Do you think we should get rid of criminal records secrecy?

driveranna a tragic case, perhaps the solution is more publicity for Sarah's Law, reminding people that if you meet a partner online you can check them out through the police.

Perhaps online dating sites should have a warning loud and clear on the first page and send an automatic email reminder the fitst time a couple make contact through the site.

A beautiful wedding song is "Everything I do by Bryan Adams Endless Love by Lionel Ritchie/Diana Ross and Love is all Around by Wet Wet Wet good luck for your big day

Couldn't do anything for Bains?

I'm one of the " boring " ones of society who hasn't blotted my copybook so far as the law is concerned------but that's not to say that I agree that every person in prison who's been convicted of a crime deserves to be there.
Far from it ! I'm supporting 3 MOJ's as we speak. Those concerned were given life-term sentences for " murder ". One in particular has enough withheld evidence to choke a goat. Withheld from his defence lawyers who after many years have already discovered anomalies and discrepancies in what information they already hold. There is urgent need for transparency in all cases and its lack has created mayhem involving all those concerned in the justice system.
The body known as the CCRC was appointed in the 1990's as a middle ground in investigating miscarriages of justice but--------I have found that it's biased towards prosecution and whatever the judge's/juries final words happened to have been. Waste of time and space. PII is another bone of contention with me. Why isn't it in the public's interest not to know ? To my mind it's because police/investigators have made such a shambles of the case that nobody is ever going to own up on mistakes made,which remain hidden !
In two of the cases which hold my interest both have top scientists involved who've stated that the two " prisoners " are innocent of their "crimes ". One I've studied for the past nearly 7 years which I reckon will be the biggest MOJ that this country will ever see.

Court proceedings are held in public now and the principle of open justice prevails. The family court is held in camera and it seems that many abuses are perpetrated by those able to use the excuse of protecting minors by the ensuing secrecy.

Sensible people are able to put misdemeanours committed in youth in context. No one condemns a person for a speeding fine where no one was hurt. And so on.

Open justice is justice. Look at the places in the world where so-called justice is dispensed behind closed doors.

When people are convicted of a crime it is on record and likely to have been in the media..national or local depending on severity. When a person has served their sentence/ paid their fine then they are entitled to have the opportunity to go forward and live a good & honest life.Many do that. It is hard enoughvfor a person with a recordcto work again ..why make it harder to rebuild a life?

I agree with chewbacca definitely destroy records of a crime unless the perpetrator has been incarcerated. Otherwise otherwise a person who committed a crime but the court due to legalities is found to be innocent and not charged then destroy records. Anyone known to have committed a criminal sexual assault should be on the sex offenders list

No comment!

Come on now MissA, fess up! No GBH lurking in your past? Or a Rover driver perhaps? Surely a game of golf somewhere along the line? And when do you eat your Sunday lunch hmm?

You must come from my neck of the woods!

You should try living in the community I do!
There is nowhere to hide, if you committed a misdemeanor when you were 18... nobody forgets and when you are 50+ it will still be brought up!
I personally think it’s not a problem, f you you’ve paid the price for your crime and can still be accepted it means people can judge for themselves.
No, not me I’ve not been in any trouble however people around certainly do know my business ?

I thought some things were 'spent' after some time?
Not that I'd know, because any misdemeanours I've committed haven't been found out. yet!

Sorry to hear that MaryXYX, i do think that there should be a finite time that these things show up on DBS records, especially for minor misdemeanours and Conditional Discharges. Is there any way that it can be expunged from your file?

Parking fine? Nope.
Caution? Nope.
Speeding ticket? Nope.
DUI? Definitely not.
GBH? You're 'aving a larf!
AB? Nope.
Fraud? Nope.
GBH? Now you're being silly!
Any fine? Nope.
Harassment? Nope.
failure to pay any monies ordered by a court? If you knew my profession, you'd know how funny that is!
Assault? Nope.
Or any of the more serious crimes on our statute books? Nope, no murders, rapes on my unblemised record thus far.
Golf playing? Nope.
Rover driving? Seeing as they've been out if production for 20 years or more, it's unlikely.
Repressed civil servant? Again, if you knew my profession, you'd know how funny that is!
Eating a Sunday roast on a Friday? Damn! You've got me!

@Chewbacca
"Anyone who does have a criminal record has that on their DBS file for up to 20 years"
I had a Conditional Discharge 40 years ago, and it's revealed every time I get a DBS check. It would also stop me getting a visa to most countries, because a serious offence could have had a serious penalty.

No. Whoever thinks it a good thing hasn't thought it through.
There are some who are convicted but later exonerated. Mud sticks. The brainless sector of society ignore reason and baaa with the rest of the sheep.
I doubt whether there is anyone eho hasn't been accused of or received any of the following: a parking fine, caution, speeding ticket, DUI, GBH, AB, fraud, any fine, harassment, failure to pay any monies ordered by a court, assault, or any of the more serious crimes on our statute books.
If there ARE any people out there with totally clean sheets, they are probably boring, golf playing, Rover driving, repressed civil servants who blanch at the thought of eating a Sunday roast on a Friday.

The law is called 'Sarah's law' and its for members of the public to ask for any information which may mean a person poses a risk to children.

Willow 10. He was on the sexual offences register. However no one told the family and he certainly did not volunteer any information about himself. In fact most of what he had told about himself turned out to be a pack of lies.

Criminal court proceedings are not "criminal records"

These proceedings used to appear in our local newspapers as a result of some rookie reporter's first assignment.

Now uncommon.

For the guilty we should focus on their contrition (or not) and our forgiveness (or not).

...also uncommon.

I thought there was some kind of law that people can check out a partners background with regards to sex offences?

I agree with all those who say no to the original suggestion, but driverann's example did make me think.

Perhaps it should be made illegal not to disclose any offence you have been find or sent to prison for to your prospective spouse?

Here when applying for a marriage license you have to state whether you are suffering from any venereal disease and whether you have children by anyone other than the person you are intending to marry.

I know the law is not the same in all countries, but perhaps we should return to the days where a full disclosure of health, financial affairs and any criminal offences should be a preliminary to marriage or to moving in with someone?

In that case I would have thought he would be on the sex offenders register.

All proceedings held in an open court are public. There are Court reports, in many local newspapers. However I take your point. Someone I know son-in-law took her 9 years old granddaughter for a ‘drive’ in his new car. After around an hour he returned with the child who he had brought a toy and sweets for during the drive. The following day the mother asked the child if she had enjoyed her ‘drive’. The child told her that the man had taken her nickers off and touched her. When it was reported to the police the police said he had history of offending with similar crimes. His wife and her family had know way of knowing or any suspicion. The wife had met him through Date-Line 8 years previous and married him two years later. Had she been able to check him out before marrying him it would have saved a lot of heart ache to all concerned.

So many are criminalised for minor drug offences. These records seem to be handed out like Smarties. Thousands of otherwise law-abiding people have records haunting them forever. Some times it's the law that is wrong, and the drug laws are unscientific and inhumane. I would rather ALL records for non-violent drug offences were destroyed rather than made open!

Absolutely not. I think a lot of decent people have skeletons in their cupboards that they are deeply ashamed of. Teenagers especially make silly mistakes that they regret as adults. Should one mistake haunt them for the rest of their life? And if they were convicted, presumably they have done their time or paid a fine. Serious convictions and repeat offenders are named and shamed anyway.