1141965

8/12/2019 1141965

1/16

Sealing and Expungement of Criminal Records. The Big LieAuthor(s): Bernard Kogon and Donald L. Loughery, Jr.Source: The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 61, No. 3 (Sep.,1970), pp. 378-392

Published by: Northwestern UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1141965.

Accessed: 27/02/2014 06:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Northwestern Universityis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of

Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 165.123.199.1 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 06:48:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nwuhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1141965?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1141965?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nwu

8/12/2019 1141965

2/16

THE OUBNAI.FCRIMINALAW, BXINOI.OGEND OI.ICECIENCE VO1. 1,NO.CopJrright1970y Northwesternniversitychool f Law P"ntedn U.S.A.

R I l N O L O YSEALINGAND EXPUNGEMENTOF CRIMINALRECORDS THE BIG LIE

BERNARD KOGON ANDDONALD L. LOUGHERY, JR.Bernard Kogon, employed by the Los Angeles County Probation Department since 1951, is Direc-

tor of the Staff Training Office. He received his LL.B. (1935) and M.S.W. (1942) degrees from Brook-lyn Law School and Columbia University School of Social Work, respectively. He is a member of theNew York Bar. From 1953 to 1968 he was an Associate Professor at California State College, tosAngeles, where he taught correctional and social welfare courses in the Sociology Department.

Donald L. Loughery, Jr., is Chief of Field Services, Western Division, Los Angeles County Proba-tion Department. He received his A.B. degree in Sociology at UCLA in 1948 and his M.S. in publicadministration at USC in 1959. His twenty-two years of experience in probation includes assignmentsin adult and juvenile field workn juvenile forestry camps, personnel and trainingn and various levels ofsupervision and management.

According to the authors, the sealing and expungement of criminal records is not as humanitarianas it looks. Ostensibly a boon to the oSender, it actually works against him and helps society to evadeits obligation to change its views toward former offenders. Instead of accepting ex-law breakers andgiving them a fair chance, the community requires them to lie, and the community lies to itself whenit conceals their records in order to make them emploSrable. This violates every principle of honest re-habilitation work.

The authors find, moreover, that aside from the issue of principle, it is a practical impossibility todeny reality. While certain records are destroyed, others are not. It is impossible to account for theblank time in a man's employment history during which he was in jail or prison. The order to seal arecord constitutes a record in itself. The denial of reality is both unethical and inefficient. It is timesociety grew up.

The wide-spreadracticeofsealingor expungingcriminal and delinquencyrecordsis a failure.Despite the good intentionsof its proponents,it does not provide the relief intended and ac-tually does harm, requently,by the hoax it playsupon ex-offenders nd the generalpublic. Thewhole approachrequires re-examination.Basicsocial values are involved; this is a matter ofconscience,not merely convenience. t includesmore than simply the concealmentof offenderrecords.lReview is timely, becausethere is a growingconcernabout the way "a record"handicapsanoSender. Furthermore, orrectionalpractice, ingeneral, s being closely questionedand re-eval-uated today. Certainly the traditional mis-

1We prefer o use the terms "conceal"or '-conceal-ment" throughout his article,with respectto records,because:(a) these wordsreflect, n a genericsense, thesocietal intent to remove criminalrecords rom scru-tiny, whetherpermanently, emporarily, r for certainpurposesonly; and (b) because, although the terms"seal"and "expunge" re used n the statutes, n courtdecisions,andin legal parlance,we have no confidencethat they meanwhat they say.

handlingof the recordshouldbe among the firstaspectsof practice o be challenged.Record sealing and expungementhave beenaccepted casuallyand extendeduncriticallyoverthe years, prospering n a rosy glow of goodintentionsandexpediency,withlittle attentiontoevaluation fresults.2 herearefew courtdecisionsand attorney-general pinionsdealing with thesubject. Definitive law is absent because thesubject matterhas rarely been litigated upward.E2rtant litigation is scanty and inconclusive;appealdecisions re rare.

2Mirjan R. Damaska, in his exhaustive, two-partarticle, Ad7verseLegal Consequencesof Con7victson ndthesr Remo7val: Comparatsl)e tudy, 59 J. CR. L., C.& P.S. 347, 542 (1968), indicates that: "collateralconsequencesflowing from criminal judgments arelegion.... Views regarding removal of these conse-quenceswidely diSer.... there s little consciouspolicybehind egal provisionsdealingwith this problem....some of these provisions are not in harmony withmodern orrectionalhinking...."Damaska refersto the general subject as a "ratherneglected area",but does indicate that there is someevidence of growing improvementwith respect todisqualificationsesulting romconviction f crime.

378

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/12/2019 1141965

3/16

1970] 379XPUNGEMENT OF CRIMINAL RECORDSThere is a variety of statutes on recordcon-cealment,buttheyarenotuniversal y anymeans,althoughincreasing egislative interest is beingdemonstrated. urrentawtendsto beunclear ndambiguous.Thereis little literature o dispelthegeneral murkinesssurrounding he subject. Asearchrevealednoneespousinghepositionof thisarticle.Briefly, t is believed hat: 1) disabilitieslowingfrom convictionof crime,or the juveniledelin-quency equivalent,should be completelyliftedupondischarge f criminaliability(orterminationof juvenilecourt wardship),as part of society'srecognitionhat "paymentof the debt"has beenaccomplished;) the recordshouldbe left alone,i.e., neither sealed nor expunged;and, 3) rein-

tegrationof the offender nto the society shouldbesupportedhrough hangesn societalattitudestoward x-offenderswiththe assistanceof appro-priate legislation)and not through efforts tolegislateuntruths.History,reality, "the record"cannotbe changed,as Omarremindsus, by laworanythingelse.This articleproposes o accomplishhe follow-ing objectives: define terms, examine currentpracticehroughouthe country,explainwhy thesystem f sealingand expungements ineffectiveand annotbe madeeffective,andfinally,presentamoreviableandrationalmethodofreintegratingoffendershohavepresumably eenrehabilitated.In connectionwith thisarticle,and in an effortto urveycurrentpractice, ettersof inquiryweresentn August of 1968 to correctional genciesin ll the states, to a numberof city and countyjurisdictions,nd to federal authorities.Addi-tionaletters were sent to severalagenciesandindividualshat had evinced prior connectionwithr interestin the subjectmatter.About70letters ere sent; there were over 50 responses.Asurtherpreparation, he literature, ncludingcorrectionalournals,law review articles, courtdecisions,nd attorney-generalopinions, wasreviewed.

DEFINITIONFTERMSIt mayappear dleorunnecessaryo spendanytimeefining erms.However, he surveyclearlyconfirmedhat had been suspected-tremendousconfusionbout their meaning.Analysisof thewaysn which the words"seal"and "expunge"aresedrevealsneitherprecisionn definitionnorconsensuss to meaning.Oftenthe termsareused

interchangeably,ut theyarenot the same.All ofthis adds to the hoa2rplayed upon the formeroSenderpopulation,a recurrenttheme of thispaper.Gough, in his authoritativearticle on thesubject,refersto the "extreme ack of uniformterminology,even within a single jurisdiction",and commentson how difficult t is to study thesystem under the circumstances.3n his surveyhe found that the processof concealingor de-stroying the record is variouslydesignatedasexpungement, ecordsealing,recorddestruction,obliteration,setting aside of the conviction,annulmentf theconviction, mnesty,nullificationof the conviction,purging,and pardon.4Simplyin the interestsof basiccommunication e mustdefixlet leastthree ermswhichmustnotcontinuetobe usedinterchangeably:sealing";"expunge-ment"; nd "removal f disabilities."

