Corrections_Today_September-October_2022_Vol.84_No.5

nEWS&vIEWS

legal representation, 70% or more were able to achieve some measure of record clearing within a six- to seven month period. Of those individuals, researchers found that 9 out of 10 were eventually able to clear their criminal records completely. In con trast, only about 13% of subjects in the self-help group were able to clear their equivalent criminal records. Greiner stated that the disparity in expungement results between legally represented and unrepresented study subjects revealed “a serious access-to justice problem.” Greiner placed the expunge ment evaluation research in context by addressing several constraining factors: 1. The inherent difficulty of completely removing any in formation in the public record in the digital age. Even sup pressing access to a record can be very challenging. 2. The fact that different ju risdictions have distinctive approaches to record clear ing or expungement, notably including: a. The emergence of “Clean Slate” laws that require a state government to develop technology to automatically expunge minor criminal records for qualifying individuals. b. The more common method of expungement by petition, for which the individual must take the initiative to petition the court to clear part or all of a criminal record. 3. The proliferation of for-profit enterprises collecting and

maintaining online personal information, including crimi nal record data, that may or may not be accurate, complete, or up to date. removal of true and accurate information from a criminal record maintained by a govern mental agency, or removal or restriction of public access to that record, is ultimately in the interest of the government or the public. Private actors are often behind the reported proliferation of inaccu rate public record information made available on the internet. A common question is what would be the legal basis for remedying that activity, said Greiner. To date, the legal justifica tion employed in some lawsuits to address inaccurate information derived from public records comes from the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires certain holders of information to follow “reasonable procedures” to ensure accuracy. As the Harvard expungement study continues, it is expected to generate more information that can aid efforts to address issues that are central to reentry and recidivism. Permanency and accuracy of criminal records Past NIJ-supported research has examined inconsistencies in criminal record content and private sector use of those records, as well as difficulties clearing criminal records. 3 An investigator on two of those projects, Sarah Lageson, Ph.D., Associate Professor at the School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers 4. Concerns about whether

Is “Criminal Record” a Misleading Term? Both Greiner and Lageson believe the common use of the term “criminal record” is mislead ing. “My view is that there is no such thing as a person’s criminal record,” said Greiner. “That just doesn’t exist. Instead, what exists are packets and pieces of informa tion held by different government agencies, accumulated at different times, some of which are factually non-overlapping. “The agencies each have their own policies and legal procedures to respond to requests or orders to suppress or destroy information. They often act inconsistently. Their computer systems aren’t designed to talk with each other,” said Grein er, who continued by stating, “Since our criminal justice system is dis aggregated, it is often five or six or seven or eight criminal justice agen cies that hold such records.” Concurring, Lageson noted that “[m]illions and millions of records are being produced. And, of course, they’re being produced for different reasons with different rationales. But it leads to this unevenness in data quality in just the way that data are prepared and shared.”

istock/Artur

16 — September/October 2022 Corrections Today