Last week, the Legislative Finance Committee passed a provision that would enable courts to clear the criminal records of offenders ages 25 and younger. Aside from increasing the age from 21 to 25, expungement would also extend beyond just first-offense misdemeanors to include nonviolent class H and class I felonies.
According to Gov. Jim Doyle's office, the intention is to give (more) young people a chance to move past a mistake and become a productive member of society. It helps if they get a chance to move forward with a clean slate,"" Doyle's spokesperson Lee Sensenbrenner said.
This measure is at best flawed and at worst shockingly duplicitous for being buried in the state budget and seemingly hidden from public discourse.
We do not wholly disagree with the intention of the provision. Employment is a key factor in determining whether an ex-offender will relapse and end up back in prison, and despite the illegality of employers discriminating based on criminal records, the fact that it's an open record makes it a difficult violation to enforce. As a result, many ex-convicts cannot secure legitimate employment, which leads them to commit more crimes and end up back in prison again. It's a troubling problem, given the Department of Corrections budget has exploded to $1.2 billion from $700 million in 1999, largely due to an increase in prison population, according to the Council of State Governments Justice Center.
But the provision as it stands and the method of passage is unacceptable. First, we cannot support sneaking this into the budget and bypassing valuable debate and public discourse. This is not simply a spending decision, as the public's right to information and the criminal justice system are also affected. Legislators should immediately remove this from the budget and rightfully discuss it in full Legislature at the appropriate time.
Additionally, why the arbitrary extension to age 25? Legislators have presented no reasoning for this age jump other than to help more young people remove past mistakes. And if that's the case, where do we draw the line? There are few developmental differences between ages 21 and 25, certainly not enough to suggest either age group wouldn't comprehend the implications of identity theft, drunken driving, drug dealing and basic arson, which could all potentially be expunged.
The expansion from first-time misdemeanor to serious felonies draws our concern and absolutely warrants public debate. Similarly, any decision to limit information to the public should also necessitate public input rather than be an underhanded addition to the fiscal budget. As President of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council Bill Lueders argues, the government must be capable of preventing employment discrimination beyond just preventing information access. Find a way to enforce the law without depriving public knowledge.
This sneakiness during a budget crisis is shameful. The provision should be removed and offered up to proper public scrutiny and debate.
