New York takes a bipartisan criminal justice proposal to the extreme
Jack Elbaum
Video Embed
Over the past four years, Clean Slate legislation has been winning bipartisan support across the country. To date, 10 states have passed laws that meet the criteria laid out by the Clean Slate Initiative. These include Republican strongholds like Utah and Oklahoma, along with the liberal hubs of California and New Jersey.
The logic of these laws is simple: if a person commits a low-level, non-violent crime, pays his debt to society through jail, parole, fines, or another method, and then does not get in any more trouble for anywhere from five to 10 years, depending on the state, then his criminal record will automatically be sealed. Doing this makes it easier for the former convict to find a well-paying job, be fully reintegrated into society, and move on with life after making a mistake. At the same time, the record will still be visible to law enforcement and can be used against him in future criminal proceedings.
GAVIN NEWSOM’S 2023-24 BUDGET RECEIVES PUSHBACK FROM LOCAL LAWMAKERS ON KEY ISSUES
Now, New York wants to jump on the Clean Slate train — but with a twist.
Later this week, New York’s state legislature is “poised to pass” Clean Slate legislation that will eventually land on Gov. Kathy Hochul’s (D-NY) desk. This law is going to be markedly more permissible than other laws of its kind, as all crimes, with the single exception of sex offenses, will be eligible for automatic sealing after the “individual had completed the full sentence, including parole, and the number of years prescribed [three for misdemeanors and seven for felonies] in the bill had passed without the person committing another crime in New York.”
However, in every single other state that has passed a Clean Slate law so far, there have been significant exceptions to the automatic sealing of criminal records. Most felonies, essentially all violent crimes, and even crimes of dishonesty such as perjury usually disqualify one’s records from being automatically sealed. The specifics change from state to state, but the common thread from Utah, which “will not clear any felony records, domestic violence related offenses, sex offenses, simple assault, or DUI offenses,” to New Jersey — a state with exceptions that include homicide, robbery, perjury or false swearing, conspiracy, criminal restraint, and many more — is that only a limited number of offenses qualify to be automatically sealed.
Even in California, which has the “most expansive” Clean Slate law of all, “People convicted of serious and violent felonies, as well as those requiring sex offender registration, won’t have their records cleared under the law. And criminal histories would still be disclosed in background checks when people apply to work in education, law enforcement or public office.”
This stands in stark contrast to New York’s bill, which would only exclude sex offenses from being sealed. Other than that, it is automatic sealing after seven years (a shorter period than other states, yet for more serious crimes). Murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, and essentially all out-of-state federal offenses would be eligible to be sealed. Moreover, the law would bar most employers and landlords from asking about prior convictions. I can already tell this is a recipe for success.
Despite the massive difference between New York’s bill and every other Clean Slate law, the New York Times has been using the latter as a justification for the former. In a recent piece on the subject, the New York Times notes, in order to reassure readers, that “Ten states, including Oklahoma, Virginia and Utah, have passed legislation to automatically clear certain criminal records.” The issue, as we have noted, is that there are significant exceptions in those laws that are simply not there when it comes to New York.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The New York Times also cites a Harvard Law School study “which found that on the whole, those whose records had been expunged tended to re-offend less and earn more.” This is true, which is one of the reasons Clean Slate legislation is likely smart on a limited basis. However, the study itself notes that “Only a small minority of people with records in Michigan are eligible for expungements, and only a small minority of this eligible population in fact receives them.” What does this mean in practice? Those who are receiving expungements are not those committing the most severe crimes. Thus, they are already less likely to re-offend. How can one honestly apply this finding to New York, where the records of those who have committed all types of heinous crimes will be expunged?
There is a reason why Clean Slate laws have garnered such significant support: they make sense intuitively, and they have now been shown to work. However, there is also a reason why every Clean Slate law passed up until this point has contained major exceptions to the crimes eligible to be sealed from one’s record: employers and landlords should know if they are talking to someone who was a violent felon, and a permanent criminal record is an important deterrent to crime. If they have truly changed, then that employer or landlord can make the judgment for herself. But it serves nobody to take a bipartisan criminal justice proposal to the extreme and then use the moderate versions of it as proof that it is a good idea.
Jack Elbaum is a summer 2023 Washington Examiner fellow.