Sea1,ingEssentially,"sealing"means that a recordorproceedings "merely" sealed-not destroyed.There s an obvious and intended implicationthat he sealed tem or event may, undercertaincircumstances,e unsealed.According o CorpgsJuris, "the word'seal' is

deiined s meaningto fasten with a seal, or afasteningmpressedwith a seal to guaranteesecurity;o to fasten, that the seal, or the bandorwrapperastenedby the seal, must be tornorbrokenn orderto removethe inclosedarticle".6Expgngement

"Expungement,"regarded by some as "aconceptf fairly recentorigin",6iterallymeansthathe recordor proceedings erased-as if ithadeverhappenedn thefirstplace.The memoryofhe event is blottedout permanently,with no3 Gough,TheExpungementf AdjudicatsonRecordsofuvenileand AduZt 5enders:A Problem f Status(1966) ASEINGTONNIVERSITYAWQUARTERLY,49.4 Ibid. 149-150.5 79 CORPUSURIS ECUNDUM75. The 1968pocketpartdds,at page 42: "Theword'seal' s also definedtomean any instrumentalitythat keeps somethingclose,ecret,orunknown."6 Pettler & Hilmen,CriminalRecords f ArrestandConviction:xpungementrom the Public Access, 3CALIF.EST.LAWREV.124 (1967).The authorsofthisrticle ndicatethat expungementwas broughtupforhe first time formallyat the 1956National Con-ferencen Parole,with the objectiveof lesseningorabolishinghe "penaltieswhich public opinion, asopposedo law, imposes upon one convicted of anoffensegainstsociety".


8/12/2019 1141965

4/16

380 BERNARD KOGONAND DONALD L. LOUGHERY, R. [Vol.61possibility f refreshment r revivalunderany cir-cumstances.7Corpus uris describes xpungement s "a termexpressiveof cancellationor deletion, implyingnot a legal act, but a physical annihilation". nits elaboration, he words "rub out", "destroy",and "obliterate" re used.8It may be seen therefore, hat sealingdoes notpurport o destroy he record,while expungementdoes. With respect o popularusage,however, hewords are often used interchangeably.To citean example, the Juvenile Court Act of Utahspecificallyprovides for the "ExpungementofJuvenile CourtRecord".9The code section,how-ever, goes on to indicate that, under certainconditions, he court "shall order seaZed ll rec-ords..." (Emphasis added). The section fur-ther provides for "inspectionof such records",clearly indicating that the literal meaning ofexpungement as not intended.A further xample:Pettler and Hilmen discuss several Californiastatutes which actually deal with the sealing ofrecords,but state: "Here recordsmay be trulyexpunged y a petition to seal them" (F,mphasisadded).lA law review article, devoted to California's6'unusual expungement statutes", reflects thesame basic error.DiscussingPenal Code Section1203.4, and related sections, none of whichactually providesfor expungement, t "suggestsstatutory amendments o make expungeinentmore meaningful eward or and aid to rehabil-itation". The authorscon.clude y declaring hatthe difficulties emand hat "the expungement e-quirements e sharpenedo increase he credibilityof the expungementas refiectiveof rehabilita-tion"11

7 Gough emphasizes that not only is the recorderadicated ut, moresigriificantly,he offender eceivesa "redefinitionf status".Op. it. upra ote 3, at p. 149.Stein, discussing Section 1203.4 of the CaliforniaPenal Code, often and erroneously eferred o as anexpungement tatute, states: "While here is no statu-tory defiXiitionf expungement,n both legislativeandlegal circles n California t is generallyunderstood omean that, as far as the law is concerned, he recorddoesnot exist,while n fact, physically, t doesexist".See Stein,GuittbyRecord,1 CALIF.WEST. AWREV.126 (1965).

8 35 CORPUSURISECUNDUM43- see also WestPublishing Company WORDS NDPHRASES, ol.15A,1968pocketpart,p. 72.9 Section 55-10-117Utah Code annotated 1953, asenactedby Lawsof l i ah, 1965.103 CALIF.WEST.JAWEV.,p. cit. supra note 6, atp. 126.11Notes and ConlmentsThe Effect of Expungement

Gough tates in this connection:"By an expungement tatute is meanta legislativeprovision or the eradication f a recordof convic-tion or adjudication pon fulfillmentof prescnbedconditions,usually the successfuldischarge f theoffender rom probation, and the passage of aperiod of time without further offense. It is notsimplya lifting of disabilities ttendantupon con-viction and a restorationof civil rights, althoughthis is a significant art of its effect. It is ratheraredefinition f status, a processof erasing he legalevent of conviction r adjudication, nd thereby e-storing to the regenerateoffenderhis status quoante."l2

RemovaZoJ Disabilities"Removal f disabilities" ctually includesanylegal effort made to nullify the bad effects of arecord,whetheror not collcealment r secrecyareinvolved.California's aws dealing with vacation ofconviction, estoration f certaincivil rights, andremovalof some other disabilities re notoriouslyreferred o as expungement aws, when in factthey seek only to removecertain disabilities ndnot to erase the recordat all. As a result of theprimal error,we see many eSorts to make suchlaws more effectiveas expungementaws, in theface of the fact that they were not intendedassuch. These eSorts unfortunatelyonly tend tocompound he initial allacy.Booth demonstrates he confusionclearly. Hecommentson California's ection 1203.4,a well-knownprovisiondealingwith dismissalof a caseand removalof disabilities lowing rom the con-viction, after successful ompletion f a probationterm.l3He notes that a motionunderthis sectionis commonly eferred o as a motion or "expunge-ment" and states: "Notwithstanding he fact

that the remedy s commonlyreferred o as 'ex-pungement', t is far from it". Elsewhere n hisarticle, he uses the term "sealing" n the samecontext,withoutdiSerentiation.In responseto a survey question about localsealing and expungement aws, a number ofon a Criminal Conv?ction: 0 So. CALIF. AWREV.127(1967).12 Gough, p. (;it.supra note 3, at p. 149.

13 Booth, The Expungement Myth, 38 LOSANGELESBARBULLETIN,arch1963,161-166.It must be observed that Section 1203.4 does noteven use the word "expunge",and that none of themany court decisionsdealingwith it and related sec-tions declares he record apunged, or indicates thatsuchwas intendedby the legislature.


8/12/2019 1141965

5/16

1970] EXPUNGEMENT OF CRIMINALRECORD^Srespondents ndicated that their laws provideforthe "settingaside"of youthful-oSender,mis-demeanor,r felonyconvictionsand the removalof disabilitieslowing romsuchconvictions.Althoughsuch legislationis rather common,with evidenceof a legislativetrendin its favor,the vacationof convictionsand the removalofdisabilitiesdo not constituteconcealment f therecord,any more than the declarationsof con-fidentiality of juvenile court records are theequivalentsof theirconcealmentromscrutiny.14The cettingaside of convictionsgenerallyhas amuch more limited effect. While certain dis-abilities are clearly removed,and while theresometimespurportsto be a concealmentof therecord,the fact is that it remains.In some few

instances,however,similarto the juvenilecourtsituationdescribedabove, the relief grantedbyvacation-of-convictiontatutes may include aconcealment f therecord.Booth'sposition s that current"expungement"doesnotwork, hat"oursenseof fairplay"shouldrequireus to givean offender"asecondchance ostart offwith a cleanrecord", nd that the thingto do is to revisethe statutesso as to makethemmoreeffective srealexpungementaws.15Current"removal f disabilities" rovisionsmightbe saidto be even less effective,althoughthey pointto-warda sounderdirection.CURRENTRACTICES

An examinationof the practices throughoutthecountryrevealed hat laws pertaining o thesubject finquiry reeitherconflicting,herebyre-l4Baum states that "This type of relief actuallywiping ut the legalevent, sealingthe records hereofandauthorizing enialof theoccurrencef suchevent-hasbeen a gooddealmorecontroversialhanremediesonly affordingrelief from disabilitiesresultingfromconviction." aum, Wipingouta CriminalorJuvenileRecord,0CALBORNIATATEAR OURNAL24(1965).While there is lack of clarity about the force andeffect f the California o-called xpungementtatutes,thebest of evidence ndicates hat they donot expungeconviction.An article, referred o earlier,studies sixCaliforniatatutes dealing with the concealmentofrecords,and concludes as follows: {Expungementinaccurately escribes he effect of the six Californiastatutes,none of whichliterallyexpunges he convic-tion."The sentenceor judgment s vacated,but notthe onviction.Sxpranote11,at p. 132.The CaliforniaAttorneyGeneralhas ruledthat therecordsf convictionarenot destroyeduponthe entryofan orderof dismissalpursuant o Section1203.4(36Ops.CaliforniaAttorneyGeneral ,3-1960).Gough emphasizes hat provisionswhich set aside

the rimedonot reach he statusof anoffender.Op.cit.slfpraote 3, at p. 168.15 Booth,op.cit.supranote13,at p. 166.

