Did you hear?

[StoneHenge]

The discussion on radio five live this morning about how long a criminal conviction should stay on a person's record?

This was in conjunction with the fact that certain organisations feel that criminal convictions for minor offences commited when the person was a minor and they have since not commited another crime should be taken off their records in order to allow them to get better work.

The example was 20 year old woman, whom, when she was 13, alledgedly assault another child. This case didn't even go to court, and he got a repremand, how the record of her 'common assault' has since stayed on her record. She is now trained to work with disabled children, but is unable to get a job in their field due to her criminal record.

The police say they need to take a hard line and that all crimes commited by a person should remain on their records until they reach 100 years old.

What do you think?

Should be have minor offences which has not been repeated by minors taken off their records after a set time (say ten years) in order for them to be able to get better jobs and not have a social stigma?

Or are the police right in that a crime is a crime, no matter when it was commited and whether or not is was repeated, it should be there for them to see?

The argument given was that if this has been the case with Ian Huntley, he would have never been in a position to be near those girls whom he was convicted of murdering.

[Noise Stopper]

If what happens when you are a child colours the rest of your life, then it should be considered removing certain offences. When I was at school several kids took a dislike to me, and I had on several occasions cause to defend myself, had a conviction resulted from any of the incidents, then either I would not be doing my job, two Police officers in Greater Manchester, One in London and a Doctor amongst others would not now be working in our chosen fields.
Some offences should be for life, but the rehabilitation of offenders act was prepared for this sort of thing, and what sort of "Common assault" is not covered under the RofO?

Ian :nfh1:

[c1rcle]

This was mentioned on The Wright Stuff this morning as well, one of the callers mentioned their husband was arrested for receiving a stolen packet of crisps when he was 13 in the late 70's & nearly didn't get a job he applied for recently because the background check they did on him popped up his conviction for receiving stolen goods but without any details of what the stolen item was. It's all well & good allowing prospective employers to do background checks on applicants but without the full details of any criminal records they find it's close to being pointless as they may end up turning away the best person for the job.