# Patrick to make CORI unaccessable



## PBC FL Cop (Oct 22, 2003)

Thursday, December 14, 2006 *CORI critics make plea to Patrick team*

Minor, dismissed charges on record hinder job hunt

*WORCESTER- *Make one mistake and you pay for it the rest of your life. That's how a lot of people see the state's controversial CORI law, which allows employers a look at a prospective job seeker's criminal convictions, findings of not guilty and even dismissals.

CORI reform was on the minds of several people at a meeting of the Patrick/Murray transition team here this week.

Speaker after speaker decried a system that allows an employer to view the arrest record of, for example, a 24-year-old job hopeful who might have been arrested at age 19 on a charge that would later be dismissed. Several of the speakers were members of the Worcester-based Ex-prisoners and Prisoners Organizing for Community Advancement.

The CORI law prevents many ex-offenders from finding even the most menial employment, said James Cain, EPOCA president. "To not let people in the door because of a mistake they made 15 or 20 years ago makes no sense," he said.

Jessica Daley, 24, of Fitchburg, told of applying for a job at Verizon only to be turned away once the company learned through CORI of her arrest at age 19 on charges that were dismissed.

"I have a child that needs to be supported and I need to be able to support myself as well," Ms. Daley told transition team members.

CORI reform legislation has stalled on Beacon Hill, but advocates continue to push for substantive changes. At present even if a charge is dismissed, the arrest record remains, and an employer can use that information to decide it's time to move to another candidate.

As a result, a subsection of Massachusetts residents who continue to find themselves out of work want a system overhaul. What possible good is served, they ask, by allowing employers unfettered access to the same criminal records that police and prosecutors use?

In a letter to the transition team, EPOCA members made a direct connection between the state's recidivism rate of 60 percent and the difficulty ex-convicts have in finding employment upon release from jail.

"Not only do places like Blockbuster Video and Dunkin' Donuts check CORI, but they have blanket policies against hiring anyone with a record at all," the letter read in part. "One of our members is a highly skilled veteran of the United States Marine Corps with years of management experience. He recently applied for a manager's position at Blockbuster Video, and the district supervisor wanted to hire him despite a misdemeanor that occurred five years ago. When he went for approval from the corporate office, he was denied because 'we don't hire anyone with a criminal record.' "

The group advocates reform measures that would shorten the time before records can be sealed; prohibit discrimination based solely on the existence of a criminal record; and limit information accessible by employers and landlords to data relating to convictions.

"As it is, people are being punished with denial of housing and jobs for crimes they did not commit," the letter read.

The Criminal History Systems Board oversees the Criminal Offender Record Information archive and controls access to it. While a number of organizations have the right to look at the information, the general public and organizations not on the list have to submit an application to the board to obtain CORI checks. The board is supposed to base a prospective worker's privacy concerns against an employer's need to protect its workers, clients or the public.

On the gubernatorial campaign trail this year, Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey and now Gov.-elect Deval L. Patrick differed on what to do about CORI.

Mr. Patrick expressed support for some restrictions on access to criminal records, saying that sometimes the records are wrong and that they prevent convicted criminals from finding work after serving their sentences.

Ms. Healey supported the status quo, a change from her position as a member of the board several years ago when she voted on several occasions to limit access to criminal records. She said Mr. Patrick's position showed he was soft on crime.

EPOCA noted that the cost to jail a person for one year in Massachusetts is $43,000. Cutting the rate of recidivism, the group said, just makes good financial sense.

Francisca Fajana, a staff lawyer with the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, said the CORI database contains a wealth of inaccurate information that only emphasizes the need for major reform. Many probation officers, she said, know of some of the inaccurate information but are statutorily prevented from correcting them.

Sayra Pinto, executive director of the Twin Cities Latino Teen Coalition, said the CORI law forces young people to "float around" without work until they commit another crime. "We are creating this problem ourselves," she said. "How can we expect them to do anything but commit crimes?"

Don't commit the crime if you can't do the time!!

Fitchburg Police Chief Edward F. Cronin told transition team members he supported Ms. Pinto's comments "110 percent."


