“Childhood criminal records to be wiped by David Lammy”, reports the Telegraph.
Childhood criminal records for thousands of people will be wiped under plans being considered by David Lammy.
The Justice Secretary is to review the current system in order to prevent people’s childhood convictions from blighting their future job prospects.
Mr Lammy is considering “simplifying” the system to ensure that checks are “proportionate” to their crime after evidence that people in their 50s, 60s and even 70s found that childhood offences such as stealing a bicycle or fighting in the street were still being disclosed to potential employers.
However, Mr Lammy’s plans have faced criticism over how far any changes would wipe potentially more serious offences, such as drug dealing or harassment, from childhood criminal records.
My first thought was the same as that of David Fairey, the writer of the top comment to the Telegraph story:
Ah! So this from a government that wants Farage to explain a comment he allegedly made aged 13?
Taking the breathtaking hypocrisy of the “liberal” establishment as a given, is this a good idea?
Penelope Gibbs, the director of Transform Justice and part of the FairChecks campaign, said: “Our criminal records system is unfair and holds people back from getting work. Childhood offences committed decades ago are disclosed on DBS checks even if the person has led a crime-free life for years.
“David Lammy is a long-standing supporter of the FairChecks campaign for reform, and has now committed to implementing positive change.”
There have been changes since Mr Lammy’s review in 2017, but campaigners said they fell short of his original proposal to wipe the slate clean for childhood offences except for the most serious.
He highlighted then how 22,000 black, Asian and ethnic minority children had their names added to the police national database, including for minor offences such as a police reprimand. Any police record can be taken into account in DBS checks if a constabulary decides it is relevant to a standard or enhanced job.
I would have to see what Mr Lammy’s exact words in 2017 were to see whether I was going to be as irritated by his “highlighting” the black and ethnic minority children in particular as the Telegraph writer wants me to be.
Mr Lammy said: “The result in adulthood is that their names could show up on criminal record checks for careers ranging from accountancy and financial services to plumbing, window cleaning and driving a taxi.
“I believe that once childhood cautions and convictions have become spent, they should very quickly become non-disclosable, even on standard and enhanced DBS checks. In my view, the system should provide for all childhood offending (with the exception of the most serious offences) to become non-disclosable after a period of time.”
If someone other than Lammy said it, would you agree?
To my surprise, Rachel de Souza, holder of the quintessentially Blairite office of Children’s Commissioner for England, is quoted in the Telegraph article and elsewhere as saying that children involved in the Southport riots should have their criminal records wiped.
Depends.
Define “child.” Define “serious offense.”
Just for contrast: In the USA, offenses before adulthood (with some rare exceptions) aren’t considered crimes, and your record is sealed on your 18th birthday. You start over at that point.
your record is sealed on your 18th birthday
Sealed exactly how, kemosabe ?
Jack Ryan is on the phone and mentions that that which is sealed, is absolutely secure, util it becomes convenient to release it.
“The current system is unfair”
It is meant to be. It is meant to discriminate between lawbreakers and law keepers. Now there may be improvements possible and we should take into account the experience of other countries – but the first time an adult with sealed juvenile records runs amok with a machete their previous history will come to light and political blame will be assigned. And that would not be unfair at all.
“It is meant to discriminate between lawbreakers and law keepers.”
Incentives matter too. If one has been tarred as a lawbreaker forever, that’s a reason to simply continue to be a lawbreaker, rather than trying to reform oneself into being a law keeper.
When it comes to minors and lawbreaking, there’s also the perverse incentive of “If you are a law keeper, we will treat you as a child – and these days the style is to treat children like sub-human animals, like pets who can talk. But if you’re a lawbreaker, we will at least give you the minimum courtesy of treating you as an adult.”
Instead of a blanket “wiping the slate clean”, how about an expedited mechanism allowing people to petition the court to have previous convictions expunged, based on, you know, some actual evidence? The implicit assumption of these campaigners is that juvenile convictions are somehow not evidence of real crimes, that all juveniles are a priori innocent victims of fate and circumstance. Well, you know, I’ve met some juvenile criminals who were every bit as depraved and amoral as their adult counterparts, and who richly-deserved their convictions and sentences, and whose crimes should show up in a background check. bobby b. refers to the US practice of “wiping the slate clean” when juveniles reach the age of 18, and I think it’s a terrible idea that lets many violent criminals escape proper consequences.
llater,
llamas
llamas: Isn’t that why so many jurisdictions allow us to prosecute minors as adults when the circumstances call for it? (Heinous crimes, horrible records, etc.)
P.S.:
My experience isn’t that they’re innocent victims of fate, but that they tend to be dumb as rocks, and inexperienced in life – you know, they’re kids – and we don’t hold kids to the same burdens as adults.
