Pennsylvania's 'Clean Slate' legislation provides for sealing of criminal records

Governor Tom Wolf has signed a bill this summer to wipe clean criminal records for certain low-level offenders if they go a decade without any other convictions, reported WESA-FM.

The so-called “Clean Slate” measure has garnered bipartisan support. Under the new law, people who serve a year or more in prison can petition courts to have their records sealed after 10 years, as long as they’ve made all their court-mandated payments.

Second or third-degree misdemeanors that require less than a two-year prison sentence are also eligible for automatic records-sealing.

Philadelphia Representative Jordan Harris said if people with sealed records are asked about prior convictions, it will be like the crime never happened.

“If this person is applying for a job, their answer is no,” he said. “And our hope is that folks who have ten years free from crime won’t commit any. Quite honestly, the statistics show that.”

Pennsylvania is the first state to pass such legislation.

To read more CLICK HERE

GateHouse: A first step: Decriminalizing status offenses

Matthew T. Mangino

GateHouse News

August 11, 2017

Being a kid is difficult. For many young teens, misbehaving can be part of normal development. Teens need to explore and take risks to understand social and personal boundaries. This process is not new -- it has been around since time immemorial.

Why are we criminalizing the “normal” behavior of teenagers?

In 2014, according to a new study by the Vera Institute, there were more than 100,000 cases in the U.S. in which kids were sent to court for status offenses. A status offense is conduct that is only illegal by virtue of the person’s status as a minor.

Status offenses include such things as truancy, running away, curfew violations, underage drinking and the catch-all offense of incorrigibility -- repeatedly defying parents or teachers. The term status offense implies that a kid has committed a crime, just by virtue of age. Yet, they are anything but criminal. Kids -- especially teenagers -- are known to act up or disobey adults, and engaging in status offense behaviors is not uncommon.

These are not actions that most people imagine would land a kid in the juvenile justice system. Unfortunately, everyday teenagers nationwide are handcuffed, taken to court, or locked up for status offenses.

The Vera Institute study, “Just Kids: When Misbehaving is a Crime” explores the behaviors of young people. The behaviors may stem from a variety of factors that can range from normal adolescent development to underlying problems that need closer attention.

However, families, schools and communities frustrated with rebellious kids turn to the justice system. The study points out, unfortunate, but often occurring scenarios when dealing with teens: School officials calling on law enforcement when kids fight in class; police officers taking runaway kids to detention facilities when there is nowhere else to take them; and parents seeking out courts to get help for children they perceive as out of control.

This process of moving disruptive students from the principal’s office to the courthouse is known as the school-to-prison pipeline. When young people are criminalized for their behavior in schools, exposed to law enforcement -- and the rest of the criminal justice system -- at an early age, they become more likely to interact with that system in the future. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection during the 2011-2012 school year, schools referred approximately 260,000 students to law enforcement, and approximately 92,000 students were arrested on school property during the school day or at school-sponsored events.

Such a punitive approach has detrimental consequences. According to the Vera Institute study, “it criminalizes kids for misbehaviors that pose little to no risk to public safety and may punish them for developmental changes and service needs that are beyond their control.”

When it comes to the school building, “You have to differentiate the security issue and the discipline issue,” Michael Nash, the former presiding judge of juvenile court in Los Angeles and former president of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges told the New York Times. “Once the kids get involved in the court system, it’s a slippery slope downhill.”

Some communities have realized the ill effect of criminalizing status offenses. Local courts have adopted diversion programs for offenses such as underage drinking or disorderly conduct. However, the continued, and increasing, presence of law enforcement in schools and the eagerness of school administrators to push school discipline in the direction of the police need to be addressed.

The study summed it up this way, “The misuse of courts for status offense cases is not inevitable. Changing the nation’s approach will require a concerted effort from all the agencies that play a role in working with kids.” A laudable goal and one that is not out of reach.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book “The Executioner’s Toll, 2010” was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.

To visit the column CLICK HERE

The Vindicator: Chance at redemption in Pa.

Matthew T. Mangino

The Youngstown Vindicator

December 18, 29016

Just in time for Christmas, a gift from Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf to many of the 3 million Pennsylvanian’s with a criminal record.