381lectinga singularackof clarityas to philosophyand goals, or else non-existent.It is no exaggerationo declare hatconfusionsmonumental.As has been said previously, hereis nocommon urrencywithrespect o themeaningof terms,but rathera tendency o use the words"sealand"expunge"nterchangeably.Beyondthe semanticproblemwhich amountsto farmorethan that in the lives of offenders--itwas foundthat the vast majorityof respondentsto the aforementioned urvey of correctionaladministratorsegardedealingandexpungement,and particularly he former,as a desideratum.In differentwaystheychampionedhepropositionthatwhenan oSenderhaspaidhis debtto society,he shouldnot be hounded orever.A numberofthem indicatedthat bills pertainingto sealingwereeithercurrentlybeforetheir legislatures, rwerebeingadvocated.l6Frequently,strong convictionswere expressedabout the desirabilityof such concealmentprac-tices,on the eory thatwe defeatourgoalsofre-habilitation f we permit the typical social biasagainst offendersto persist by perpetuatingarecordof theiroffenses. n the samevein, manyrespondents rgedthat rehabilitationwas reallyenhanced y concealmentf therecord.

Partisans of concealment statutes rangedwidelyin their views. Someofferedconsiderablereasonand logic for theirposition,while otherstended towarda more sentimentalview aboutthehumanitarianervicewecouldrender ffenderswhen,at the point of death, they desperatelywished o havetherecord learedbefore hey metthe"Maker".Admittedly, his is an extreme,butit servesto makea point about the varietyandconfusionof motivationand myth surroundingthissubject.The common hreadamongall theseresponsesinvolvedthe belief that the way to protect anex-oSenderfrom continuing harassment andsuspicion s through record concealment;thatthetrendmust be towardtighteningup conceal-ment laws and practices to make them moreeffective.Despite the overwhelminghrust in favor ofconcealmenttatutes, however,a searchreveals16 In Californiaa large numberof such bills weresubmitted o the 1968Legislature.GovernorReaganvetoed hese bills becausethe SenateJudiciaryCom-

mittee s currently tudyingthe matterof recordseal-ing.The Governorelt that suchlegislation houldbedeferredntilthestudyw ascompleted.


8/12/2019 1141965

6/16

382 BERNARD KOGONAND DONALD L. LOUGHERY, R. [Vol. 61that most states do not actually have such laws.Many laws purport to provide for sealing orexpungement,but do not, in fact, do so. Suchmisleading aws fall into two broadcategories: )those aSording the "protection"provided by"privileged" generally juvenile) court records,and 2) those furnishingno such presumptiveprotection nitially, but rather providing or theremoval of disabilitiesresultingfrom conviction(or the juvenile delinquencyequivalent)after a"goodadjustment".In response to a survey question about theexistenceof sealingand expungementaws, manyresponded y citing juvenilecourt law provisionsfor the privacyof hearings nd the confidentialityof records.While juvenile court proceedings regenerally private throughout the country, ex-perience as shown hat there s muchunwarrantedconfidence n the inviolabilityof this "privilege"when t is challenged.Realistically,one must address he questionofconfidentialitywith respect to whom and underwhat circumstances,ather han n abstract erms.It is emphasized, owever, hat the confidentialityof records is not the same thing as sealing orexpungement,and that to use all these wordsinterchangeably s to compoundthe confusion.The Alabama Statute, for example, providesagainst "indiscriminate ublic inspection,"whichis hardly equivalent to a sealing, let alone ex-pungement f the record.l7While most states have provisions for theprotection or confidentiality of delinquencyrecords, uchprovisions ustomarily o not extendto the sealingof the records.l8

Efforts o ExtendCurrent rendsThere are leading organizationswhich support

current concealment aws and press for theirimprovement.All exampleof this is the modelact17Title 13, Sec. 353, Code of Alabama,1940,recom-piled 1958.18 Several states indicated that their juvenile courtlaws specifically provide for record concealment, naddition to the requirementof confidentiality (e.g.Arkansas, Illinois, Minnesota, South Dakota,Vermont).The Minnesota aw indicates that: ". . . the Courtmay expunge the adjudication f delinquencyat anytime that it deemsnecessary".However,neitherphys-ical destruction or sealingof records s required. M.S.Sec. 260.185, subdiv. 2, Juvenile Code, 1959, asamended).In Nevada, protectionof recordsdoes not includesealing,at least in some counties. (Chapter 2, N.R.S.Proceduren JuvenileCases).

concernedwith the annulmentof a convictionofcrime,authored y the NationalCouncil n Crimeand Delinquency n 1962.l9 This act essentiallyprovides or judicialpowerto annula conviction.It is by no means unequivocal.Annulment s amatter of discretion,not of right. It, therefore,dependson the circumstances hetheran oSendergets one or not. Further,not all rights are un-equivocally and absolutely restored; again, it"depends n the circumstances".NCCD adds to the doubtsabout the efficacyofsuch equivocal, emedial egislation,by confusingthe removalof disabilitieswith the blotting outof the record. For example, the article states:

"The kind of authoritygiven to the court in theModelAct shouldproducewiderand moreuniformuse of the power o expunge herecordwhileallowingfor sound discretion to take individual circum-stances nto account." 0 Emphasis dded.)The Model Act itself does not use the word"expunge". t does refer to "annulling, anceling,and rescinding the record of conviction anddisposition . .x 21While it thus may appear hatexpungement s intended, such an inference isdispelledby language n the Act which indicatesthat in a subsequent rime, the prior conviction

may be consideredby the court in determiningwhat sentence o impose.The record s, therefore,not expunged n the real sense of the word.It isvery much there, to be used against the oSender.Tlle 1956 National Conference n Paroleurgedthat:"Expunging f a criminal ecord houldbe author-ized on a discretionary asis. The court of disposi-tion shouldbe empoweredo expunge he recordofconviction and disposition through an order bywhich the individual hall be deemednot to havebeen convicted. Such action may be taken at thepoint of discharge romsuspended entence,proba-tion, or the institutionuponexpiration f a term ofcommitment. X2The Model Annulment Act emphasizes that"Annulment f the recordserves a rehabilitativepurpose".23 better approach,however, wouldbe to annul attitudes rather than the record.19Annulment f 21Consiction f Crime a ModelAct,8 CRIME NDDELINQUENCY2, April1962.2OIbid.P.lOO21 Ibid. pp. 97-10222 National Conferenceon Parole: Parole in Prin-

ciple and Practice, National Probation and ParoleAssociation,N.Y. 1957,p. 136.23 ModelAct, NCCD, op.cit.supranote 19, at p. 98.


8/12/2019 1141965

7/16

are invariablyntroduced. uch laws, proponentsurge, need to be consistentwith public safetyand, further,exceptionsneed to be made as towhatkindsofrecords reconcealed,or whatkindsof offenders, nd forwhat kindsof oSenses.Theyofferways of tighteningup concealmentaws andputting more teeth therein,but invariablywindup with caveats.27The result is not a clear,viable,and unequivocal hilosophicpOSitiOllut,instead, he familiarposturewhich, n effect,says:"It all depends" a position which exasperatesand frustratesoSenders,and the generalpublictoo, who seek a "straightanswer" o the questionas to whetheror not a record s expungedupongood adjustmentand discharge from the cor-rectional ystem.THEINEFFECTIVENESSFTHEPRESENTYSTEM

Despite the good intentionsand the evidentlylaudablegoals of recordconcealment roponents,it is apparent hat the systemcannotanddoes notwork.28Record concealmentis unworkable; tfails to lift other penalties attendant to therecord;t sanctionsdeceit; ts half-secrecyeads tospeculative exaggerations; it frustrates con-structiveresearch; nd it is not equallyavailableto all. Moreparticularly:1. The process s impractical,workable, andunenforceable.The record is still retrievablethrough secondary sources. It is simply notpossible, physically or literally, either to sealor expungea record.Baumrefers to the "poet'sclaimthat what the MovingFingerwritescannotbe cancelledout,"andelsewhere n his article hestates: "It seems that when the Moving Fingerwritesthese days, a dozenXerox copies ikely aremade." 9

the sanctioning ctivitiesof the democratic odypoliticwith the ultimatevalue humandignity. Op. cit. supranote 3, at p. 149.27 Note the following ypicalposition: "Thebreadthof expungement f recordsmust, of course, be deter-minedby a carefulweighing of the public interest inknowingof the recordagainst he publicpolicyof doingeverythingpossibleto aid the formeroffender's eturnto society." Pettler &Hilmen,op.cit. supranote 6, atp. 128.The authorscite examplesof the more para-mountsocietalneed,and then state: "The very exist-ence of these areasmakesexpungementn the sense ofan erasureor destructionmpracticalas well as inad-visable.Ibid. p. 129.28 ProfessorFredCohen n his perceptivewritingonthe "rehabilitativedeal", refersto the "oft-repeatederrorof confusingbenevolentpurposewith actual orpotential arbitraryoutcome. . . a benevolentpurposeis noguarantor f success rfairness". 7TEX. .REV.(1968).29 Baum,op.cit.supranote 14, at pp. 816, 824.

