Yes, currently under Ohio Law if an individual meets a set of narrow standards, then they may petition the court in which they were convicted to have a single conviction sealed provided they have no prior felony or misdemeanor convictions. Ohio Licensure Boards, law enforcement, and Ohio’s judicial system are still able to view sealed convictions. Alternately, a convicted individual may petition The Ohio Parole Board to make a recommendation to the governor of Ohio in favor of pardon. Few petitions of this sort are granted in any given year.
What happens to someone who otherwise does not qualify for remedy after rehabilitation?
They languish- no longer a part of the criminal system- but not able to fully integrate into society due to the stigma attached to their conviction.
What other efforts are aimed at integrating reformed felons into society?
Most recently The U.S. Congress enacted the Second Chance Act of 2007. While commissioning more research on the subject- The Second Chance Act hopes to improve the lives of people post conviction by helping them find housing, employment, and medical care.
Other efforts in the Ohio legislature include the efforts of Oho State Senator Shirley Smith who has introduced legislation into the last three legislative sessions aimed at helping felons clean up their records and find employment. Her most recent proposal, S.B. 197 introduced during the 127th General assembly, does not permit violent or sexually orientated offenders to seal their records. Only those with lower level felonies and misdemeanors may apply to the court or courts in which they were convicted to have their records sealed. After this process, if the convicted person re-offends, they are no longer eligible to have their records sealed. A summery of the legislation presented to congress follows:
“To amend sections 2937.06, 2947.07, 2953.32, 2953.321, 2953.33, 2953.35, 2953.36, 2953.52, 2953.53, 2953.54, and 2953.61 and to enact section 2953.322 of the Revised Code to modify the list of offenses the official records of which may not be sealed; to require a court to inform a defendant before accepting a guilty plea and before sentencing of the circumstances under which the official records in the case may be sealed; to require the sealing of the official records of a person who is found not guilty of an offense, who is the defendant named in a dismissed complaint, indictment, or information, or against whom a no bill is entered by a grand jury; to prohibit the release by private individuals or entities of information contained in sealed official records; and to permit certain offenders who are not first offenders to apply for an order sealing their official records. (S.B. 197 as introduced.)
The loudest opponents of the legislation- Ohio’s Chamber of Commerce- feel that employer ignorance will place employers and employees at risk. Again, studies on recidivism rates say this just isn’t true. Only those less than three years away from their last conviction are at any significant risk for re-offending and wouldn’t be eligible for records sealing anyway. Records sealing should provide benefits for employers since employers could not be held liable for employees who re-offend, if the employer has no knowledge of a prior conviction.
Several incarnations of a bill making it illegal for the licensing bodies to discriminate based on felony conviction alone have passed through Ohio’s legislative body with out much luck. Most recently, House Bill 130, passed in December of 2008 originally included language…
“To replace commission of a felony, misdemeanor, or crime of moral turpitude, where the bill eliminates commission of one of these offenses as grounds for disciplinary action, it generally substitutes "conviction of a criminal offense substantially related to the fitness or ability of the applicant or licensee to perform the duties and meet the responsibilities of a [licensee]," or words to that effect. However, there are several exceptions to the inclusion of the language regarding conviction of a criminal offense substantially related to the practice of the particular profession.”… (H.B. 130 as introduced.)
While H.B. 130 did include language,
“…to authorize courts to participate in the supervision of released prisoners, to provide released prisoners with identification cards and additional procedures for access to social services, to make other changes relative to opportunities for prisoner training and employment, to modify procedures for the judicial or medical release of prisoners and intervention in lieu of conviction, to grant the Adult Parole Authority more flexibility in determining periods of post-release control, to adopt other cost-control measures, to create the Ex-offender Reentry Coalition,”the language pertaining to licensing restrictions was removed prior to the passing of the bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment