jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (14 posts)

Should class B felonies be wiped out?

  1. Daffy Duck profile image61
    Daffy Duckposted 5 years ago

    There was a story in the Oregonian Tuesday.  It was about a man that had been convicted of dealing cocaine 22 years ago.  He is still burdened by it today.  The thing is he has lived a clean life for about 22 years.

    He proposes that anyone with a class B felony that is nonviolent should have that offense wiped off their record after 20 years of clean living.

    Do you agree or disagree?

    1. hujahangir profile image60
      hujahangirposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      offense is always punishable . but on the basis of dimension of offense , the punishment may be reduced not be suspended as it encourages offense. so i disagree with you.

      1. Daffy Duck profile image61
        Daffy Duckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I never said that I agree or disagree with the person in the story

    2. donnabella30 profile image80
      donnabella30posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think they should be wiped out because some of the crimes classified as B felonies are manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault, arson which is usually worthy of the punishment given. And as mentioned, it also carries other offenses like robbery, drug possession with intent to sell/deliver. I do however believe that people are capable of change, so II feel should be  case by case when surfaced. Selling drugs is not the smartest trade job but when we punish the dope dealer longer than the rapist, I ask what is the logic behind it? Drug users in most situations have CHOSEN their drug of choice so why make the dealer sit in jail for life or label, they typically don't force folks to buy.

  2. paradigmsearch profile image91
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    I believe the word is “expunge”. In some cases I would agree that forgiveness could be the right thing to do.

  3. Kim Bunch profile image60
    Kim Bunchposted 5 years ago

    I agree that certain offenses should be cleared after 20 years of no law violations.

    So many people suffer from the mistakes of their past. Everything is out there. . . accessible to all to know mistakes that should  be erased, forgiven instead of a black smudge that affects peoples employment opportunities, etc..

    Viewing someone's criminal record and finding things on it from their past gives one a feeling of suspicion and often mistrust towards that person that committed the offense, even if it was years before.

  4. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    The records should at least be sealed and only viewable by a Judge if the defendant comes before the Court on a similar charge.  Employers should see a clean record if they are sealed, especially after 20 years.

    1. Michael Willis profile image78
      Michael Willisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I like this suggestion, especially for lesser offences.

      1. Daffy Duck profile image61
        Daffy Duckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Absolutely.  That's a great suggestion Bytes!

        1. Disturbia profile image60
          Disturbiaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I agree, if it's a non-violent crime and the person has done their time and lived a clean life since, I don't see why not.  How long is long enough to pay for some past act of foolishness that may have been born of desperate circumstances?

    2. tritrain profile image77
      tritrainposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Very Good suggestion.

  5. Michael Willis profile image78
    Michael Willisposted 5 years ago

    Of course it should be based on the crime committed and if the person has changed/grown from it. Some States are far too aggressive to labeling minor offences as stiffer offences for political and monetary reasons.

    Also, if a minor offence keeps people from the ability to gain employment.....then what choice would they have, but to return to crime???
    Sometimes the criminal system creates more crime by the punishment rendered and especially how society reacts to a person who has any kind of record.

  6. JGoul profile image60
    JGoulposted 5 years ago

    Most states do make some kind of provision for this.  I'm not sure how Oregon law works; it's quite possible the man could have had his record expunged if he had petitioned the right office.

  7. tritrain profile image77
    tritrainposted 5 years ago

    Yes, the potential of reducing a conviction based upon 'x' amount of years would be a good way to encourage the convicted people to lead a clean life.

    Many crimes should be this way, but not all, such as violent crimes, rape, and Federal offenses.

    Hamstringing someone with an offense that they must explain every time they apply for a new job does not entice a person to live clean and honestly. Instead, they may be forced into a desperate situation, and so, a desperate state of mind.  One that may decide to steal, just to put food on the table.

    It's one thing to take away the right to vote, but its another thing to make it almost impossible to feed oneself and family.