Yeah, I’ve met the little ferals who you just know will be killing people within a few years and will never conform. They’re relatively rare, and I’m unwilling to stop giving all kids a second chance just because the ferals are out there. I’d rather work to try the ferals as adults.
Black and Asian children ****ARE**** ethnic minority children, you illiterate fuckwit.
Actually one of the few serious sealed-records situations. Very hard to see, usually requires a court order. I know that a national-security personnel investigation can dig them out, but employment/school/financial searches can’t get to them.
And, if kiddy obeys the law into adulthood and the infraction wasn’t huge, you can get the record expunged – file destroyed, etc – fairly easily.
Interesting to hear some professionals talk about this.
My own view has been, for some years, that we under-punish and over-remember. So, as Deep Lurker says:
This is particularly notable for professionals (they may get a very minor minor prison sentence, but they have lost their career), and foolish young people.
I see – so real crimes are to be “wiped”, was to be forced to pretend that people who committed crimes (violations of the persons and property of others) did NOT commit crimes.
Whilst, at the same time, the Marxist “words are violence” (translation – “violence is not violence – because we plan to murder you”) establishment crowd are going to carry on pretending that Nigel Farage is some sort of monster – because of stuff he supposedly said (not did – said) as a child.
Natalie is correct – the whole thing is both evil and insane.
But then so is a situation where “Sir” Keir Starmer, a member of the Haldane Society of “socialist lawyers” (as if someone can be a socialist and a supporter of the private property principles of the Common Law) is Prime Minister and David Lamey is Deputy Prime Minister and head of the “Justice” system.
And to American readers – these people are NOT your allies, they hate (passionately hate) the basic principles of the United States and wish to destroy you.
Whilst the United Kingdom is dominated by an establishment made up of such people (and it is made up of such people) the United Kingdom should not be treated as an ally.
“carry on pretending that Nigel Farage is some sort of monster – because of stuff he supposedly said (not did – said) as a child.”
Indeed. If they only knew (or suspected) some of the things said in my schoolyard way back then – Durham Jail would be bursting.
Of course they have also thrown Joey Barton under the legal juggernaut for calling Jeremy Vine a “Bike Nonce” (which did amuse me because Vine is a sanctimonious twat who really shouldn’t be wearing lycra at his age).
I suppose the BBC can claim the moral high-ground here because they have never, ever, employed a pervert in a high-profile presenting role. Not once. Not ever.
Apart from Savile, Harris, Hall, Edwards…
NickM – yes indeed Sir.
The attitude of our rulers is “let us ignore such things as theft” they regard young thieves as “socially useful elements” in their war against “capitalist” private property.
But they do NOT ignore alleged “thought crime” by children – or adults.
My observation is that (in the UK) by the time the character has reached 18 and legally an adult, they have been committing and getting away with no punishment for a long time. The social workers etc. have essentially coached them in how the system works, they know the system inside out, what to say (and more importantly, what NOT to say) and are highly experienced in how to play the system. Unlike the law abiding who fall foul of the many laws such as “hate speech” and are innocent of the way the system works.
Since many of them come from family backgrounds with – shall we say – lax morals, then there has been no effective punishment from family or the law so they are not deterred from continuing their behaviour. The cumulative misery they inflict on society is huge. Multiply that by the number of other “young offenders” and you get the result we are seeing on the streets of the UK today.
OK, if they DO manage to stop committing crime after age 18 then a “let sleeping dogs lie” approach may be appropriate but if they continue in their career of crime, then the long and detailed record of their past offending should be taken into account, their continued criminal behaviour seen for what it is and no “first offence so be lenient” attitude applied.
Phil B
Grim indeed Sir.
“Rehabilitation” means the person commits no more crimes. Leniency in the form of granting immunity from prosecution and anonymity from public scrutiny is not “rehabilitation”. It is enabling and encouraging misbehavior. This is what too many courts are doing in the name of “compassion”.
On the other hand, years of good behavior is a sure sign of actual rehabilitation and should be recognized as such.
Jack H.
Yes – modern courts are very “compassionate” towards vicious criminals.
But then modern courts, the modern “Justice” system, does not know what a “crime” really is.
They do NOT define a crime in the traditional Common Law way of an aggression against the body or goods of another person, they define a “crime” in the way that Hobbes-and-Bentham did – as a violation of some command of the state.
No natural justice – no non aggression principle.
No wonder we are well on the way to tyranny.
I was a crim defense lawyer and so did plenty of juvie court.
My experience was that 95% of the kids cycling through were there because they did Stupid Kiddie Tricks – idiot stuff, really – because most of them were stupid, and the rest were just dumb.
Of that 95%, very few ever came back into the system. They had been scared straight, as the saying goes. Yes, it does work.
Had we treated that 95% as if they were just like the intractable, evil 5% who were truly and always bad, we would have made many more of them bad, too.