Should criminal records be public for anyone to view?

MaryTheBookeeper

I believe the only way to find out whether someone has a criminal record is to do a DBS check. But if you're not an employer that's not possible. I'm wondering why criminal records aren't publically available?

I think Janeainsworth has given the clearest explanation of why these are not in the public domain.
Does that answer your question OP?

Read about PII if you want the question answered. Public Interest Immunity.

I am not even sure that employers can do random DBS checks. All they can do is ask potential employees to supply one

As an employer, we ask our prospective employees to provide a Basic DBS certificate because part of their job will be handling sensitive data and information. If they don't have one, we will pay for it to be done and the employee then gets to keep that certificate. If they refuse to have a Basic DBS carried out, we tend not to offer them the job.

There is the law and there are human rights

greengreengrass is correct. And it's precisely because of the Human Rights Act that criminal records are not on public view unless released by the courts.

Anyone who will be working or volunteering with children is asked to provide an enhanced one although the employer may pay.

I never had to pay for a DBS or its predecessor, it was always my employers that applied although I obviously had to provide the information. I'm not sure if the process is different in Scotland or NI.

I don’t think so, no. My child was caught up in something when they were a teenager and ended up in court. They completed their community service to everyone’s satisfaction and have never put a foot wrong since. The resulting criminal record, for something that probably wouldn’t even be followed up these days, has dogged them all their life. If people have paid their debt, they should be allowed to put it behind them.

Yes, yes, yes. And the farce of spent convictions too. OK there would be a lot of us with rather red faces for a while but then the hypocrisy of everyone pretending that only a certain class or type has ever been in trouble would be done away with. It is not true that 'its in the media' - most convictions go unreported.

On the whole I think criminal records should not be in the public domain. However, I am in two minds about sex offenders, especially those who offend against children.

No, the general public should not have access to an individual’s criminal record. Someone who has committed an offence should have the right/opportunity to get their life back on track.

Depending on the nature of the offence, the conviction is eventually spent - this means it no longer has to be declared to an employer or voluntary agency, etc. However, for some convictions such as sexual abuse, or violence, these offences invariably stay on their record and would be revealed to employers, appropriate agencies, etc.

For women who may be concerned about the safety of themselves or their children from say, a new partner, there is the opportunity to make enquiries from the police department dealing with domestic violence or sexual offending.

When I was young names and Addresses were published in Newspapers. When I walk through a certain area near my friends house she often says people who used to live here always had their names in the papers.

There is no mention of domestic abuse child abuse in the post or that the question relates to the poster. The way I read it is they are just merely asking a question. Assumption makes an ass out of all of us.

There are some countries where your identity card is marked with the fact that you had been convicted of crime. This marks (and scars) you for life. Employment is often impossible, so you find yourself in sales or service, often setting up your own small business. The irony here is that you get to see the identity cards of potential employees who apply to your business for jobs!

Criminal records should be for the benefit of employers who deal with the vulnerable, that's all.

Provided the police know about people in their area with criminal records I believe that should be sufficient.

Trouble is, the police are up against the Human Rights watching every movement making sure that the law doesn't come down heavy in any way. This is NOT right as the job of the police is hard enough without some interfering busybodies chipping in.

It comes to something when victims have to dictate sentencing for crimes committed. The law is an ass !

Clare’s Law gives any member of the public the right to ask the police if their partner may pose a risk to them. Under Clare’s Law, a member of the public can also make enquiries into the partner of a close friend or family member.

Police and partner agencies will carry out a range of checks.

If these reveal a record of abusive offences, or suggest a risk of violence or abuse, they will CONSIDER sharing this information so even with the law in place, other issues will be looked at before a disclosure to the person at risk.

The trouble is, once you make criminal records available to the public, it would be a free for all to make a reformed person's life very difficult. Lots of young men offend when they are younger but settle down when they are older. Should that be held against them forever?
That said, I know someone who is just going to court over abuse charges to a child so they have upped sticks and moved away to somewhere completely new so nobody knows. That means that when he comes out of prison, nobody in his new area will know what he has done which could make him pretty dangerous. Personally I'd like to see him branded on his nose so everybody would be aware but I am guessing that would be against his human rights!

There is a sex offenders register that anyone can see,i discovered someone who lives in my street was on it,
Also someone who lived near me years ago
Cant remember what the heading was though now

The uk and Ireland database is the only free online database for sex offenders

Marydoll & Missfoodlove.
You have both hit the nail firmly on the head.

Last weekend, a group of men from the nearest town to where I live, set up a sting to catch a man they suspected of being a convicted paedophile and of continuing his activities. They beat him up and then called the police to come and take him away. It's now become known that, whilst he was a convicted criminal, none of his crimes included children or any sexual crimes. Pity they didn't check the on line database first.

That's awful Chewbacca.

Yes, it's unfortunate when the wrong man is sought but the problem here is that paedophiles are released into the community on release from prison and when a person has been imprisoned and word gets around-----because they don't know why he/she was sentenced, it's naturally assumed in this climate, that he'd been there as a child abuser, particularly if the sentence had been a short one.

Nobody knows if they have a paedophile living near them. Is this right or not ?

Having lived next door to a paedophile for two years without knowing it I think I might of liked that information. Because he was never caught it wasn’t on any list. He still out there because they didn’t have sufficient information to prosecute because he dumped his computer with all the evidence on.

And the little girls he abused were too afraid to testify