A criminal record often carries a lifetime of consequences, and even a minor criminal record can be a serious impediment to employment, housing, education and public assistance. More than half the states nationwide, including Ohio, allow some misdemeanor and even felony convictions to be expunged or sealed. Pennsylvania has now joined the ranks of those states offering its citizens a chance at redemption.

Act 5 of 2016 took effect last month and provides an opportunity for people who have been convicted of most second- and third- degree misdemeanors – such as driving under the influence and low level thefts like shoplifting – to ask the court to seal their criminal record.

“The United States is the world leader in incarceration and a criminal record often carries a lifetime of consequences that often lead to poverty or re-incarceration,” Gov. Wolf said in a recent press release. “This law is a commonsense, positive and unprecedented step to help Pennsylvanians with minor or dated criminal records have a fighting chance at opportunities for gainful employment.”

LIMITING ACCESS

Sealing a criminal record does not make the conviction disappear; it only limits access to law enforcement and certain state licensing authorities.

The main difference between sealing criminal records and expungement is the way the records are reported and maintained. When an expungement is granted under Pennsylvania law, an order of court accompanies the expungement for all authorities to destroy the records, including photographs, fingerprints, state police records and all county records.

Under the new Pennsylvania sealing statute, law enforcement is required to maintain a record of the conviction, but is no longer allowed to disseminate the records to anyone outside of law enforcement. The order of court is labeled as “Limited Access.” This means the Pennsylvania State Police may maintain the record, but may not disseminate the record to an individual, a noncriminal justice agency or an internet website.

Pardon

A pardon is another option to erase a criminal record. Although an expungement is very limited, a pardon can erase any conviction. A pardon relieves an individual of the consequences of a criminal conviction. A pardon constitutes total forgiveness by the governor, treats the crime as if it never happened and allows a job applicant to deny she was ever convicted of the crime.

Similar to Pennsylvania, Ohio adult convictions cannot be “expunged” or completely erased from a criminal record. Ohio utilizes a similar court ordered process known as “sealing a criminal record.”

In order to be eligible to have a criminal record sealed in Pennsylvania, the following conditions must be met:

Free of arrest and conviction for a period of 10 years;

Never convicted of certain crimes (felonies, first- degree misdemeanors some assault and sex offenses);

Have fewer than four misdemeanor convictions; and

All fines and costs associated with the conviction have been paid.

The benefits of having a criminal record sealed are compelling. Most states make criminal history information accessible to the general public through the internet, making it extremely easy for employers to disqualify applicants based on old or minor convictions.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Many public housing agencies deny eligibility for federally assisted housing based on even minor criminal convictions. Private landlords can lawfully refuse to rent housing to persons with certain criminal convictions.

Gun ownership is widely restricted after a criminal conviction.

Even students with convictions for minor drug offenses can feel the pain. The Higher Education Act of 1998 makes students convicted of drug-related offenses ineligible for any grant, loan or work assistance.

This holiday season, if you, or someone you know, has a minor misdemeanor conviction in Pennsylvania and $132 for the filing fee, treat yourself to a Christmas gift that promises to bring more than just a smile to your face.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book “The Executioner’s Toll, 2010” was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To visit The Vindicator CLICK HERE

Pennsylvanians can get some criminal records sealed starting Monday

On November 14, 2016, new amendments to Pennsylvania law will go into effect, reported the Philadelphia Inquirer. The changes to Act 5 will allow people with certain types of misdemeanors to ask the courts to seal their records so that they are available only to law enforcement, and not to the general public.

The changes come with an increase in filing fees, up from under $20 to about $145 per petition.

Next week, lawmakers, advocates, and local and state officials will gather in Harrisburg to talk about the next iteration on criminal records: the Clean Slate bill.

That measure would automatically erase arrests without convictions and certain offenses from a person's criminal record after a period of time with no need for an expensive court petition. Police will still have access.

You may be eligible if all of the following apply:

1. You were convicted (plead guilty or were found guilty) of an offense that was a misdemeanor of the 2nd or 3rd degree.

Common offenses include drug possession, DUI, minor theft, disorderly conduct, and prostitution.

2. You have been free of arrest and conviction for a period of 10 years following the completion of your sentence.

3. You have never been convicted of certain crimes, including any felonies, 1st degree misdemeanors, or 2nd degree simple assault (the most common kind).

