In the interests of justice

Yesterday, I was in court for an expungement hearing for a client of mine, who sobered up and turned his life around in early 2010.  He's been able to find odd jobs here and there, but studies suggest that right now is a crucial period in his rehabilitation efforts.  See, e.g.,Tripodi, Kim & Bender, Relationship Between Employment and Crime Is Employment Associated With Reduced Recidivism?: The Complex Relationship Between Employment and Crime, 54 Int'l J. Offender Therapy & Comp. Crim. 706 (2010)

The study cited above makes an important (though somewhat common-sense) observation--namely, that obtaining employment within the first year after one's release from prison (1) increases his/her motivation to desist from crime and (2) leads to a change in behavior that marks an important milestone in the process of rehabilitation.

This is where the interest for "public safety" collides head-on with the interest for "reentry."  On one hand, the interest for public safety demands that we wait a long period of time before giving a person with a conviction history an equal employment opportunity.  Who knows when that person will re-offend?  A long passage of time without another contact with the criminal justice system is a common-sense (and well-researched) evidence to show that the person poses no additional risk to the safety of people and property.  On the other hand, the interest for reentry demands that we use employment as a means to motivate people with conviction history, especially in the first few months after their release, to help them commit to the long process of rehabilitation.

Where does "expungement" fall in the balance of these competing interests?  This isn't mere idle speculation.  Under California's "expungement" law, Cal. Pen. Code § 1203.4, a court, "in its discretion and the interests of justice," may grant a petition to expunge a conviction.  And "the interests of justice" analysis calls for precisely this balancing of competing interests.

If you were at yesterday's hearing for my client, you would've seen and heard these competing interests collide head-on.  I, of course, was emphasizing the interest of the State (and of my client) in rehabilitation.  The Court was very emphatic, however, about the fact that (1) my client suffered subsequent convictions and that (2) those convictions were very recent (in 1/2010).  In other words, too soon.  Not enough time has passed.  Come back later.  Public safety comes first.

I hope that my client's motivation for turning his life around perseveres through these difficult times.  Without stable employment, without people giving him a chance, without the forgiving acceptance from the society at large, he has his work cut out for him.  I wouldn't be surprised if he succeeds against all odds.  Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if he fails.  His life hangs on the balance, and it may fall either way.  It is clear, though, that our insistence on "public safety" tips it in one direction.  And that is just tragic.