1970] EXPUNGEMENT OF CRIMINAL RECORDS 383Submittedto the 1969 Delegate Assemblyofthe NationalAssociationof SocialWorkerswerea numberof recommended hangeswith respectto goals of public socialpolicy.Amongthesewas

a proposedpolicy statement on juvenile delin-quency and crime. The specificrecommendation,which"incorporateshe morerecentthinkingandrecommendations f social urorkersn the cor-rectionalSeld,"provides hat:"A police or court recordon a juvenileor an adultpresentsa continuinghandicap o the individual san obstacle to employment,enlistment in thearmedservices,or participationn other public orserviceprograms.... The statutesshould providefor the expungement f police and court recordswhencertain conditions elating to individualad-justment have been met. To eliminate obstaclesresulting from-a record of criminal conviction,federaland state legislation houldprovide or va-cation of convictionafterthe offender as success-fullycompliedwith the obligationsmposed."4The AmericanCivil LibertiesUnion in Cali-fornia inveighed against Senate Bill 990, as anexample of "restrictiveor regressivecriminallaw bills"25-a bill which was introduced n theSenate in the fall of 1968 for the purposeof (a)repealing he existing tatutes thatprovide orthesealingof criminal ndjuvenilerecordsof minors,and (b) openingof presently ealed iles.Whileonecanappreciate he motivesof ACLUand otherspressing or suppression f the record,Senate Bill 990 shouldhave been supported, fwe are ever to escapethe intellectualdishonestyof thepresent ystem.What is universallysuggested n these state-ments and by some correctionalauthorities s,essentially, that society should go as far aspossiblall out-in enacting, and improving

existing concealment aws.25However, caveats24NASWNews Nov. 1968, p. 21-Delegate Assem-bly (1969)Materials,Recom.N 4, TheLegalCode.251'heBill File-A report on the 1968LegislativeSessions,by ColemanBlease, ACLULegislativeAdvo-cate. The bill was vetoedonly because he SenateJudi-ciary Committee s currently studying the sealing ofrecords. The Governor s reported to have stated:"Furtheregislation n thisareashouldbe deferred ntilthe Committeehas had an opportunity o compIetetsinquiry." Supranote 16)26The article by Pettler and Hilmen,op. cit. supranote 6, closeswith sis suggestedreforms or restrictingor preventingpublic accessto recordsof offenderswhohave satisfied the penalties imposedon them. Goughurges the same view. He states: "it is the writer'sviewthat providing nstitutionalmeans of restoring tatusafter reformations an appropriateway to harmonize


8/12/2019 1141965

8/16

Loopholes n law and practiceprovide addi-tional leadsto recorddisclosure,eads which anyreasonably killedinvestigatorcan pursue. It rsnot unusual, or example, hat the written orderfor records o be sealedor destroyed s itself notconcealed; his, of course, creates a "track" tobe followed.Entries n state criminaldentificationbureauscustomarilyndicatethat certainrecordsare sealed, naccordance ith a givencodesection;this constitutes another example of a lead toinformationnd recorddisclosure.Evasion of legislative intent by prospectiveemployers bounds.As an example,an applicantmay be asked whether he had ever requestedrelief undervarioussealingor expungementaws,or whetherhe had ever had a criminalor delin-quencyrecord ealed.34Because records which are concealed, pre-sumably even destroyed, may be brought tolight withouttoo muchdifficulty, he conclusionis inescapable hat such practicesdo not andcannotwork.2. Otherdisabilities xd restrictionsemair esenwhere herecord s concealed.Ours is a penalty-orientedsystem of justice.Ex-oSenders ontinueto suSerfrom statutoryand extra-legalpenaltieslong after their offenderstatus has been term-inated.Even where statutesproviding or vacation ofconvictionand removalof disabilities lso includesome form of recordconcealment, t is commonknowledgehat this doesnot lift other imitationsand lingering enalties.In many jurisdictions, he ex-oSender mustregister with police for life.35 ncreasedpunish-ment for later offenses is commonplacewhere"priors"can be established.Testimony of ex-offenders,even those whose recordshave been"expunged," an often be impeachedwith suchinformation.36cit. supra note 7, at p. 130, where the author discussespolicerecords.34According o Gough,probationoflicersclaim thatagencies often ask: "Have you ever had an offenserecordexpunged? or "Have you ever appearedas amovingpartyin any court?" Op. cit. supra note 3, pp.

35Until recently, an ex-felon in Californiahad toregisterwith police "forever"under Penal Code, Sec.290, or Health and Safety Code, Sec. 11853, eventhoughdisabilitieswereremovedunderSection 1203.4of the Penal Code.36 UnderCaliforniaLaw,if an ex-felon estifies n the

case of another,he may denya former onviction,underSec. 1203.4,Penal Code.However, f he testifies n hisown defense n any subsequentprosecution, e will be

384 BERNARDKOGONAND I}ONALD L. LOUGHERY, R. [Vol. 61PettlerandHilmenalsopoint up theproblem:". . . In the absenceof any penal sanctionsagainstdisclosure, heaccessibility f suchrecordss gener-ally a matterof whomoneknows n thedepartmentin which they are kept. Disclosure s furtherpyra-midedby themanyplaces owhich uchrecords redistributed, nd thusadditional ources romwhichthey may be procured."0Elsewhere,he authorsemphasizehat statutesdealingwith sealingand expungementommonlyprovide nothing more than a notation of therecord oncealment. heystate:"Thereare not any controls,at least penal sanc-tions, against disbursingnformation ontained nexpunged ecords,nor arethere any provisions e-quiringdestruction f copiesheld by variouspublicagencies ndprivate ndividuals. n short,expunge-ment statutesas they presentlystand neitherex-punge nor aid a formeroffender They are arbi-trary in nature and uncertain in the practicalremedy hey provide."1All recordsare not and cannot be sealed.Thatwhich is sealed may readily become unsealed,formallyandprocedurally,n the basisof limita-tions and exceptions ustomarilywritten nto thelaw.32 nformal"leaks" n the seal are common-

place.A state with a concealmentstatute cannotrequire he FBI to seal or returnrecords o it, sothat an es-oSendermay receiveprotectiononlyin his ownjurisdiction. urthermore,oncealmentstatutes do not help an ex-offendern relation osecuritychecks.Policerecords,which are hardly eversealed ordestroyed, rovide nformation hich s damagingto theex-oSender nd which ncludes lues eadingto ultimate record disclosure.Although manystates, in a variety of patterns,restrict or pro-hibit the use of criminal nddelinquency ecords,it doesnotgenerally ollow,where uchrestrictionsor prohibitionsobtain, that police records areaffected.They remain,with very few exceptions,even wheresealingand expungementaws exist.33

30 Op. cit. upra ote 6, at p. 132.31 Ibid., p. 128.32 "Expungementtatutesare so riddledwith legisla-tive and case awexceptionshat they arealmostwhollyineSectual."Op.cit. supra ote 6, at p. 125. ". . . theexceptions o the 'no disabilitieswhatsoever'have be-come he rule."Op. it. upra ote 11, at p. 129.33Section1203.4, CaliforniaPenal Code,the often-quoted"expungement"tatute, appliesto convictionsnot arrests.Op. it. ?spraote13, at p. 161.Also seeop.