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2006)

And, so it begins.


----------



## 209 (Jun 18, 2005)

I dont think findings of not guilty, and dismissals should be released to employers. Sounds ridiculous to me. People, especially kids from middle school through high school make stupid mistakes and then dont ever again. Why should you pay the rest of your life because you f#cked up once. Im not talking about violent felonies but petty crimes. When you are young you are learning, and EVERYONE makes mistakes or bad decisions weather on their own or under the pressure to look cool in front of friends.


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2006)

209 said:


> I dont think findings of not guilty, and dismissals should be released to employers. Sounds ridiculous to me. People, especially kids from middle school through high school make stupid mistakes and then dont ever again. Why should you pay the rest of your life because you f#cked up once. Im not talking about violent felonies but petty crimes. When you are young you are learning, and EVERYONE makes mistakes or bad decisions weather on their own or under the pressure to look cool in front of friends.


Sometimes, arrests can reveal as much about a person as convictions.

For example, if you were hiring school bus drivers for an elementary school, and you saw someone had 3 OUI's where the final dispositions were Not Guilty, would you really want that person driving children around?

Do you think, in spite of the 3 NG's, they might have a problem with booze?


----------



## 209 (Jun 18, 2005)

Delta784 said:


> Sometimes, arrests can reveal as much about a person as convictions.
> 
> For example, if you were hiring school bus drivers for an elementary school, and you saw someone had 3 OUI's where the final dispositions were Not Guilty, would you really want that person driving children around?
> 
> Do you think, in spite of the 3 NG's, they might have a problem with booze?


I agree there. So some guidelines need to be put in place. A lot of guidelines need to be put in place. Its a tough thing to just say one way or another.


----------



## phuzz01 (May 1, 2002)

Also, given the way that Mass. seems to CWOF everything, charges that are "eventually dismissed" may still be probative of a candidate's past.


----------



## MM1799 (Sep 14, 2006)

209 said:


> EVERYONE makes mistakes or bad decisions weather on their own or under the pressure to look cool in front of friends


Based on that logic, EVERYONE should have been arrested at least once, right?

Committing a crime is a *choice*. Associating with criminals (sometimes they are your friends) is a *choice*. 
Staying away from crime and following the straight and narrow path is a *choice*.
Why shouldn't the person who *chose* to obey the law be considered before someone who didn't? As Delta said, even with NG's -- it shows that the person has associated in some way with criminal behavior.

I applaud those who have chosen to obey the law. I personally know people who have needed to move on; without their friends or family members because the relationship might cost them their job/reputation. Why should they need to compete with people who dont have the will power to make that decision?

*Life is hard.* If you *CHOOSE* to stack the deck against yourself with: arrests and citations, so be it. I have no sympathy.

I am not saying bar them from getting a job anywhere, but they made their bed.. let them lay in it.


----------



## 209 (Jun 18, 2005)

MM1799 said:


> Based on that logic, EVERYONE should have been arrested at least once, right?
> 
> Committing a crime is a *choice*. Associating with criminals (sometimes they are your friends) is a *choice*.
> Staying away from crime and following the straight and narrow path is a *choice*.
> ...


Okay before everyone starts bashing the crap out of my post too much. I agreed with Deltas above response. And I further agree with M1799's post. BUT As a kid if you only get in trouble once (not felony) why let an employer know that. Kids do dumb things. I know a SRO who slams kids at high/middle school with criminal complaints all the time, more so than the big city schools. BS if you ask me. Maybe hes an isolated case of being overzealous but the kids could be delt with more by the school than courts. I suppose thats starting to get a little too off topic.


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

Poor choices are the fruits of poor upbringing. These personality defects are locked in: if you haven't formed a lawful persona by age 13-14...you likely never will. A finding of "Not Guilty" does not mean "Innocent". Employers have a right to study the back grounds of potential employees. It's their money and they should not have to hire a "pig-in-a-poke" just to serve some "PC-it's-for-the-children" bull hockey. No number of "ethics courses" are going to change an individual's template for corruption.

One is responsible for one's life...if you f##k up, suck it up...one will earn more respect if one admits one's mistakes than if one try to cover them up.


