Should a juvenile record ever remain open?

PoodleheadPoodlehead Registered Users Posts: 6,959
A man here in St. Paul was just arrested for sexually assaulting and stalking 5 little girls. He technically has no record, because he was a juvenile when he committed other offenses.

Therefore, until Monday when he was arrested and missed work without calling in, he was allowed to take a job as a school bus driver.

Seems very scary to me.
Minneapolis, MN
Failed to load the poll.
Failed to load the poll.

Comments

  • NetGNetG Registered Users Posts: 8,116
    What were the previous offenses? If they were offenses which should have kept him from being allowed around children, the judge made a mistake by letting him be tried in juvenile court.


    I think that juvenile records should always be closed. I *don't* believe that all underage infractions should remain in juvenile courts.
    The pews never miss a sermon but that doesn't get them one step closer to Heaven.
    -Speckla

    But at least the pews never attend yoga!
  • mrspoppersmrspoppers Registered Users Posts: 7,223 Curl Novice
    Here in Washington, it takes 5 years (I think) with a clean record to seal a juvenile record. until then, you have to disclose for jobs, school, etc that you are a convicted felon. This law just changed here and it was a good thing. I believe in second chances in the case of juveniles. We had cases of people who couldn't work or go to college because they committed a crime when they were 15 and potential employers and colleges didn't want convicted felons. Truly sad when they were trying to turn their lives around.

    Unfortunately, there's always going to be a "what if" scenario that will make people think sealing the records is a bad idea.

    To be honest with you, I don't know if there is an exception made for sexual offenses here.
    When are women going to face the fact that they don’t know their own bodies as well as men who have heard things?

    Don Langrick
    Bonsai Culturist
  • PoodleheadPoodlehead Registered Users Posts: 6,959
    They don't say in the news reports what his offenses were, just that he has a juvenile record. His father, however, is a registered sex offender. He was also picked up as a suspect but released.
    Minneapolis, MN
  • NetGNetG Registered Users Posts: 8,116
    Poodlehead wrote:
    They don't say in the news reports what his offenses were, just that he has a juvenile record. His father, however, is a registered sex offender. He was also picked up as a suspect but released.



    His father is a registered sex offender-so he shouldn't be allowed around kids? My dad's a felon, someone should lock me up soon. :roll:

    I stand by what I said before. I don't think sex offenses should ever be juvenile court issues, and if that's what his juvenile record was it shouldn't have been in that court. (I'm not saying legally that's the case-it's just my opinion of how it should work.) However, a "juvenile record" more often than not means shoplifting or smoking pot behind the school.
    The pews never miss a sermon but that doesn't get them one step closer to Heaven.
    -Speckla

    But at least the pews never attend yoga!
  • BohemianRenegadeBohemianRenegade Registered Users Posts: 1,078
    My brother (He's 17) is going through a bad spell right now and has gotten arrested. I would hate to think that the stupid choices he is making now as an adolescent would mess him up for life. I think they should always remain sealed except in cases of sexual abuse and excessive violence towards others or murder.
    Trying to find some sanity as I work on my master's in nursing...
  • ScarletScarlet Registered Users Posts: 3,125 Curl Neophyte
    Depends on the offense. If the offender is a serious threat to society (i.e. sex offender, murderer) then the public has a right to know.

    For "lesser" offenses (i.e. vandalism, shoplifting) then it should remain sealed.
    The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
  • loosecurlsloosecurls Registered Users Posts: 637
    Scarlet wrote:
    Depends on the offense. If the offender is a serious threat to society (i.e. sex offender, murderer) then the public has a right to know.

    For "lesser" offenses (i.e. vandalism, shoplifting) then it should remain sealed.


    I'm w/ Scarlet on this one!
    Slinky's rule for NC.com:

    I suppose I can't judge you because you married a serviceman and it is wartime. Boo hoo. You must be loney sitting at home with nothing else to do but pick on people. Why don't you go masterbate again?
  • ScarletScarlet Registered Users Posts: 3,125 Curl Neophyte
    loosecurls wrote:
    Scarlet wrote:
    Depends on the offense. If the offender is a serious threat to society (i.e. sex offender, murderer) then the public has a right to know.