8/12/2019 1141965

9/16

Opportunities o obtain or renew licenses orpermits to practicecertaintrades or professions,or to get them restoredafter suspensionor can-cellation followingconviction, are sharply cur-tailedthroughout he UnitedStates.a7 Expunge-ment" of ffie recordoften does not help restorethe ex-offender's tatus since innumerable ourtdecisionshave held that the matter is entirelyithin the discretion of the licensing body.The use or possessionof firearms s oftentimeslimited.38As noted earlier, in another context,record uppression oes notprovidean ex-offenderwith anyrelief n securitychecksby employers, rin relation to federal usage of records -- y themilitary or FBI, as an example. Exceptedalsofrom expungement egislationare certainMotorX;ehicle odeviolations.3. The system sanctionsdeceitit instit?tion-alizesa lie. In trying o conceala recordwe seektofalsify history-to legislate an untruth. Suchsuppressionf truth ll befitsa democraticociety.Good intentions are no defense. To enable anoffender o deny that he has a criminalrecordsshen in fact he has one is to help him deny a partof his ldentity. In encouraginghim to lle, thesociety communicates o him that his formeroffender tatus is too degrading o acknowledge,and that it is best forgottonor repressed,as ifit had neverexisted at all. Such self-delusion ndhypocrisy s the very modelof mental ll health--the reverseof everythingcorrectional hilosophvstands or.Membersof the AmericanLaw Institute,whensxorkingon the ModelPenalCode,wereconcernedabout thispoint. One of the drafts ndicated hat:

"A provision for vacation [of criminal records]troubled ome members f the Council n the viewthat it attempts o rewritehistory,and may lead inits consequenceso legitimatedenial of the fact ofconvictionin communicationswhere this fact isrelevantand shouldbe stated."impeached? egardlessof the "expungement" f theprior convlction.

37 "Of approximately 60 licensed occupations inCalifornia, he disciplinary rovisions f 39occupationspermit license denial, revocation, or suspension forconvictionof a felony, or any offense nvolvingmoralturpitude,while others specificallyprovide that theoSense must be connectedwith the licensee'soccupa-tion."Op. cit. supra note 11, at p. 137.38Section12021, CaliforniaPenal Code, does notpermitan ex-felon o have a firearm apableof conceal-ment on the person, even though disabilities wereremovedunderSection1203.4,PenalCode.

385970] EXPUNGEMENTOF CRIMINAL RECORDSThe memberscomplacentlyconcluded,never-theless:"We think, however, hat it is unlikely that theprocedurewill be deceptive . ." 39The ex-offender, suallynot knowingwherehestands at the time his case is closed,oftentimesunwittingly inds himself n a false situation.Anall-too-familiarxample oncerns he offenderwho,in response o a queryabouthis record,denies tbecausehe believes t hasbeenwipedout. He thengets fired,not becausehe has an offensehistory,but because of falsification; hat is, he lied.40Further, a man who conceals his record isforced nto more elaborate alsehoods n orderto

account orthe time apse n his past duringwhichhe wasactually n jail orprison.There is some evidence hat whererecordcon-cealment statutes are invoked employersreactnegatively.Gough, in citing studies of employerattitudeswith respectto the hire of ex-offenders,states:"Several[employers] xpresseddistrust of an ex-pungementprocedure,and indicated that theywould not look favorablyon someonewho had in-voked t. As one manput it: 'Weprobablywouldn'tfire the guy outright (i.e., in the event of subse-quent discoveryof the offense)but I think we'dberatherhurt that he didn't feel he could comeandtell us about it'." 414. The system encogragesharmfulspeculatioand distorts he recordwithhalf-truths.Whenpor-tions of the record are revealed, as inevitablyhappens despite the concealmentstatutes, theactual and total record s usually inaccessible,othat only a part of the "truth" s revealed.Theconsequenceoftentimes is that the information

is distorted, exaggerated, or misinterpreted,usually o the ex-offender'sisadvantageFusinessmen, civil service agencies,army recruitersandothers usually assume the worst, filling in theblanks with imaginations ar more luridperhapsthan the facts themselves.39 See AmericanLaw Institute, Model Penal Code,Tentative Draft N 7, Philadelphia,Pa., May 3, 1957,Section6.05,p. 30. Baumstates: "What o proponentsseemsa commendable leaningof the slatenecessary oeffectiverehabilitation r to assurea secondchancetoone alreadyrehabilitated, eemsto opponentsa sort ofofficial 'new think', and a license to tell falsehoods."

Op. cit. supra note 14, at p. 824.40 Op, cit. supra note 11, at fn. 57, p. 133.41 Op. cit. supra note 3, at p. 154.


8/12/2019 1141965

10/16

386 BERNARDOGOXAND DONALDL. LOUGGERY, R.

In "AnswerLine," a regularcolumn inthe

[Vol.1

Anditorialhichappearedn the LosAngelesTimesf August26 1968,reactednegativelytoa billntroducedn the CaliforniaLegislaturentheallf 1968providingor the sealingof policerecordsn cases of mistakenidentity.

Callingattentiono a numberof drawbacks,while ac-knowledginghat sealing and destruction ofrecordsmaysoundappealing n thesurface . .",theditorialoncluded:"Furthermore,e feel that the very conceptofselectiveestruction f policerecordss dangerous.Inhe long run, the innocentpartyis betterpro-tectedy havingthe recordof his arrest and re-leaselearlydocumented."a5. ecordshogldnot be tamperedwith becausetheyavevalueor researchurposes.The adminis-trationf criminaljustice can hardly be com-placentegardingts currenteSectiveness. t isfrequentlynder scrutiny, as well as attack.Underhe circumstances,we shouldmasimizethevailabilityof all recordsand data for studybyocial scientists.The correctional ystem isnotoriousor its paucityof completeandreliableinformation,o that we can ;11affordto denystudentsf the system access to criminalanddelinquencyecords.436. ConcealrBentrocedures

reno eqgallyavail-ableo all, anyway.If sealingand expungementproceduresere readily available for all ex-offendersesiring o concealor erasethe records,theywould neverthelessmerit opposition.Thefactemains,however, hat theseprocedures renoteadilyavailable o all.No jurisdictions re knownwhichprovideforautomaticealing or expungillg.Ordinarilyapetitions required,and the grantis within thecourts iscretion.Theresult s that the systemisfunctionalnly for a very small numberof of-fenders hohaveresources ndcannegotiate hesystem.For the vast numberof ex-offenders,largelymembers of lower-classand minoritygroups,ealingand expungementremeaninglessterms.44

42 The billwas vetoedbecause he sealingof recordsiscurrentlyhesubjectof studyby theSenateJudiciaryCommittee.Sgpra ote 16.43 "Manyof the psychiatrists ndpsychologistswishto retain the records or researchpurposes...."-ex-tract fromletter,datedAugust28, 1968,fromDanielW.Johnson,Director f theOhioYouthCommission.44 It is commonknowledge, asilyverifiedby statis-

tics, that where pardonproceduresexist, the saJne

conditionobtains,v., they are out of the reach orlmowledgeof the vast majorityof ex-offenders,whotherefore everapply orthem.

Losngeles xaminer,the followingquestionappearedn the issue of December30, 1968:"SeveralearsagoI wasconvictedof a felony,andhaveanaged o stay

'clean'eversince.My prob-lems hatnowI can'tfinda job,asnoonewants ohireconvicted elon.Is thereany way I canhavemyecordealed"?"Answerine"responded s follows:'sUnderomecircumstances,epending nthestateitwasommittedin, a criminalrecordcan besealed,ays a local attorney.It is a complicatedprocedure,owever, ndwouldbestbe handiedbya eputablettorney."Whats communicatedo the ex-offender,whoisclean"nd has presumably aid the debt, isthatit all depends";"it's complicated'2;nd"you'detter get a lawyer2'.Those who areignorantf suchlegalprovisions r who have nofundso hire attorneys anyway, do not haveequalccess o this"remedy".

