MoJ decision about criminal disclosure

[RedToothBrush]

Steven Swinford@steven_swinford
Exclusive

Serious criminals sentenced to over four years including some killers, sex offenders and drug dealers will have criminal records effectively wiped

It’s part of a bid to stop the ‘stigma’ of convictions hanging over people for rest of lives

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6d97056e-a4f2-11e9-a6f9-8847b0c7b91c
Killers and drug dealers to have a clean slate in search for jobs

Steven Swinford@steven_swinford
Criminals will no longer need to disclose convictions to prospective employers

Convictions will still have to be disclosed for ‘sensitive’ roles ie working with children

Reform won’t apply to those in life & indeterminate sentences as well as dangerous sex and violent offenders

It’s one of Gauke’s final acts as Justice Secretary

It will require primary legislation - leaving question of whether the next PM adopts it

He’s shelved plans to scrap sentences of less than 6 months - now a decision for next PM

Here’s my analysis:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c9dc3dee-a4f2-11e9-a6f9-8847b0c7b91c
Gauke in last-ditch bid to carve out a legacy

Given the MoJ getting damned this week over their handling of their sex offenders scheme, I find this troubling.

See thread here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3610304-An-Academic-Said-She-Was-Bullied-At-The-Ministry-Of-Justice-After-Revealing-It-Was-Running-A-Programme-That-Made-Sex-Offenders-More-Likely-To-Reoffend

If you have a sex offenders conviction of over four years, it is by definition 'serious'. Yet here we have the MoJ effectively saying its not.

The reoffending rate is apparently fairly low at 8% but this betrays one minor issue - how hard it is to get a conviction in the first place with the number of offences never reported low and even those that are reported having a low rate in being persue by the CPS. In this context the reoffending rate is somewhat questionable and isn't hugely reassuring to anyone who has been a victim in the past.

Overlooking the low incident of reporting and prosecution in this area when making this decision is a huge oversight in my opinion.

I don't know what the solution is about dealing with sex offenders, but it's the context and lack of thought in minimising and being dismissive of sex offenders as 'not serious offenders' that particularly bothers me.

What message does that send when the MoJ says that?

What about Sarah's Law and all the others (sorry names escape me, did Suzy Lamplugh have one named after her)? Isn't this in direct conflict in relation to previous offences?

Not informed on this as you can tell, cannot believe a record could be wiped like this, the stigma is there for a bloody good reason!

very difficult. objectively it feels like a positive step - being employed is massively linked to reducing re-offending

but as OhHolyJesus said, the stigma is there for a reason and I don't trust the MOJ to be able to effectively judge when it's important for someones reputation to be known and when it isn't

I think the problem here is the MOJ, not the idea

Will this also apply to convicted paedophiles?

What about rapists? Convictions often seem to be insanely short.

Could a paedophile or rapist get a job as a teacher because the convictions would no longer come up on CRB checks? What about school governor or doctor

Surely having been convicted or rape or paedophilia should permanently exclude an individual from certain positions of trust.

Yes I did think about that and wonder about the impact on those type of disclosures.

I don't know the detail of Guakes proposal and reference to these.

If it's not thought about it would be concerning.

Given these proposals are only ideas that need to be approved by -Boris Johnson the next prime minister it certainly will be interesting to see it pan out.

In theory the right of the Tory party are not going to be too thrilled at such ideas of rehabilitation as traditionally they are much more authoritarian with an emphasis on punishment and the concept of law and order...

BUT

In the context of a whole wave of antifeminist agenda also coming from the same quarters and push back against 'metoo' campaigning, this might be one where there is another agenda which is pro- mens sexual rights.

I find it concerning.

Just seen this bit which answers some of my questions:

Convictions will still have to be disclosed for ‘sensitive’ roles ie working with children

Lumene

Steven Swinford says specifically that:

Convictions will still have to be disclosed for ‘sensitive’ roles ie working with children

But I do feel that it opens up the opportunity for problems none the less.

For example, will a convict fully understand where they have to declare or not declare

Theres situations such as delivery drivers where an employee might come into contact with women working alone or being at home alone.

I don't know.

As stated the 'stigma' is there because women do have legitimate reasons to fear.

I have conflicting thoughts yet to iron themselves out.

I''m certainly a big supporter of anti-recidivism efforts and employment is such a big factor in reducing recidivism. We need more employers like Timpsons. But safeguarding trumps everything so far as I am concerned and it's clear this will create loopholes.

Our great and good are blind to loopholes if they may affect the safety of women and children, it seems.

I think I could get behind this if it was limited to non violent or non sexual crimes. But not as the proposals appear to stand.

I agree rehabilitation is a good approach for justice, and our system needs to move far more that way.

I also agree there are lots of loopholes. What is a ‘sensitive’ role and who decides? Would a role where someone works late with one other worker count if they are an ex-rapist? Or where they will be alone with clients away from others eg estate agent, plumber/electrician, counsellor etc.

If the people hiring for the job don’t know a sex offender’s history how can they properly risk assess for things like this?

Employment does reduce risk of acquisitive crime, but it does not typically reduce the risks of sexual and violent crimes or domestic violence.

Yes. That's what I was getting at. I can get right behind this measure for non-violent and non-sexual crime but otherwise am dubious. The checks we do have in place are already full of holes. We don't need to go about creating more.

I think I'm not far off where most of you are in terms of supporting rehabilitation.

But I'd definitely like to see the detail on this one because I think it problematic and I get the sense that the MoJ have something of a blind spot for sex offenders for various reasons based on several recent performances.

I also support genuine rehab efforts, but I question the motivation behind the idea. I don't think this is about by doing what it best for those offenders trying to go straight, or for the safety or well-being of society as a whole, I think its only about getting ex-offenders into paid jobs so the gov doesn't have to pick up the tab.

I think that many Tories would do do this at any cost, just look at the treatment of ill or disbaled people with PIP/ESA etc. They don't care about collateral damage or other repercussions so long as the bill goes down now. They wouldn't even care if other departmental bills went up (eg false economies in NHS impacting on other department's budgets, bed blocking, failure to treat MH etc).

If the motivations are dodgy to begin with, there is no way that the gov will be able to deliver this in what we would consider a safe way.

It’s pretty worrying from an employment point of view too. I have a group of apprentices working for me. They range from 16 to 22. The younger ones are very young and we have a duty of care.
How am I going to keep a bunch of teenage girls (or boys) safe in a workplace when I don’t know if the older employees are to be trusted. Not only our employees but those visiting from other companies. There is always a small risk but this exacerbates the problem.
The potential risk is huge. It’s difficult now, but We’re going to have to check people’s employment history with a microscope before we take anyone on. Or stop taking apprentices under the age of 18.

Employment does reduce risk of acquisitive crime, but it does not typically reduce the risks of sexual and violent crime

That makes a lot of sense, why would you risk your job if you are making money you can live on.

Sexual and violent crime probably need a different approach.

I'm instinctively against this but I'm no expert in this area. It seems to me that rather than accepting people nake bad choices, face consequences & then we work to help them back into society the move is to just hide facts. I don't like the idea that as adults in society information is kept from us by the state. If someone has a conviction for violence that is relevant across all aspects of employment not just working with children.

I'd rather see more Timpson style initiatives. Maybe even a govt set target that all public sector employers must employ x% people with spent convictions.

Manslaughter is on that list. Should someone convicted of manslaughter motivated by suicide pact, which we might feel we understand in some circumstances, be clear to work in a care home?

It seems to me that rather than address issues & attitudes the proposal is to not trust 'the public' & keep them in the dark.

That's a positive.