4. You have fewer than four misdemeanor convictions.

5. You have paid all fines and costs owed on the case.

To read more CLICK HERE

GateHouse: The long shadow of a criminal conviction

Matthew T. Mangino
GateHouse Media
September 18, 2015

Loyola Law School professor Kevin Lapp recently published an article titled “American Criminal Record Exceptionalism.” He examined the onerous lifelong burden of having a criminal record through the lens of criminal justice scholar James B. Jacobs’s new book “The Eternal Criminal Record.”

Lapp praised Jacobs’s book as documenting the broad scope of criminal record keeping. Criminal records have found their way to employers, schools, landlords, licensing agencies, the media and more.

Easy access to such information has increased the stigma of crime, created formal disabilities — disenfranchisement, deportation, housing restrictions, government entitlement eligibility and statutory employment prohibitions.

A 2010 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management found that 92 percent of their members, which are mostly large employers, perform criminal background checks on some or all job candidates.

One prominent researcher has found that a criminal record reduces the likelihood of a job callback, or offer, by nearly 50 percent.

An estimated 65 million U.S. adults have criminal records and they often confront barriers that prevent even the most qualified from securing employment, according to the National Employment Law Project.

A single criminal conviction should not tarnish a life otherwise spent abiding the law. A criminal record should disappear over time and there is research to support that proposition.

If an offender has a history of criminal conduct that stretches over time then the record should be preserved and used to enhance penalties and warn employers, the public, and law enforcement that this individual is potentially dangerous and definitely a criminal nuisance.

On the other hand an offender who has gone crime-free for a period of time should have his criminal record removed.

In 2009, Alfred Blumstein and Kiminori Nakamura of Carnegie Mellon University wrote in Redemption in the Presence of Widespread Criminal Background Checks that there comes a time after a period of crime-free behavior that an ex-offender is no more likely to commit a crime than the general population.

Their analysis was based on a statistical concept called the “hazard rate.” The hazard rate is the probability, over time, that someone who has stayed clean will be rearrested. For a person who has been arrested in the past, the hazard rate declines the longer the former offender remains arrest free.

The study examined the hazard rate for 18-year-olds when they were arrested for a first offense of one of three crimes — robbery, burglary and aggravated assault. For robbery, the hazard rate declined to the same arrest rate for the general population of same aged individuals at age 25.7 or 7.7 years after the robbery arrest. After that point, the probability that the convicted individual would commit another crime was less than the probability of other same aged individuals in the general population.

The study also examined the effect of the arrestee’s age at the time of his first arrest. The researchers examined the hazard rates for three ages of people in the study group — 16, 18 and 20-years-olds — who were arrested for robbery.

The analysis showed that the younger an offender was when he committed robbery, the longer he had to stay arrest free to reach the same arrest rate as people his same age in the general population. The researchers found similar results for first offense burglary and aggravated assault.

Only those ex-offenders who have been crime free for an extended period of time would be eligible to have their criminal records purged. A repeat violent offender would not enjoy the benefit of having her record eliminated. Providing opportunity to law abiding citizens is good for the individual and good for society.

Shouldn’t an ex-offender, crime-free for 10 years, have the opportunity to succeed — it’s the American way.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book “The Executioner’s Toll, 2010” was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.

Visit the Column

PA officials look at easing the burden of criminal records

Riding a wave of interest in criminal-justice reform among liberals and conservatives alike, Pennsylvania state lawmakers and nonprofit groups this week renewed calls to erase criminal records for some offenders convicted of minor crimes, Philadelphia Inquirer.

Their focus was on Senate Bill 166, which would give those convicted of second- or third-degree misdemeanors, such as retail theft, the chance to have their records expunged after 10 years if they have stayed out of trouble. The measure, supported by Gov. Wolf, also would require law enforcement agencies to remove arrest records after three years in cases in which defendants had not been convicted. In an afternoon conference call, State Sen. Stewart J. Greenleaf (R., Montgomery) and State Rep. Jordan A. Harris (D., Phila.) said the bill was poised to pass the House when lawmakers return to Harrisburg next week. The Senate unanimously approved the proposal in February.
Many states, including New Jersey, already have such laws. But Pennsylvania's bill reflects the growing momentum throughout the nation - from President Obama to the conservative Koch brothers - to find ways to reduce swelling prison and jail populations and their associated costs. 