DISSENTGAINSTHESYSTEMWhile,as indicatedearlier,most survey re-spondentsupported oncealment tatutes, therewerefewwhoexpressed eservationsn supportofhe writers'viewpoints.Someof thesewere

asfollows:Paul Keve, Commissioner f the MinnesotaDepartmentf Corrections, rote, n part:"I tend to be very unimpressedwith the valueofsealingor expungingrecords,and I am morein-clined to arguefor maintainingrecords hat arehighlyresponsiblen theirqualityandthento makethemactuallymoreavailable hantheyhadbeen nthepast.My ownexperiences that recruiting fii-cersandcivilian mployersreoftenmorewillingtoconsiderhequalitative

aspectsofa person's ecordthanto categoricallyuleagainsthim on the merefact of the record's xistence.I wouldarguethatoncea thinghas happened here s no way in thisworld o saythatit didnothappen,not evenby ex-punginga record f whathappened.We may seal,hide or burnour records,but there is no way ofguaranteeinghat somerecordcarddoes not stillexist in a police file, and we cannotpreventtherecordromexisting n themindsof thepeoplewhoknewabouttherecord.Whena youngman s askedby a recruitingoicer if he was ever in JuvenileCourt,heusually aysyes.Right henandthere he

mainpartof the damages doneandafterthat our

recordhasa chance o be helpful o himby reveal-


8/12/2019 1141965

11/16

ing the positivethingsabouthowhe progressednprobation,etc. But if the recordhas in any waybeen removedfrom scrutinythere is no way toavoidthe badeffectsof the recruiting fficerknour-ing the fact of the delinquency ut not the qualityof it." 46Jack Wiseman,Director,Boardof ParoleandProbation,Salem,Oregon, tated:". . . I personally o notfeel that the proceduresreas functional nd sociallypurposeful s intended.say this with respectto the adult offenderwhoisinclined o feelthat an expunged ecord liminatesthe possibilityof someone lsegainingknowledge fthis recordat a date in the future.As you wellknolv,knowledge f anexpunged ecords availableif the printshave beenforwardedo the FBI. Inotherwords,the persondevelopsa false sense ofsecurityand anonymityregardinghe recordthatcertainlydoesnot maintain n practice. n my esti-mation, t is quitepossible hat he could findhim-self in all sorts of difficultieson job applicationsbecauseof this." 6Commenting n the effectiveness f lawswhichpermitan oSenderwhose recordhas been con-cealedto say thathe hasnone,JudgeMargaretE.Driscoll of the Juvenile Court in Bridgeport,

Connecticut, ointedout that peoplewhoask thequestion, such as District Attorneys, can getaroundt by otherquestions.Shesaid:"Ofcourseexperiencen otherareashas indicatedthat someho+7vhe questionscould changeto getaroundwhate^7erawis passed." 7Barton Anson, Director of Collrt Services,Ramsey County ProbationDepartment,Minne-sota, while generallyendorsing"somesystem ofexpunging ecords",expresses eservations bout

completee2mpungement.n his responsehe stated:". . . My ownpersonal iewsonthesubjectarethatthis system does not accomplishwhat some mayhope that it does namely, that the state com-pletely forgives the person his transgressionbysaying n eidect hat the recorddoesnot exist.Theproblem s that it does and if anyonewantedtoreally find out about the recordundoubtedlyhecould . .""The ultimate expungementwould mean thephysicaldestruction f any and all records . . Thedrawbacko destruction frecordss that you have45 Quoted rom etterdatedAugust22,1968.46 Quoted rom etterdatedAugust16,1968.47 Quoted rom etterdatedAugust30, 1968.

EXPUNGEMENTOF CRIMINAL RECORDS 3879701destroyednot only what might be held againstapersonbut also whatcan be said that is construc-tive orat leastmorecomplete bouta person.Thiswouldbe particularlymportantwhere t was al-readyknown hat he hadbeen n difficultybut norecord an be found.Anauraof suspicion ndcon-fusionfrom ack of anythingtangiblecan be more

Howard L. Snowden,Technical Consultant,Illinois Youth Commission, akes the positionthat on the whole the sealingof juvenilecourtrecords serves the intended purposes. In hisletterhe added:"However,in those many instances where theoffense s repeated,or where he offense s so gravethat theyouthmustbe incarcerated. . somefactsof the statutory violation becomeknown to thepublic,and it is my opinion hat very little can beaccomplishedby sealingthe records. n fact, therumored toriesare often more damaging o theyouth'sreputationhan theactualfactsof theinci-dent."49Paul WIurchek,Director of the Florida Pro-bationandParoleCommission, rote:"Ipersonally elieve hat expungementndsealingof criminaland delinquency ecordswouldencour-age many individuals o concealthe truth aboutthis and subsequentlymany other mportantcon-siderations,ecuren theknowledgehat such laurswillcreateandprotecthis right o lie . . ." 50Apart from specificsurvey responses . . in aletter regarding he sealing of juvenile recordswhich was written to the Los Angeles CountyDelinquency and Crime Commissionon No-vember15, 1967, Judge AlfredJ. McCourtney,then PresidingJudge of the Juvenile Court ofLosAngelesCountystated:". . . Young people are not profitingby the lawwhichwas intendedto help them, and those whotakeadvantageof it arequalifiedquite nappropri-ately to claima falsehood,namely,that they didnot committhe acts which in all truth they didcommit . ."Mr. Harold R. Muntz, Assistant Chief Pro-bation Olhicer f the Los AngelesCounty Pro-bation Department, stated in a departmentaladministrativeulletin ssuedJanuary28, 1968:48 Quoted rom etterdatedAugust29, 1968.49 Quoted rom etterdatedAugust28, 1968.60 Quoted rom etterdatedOctober , 1968.


8/12/2019 1141965

12/16

388 BEBARDKOGONAND MNALD L. LOUGHERY, R. [Vol.1"Wehave on severaloccasions akenthe positionthat the processof sealinga juvenilecourtrecordhas only led to injurious urmise,ratherthan theremovalof the disabilityof sucha record . . Whenrecordspertaining o a periodof wardshipare or-deredsealed,reportsof a minor'sachievement remade naccessible,husactingto the disadvantageof the minor.Forexample, choolrecords cquiredduringa stay in a forestrycamp must be sealedwhensuchan order s made.Records annotthere-after be furnished o otherschoolsor collegestowhich a minor transfers,without breaching heorder . ."

THE REMEVYOne suspects that at the root of the problem is

the fact that our correctional philosophy andpracticeare incongruent in respect to recordconcealment-as in many other aspects of criminaljusticeadministration.5l We are not clear aboutthisbusiness of records; we are in conflict aboutit.We are, therefore, endlessly fussing with theremovalof selected records from view-only todiscover hat they crop up again somewhere else.We can continue to refine the removal-of-disabilities,annulment of conviction, and recordconcealment statutes; we can continue to de-clare that the criminal conviction is no more,and that the record can no longer plague theofTender ecause it is either sealed or eppunged;nevertheless, t will remain-an icebergsomewherebelowthe surface,and an unacknowledgedbarrierto full social reintegration.

51 TheDeclaration f Principlesof theAmericanCor-rectionalAssociationfirst uttered in 1870, proclaimsthat "nolaw,procedure r systemof correctionhoulddepriveany offender f the hopeandthe possibilityofhis ultimatereturnto full, responsiblemembershipnsociety" Principle 9)-andconcludeswiththe declara-tion that "Thecorrectional rocesshas as its aim thereincorporationf the offender nto the society as anormalcitizen"(Principle 3). SeeAM.J. OECORREC_TION,September-October960,forcomplete tatementofprinciples, doptedn 1960by theAmericanCongressof Corrections.One does not need to be a sociological avant tounderstandhat there s a widedisparitybetweenwhatwe professand the way we actuallybehave.Althoughpractically hundred earshavegoneby sincethe firststatementof principles, orrectional ractice, n manyrespects, s still not consonantwith the lofty principlesexpressed n the Declaration.David Matza, in hisprovocativebook DELINQUENCYNDDR2T (1964)expresses notionthat even if one reforms,one is notforgiven,and makes some very insightfulcommentsaboutthis disparitybetweenwhatwe say andwhatwedo.He states:"Whatever urphilosophical referencesin theassignment f fault,thequestionof consistency-the avoidanceof hypocrisy is paramount.... Hypoc-risy-saying one thing and doing another is funda-mentally orrosive f trust."(page97).

