Spent Convictions Bill - The opposition?

Procrastastudy

I wonder if someone could enlighten me as to the academic and considered arguments against the Spent Convictions Bill. I'd be obliged if you could link in a source, even anecdotal, rather than this turn into a flaming session as this topic so frequently does.

Dr Mary Rogan raised an excellent point today at a conference that Ireland came very late to the sensationalism of crime - it really only become an issue in the 80s and 90s. This would seem to imply that it's still selling more papers than it would do in, say, the UK so it becomes very difficult for the government to push through legislation on the issue no matter how sensible or well thought out.

Thoughts?

Holsten

People are opposed to it?!

Procrastastudy

Holsten wrote: »

People are opposed to it?!

Many seem to be - it's be caveatted to hell and as welcome as it is - being that we are the only country in Europe without such legislation - it's limp wristed to say the least. I was wondering if there was any coherent opposition to it but it just looks like it's a popularity issue.

Manach

From the Irish Times - link - this is the leading google search search back.
On one hand, it gives people a fresh start which is welcome if they are trying to re-make their lives. One the other, if the conviction record is deleted would this not cause an issue if prior relevant convictions are an issue at trial.
My own feeling is that European governments in general is gathering too much information in general for the purposes of social control/taxation and any step to somewhat reduce it is welcome.

Procrastastudy

Manach wrote: »

From the Irish Times - link - this is the leading google search search back.
On one hand, it gives people a fresh start which is welcome if they are trying to re-make their lives. One the other, if the conviction record is deleted would this not cause an issue if prior relevant convictions are an issue at trial.
My own feeling is that European governments in general is gathering too much information in general for the purposes of social control/taxation and any step to somewhat reduce it is welcome.

Previous convictions are generally only used in determining sentence. I think the idea is simply that people don't have to declare convictions to employers rather than it being erased.

Eliot Rosewater

Manach wrote: »

From the Irish Times - link - this is the leading google search search back.
On one hand, it gives people a fresh start which is welcome if they are trying to re-make their lives. One the other, if the conviction record is deleted would this not cause an issue if prior relevant convictions are an issue at trial.
My own feeling is that European governments in general is gathering too much information in general for the purposes of social control/taxation and any step to somewhat reduce it is welcome.

Under the terms of the Spent Convictions Bill old convictions aren't deleted per se. It merely means that when one gets a letter of reference from the Gardai that certain convictions aren't included -- but they're still held on file.

The old convictions aren't just relevant for reappearances in court. For instance, the immigration service of the United States requires visa applicants to declare all convictions they have ever received, irrespective of any spent conviction legislation in their home country.

tiredofthis

I'm opposed to the present Spent Convictions Bill because it was laid before the Dáil with an Explanatory Memorandum which said that the Bill does not apply to sex offences. The Bill devotes a page and a half to listing sex offences (including offences against children) which it reclassifies so that they will no longer be sex offences when the Bill is enacted. The Press Release about the Bill contained the same lie.

Arguments for and against
The Law Reform Commission is the statutory body set up to review the law in Ireland and make recommendations for reform. The Commission published its report on Spent Convictions in July 2007. This report comprehensively covered the arguments for and against allowing criminal convictions to be spent. It recommended that some convictions should be eligible to be considered spent but stated that “The Commission considers that all sexual offences are of such a serious nature that it would be inappropriate to expunge such offences under any circumstances and the Commission therefore recommends that sexual offences should be excluded from the application of the proposed spent convictions scheme”.
http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/Report%20Spent%20Convictions.pdf

The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform presented no arguments against the Commission's report, but almost immediately gave a grant through its Probation Service to Business in the Community. This is a charity which, as part of its work, encourages businesses to employ ex-offenders. But this grant, unlike previous Justice grants to the organisation, included a sanction to use some of the money to set up a Spent Convictions Group to research the application of spent convictions schemes in other countries. This is the work that the Law Reform Commission had already done. From the outset, the Spent Convictions Group proposed that sex offenders should be covered by the new legislation.

It's not clear why the Department immediately financed research by a group which made clear from the start that its recommendation on sex offenders would be the opposite of the Law Reform Commission's. I believe that the change in ministers - McDowell was replaced by Lenihan in June 2007 - was the deciding factor. It may be that Lenihan wanted to do a favour for family members/inlaws/friends/generous donors, or it may be that senior Justice officials had this policy on the stocks for some time and had been unable to get it past Michael McDowell but found Lenihan a compliant glove puppet.

The Rape Crisis Network of Ireland (RCNI) have published their arguments against the current Bill at this link
http://www.rcni.ie/uploads/RCNISpentConvictionsBill.pdf

Strangely, the RCNI say that one section of the Bill relates to defilement of a child by an adult not more than 24 months older. But the text of the Bill is published on the Justice website and it clearly states that

defilement of child under the age of 17 years),
shall not be a sexual offence for the purposes of this Act if the
person who is convicted of the offence was at the date of the commission of the offence, more than 24 months older than the child
with whom he or she engaged or attempted to engage in a sexual act
within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Law (Sexual
Offences) Act 2006.

The Bill has had 2 readings in the Dáil and been through committee stage there. It's had 2 readings in the Senate and is to go to committee stage there. If the text was supposed to read not more than 24 months older, there would by now be an amendment listed on the Oireachtas website but there is no sign of any amendment.

Bill is here
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Criminal%20Justice%20%28Spent%20Convictions%29%20Bill%202012-P&C.pdf/Files/Criminal%20Justice%20%28Spent%20Convictions%29%20Bill%202012-P&C.pdf

We have 165 TDs, not one of whom has spoken against this Bill or objected to the lie in the Explanatory Memorandum or the Press Release. When TDs of all parties are agreed on a piece of secret legislation, it is not for the benefit of the people of Ireland.

Opposition TDs customarily make a hell of a row if they feel they have been misled by the Government on even a minor matter. They have all maintained total silence about this legislation which removes protection from children.

Holsten

Sex offenses should be included within the bill.

It's a bit stupid that they are not, look at the UK for an example. Even if you're convicted of a sex offense you'll still be able to have your conviction spent which is good.

Why should some people be denied any chance of a future? They'll still come up on any Garda vetting, they just wouldn't need to disclose after a period of how many years.