Then again there is the philosophy that bad behavior should always have consequences.
Bad behavior should have consequences, but the article is talking about reducing the crimes to misdemeanors ten years after the fact. Should someone's entire life be ruined because they did something stupid 10 years ago?
There time limits on how long convitions for some things that records are kept for.
Any forfeiture some been gone in 5 years of no further convitions.
Tens years for minor crimes.
Then something like this for more serious crimes.
There is no good reason some one needs to know about a civil forfeiture years ago unless it is a ongoing broblem.
This line is confusing to me. Is there a law in West Virginia that prohibits a private employer from hiring a convicted felon?
I suspect this is not the case, and that the business owners cited here really just refrain from hiring felons to protect themselves from potential civil lawsuits by customers or fellow employees if the worker causes trouble on the job. If this is true, then are the business owners simply asking the state to help protect them by hiding the criminal records of prospective employees?
As far as I’m concerned, if we have nonviolent felonies on the books that people would not care about ten years later, they should not be felonies to begin with. Don’t edit their criminal records; change the law for future initial convictions.
Embezzlement is a non-violent crime. Bad accountants can once again be trusted with commercial or personal accounts?
How about a Second Chance for Employment Act for Whites kicked out of their job by non-Whites?
I wonder how many of the non-violent felony convictions were plea bargained down from more serious crimes?
Happens all the time.