----------



## Buford T (Feb 12, 2005)

Good people make bad decisions. That being said, a possible 5 year lookback as is done already for gun permits, may allow first time non violent status offenders (Class D and 138 violators) to prove their ability to become productive citizens without these offenses hanging over their heads. Let's face it, those two crimes have been essentially de-criminalized now ($50.00 fine and 6 mo. cwof and then dismisal.) Just a thought.....


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

Gee....I never got arrested or locked up, neither has any of my relatives or most of my friends...so I guess it's not DESTINY to get arrested. I agree with DCS, its their company and money, if they don't want to hire someone thats been arrested, then its their prerogative. Like many have said, the arrest alone is proof of a lack of judgement, and many first time offenders are given CWOF's as a gift. It doesn't mean they weren't guilty. One the people mentioned in the article they were denied a job at Verizon...you mean the PHONE company??? How many of you would feel comfortable letting in some person to fix your phone who had been arrested (not convicted) for burglary, or robbery? What if you weren't home and your wife or significant other was home to let the phone-company man in? What if your kids were around? I know I wouldn't want to take that gamble for the sake of political correctness.


----------



## REILEYDOG (Nov 5, 2005)

MM1799 said:


> Based on that logic, EVERYONE should have been arrested at least once, right?
> 
> Committing a crime is a *choice*. Associating with criminals (sometimes they are your friends) is a *choice*.
> Staying away from crime and following the straight and narrow path is a *choice*.
> ...


That's a pretty righteous attitude. I agree with 209 for the most part. Every one of us has done illegal things - EVERYONE, we just didn't get caught. You mean to tell me every kid who had a hard-ass charge him possession of residue as a kid should be labeled a drug offender for life? There needs to be guidelines, but many sealed/CWOF/juvenile charges should be addressed.


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

Nothing is absolute....
How about a 32 year SGT, wrongfully accused, case dismissed and apologies issued?
Think he has a chance of moving on to a Chief or any other position with a felony charge on BOP? His career is *damaged*, and some of you "tough luck" types here say so what? Ah.....O.K. whatever
 
Maybe should be some provision(s)for certain cases to be expunged.


----------



## MM1799 (Sep 14, 2006)

209 said:


> I know a SRO who slams kids at high/middle school with criminal complaints all the time, more so than the big city schools.





REILYDOG said:


> mean to tell me every kid who had a hard-ass charge him possession of residue as a kid should be labeled a drug offender for life?


So now it's the police officer's fault? 
I am not, nor have I ever been an SRO, but he/she might have a reason for cracking down. Maybe the SRO has seen enough and said "enough is enough" or maybe he/she is cracking down hard in an attempt to dissuade these kids from their current choices. If you think a kid is really going to take to heart a stern talking-to from school/parents or a slap on the wrist seriously, then you need to wake up. Sometimes, while it is a bad situation all around, the best thing to do is come down hard when they are younger.

If it is infact a "hardass" SRO who just gets kicks out of nailing kids... then that sucks. However if these kids stayed away from drugs (or whatever else they are being nailed for), there wouldn't be a problem. The SRO is within his/her right to come down hard or let them off with warnings/slaps on the wrist. The onus is on the kids to make the right choice, not the police to go easy because it might hurt little Johnny in the long run.

"EVERYONE does illegal things." What is your definition of "things"? Ya, I'm sure everyone has stolen a piece of candy from the store when they were 10.. and probably hit another kid in fun. Not everyone has done drugs or something malicious. Define "things". I dont know too many people who are going to arrest a kid for stealing candy before they are 14-15. Again if they do.. they deal with the consequences. "Everyone does it" is not an acceptable excuse. Leave dreamland and come to the real world. Where actions have consequences and not everyone is caught, but those that are; are held accountable.

I am not saying everything is perfect. But if someone is going to hire (PAY YOU) then they should be allowed to get a in-depth, personal profile of you. Whether it is good or bad, is up to you.

mpd61: in that situation, I'd like to think people can read between the lines and act appropriatly. Again, I dont think the system is perfect. Things should be ammended


----------