    For "lesser" offenses (i.e. vandalism, shoplifting) then it should remain sealed.


    I'm w/ Scarlet on this one!

    This one?! :twisted: But I thought you always agreed with me! mecry.gif
    The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
  • Twirly GirlTwirly Girl Registered Users Posts: 53
    To be honest, I think it depends on the offence in most cases.

    A criminal record for petty theft will be irrelevant becuase as most people grow up they'll grow out of the behaviour, but anything involving violence or sexual assualt should be left for all to see as in my opinion those tendancies are inherent.

    I don't think convicted offences get wiped here in the UK (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) and we have a law that anyone applying to work with children now has to have their record checked.
  • loosecurlsloosecurls Registered Users Posts: 637
    Scarlet wrote:
    loosecurls wrote:
    Scarlet wrote:
    Depends on the offense. If the offender is a serious threat to society (i.e. sex offender, murderer) then the public has a right to know.

    For "lesser" offenses (i.e. vandalism, shoplifting) then it should remain sealed.


    I'm w/ Scarlet on this one!

    This one?! :twisted: But I thought you always agreed with me! mecry.gif

    :shock:

    Ummmm, well. . . LOOK! OVER THERE! PRETTY LIGHTS!!! SHINY SHINY SHINY!!


    (is she still looking?!)
    Slinky's rule for NC.com:

    I suppose I can't judge you because you married a serviceman and it is wartime. Boo hoo. You must be loney sitting at home with nothing else to do but pick on people. Why don't you go masterbate again?
  • MipMip Registered Users Posts: 233
    To be honest, I think it depends on the offence in most cases.

    A criminal record for petty theft will be irrelevant becuase as most people grow up they'll grow out of the behaviour, but anything involving violence or sexual assualt should be left for all to see as in my opinion those tendancies are inherent.

    I don't think convicted offences get wiped here in the UK (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) and we have a law that anyone applying to work with children now has to have their record checked.


    Twirly - I'm 99% sure that all offences are left on the criminal record for good. However, certain offences can be considered 'spent' after a period of time, meaning that you do not have to disclose them on a job application form, for example. The length of time it takes before a conviction is considered to be spent also depends on the type of conviction. I think that jail sentences over a certain length (might be five years) are never spent, as are convictions for murder etc. With sex offenders, they are put on a register also, but I'm not sure if all of them are put on there for life.

    And yup, you do need to have your record checked if you want to work with children. I just want to help kids in my local school read for about an hour a week, and I need have my record checked.
  • bouncebounce Registered Users Posts: 297
    Mip wrote:
    To be honest, I think it depends on the offence in most cases.

    A criminal record for petty theft will be irrelevant becuase as most people grow up they'll grow out of the behaviour, but anything involving violence or sexual assualt should be left for all to see as in my opinion those tendancies are inherent.

    I don't think convicted offences get wiped here in the UK (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) and we have a law that anyone applying to work with children now has to have their record checked.


    Twirly - I'm 99% sure that all offences are left on the criminal record for good. However, certain offences can be considered 'spent' after a period of time, meaning that you do not have to disclose them on a job application form, for example.

    And yup, you do need to have your record checked if you want to work with children. I just want to help kids in my local school read for about an hour a week, and I need have my record checked.


    To answer the original question, no I don't think juv. records should remain open. There's way too many "special circumstances" and the criminal systems/mental health systems are SO broke as is, I can't really think of a way to handle this and not potentially impact the lives of the majority (I'm guessing) of juv. offenders who just made bad decisions as kids.

    Does that mean that some juv. offenders will commit crimes again that could have been mimized by having their records open? Probably, but if anyone can find a solution to clean up these systems that will benefit EVERY person, let me know!
    OOps - I just realized you meant in the UK - sorry!!!! deleting!!!

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file