At least one CNMI lawmaker apparently hopes to garner support from convicted felons and their families and friends.
Recently, the Marianas Variety carried a story about CNMI House Bill 17-52, the “Expungement Act of 2010.”
Rep. Stanley T. Torres would allow convicted felons to petition to have their criminal records expunged, as he believes that “many law-abiding citizens of the CNMI are unfairly burdened and unduly prejudiced for life by the stigma and the record associated with a criminal offense they committed in the past.” I suppose such offenses would necessarily be in the past, unless of course they are still doing whatever it was that got them convicted in the first place.
Perhaps I overlooked some fundamental change in public perception, but I thought the whole point of criminal record-keeping is to make the public — mostly of law-abiding folks — aware of past criminal activity by those who aren’t law-abiding. How else can employers and others possibly make informed decisions? How can Mr. Torres rationally refer to convicted felons as “law-abiding citizens?” Could a phrase be more oxymoronic than “law-abiding felon?”
Accurate criminal records are vitally important to the criminal justice system and other government agencies as well as to the general public, as we often witness. A Guam senator was recently caught fibbing about his history and paid a price. Convictions bring conditions and caveats that act as deterrents to repeat offenses. Is this what Mr. Torres has in mind when he says they “should not be denied opportunities?” Convicted felons are normally prohibited from owning or using firearms, for example, or associating with others with criminal histories. Alcohol and drug use is sometimes proscribed as well.
Felons normally don’t qualify for military service. Criminal history is useful to courts and juries when considering more recent criminal acts. If criminal records can be expunged merely for the asking then how do we track, monitor and to some degree control the most dangerous members of our society? And to whom does the convicted felon petition to have his criminal history erased? It obviously wouldn’t work for federal convictions. Would that not constitute a 14th Amendment conflict?
This whacky proposal is transparently designed to accommodate special interests. The article noted also that the Fitial administration has come under fire for hiring and/or nominating to government positions those with criminal records. Perhaps it’s becoming difficult for the governor and his cabinet to find non-criminals among the favored cadre of family, friends and ardent supporters, and they therefore wish to make criminal histories go away.
That’s what happens in an expungement. Any evidence or reference to the crime or crimes simply disappears.
I don’t know about you, but I refuse to accept the notion that convicted felons are law-abiding victims of a society intent on stifling their opportunities. Hardened criminals could move to new places with clean records and live among us, whether or not their behavior is as clean as their newly laundered past. Let’s hope Mr. Torres’ more rational colleagues ignore this nutty proposal that should never see the light of day. Should it somehow become law in the CNMI could the Guam Legislature long resist similar foolishness?
Coincidentally, on the same day that this article appeared a story surfaced about the sharply rising crime rate in the CNMI. Could the two issues be somehow related? Has anyone taken a hard look into the background of Mr. Torres, his family and close associates? An aggressive investigative reporter might uncover clues to the origin of this wacky plan.
DAVE DAVIS
Yigo, Guam
