I opened the Albuquerque Journal this morning and right there on the front page was an article that shows just how removing public records from public view enables the bad guys.
A school teacher and her university professor boyfriend were murdered in cold blood by a guy she once dated. A serial stalker with numerous restraining orders against him. Only problems is the restraining orders weren't there for the public to find because the New Mexico State Judiciary pulled all restraining order cases off of the website. The stated reason was to comply with federal law to shield victims. But that is total BS! The real reason was shear laziness since federal law only prohibits the dissemination of victims info not abuser info. Easier just to hit the delete button than to do your job!
Back when I learned about it, I contacted the Albuquerque Journal who did a huge story. I was quoted as saying that people will die because of this and made it very clear that the removal of all DV case information from the public protects the abuser more than the victims. The state's answer was too bad. It's too much work. Even the state's lead DV person was glib about it. Well I hope they now realize that the they are complicit in these deaths.
Enough of letting people hide from public accountability for their actions by keeping public records from the public!
Showing posts with label public records. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public records. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The Alabama Shooting
The national media is ablaze with stories on the tragic shooting death of three faculty members at a university in Alabama by a fellow professor. It's now been unearthed that this professor fatally shot her own brother to death twenty plus years ago.
The story raises all types of questions, including how the initial homicide was handled by the police department in the suburban Boston area where the shooter was raised and how the handling of that case may have impacted the effectiveness of any subsequent background check. After all situations that lead to arrests but not charges typically cannot be the basis for denying someone employment. In some states arrests are not even public record. The shooter went on to Harvard University and a bright future, despite that it appears she may have shot her brother following an argument, fired an additional round into the ceiling and then tried to car jack someone by pointing the same weapon at them. Pretty hardcore conduct. But, she was never charged or even booked for the killing and her subsequent actions.
The professor is a poster child for why expungement is a bad idea. Legislators, who are often attorneys seeking to make extra money, put forward legislation to expunge records of criminal conduct. Because she was never charged in the shooting, the professor could have had her record expunged-- and get this-- if the investigating officer felt she should have been charged and goes public with information about the shooting-- he could be charged.
A Background investigation is a great tool for all of us to use. It is simply the collection and analysis of information regarding a person's or business's prior conduct to ascertain their future behavior. Backgrounds are effective because most people and companies don't change. Sure there are the rare instances where someone changes, I once worked with a man who spent 7 years in prison for a shootout with the police, but went on to be pardoned and to become certified by the US Department of Justice to help people with drug addictions, but the vast majority of people and businesses just keep on doing the things they have done in the past.
How many times have we heard of a remodeling contractor who bilks unsuspecting homeowners. Taking the time and effort to research that contractor almost always bring prior similar actions to light. Would you hire him if you had access to that info? Most definitely not. Is that a bad thing? No, its helpful beyond belief. If no one hires him, he'll go out of business!
Back to the professor. This story will no doubt lead to lots of finger pointing and litigation. As it should. It should also raise the far more important question of whether the public had the right to know all about the shooter's history. I think it's time for the public to speak up and tell their legislators to change the laws that allow violent pasts to be hidden from public view.
In the next post. I'll examine background investigations and discuss different approaches to use. Sure hindsight is 20/20. But let's learn from it.
To learn more about how you can use background investigations to protect your money and your loved ones. Visit: http://www.everydaydetective.com.
The story raises all types of questions, including how the initial homicide was handled by the police department in the suburban Boston area where the shooter was raised and how the handling of that case may have impacted the effectiveness of any subsequent background check. After all situations that lead to arrests but not charges typically cannot be the basis for denying someone employment. In some states arrests are not even public record. The shooter went on to Harvard University and a bright future, despite that it appears she may have shot her brother following an argument, fired an additional round into the ceiling and then tried to car jack someone by pointing the same weapon at them. Pretty hardcore conduct. But, she was never charged or even booked for the killing and her subsequent actions.
The professor is a poster child for why expungement is a bad idea. Legislators, who are often attorneys seeking to make extra money, put forward legislation to expunge records of criminal conduct. Because she was never charged in the shooting, the professor could have had her record expunged-- and get this-- if the investigating officer felt she should have been charged and goes public with information about the shooting-- he could be charged.
A Background investigation is a great tool for all of us to use. It is simply the collection and analysis of information regarding a person's or business's prior conduct to ascertain their future behavior. Backgrounds are effective because most people and companies don't change. Sure there are the rare instances where someone changes, I once worked with a man who spent 7 years in prison for a shootout with the police, but went on to be pardoned and to become certified by the US Department of Justice to help people with drug addictions, but the vast majority of people and businesses just keep on doing the things they have done in the past.
How many times have we heard of a remodeling contractor who bilks unsuspecting homeowners. Taking the time and effort to research that contractor almost always bring prior similar actions to light. Would you hire him if you had access to that info? Most definitely not. Is that a bad thing? No, its helpful beyond belief. If no one hires him, he'll go out of business!
Back to the professor. This story will no doubt lead to lots of finger pointing and litigation. As it should. It should also raise the far more important question of whether the public had the right to know all about the shooter's history. I think it's time for the public to speak up and tell their legislators to change the laws that allow violent pasts to be hidden from public view.
In the next post. I'll examine background investigations and discuss different approaches to use. Sure hindsight is 20/20. But let's learn from it.
To learn more about how you can use background investigations to protect your money and your loved ones. Visit: http://www.everydaydetective.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)