I'm not saying this system is right, but I very much understand and sympathize with the desire to have it. One unfortunate reality of our society is that women are in much more danger from men than vice versa, and a decent law code should recognize that and make allowances.

OTOH, the whole concept of "punish and reform" depends on reformed prisoners being able to actually live in a society without the fear that their past sins would be held over them constantly.

Also, how many cases of this particular constellation do we have in Britain? Like I said, I can see how this law is helpful, but is it necessary?

[Lagmonster]

You would have a suspicion. You would have no way of proving who exactly leaked it (drunk cop in a bar, angry civilian, wronged file clerk) etc. Before that you knew that at least the department would be liable as one of their employees must have done so.

Actually, the police would know. Refer to the pamphlet I linked above; it specifically says that release is limited to individuals previously determined by and met by the police face-to-face, for which identification has been confirmed, and states that releasing the information to anyone else is a crime. That pretty much makes the recipient responsible if it gets leaked, no matter who does the leaking.

OTOH, the whole concept of "punish and reform" depends on reformed prisoners being able to actually live in a society without the fear that their past sins would be held over them constantly.

Not giving the police enough credit in this case; shouldn't we expect them to adhere to their claims of careful evaluation of each case, the conclusion of a multi-party risk assessment, and release only in cases where there is a determined risk to individuals? That's not 'release to anyone' - that sounds more like 'release only under the circumstances that someone is in danger from a person who is at risk to re-offend'.

[Thanas]

Hmmm. Rereading the thread and this article kinda has changed my mind. Fair enough, I suppose if the police do their due dilligence then this could work out well.

[Zaune]

Big "if", that.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I wonder...might this not cause more problems than it solves? A person formerly imprisoned or assault/GBH/whatever, is rejected by someone because o this disclosure, and becomes violent and/or threatening in order to stop the act becoming widely known?

Far etched, perhaps, but still plausible I think.

[Simon_Jester]

If they were going to do that, they weren't really reformed- it would only be a matter of time until something got them angry enough to threaten violence in order to get their way.

[Eternal_Freedom]

True. Still, I have a suspicion that this law won't actually do much.

[Purple]

If they were going to do that, they weren't really reformed- it would only be a matter of time until something got them angry enough to threaten violence in order to get their way.

Hm... So basically either they are well reformed and would not commit violence even when rejected unjustly*, which by relation means that they are unlikely to commit it under normal circumstances**. Or they are not well reformed enough to abstain from violence at all in which case being rejected unjustly is only going to provoke them. Is it just me or does this sound like it would only serve to punish the innocent and put new victims at risk?


* Unjustly as in double punishment for something they already did their time for.
** Thus making it doubly unjust as it is unnecessary to reject them for something they would not do.

[Grumman]

Hm... So basically either they are well reformed and would not commit violence even when rejected unjustly*,

* Unjustly as in double punishment for something they already did their time for.

Your standard for what constitutes a "just" basis to not date someone is unreasonable. The idea that a woman has any kind of moral obligation to date someone convicted of violent crimes is obscene.

[Purple]

Your standard for what constitutes a "just" basis to not date someone is unreasonable. The idea that a woman has any kind of moral obligation to date someone convicted of violent crimes is obscene.

Why is it unreasonable to say it is unjust for society or its members to punish someone for a crime he has already paid his due for by the laws of the same society? Or do you believe that people do not change, can newer repay society for anything they did and should newer be given a second chance regardless of their acts after a criminal deed?

[Grumman]

Your standard for what constitutes a "just" basis to not date someone is unreasonable. The idea that a woman has any kind of moral obligation to date someone convicted of violent crimes is obscene.

Why is it unreasonable to say it is unjust for society or its members to punish someone for a crime he has already paid his due for by the laws of the same society?

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.

Or do you believe that people do not change, can newer repay society for anything they did and should newer be given a second chance regardless of their acts after a criminal deed?

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.

[Covenant]

I think the title needs to be a little adjusted. I was originally a bit hacked off that it was designed to help women but not men escape abusive relationships, but when I check the packet it seems entirely gender neutral and provides access to resources for both men and women in the final pages. It's not just for women to check boyfriends, but for anyone to check someone important in their life.

I'm not a fan of this law, but I'm horrified by those domestic abuse numbers, and troubled that police action about "domestic abuse" was minor previously.

If it takes something as strange and invasive as this to get the police and the public to treat an epidemic of domestic abuse as something at least marginally serious then I guess I'd have to support it too. I much prefer the "right to know" idea outlined in the pamphlet, with the police notifying people in a relationship that their partner had a history of abuse, and an automatic follow-up if anything they describe includes hints of abuse. Or I prefer an open records thing where you can see for the past X years.

But the strange way it works here... I don't know. Unseemly but I suppose I might have to give it a thumbs up, especially since it allows a family member or concerned neighbor to report abuse and see if its an ongoing thing. The community does have a compelling interest in reducing abuse, though I would hate if my upstairs neighbors called the police any time my boisterous fiance threw a screaming fit of "I hate you!" directed at the computer or phone when its not at some other inanimate object.

Though I suppose the embarrassment of being checked up on by police is less damaging than an abusive relationship, so getting used to it may be important.

In any case, odd law. Thanks for posting that interesting story.

[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). As such, there are certain time limits (based on the crime), after which time your records could be expunged:

http://www.legaldefenderspc.com/practic ... ement.html

Most people aren't going to care about misdemeanors or traffic violations. But felonies on the other hand, might be need-to-know information for someone preparing to offer an important job or deciding to start a relationship. if someone cares enough to actually look up your criminal record, chances are they've got good reason to determine if you would be trustworthy or not. I suppose that's why many of us see "Clare's Law" as something that could be helpful.

[Purple]

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's why we don't brand criminals on the forehead any more.

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.

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.

[Ralin]

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.