Misdemeanor - Expunged

[Pilot Fighter]

What good reason would there be for any employer, including the military to know about your 1987 arrest?

The military and defense related security clearances require you to disclose every arrest, regardless of outcome. They want to know everything and make decisions based on totality of information. Lie and you are done.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

Well, maybe if someone is applying for a specific MOS that requires a specific level clearance, then maybe you are asked to reveal any convictions etc.? I am just guessing so I apologize if this is inaccurate.

Not just convictions, they want you to explain every arrest and domestic court order.

 

[Old Pete]

The military and defense related security clearances require you to disclose every arrest, regardless of outcome. They want to know everything and make decisions based on totality of information. Lie and you are done.

I'm certainly aware of that, having been subject to background checks, and polygraph exams for some positions, but my point is, for someone who is in a position to hire or fire, or in a position to grant a security clearance or deny one; why would you hold that against someone? How does an applicant being accused of crime, but not being convicted negatively affect your decision.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

How does an applicant being accused of crime, but not being convicted negatively affect your decision.

In some cases, an absence of conviction doesn't mean an absence of guilt or poor judgement. Think of how many cases are reduced, deferred, or expunged despite guilt.

If you have 20 domestic violence arests and no convictions, you probably have some issues or make bad decisions.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

I'm certainly aware of that, having been subject to background checks, and polygraph exams for some positions, but my point is, for someone who is in a position to hire or fire, or in a position to grant a security clearance or deny one; why would you hold that against someone? How does an applicant being accused of crime, but not being convicted negatively affect your decision.

People hold it against one on a "where there is smoke there is fire" theory. Even if you are found not guilty or charges are dismissed, that is only an issue of proof, not a statement you are innocent. Some states have expunction statutes to expunge dismissals as well as convictions because it does matter.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

I'm certainly aware of that, having been subject to background checks, and polygraph exams for some positions, but my point is, for someone who is in a position to hire or fire, or in a position to grant a security clearance or deny one; why would you hold that against someone? How does an applicant being accused of crime, but not being convicted negatively affect your decision.

Here's a little more information On some of the routine things that are required to maintain a clearance.

http://www.dm.usda.gov/ocpm/Security Guide/S4self/Intro.htm

 

[Vector]

People hold it against one on a "where there is smoke there is fire" theory. Even if you are found not guilty or charges are dismissed, that is only an issue of proof, not a statement you are innocent. Some states have expunction statutes to expunge dismissals as well as convictions because it does matter.

Another reason why the whole legal system is broke.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

Another reason why the whole legal system is broke.

It all depends on how you look at it.

Now, let's play dad for a moment. Let's say a potential suitor of your daughter has a dozen arrests for assault, domestic violence, and terroristic threatening over the course of a decade, none resulting in a conviction. Are you going to welcome this gentleman with a clean record into your family?

 

[Vector]

It all depends on how you look at it.

Now, let's play dad for a moment. Let's say a potential suitor of your daughter has a dozen arrests for assault, domestic violence, and terroristic threatening over the course of a decade, none resulting in a conviction. Are you going to welcome this gentleman with a clean record into your family?

I will ask her if the really loves him. If she says she does, I will wish her God's speed and remind her that I will be available if she needs me. The truth is that marriage changes people; for better or for worse. A clean cut guy could choke her just as much as a guy with a past history. She may come into his life and change his outlook on life. I know of a gentleman with a felony record who got out of prison, got married and changed hislife around. I did not know this until he told me. Human beings and life are as not as simple as society makes it out to be.
I definitely understand the point you are trying to make.

 

[🦈💜]

People hold it against one on a "where there is smoke there is fire" theory. Even if you are found not guilty or charges are dismissed, that is only an issue of proof, not a statement you are innocent. Some states have expunction statutes to expunge dismissals as well as convictions because it does matter.

It pains me that this is the case. I'm a very firm believer in an unimpugnable presumption of innocence. I guess in some ways I'm an idealist, but I believe you can't have a system with integrity if that system ignores some of the most fundamental tenets of its foundation.

But hey, law is complex. There's really no place for idealists like me, sadly.

-Fox

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

It pains me that this is the case. I'm a very firm believer in an unimpugnable presumption of innocence. I guess in some ways I'm an idealist, but I believe you can't have a system with integrity if that system ignores some of the most fundamental tenets of its foundation.

But hey, law is complex. There's really no place for idealists like me, sadly.

-Fox

The presumption of innocence and the requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt were created to protect us from governmental criminal process. It was not intended and does not go further. I'm not bothered when someone who kills someone pays for it civilly even if he is found not guilty.

Idealists who were also realists are the reason the system was designed that way.

 

[🦈💜]

The presumption of innocence and the requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt were created to protect us from governmental criminal process. It was not intended and does not go further. I'm not bothered when someone who kills someone pays for it civilly even if he is found not guilty.

In this case, I feel your analogy is a little off the mark. It's more similar to someone who is acquitted of murder but still labeled a murderer... or someone who is charged with a rape, proves his innocence, and is still placed on the sex-offender list.

The arrest is exactly governmental criminal process, and maintaining its record is, as well.

"Have you ever been accused of being a witch?"
"Well, this one time in third grade, Nancy Harrington was being a brat, and..."
"BURN THE WITCH!"

Apropos civil judgment, I have no problem with someone being acquitted of murder but convicted of wrongful death, but I do have an issue with arrests being used as a metric to establish a "pattern of behavior".

We give too much priority to negative-weighting criteria—in my world, an arrest would have zero legal significance alone, and officers would bear some degree of liability for who and when they arrest. For my part, I don't think the bogeyman of legions of criminals wandering the streets because they gamed the system is real, significant, or—if it were real—truly bad. Involving someone in the legal system is incredibly injurious, and with our rates of incarceration, the degree of "recidivism" we purport, and the inefficiencies of our entire legal process I can't help but think of the law as just another avenue of exploitation, and our bar for PC touching the ground.

Furthermore, even if record of arrests was presumably neutral, I would argue that using those records as a basis for employment would be potentially unfairly discriminatory against protected classes.

Just my opinion, as uninvited and out-of-place as it is here.

Sorry for wasting your time with my sidebar!

-Fox

 

[gtlyon]

Fox, you could not have said it any better. People aren't perfect, a lapse in judgement or heat of the moment decision can sadly yield a negative result that follows you forever, even when you make great decisions from then on out.

Doing some further research for the OP question, and I encourage correction if I misrepresent facts. It seems an expungement is the courts system saying " hey, we forgive you, you aren't a career criminal and you paid your dues."

Also, it seems that some application processes include a 10 year background check, being that it is 23 years ago and expunged things my be OK for you...but don't lie!

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

In this case, I feel your analogy is a little off the mark. It's more similar to someone who is acquitted of murder but still labeled a murderer...

You mean like OJ? That's exactly what I was thinking of. No problem at all him being labeled a murderer even though he was found not guilty.

On the expungement comment, not exactly. There are a number of different procedures courts use to say "we fire give you." Expungement is a different breed from those.

 

[mshunter]

It all depends on how you look at it.

Now, let's play dad for a moment. Let's say a potential suitor of your daughter has a dozen arrests for assault, domestic violence, and terroristic threatening over the course of a decade, none resulting in a conviction. Are you going to welcome this gentleman with a clean record into your family?

That depends. What was his ex like. I've seen a whole bunch of crazy ruin a good man because she was full of it. She went into the bathroom and scratched herself up, then called the cops. The ONLY thing that saved him was a witness.