Carroll: Why arrests count

Rocky Mountain News ^ | 17 aug 07 | Vincent Carroll

[rellimpank]

They say cops develop a dark view of human nature given all the predators, creeps and failures they encounter.

But maybe some attorneys develop a similar affliction: They spend so much time around people portraying themselves as victims of injustice that they begin to doubt that anyone is treated fairly in the normal course of events.

Take David Lane, an attorney best known for his defense of Ward Churchill but who has championed real civil liberties cases, too.

In a recent rebuttal of a Rocky editorial that opposed sealing the records of arrests that fail to result in convictions, as well as old convictions of certain crimes, Lane declared that he’d “represented countless individuals who were wrongfully arrested .

[sig226]

In most states, if you are arrested and not convicted, you can have the arrest record sealed after some period of time has passed.

I wonder if Mr. Carroll performs this service for free, or offers a discount. I’ll bet he doesn’t. :)

[sig226]

Correction: That should be Mr. Lane, the attorney who made the complaint.

[eastforker]

In most states, if you are arrested and not convicted, you can have the arrest record sealed after some period of time has passed....................If the person was not convicted why should he have to pay anything, on second thought , if not convicted, there should be no record of an arrest. It realy pisses me of that arrest records are public info, only convictions should be public record.

[sig226]

You have to pay the lawyer to do it. You can do it yourself, but you have to know the procedure and the form for the paperwork.

[sig226]

Incidentally, records of trials when the accused is not convicted are also available, and can be used against him. There are many reasons for a case not to proceed to trial, or for a not guilty verdict. The law recognizes that the high standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt sometimes means that guilty parties are not prosecuted or convicted.

[eastforker]

Sorry, just because someone accusses another party that results in an arrest without a conviction should not be public record.

[Brujo]

If these aren't public records, how do police, prosecutor, and judicial oversight groups keep track of possible harassing behavior? One of the best ways to identify rogue cops, prosecutors, etc. is to see what kind of conviction rates they get. Simple numbers aren't enough; the details of the cases have to be available so patterns of abuse can be discerned.

Sgt. Mark Gottlieb's record against Duke students would be all to easy to cover up if non-convict records were expunged.

[eastforker]

If we are going to make accusations public, than we need to include the name of the accuser public as well, and, if the accuser is found being wrong,, prosecution against that accuser as well.

[Brujo]

If we are going to make accusations public, than we need to include the name of the accuser public as well, ...

I agree.

... and, if the accuser is found being wrong,, prosecution against that accuser as well.

If harassment or maliciousness can be shown, then yes. However, sometimes honest mistakes are made.

[eastforker]

When lawmen break down doors and shoot innocent people they use that excuse o, oh it was a mistake, pardon me. Thats BS, they should be held accountable for their actions.

[Brujo]

When lawmen break down doors and shoot innocent people they use that excuse o, oh it was a mistake, pardon me. Thats BS, they should be held accountable for their actions.

I certainly agree with holding them accountable for their actions.

[sig226]

"If we are going to make accusations public, than we need to include the name of the accuser public as well, and, if the accuser is found being wrong,, prosecution against that accuser as well."

On this I agree.