THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 1988. Forgetting crimes

Press, 13 April 1988, Page 16

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 1988. Forgetting crimes

The Minister of Justice, Mr Palmer, has proceeded with a notion he floated a couple of years ago, to produce a law that could' make it [illegal to discriminate against convicted criminals. He intends [to introduce a bill to this effect when Parliament resumes next week. The details of the Criminal Records Bill, as it will be known, have hot been made public. A full understanding of; its provisions will have 'to w-ait until Mr Palmer reveals all; but his office has confirmed the general tenor of the. proposal, which is a reversal of what society’s laws might have been presumed to do.! I I - However hopeful and charitable* the intention may be, the whole concept of the proposed law is ; based on a lie: the presumption- that a icrjme which occurred — with a victim and perpetrator, with a court hearing, a conviction and a sentence — can in some [way be! expunged from human memory and everyone must pretend 'that it never happened at all. On occasions, I Mr Palmer has been prepared to speak but about the incidence of crime, lamenting the decline Jn standards that is its! cause. With this new recipe for whitewash!, how'eyer, Mr Palmer will contribute! to the i decline in standards i by cheapening the worth of a crime-free life. When an unblemished record becomes indistinguishable from one of a recycled or hidden reputation, the credit due to a lifetime free fromi crime is [diminished.! Many might argue that a clean record is a matter of chance, of good fortune in life, freedom from pressures that lead to crime; and therefore is 'not something for which mucl) icredit cart deservedly be taken. Perhaps so; thougri 'many, even most people, who suffer adversities do not turn to crime. This should at least be acknowledged! as desirable.; ! ! J

The fact is thiat the justice system jean provide only limited deterrents to crime and its repetition. When the system-is successful it should be applauded; if people [resolve not to offend again, • they should be given , all reasonable encouragement to succeed in life, especially when their record has been clean for many years. Byj and’ large this is exactly what happens in the! community. Offenders or potential should, however, know that crime is likely to disqualify them from unanimous acceptance in all activities, of the community, or in all jobs. i

A community aversion to crime may lead to the alienation of [some of thte community’s members who are bent upon repeated offending. The proposed law would not alter this until the offending is 10 years past. Nevertheless, the expectation ithat offending will limit opportunities is not an unreasonable way for the community to exert pressure against crime. If people set out to spoil their best chances, it cannot be considered so very dreadful if the predictable results follow. In practice, the community is not notably opposed to giving offenders a second chance; that is good. But it is surely'entitled to be selective ! about what chances, such as! job opportunities, are provided.

If the law were to go so far, as was once suggested, to preclude all reference to past offences,! the i!l consequences could be horrendous.. If [ jail past crimes, especially violent and sexual crimes, were concealed by law, the social! consequences could be very ugly. The assumption that the passage of time should redeem jail may seem charitable; it is not a isafe assumption in all instances. Perhaps, statistically, there is some magic in the 10 [years of: good behaviour, or of not being caught; perhaps not. The motive' behind the proposal is, presumably, to [fjroyide an added incentive tb offenders to rehabilitate themselves and to assist them to live down their past. In fact, of course,! anyone who manages to keep out of trouble! for several years, is unlikely to be discriminated Against j in' employment or housing to any [ great degree. Thousands of people; with criminal records hold jobs and lead normar lives without the rest of the community pretending mass amnesia. Their fellow citizens [Have shown faith and support for the reformed offender in spite of past convictions, not: in ignorance of them. In these instanced the community has exercised its good judgment, but Mr Palmer would prefer to replace the community’s right to judgment [with 1 j statutory edict.. That is the great flaw in tjhe proposal. The .State and its legal machinery i do' not know ail; they know only what [is oh! the record. Individual people are cpmmonly| far \ better informed about the character [of thbir fellows. If! the community, in Mr Palmer’s opinion, seems ! to err on Occasion and unfairly reacts io a person’s misdeeds, that is regrettable. Perhaps he can provide a wealth of examples [df. i injustices. It can also be argued that the|s;tigma[of a criminal record is something that! an offender .should have considered before! committing a' crime. No pressing need has been demonstrated for Mr Palmer’s bill;) there is no conspicuous evidence of thousands of criminals whose [chances of [ rehabilitation have been [irretrievably blighted, because no-one has waved a ma'gicj wand to erase public knowledge of I {heir criminal records. The argument against the proposed law [does not rest oh [a; proposition that when once J a criminal a person is .always a criminal. The ' argument rests! upon the need to acknowledge that gjood and! bad consequences flow from; good and bad [deeds. One of these, if the legal j system is successful, is that criminals are caught,. competed, and sentenced. ’ This j process comes to an end. The community [ [ accepts the [result, and the [ supposedly [ redeemed offenders should get a fair chance [ in life. This should [ not mean ’ unqualified opportunities. ! ! ? If! performance can qualify! people for jobs, performance can also disqualify them. The State should not force people to ignore* what [they cannot comfortably ignore about! the performance of others. If the State wants to encourage! me community to take a more charitable line, let it; do so by all means; legislating to enforce this end is mistaken. | • i ! !