State Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids, might get one of his wishes granted with a little help from the State Bar of Wisconsin.
The state Supreme Court heard an argument Wednesday from the group, which was advocating for the justices to make a ruling to allow judges to expunge the records of people who have been acquitted in cases or if their case was dismissed, according to an Associated Press report.
Expunging verdicts like these would keep them from appearing on the state's online court record system commonly known as CCAP.
A petition filed by the bar association states "To allow continued access to such easily misunderstood information ... poses the risk that such a record could be 'a vehicle for improper purposes,' whether intentional or not."
It doesn't matter if someone might misunderstand the information - like the meaning of dismissed or acquitted - because those that do understand the information must have access to those records. What if a person facing overwhelming evidence was acquitted on a technicality?
Will expunging a person's record include any written record? If so, there could be no record of a defendant's history at all. What if a defendant has a criminal past, which includes several acquittals in cases similar to one he or she is currently on trial for? That information could have an impact on a case, but it would not exist if acquittals and dismissals were expunged.
Proponents like Schneider who want to restrict online access claim even thought defendants' cases were dismissed or acquitted that information can be used to against them in situations like a job application or even in a personal relationship.
The law already offers protections for these cases. The summary Web page for each case even states it is illegal to use the information to discriminate against the person.
The possibility of expanding judicial power also is a somewhat worrisome. Judges, especially the Supreme Court, already have a strong ability to impact the lives of any guilty or innocent person that comes before them. Broadening their powers beyond the scope of the law could be a dangerous precedent.
Though the Supreme Court did not make a formal decision on whether to expand judicial power to allow expunging records, it did decide to research the idea. The court will now decide whether it should make a decision - legislating from the bench - or allow the state Legislature to change the law to allow judges to expunge records.
In an effort to keep public information open to everyone, which, by the way can allow defendants to show they were acquitted of a case or had it dismissed rather than let people make untrue accusations, the Supreme Court should do what it is in the best interest of the entire population and keep public records open.
The state Supreme Court heard an argument Wednesday from the group, which was advocating for the justices to make a ruling to allow judges to expunge the records of people who have been acquitted in cases or if their case was dismissed, according to an Associated Press report.
Expunging verdicts like these would keep them from appearing on the state's online court record system commonly known as CCAP.
A petition filed by the bar association states "To allow continued access to such easily misunderstood information ... poses the risk that such a record could be 'a vehicle for improper purposes,' whether intentional or not."
It doesn't matter if someone might misunderstand the information - like the meaning of dismissed or acquitted - because those that do understand the information must have access to those records. What if a person facing overwhelming evidence was acquitted on a technicality?
Will expunging a person's record include any written record? If so, there could be no record of a defendant's history at all. What if a defendant has a criminal past, which includes several acquittals in cases similar to one he or she is currently on trial for? That information could have an impact on a case, but it would not exist if acquittals and dismissals were expunged.
Proponents like Schneider who want to restrict online access claim even thought defendants' cases were dismissed or acquitted that information can be used to against them in situations like a job application or even in a personal relationship.
The law already offers protections for these cases. The summary Web page for each case even states it is illegal to use the information to discriminate against the person.
The possibility of expanding judicial power also is a somewhat worrisome. Judges, especially the Supreme Court, already have a strong ability to impact the lives of any guilty or innocent person that comes before them. Broadening their powers beyond the scope of the law could be a dangerous precedent.
Though the Supreme Court did not make a formal decision on whether to expand judicial power to allow expunging records, it did decide to research the idea. The court will now decide whether it should make a decision - legislating from the bench - or allow the state Legislature to change the law to allow judges to expunge records.
In an effort to keep public information open to everyone, which, by the way can allow defendants to show they were acquitted of a case or had it dismissed rather than let people make untrue accusations, the Supreme Court should do what it is in the best interest of the entire population and keep public records open.
