American Bar Association wants to curtail First Amendment

[seniorjudge]

Comments?

What is the name of your state? Louisiana


[url]http://www.corruptionchronicles.com/2007/08/sealing_court_records_to_prote.html[/url]


August 10, 2007
Sealing Court Records To Protect Criminals

State, federal and local governments should severely limit public access to court records because it has led to discrimination against criminals, according to the legal profession_s influential national organization which claims to promote justice and respect for the law.

The American Bar Association (ABA) has actually proposed that state and federal laws be changed to deny public access to certain arrest and court records, even those of people convicted of serious crimes.

The powerful 400,000-member organization, which provides law school accreditation and assists lawyers and judges, believes ready access to court records has led to employment and housing discrimination for those returning to society after serving their prison sentences.

So the ABA has drafted a detailed seven-page proposal urging federal, state, territorial and local governments to limit existing public access to the judicial system. Under the plan, even felony convictions as well as closed criminal cases would be unavailable to the public and media.

Outraged representatives from various media organizations strongly oppose the measure, saying it would violate the First Amendment and make it harder to expose wrongdoing by police and even prosecutors.

Under the ABA_s proposal, some of the country_s most famous cases would be permanently sealed. Examples include a hall-of-fame football player turned actor (O.J. Simpson) accused of double murder and another actor (Robert Blake) acquitted of murdering his young wife outside of a restaurant.

[seniorjudge]

...bump...

[BlondiePB]

Comments?

That sounds like the beginning of a slippery slope dumping on law abiding citizens.

Also, it sounds like an uphill battle to amend the U.S. Constitution.

[Towtheline]

WOAH... I total agree with the ABA on this. Don't people deserve a second chance? NOBODY is prefect. Aren't there laws already that incarcerate the repeat, and dangerous offenders for long periods, like California's 3-strike law? Isn't inclusion in society far better for everyone that polarization and isolation?

The article is sensational, and it total misses, or even mentions the other side of the story. The other side of the story is that people do their time and restitution to society, for crimes that often times are hard to avoid because of their social and economic situations, and after they have "paid their due" they are forced to keep on paying long after the incident. This alone violates the Declaration of Independence, where in everyman is guaranteed to join in the pursuit of life, LIBERTY and happiness. Even you conservatives must realize that. After all its explicitly spelled out in that sacred document.

>to deny public access to certain arrest and court records, even those of people convicted of >serious crimes.
Serious is used as scary word there. When later on in the article they refer to felonies as the serious crime which they are talking about. While felonies are bad I myself am not worried about most felons. Sexual predators, murders and other violent crimes are really the only ones to worry about (BESIDES, of course, the Kenneth Lays and Nacchoi's of the world who's action affect huge amounts of people)

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

...bump...

**A: so should I terminate my membership?

[quincy]

As a journalist, you can probably GUESS my reaction to this.

[CdwJava]

It'll never happen. There are far too many laws on the books - including federal case law and statutes - that require court records to be made public. To fulfill this act would likely require a consitutional amendment, and I just don't see that happening. The ACLU and many other organizations on the left and the right will oppose this one tooth and nail.

I'd be all for protecting the publication of state secrets rather than the privacy of convicted felons.



- Carl