Expungement offers one less barrier to convicts seeking a stable job, something that makes them far less likely to re-offend and return to jail, advocates say.

To read more CLICK HERE

The Crime Report: The ‘Scarlet Letter’: One Mistake Shouldn’t Ruin a Life

Matthew T. Mangino
The Crime Report
June 9, 2015
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter once suggested that Philadelphians who have served their time in prison will no longer be referred to as “ex-offenders”—they will be called “returning citizens.”
The executive director of the Office of Re-Integration Services told the Philadelphia Inquirer, at the time, that he hoped the new term would have a “cognitive effect” on those returning from prison.
That is sort of like saying we’re going to call cancer “silly cells” and hope that patients will think they’re not sick.
The problem isn’t that people being released from prison are called “ex-offenders”; the problem is that we’ve made it so difficult for ex-offenders to find jobs, homes and opportunity that society almost guarantees failure.
A 2010 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management found that 92 percent of their members, which are mostly large employers, perform criminal background checks on some or all job candidates.
In another study, Harvard criminologists Bruce Western, Devah Pager and Naomi Sugi found that a criminal record reduces the likelihood of a job callback, or offer, by nearly 50 percent.
An estimated 65 million U.S. adults have criminal records. They often confront barriers that prevent even the most qualified from securing employment, according to the National Employment Law Project.
A single criminal conviction should not tarnish a life otherwise spent abiding the law. A criminal record should disappear over time, and there is research to support that proposition.
If an offender has a history of criminal conduct that stretches over time, then the record should be preserved and used to enhance penalties and warn employers, the public and law enforcement that this individual is potentially dangerous and definitely a criminal nuisance.
On the other hand, an offender who has gone crime-free for a period of time should have his criminal record removed.
In 2009, Alfred Blumstein and Kiminori Nakamura of Carnegie Mellon University wrote in Redemption in the Presence of Widespread Criminal Background Checks that there comes a time after a period of crime-free behavior when an ex-offender is no more likely to commit a crime than the general population.
Their analysis was based on a statistical concept called the "hazard rate." The hazard rate is the probability, over time, that someone who has stayed clean will be rearrested. For a person who has been arrested in the past, the hazard rate declines the longer the former offender remains arrest free.
The Blumentstein-Nakamura study examined the hazard rate for 18-year-olds when they were arrested for a first offense of one of three crimes: robbery, burglary and aggravated assault. For robbery, the hazard rate declined to the same arrest rate for the general population of same aged individuals at age 25.7 or 7.7 years after the robbery arrest. After that point, the probability that the convicted individual would commit another crime was less than the probability of other same aged individuals in the general population.
The study also examined the effect of the arrestee's age at the time of his first arrest. The researchers examined the hazard rates for three ages of people in the study group—16, 18 and 20-years-olds—who were arrested for robbery.
In contrast to the findings with regard to 18-year-olds cited above, those whose first arrest occurred at age 16 drew even with same-aged individuals in the general population 8.5 years later. Individuals who were first arrested at age 20 caught up with the general population 4.4 years after their first arrest.
The analysis showed that the younger an offender was when he committed robbery, the longer he had to stay arrest-free to reach the same arrest rate as people his same age in the general population. The researchers found similar results for first offense burglary and aggravated assault.
Why shouldn’t an ex-offender, crime-free for 10 years, have his or her criminal record purged?
In Pennsylvania, a second DUI more than 10 years after a first DUI is not compounded for purposes of sentencing. The state legislature felt that convictions so far apart were not indicative of a pattern of alcohol abuse and driving. In addition, the DUI offender’s record can be expunged.
However, if a person gets arrested for theft, and is crime-free for 15 years, he still has a criminal record. Although, that offense will not enhance the potential penalties if there is a subsequent offense, it will follow the offender like a scarlet letter.
A 20-year-old college student who enters a fraternity house and breaks some windows as part of an alcohol-fueled prank, gets convicted of burglary—and struggles with that label for the rest of his life. In Pennsylvania, nothing short of a governor’s pardon will clear his record.
It is time to rethink how, and to what extent, we punish in this country.
Punishment should not be a stigma that attaches and never let’s go. Science tells us there is a better way, and policymakers should take heed.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner’s Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino). He welcomes comments from readers.
To visit The Crime Report CLICK HERE