Actually,the real issue is not the record,buttheocial attitude toward it. The record, ashistory,ustbe retained.Keepingrecordsavail-ablehouldresult n their mprovementenerally,byirtueof thefact thatmoreavailability houldmakeormore crutiny f theproduct -the ecord,sohatauthorsofa recordwouldbemoreprone oconsiderualityand accuracy n its preparation.Sol Rubinmakesa pithy commentrelatedtothismatter,but in anothercontext accessby adefendanto a presentencenvestigationreport.Hetates:"Becauseprobation taffsare inadequate n mostdepartmentsn numbers nd quality, t cannotbeassumedthat reportsare completeand accurate.Disclosureo the defendantwouldmilitateagainstlaxityin the investigation, arelessnessn the writ-ingofthereport; ndrubber-stampingf thereportby the judge." 2Rubin cites a court case and includes thefollowingelevantline from the court decision:"Anonymityalso encouragesmisinformation ndremovesan incentivefor accuracyand thorough-nessby thoseobtaining heinformation."3We needto pass lawsoutlawingdiscriminationagainstpeople with records.Rubin observesin

this onnection:"Weknowofnostatuteprotecting gainstdiscrim-ination against personswith criminalrecords...Perhapsthe closest analogousstatutes are thoseprotecting ndividuals romdiscriminationn em-ploymentbecauseofraceorreligion." 4Ouroften-stated bjectiveofhelpinganoffendertomakea newstart nlifecanthusbeachievedbyleavingheslateasis,andhelpinghimbythemeallssuggestedabovc leaving the recordalone, alad

developing rograms esigned ochangeattitudes

about offenders,via educationand supportinglegislation.5552 RUBIN, HELAWOECRTINAL ORRECTION1963)92.53 Ibid.,p. 92.54 Ibid.,p. 639.55 Gough, n his excellentarticle,states: ". . . if thedisabilitiesof convictionare to be removedeffectivelyandthe reformed ffender estored o society,the rem-edy chosenmust reachthe genesisof the status."Op.cit.sgpranote3, at p. 150.Ourposition,of course, s toget at thismatterof offendertatusby meansof a newacceptance foffenders,ndnotconcealingecords.Goughalso notes: "Publicgood demands he reas-similationntofullsocialstatusof allwhohaveoffendedagainst t." Ibid.,p. 155.


8/12/2019 1141965

13/16

1970] EXPUNGEMENT OF CRIMINAL RECORDS 389Sooneror laterwe mustacknowledgehat it isthesociety,not therecord,whichmustbechanged.Our relentlessand permanentrejectionof devi-ants will destroy them, and everyoneelse withthem,if it persists.This is one of the basicissuesat the heart of currenturbanghetto problems.Aslongas theghettobreedscrimeandthe societyblocks the employmentand rehabilitationofformer riminals, o relief s in sight.The cycleofriot and reaction spirals unchecked towardrevolution. This has been recognizedequallyby governmentalnvestigativecommissionsandprivate ndustry.56How real and practical is the remedy pro-posed? It is neither visionarynor utopian, asopponents may claim. Former offenderswith

recordsare, moreand more,beinghiredon reg-ular jobs. Moreover, they are being used aschange-agents, s partnerswith professionalsnthe rehabilitativeunctions.As a matterof fact,ex-offendersreincreasingly eingsoughtas such,so that the recordbecomesa passport o a job, inmanycases,andno longer he stigma t oncewas.66 The NationalAdvisoryCommission n Civil Dis-ordersstates as fifth among ts basicstrategies or theuse of employment o ameliorate ivil disorder:"Arti-ficialbarriers o employmentand promotionmust beremoved by both public agencies and private

employers" . . "Government nd businessmust con-sider,for each type of job, whethera criminalrecordshouldbe a bar,orwhethera highschooldiploma s aDinflexiblerequirement."REPORT F THENATIONALADVISORYOMMISSIONNCIVILDISORDERS,up't.ofDocuments,U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice Wash-ingtonD.C. (1968) Catalogue NPr 36.8:C49jR29,p.232.Additionally, he Governor'sCommission n the LosAngelesRiots asserts: "Whilesecurityconsiderationssometimesprecludehiringa defendantwith an arrestrecord, lanketrejection f suchpersonswithoutregardfor he natureof the arrestorwhether herehasbeenaconviction houldbe discouraged.We urge employers. . . to increaseemploymentopportunitiesor personswitharrestrecords."VIOLENCENTHECITY ANENDOR BEGINNING?Rreport o theGovernorf Californiaby the Governor'sCommissionon the Los AngelesRiots,published n Los Angeleson December2, 1965.(Seep. 47.)Finally,in emphasizinghe needfor a newframeofreferencef employments to be found orthe hard-coreunemployed, he National Associationof Manufac-turerspointsut:"Forexample,nthepast,policerecordshave automaticallyscreenedout applicants n mostcompanies. et in the cultureof poverty,policerecordstend o be the norm.... By now,companieshave hadsufficientxperience mployingpeoplewith records oknowhatthere s very ittlecorrelation etweenhavingapolice recordand not being a productiveworker."EFFECTIVELY1KPLOYINGHEHARD-CORE,ationalAssociationf Manufacturers, ew York,(1968),p. 5-available hroughthe reprintservice of "Notes andQuotes,"Connecticut General Life Insurance Co.Hartford, onn.

Of course this is true only in relative terms.Certainly t is not suggested hat offendershavean easy timeof it in theirreintegration. hereisindisputablevidenceof significant hangesn thesociety's attitude, nevertheless.These changesshowthat we can do it; we are already doingit.We are focusingattentionnot on the recordbut,instead, on the primarytask of reintegration.57Why does this solutionseem so difficult?Wemustexamine he rootcausesandreasons orourproblem,and then move resolutelyto eliminatebarrierso theremedy.It is proposed hat thereis a latent, pervasiveattitudein our societywhichstressesthe genericunworthinessof the criminal his permanentunfitness o live in "decent ociety".He is seenasan unredeemable,permanently flawed, ever-threatening eviant.Propercitizensarefelt to bemenacedor degradedby consortingwith himwhetherornot he has "paidhis debt".58It is significanthat proponents f recordconScealmentprefer ealingpractices ndaregenerallyreluctant o go as faras expungement,n the realsense of the term.This reflectstheir underlyingreservations. heyarejustnot sure,andthereforepreferto have the recordaround,albeit sealed,to be used"asneeded".This persisting uspicionsubtlymocks hereformed ffender.TheLexTalionismotifpermeatesmanyaspectsof the correctionalsystem, despite our pro-testations o the contrary. t is plainlyevident nourpenalcodeswhichspecify"punishments"orcrimes.Thereare many societalcues whicharecommunicatedo the former offenderin suchtermsthat he readilyperceives hat the societyintends o punishhim;in somerespects, orever.59Theconflictof trust and distrustcan be seen inthe balanceof rightsrestoredand rightsdenied.The correctional graduate"may marry,vote,participaten contractual elationships nd denyhis record.He may have to registerwith thepolicefor the rest of his life though,and, if he

67 Paul Keve states in this connection:"I think wearemakinggreatstrides n the direction f gettingthegeneral ublicto be farmoreacceptingof the previousoffender, nd I stronglyfeel that this is the way weshould o to solvethe problem ather hanstrengthen-ingthe stigmaticnatureof the recordby hidingit."Op.cit. supra note45.68 JudgeWarrenE. Burger,writingon "Paradoxes ntAzedministration of Criminal Justice", 58 J. CRX. L.,C.&P.S.428 (1967),refers o ourtendency o "regardallcriminals shumanrubbish."69 GoldsteinandKatz refer o the unconsciousmoti-vationswhich are operative n our treatmentof lawviolators. 2YALELAWJ. 854, 856 (1963).


