NCJ Number
95601
Journal
Hofstra Law Review Volume: 9 Issue: 3 Dated: (Spring 1981) Pages: 733-774
Date Published
1981
Length
42 pages
Annotation
This article argues that while it may be desirable to foster offender rehabilitation to promote public acceptance of the offender, expungement falls far short of accomplishing these goals.
Abstract
Convicts face many difficulties upon release from prison. Government intervention on their behalf is rationalized in several ways. First, the government may be concerned primarily with preventing recidivism for the public good; second, the government may be concerned with preventing the convicts returning to crime for their sake; third, the government may believe that continued punishment of ex-offenders by public discriminatory attitudes and actions is unfair; and finally, the government may intervene as a reward to convicts who demonstrate that they are fully rehabilitated. The expungement route most often chosen by States is ineffective and too costly both in moral and legal terms. Expungement statutes exact a high moral toll by fostering dishonesty in government officials and in convicts themselves, while placing burdens on the right of access to judicial records and the first amendment right of expression by the press and the public. Several other less costly and probably equally effective ways for government to aid ex-convicts are identified. These include providing wage subsidies to employers who hire convicts and prohibiting discrimination against convicts. A total of 192 references are included.