Name & Shame drugs tourists??

[detective-boy]

Yes, which is why unspent convictions should not be a matter of public record. DB seems to be arguing on the one hand for a publically available database of unspent convictions, but then also saying that database technology could be a breach of privacy. Maybe I'm not reading him properly.

I think unspent convictions should be a matter of public record as (a) one of the deterrents to committing crime in the first place ("If you can't do the new girlfriend finding out, don't do the crime") and (b) as a matter of public policy to avoid the honest applicant for any job (outside the CRB search parameters) being disadvantaged by the liar.

I do, however, think that there needs to be a review of what "spent" is, with far shorter periods in most cases.

And there should be some - inevitably light - control over access not just free access on the web (similar to the controls over access to the unedited Electoral Register - check of identity and reasonable grounds for access (which would be defined) and, maybe, some restraint on wider publication such as the need for the media to demonstrate a public interest.

 

[Blagsta]

Your position seems to be rather contradictory then. One the one hand you are concerned about searchable databases and privacy, on the other you want some convictions to be public record.

BTW, if you think public records would be a deterrent, you're crazy. People just don't think like that.

 

[detective-boy]

Your position seems to be rather contradictory then. One the one hand you are concerned about searchable databases and privacy, on the other you want some convictions to be public record.

BTW, if you think public records would be a deterrent, you're crazy. People just don't think like that.

I just don't see the situation as "all or nothing" (I rarely see anything involved with policing and criminal justice as "all or nothing"!!). It is a case of getting the balance right - appropriate access but safeguards against simple nosiness or malicious misuse.

Why should you (for instance) have absolutely no way of confirming whether or not the cleaner you are about to give unfettered access to your home has any unspent previous convictions for nicking from their clients previously, other than to trust to them telling you the truth? If cleaner A turned up and did tell the truth, that they had a conviction for theft and cleaner B turned up and lied to you, denying that did not, knowing you couldn't find out, who would get the job? And why would that situation be right?

And some people would see having to admit a conviction for a period of time as being a deterrent - people now fret about getting a drugs bust whilst students if they know they want to go into a field where a CRB check will be needed. You are misguided if you do not believe that.

 

[Giles]

I seem to remember a few years back, I think it was in Australia, someone set up a web site offering information about people living locally and their criminal pasts.

The people doing it just got all their information from the local papers' court reports. I don't know if it is still going, I remember there being a predictable furore in the news about it at the time.

Unless you make a law that says either:

courts are no longer open to the public (!)

or

they are, but you aren't allowed to publish details of the court cases in the press (!)

or

newspapers shouldn't allow access to back issues

or

people searching for information in back issues aren't then allowed to publish it anywhere else


Then I don't see how you can keep previous convictions a secret.

Giles..

 

[Blagsta]

And some people would see having to admit a conviction for a period of time as being a deterrent - people now fret about getting a drugs bust whilst students if they know they want to go into a field where a CRB check will be needed. You are misguided if you do not believe that.

You think the drugs laws stop people taking drugs? LOL! You're cracked mate.

 

[Blagsta]

Oh, and if someone's done their punishment, then it should be over and done with, it shouldn't follow them around for the rest of their lives. Employment references are there to deal with this sort of thing.

 

[detective-boy]

Oh, and if someone's done their punishment, then it should be over and done with, it shouldn't follow them around for the rest of their lives. Employment references are there to deal with this sort of thing.

I have never suggested things should "follow them around for the rest of their lives". Please don't misrepresent me.

And the naive statement that "Employment references are there to deal with this sort of thing" suggests that you have not given a moments thought to the issue. Who provides the employers details? Have you never heard of bogus references? How would they be able to mention any conviction that led to their dismissal without offending your "once it's done it's over with" rule?

You have done absolutely nothing to address the fact that the current situation is (a) ineffectual and (b) a liar's charter.

 

[Blagsta]

I already said the current system wasn't perfect.

I honestly don't get where you're coming from. You're completely contradicting yourself.