8/12/2019 1141965

14/16

390 BERNARD KOGONAND DONALD L. LOUGHERY, R. [Vol. 61transgressesgain,the record an be "resurrected"and used against him once more. Clearly,he isnever truly restored o equalcitizenship s long ashe cannot ever again becomea "firstoffender".60

What we do with offenders t the end of thecorrectional ystem s very instructive, s we con-trast it with what we do with them at the begin-ning. In the "intake process", the offender s"mugged", finger-printedand booked. Even-tually he gets a trial, after several preliminarycourt experiences.Counselgoes throughvariousadversaryprocedures.After conviction, there isan appeal system. Even this sequencedoes notexhaustthe possiblesteps and ramifications. hesuccession s highly institutionalized nd complex.We solemnizethe offender's nduction into thesystem.NVhen e successfullyconcludes he program,though, we fail to institutionalizehis departurecorrespondingly.t's fun to catch the fish but hardto let him go.It is tragic that we "accentuate he negative"and "eliminate he positive"; that we mark theentry with ceremony,and the exit with nothingssrhich ymbolizes he offender's"returnto full,responsiblemembershipn society"- his reincor-poration"into the society as a normalcitizen''.Instead of celebrating he negotiation-or sur-vival-of the perilouscorrectional xperience nomean accompllshment),we remove disabilitiesgrudgingly.At the sametime we interject o many"if's" and "but's" as to render the benefit nu-gatory,while tamperingwrith he recordsas if wecould rewritehistory. The net result is that theex-oSender,puzzled and frustrated by our hy-

60It is meaningful o note that while courts oftenbroadlyand liberallyconstrue so-called expungementlaws, legislatures nvariablygo the other way, raisingserious doubts about societal intent with respect tooffenders. n an article, referred o earlier, he authorrefers o the judicial rendand then states: ". . . legisla-tures respondby amending he statute to nullify theeffect of the court's nterpretation".Op. cit. supranote11, at p. 133.In the samevein, it is also significant hatthe legislatures, ndcourts oo, have generallynarrowedthe effects of removal-of-disabilitiesaws, so that ex-offenders re reallyreleased romvery few penaltiesanddisabilities-even though the statute may refer to theremoval f "all"disabilities. bid.p. 143.Section 1203.4, California Penal Code, states...."whoshall thereafter e released rom all penaltiesanddisabilities esulting rom the offenseor crimeof whichhe has been convicted".This all-inclusivedeclarationis a monstrous ie, as we witness the many legal andextra-legal penalties and disabilities the ex-offendercontinues o experience, he language to the contrarynotwithstanding

61 Declaration f Principles, p.cit. supranote 51.

pocrisy, is hinderedrather than helped in hisreadjustment.How could it be otherwise The community sso prejudicedagainst formeroffenders hat anycelebration f successful ehabilitationnevitablywould be condemnatory y its acknowledgementof the graduate'searlier "criminal" tatus. "Toknow him is to despisehim." Until this bias canbe uprooted,real correctional ehabilitationwillremain effectively crippled. Contradictoryat-tempts to conceal the recordconditionallymayhelp the society evade this fundamental ssuebut they certainlydo not really help the formeroffender o return.Sutherlandand Cressey, commentingon thesocialostracization f offenders, tate that:

"Ouractual practice s to permitalmost all crim-inals to return o society, n a physical ense,but tohold them off, make them keep their distance,segregate hem in the midst of the ordinary om-munity. Thus they are kept isolated from law-abidinggroups.If they are to be turned nto laN-abiding citizens, they must be assimilated intosocietyand treatedas personswith the potential obe law-abiding itizens." 2Gough ommentswell in this context.He states:"It is clear that any program for reform mustcreate the institutionsnecessary or its realization,and that the sanctions t imposesmust be function-ally apposite o the end t seeks.Therehas beensur-prisingly ittle recognition f the fact that our sys-tem of penal aw is largely lawed n one of its mostbasic aspects; t fails to provideaccessibleor effec-tive meansof fully restoring he socialstatus of thereformed ffender.We sentence,we coerce,we in-carcerate, we counsel, we grant probation andparole,and we treat not infrequentlywith success- but we neverforgive.The late Paul Tappanhasobserved hat when the juvenileor adult offenderhas paid his debt to society, he 'neither eceivesareceiptnor s freeof his account'." 3Gough further emphasizes hat "there is con-siderable videnceto indicate that the failureofthe criminal aw to clarify the status of the re-formed offender impedes the objectives of re-integratinghim with the society from which hehas become stranged."462SUTEIERLANDNDCRESSEY, RINCIPLES F CRIM

INOLOGY5thEd., 1955) 18.63 Op. Git. supra note3, at p. 148.64 Id.


8/12/2019 1141965

15/16

3911970] EXPUNGEMENT OF CRIMINAL RECORDSIn his well-written rticle (which, ncidentally,supports concealment aws and concludes witheight requisites of an effective expungementstatute), Goughplaintivelyasks whetheroffenders

shoud ". . . be forcedto bear forever he stain oftheir immature and impulsive conduct", andstates that "without the aid of an expungementstatute, [he] would be compelled to bear themark of his past mistake".65 he writerscontendthat Gough correctly assesses the problem butincorrectly olves t. The way to remove he markis to accept the person;not conceal the record.Because in some ways we have become anenlightened society- at least as we contrastcorrectionalwork today with what it was like acentury ago-the punishment motif alone nolonger uffices.We feel guilty about our treatmentof oSendersbecausewe see that unrelieved on-demnationand rejectionwill inevitably consignanyone o hopelessdefeat.To some extent we expiate our guilt by pro-viding some means to restore, partially, theformer transgressor's tatus in society. Manylaws demonstrate his efort -lawswhichprovidethat a declaration f wardship n juvenile delin-quency cases does not constitutea criminalcon-viction; provisions or confidentiality f recordsand proceedingsn juvenilecourtcases;provisionsfor the removalof some disabilities esulting romthe oSense; provisions or the annulmentof theconviction tself; and provisions or the sealingorexpunging f the veryrecords f the transgressions.All can be cited as evidence.We seem to under-stand that an offender ught to be able, at somepoint, to stop "paying he debt".We understand,too, that if we surroundhim with all sorts ofdisabilities lowing rom the crimeor delinquency,he cannot succeed. Therefore,we endeavor toleaven the harsheraspects of criminal aw withbenign, thoughfrequently neSective,redemptive

. .provlslons.There is no longer time for ambivalenceandirresolution.Redemptive rovisionsmust be madethoroughly ffective.Any soundpolicy of dealingwith ex-offendershould nclude egislationwhichremovesdisabilities lowing rom the delinquencyor crime. Thereshould be an end to retribution.Rightsandprivileges houldbe completely estoredand such restoration hould be automatic.Thenwe can indeed convince the populationand re-66Ibid., tpp. 186,157.

assure he formeroffender hat the debt has beenpaid and that resumptionof full citizenship sachievable. Nevertheless, whether removal-of-disabilities aws exist or not, recordsshould notbe tamperedwith. There should be no need todelude ourselvesabout a man's past in order togive him a fair chance n the present.It is a profoundmistake o mix in with redemp-tive legislationany provision or concealing herecords. To help the ex-oSender by restoringrights and removing disabilities s an absolutenecessity.Alterationor destruction f the record,however,only protectsthe body politic fromcon-frontation regarding ts own aberrantattitudesand the necessityto change.It basicallycorruptsthe fundamental correctionalobjective of re-habilitating Senders.

SETMMARYIn summaryand as a conclusion,we reaflirmour conviction that sealing and expungernentpractices should be abandonedand not merelyaltered.They have no utility in the administrationof criminal ustice.Criminal nd delinquency ecords an be neithersealed nor destroyed altogether, physically or

practically.The record omesout inevitably,withthe resultthat efforts o conceal t work nvariablyto the oSender's etrimellt.Recordmanipulation oes not address tself tothe real problem.The pursuitof recordmanipula-tion practices results in our deludingourselves,and, worse, n deluding ffenderswho have madeagoodadjustment.The only way to breach he barriers tanding nthe way of an oSender's eintegrationnto the so-ciety is to assault them frontally.The remedy iesin a radicallydiSerentapproach-leavingthe rec-ord alone while constantly trivingto improve tsquality, and mounting an educationalprogram,with statutory upports, esigned o liberalize ub-lic attitudes towardoSenders.All of the above is predicatedupon our beliefthat we must destroy he myth that if we can onlyfinda way to wipe out a "sin"somehow, o that itwas really never committed, hen and only thencan we relate o the oSender s a fellowhumanbe-ing. Sucha pathway,we are convinced, s illusory,doomed o failure,and only servesto perpetratecruelhoax on the oSender.


8/12/2019 1141965

16/16

which socialscientistshave pinpointedand whichalienate man fromhimself must be eliminated. fthe task is recognized s worthy, the appropriateresourcesmustbeallocated o it." 6666 An articleby Dr. John L. Schimel,psychoanalyst,in CRDEE, AW,ANDCORRECTIONS1966), edited byRalphSlovenko.

392 BERNARDKOGONAND DONALD L. LOUGHERY, R. [Vol.61Schimel, writing on the "Role of Rationality inCrime and Corrections:An Epilogue," states:"There s a hierarchy f tasks if we areto work o-ward a brighter uture.... The fourth(perhaps tshouldbe first) task lies in the mindsof men, pro-fessionaland lay both. If the task is genuinelyarehabilitative ne, all thoseaspects of corrections

1141965

Documents

Transcript of 1141965