
Pennsylvania Is First State to Use Automated System to Expunge Criminal Records - ga-vu
https://www.routefifty.com/public-safety/2019/06/pennsylvania-becomes-first-state-use-automated-system-expunge-criminal-records/158085/
======
danso
I was surprised at how cheap, relatively speaking, this system is:

> _The state police used a vendor to build their program, at an estimated cost
> of $195,000, and the courts used in-house tech experts at an estimated cost
> of $50,000._

I don't have any experience in government IT, but even in corporate terms,
this seems relatively cheap given the scope and lifetime of the system (though
I'm assuming these stated costs don't include maintenance and ongoing
operation) and the consequences when there's a system failure, e.g. lawsuits.

~~~
Iv
In practice, I agree: this is pretty cheap given the market.

But now take a step back and think about it: the actual problem is probably
pretty simple. If the databases are well made, it would just take a few
requests for this operation to be done. Even with the tests, that's one or two
programmers' job for two weeks, and maybe one week of a partial review of
results by a legal specialist to validate the quality.

Imagine if the state had two in-house programmers up to this task available.
$195,000 would cover their salary for a year.

> and the consequences when there's a system failure, e.g. lawsuits

Another saving grace for doing things in house: you take actions internally.
You can correct very quickly, shuffle incompetent people, save all the
litigation costs and the bad faiths over misinterpretation of a SoW.

~~~
gnud
Those two in-house programmers would never get the time to do this. They would
be swallowed in various maintenance task on the other 500 custom systems the
state owns.

(from experience in the private sector)

~~~
Iv
That's a difference I observed (in France) between the private and public
sector. In several administration, public workers have a reputation of being
lazy because they don't always have work to do. They are on demand, and work
on projects as appropriate.

That's what a well-funded public task force looks like.

In such a case, a manager would look at the schedule, reserve the time
necessary for this dev, take into account the other missions of the devs and
get it done.

------
cascom
Unfortunately expungement doesn’t really do much - most questions on
employment forms or professional associations (state bar, FINRA, etc) ask
about arrests not convictions. Secondly, despite being “expunged” the data
still resides in numerous data bases etc. and I don’t believe you have any
practical recourse against that. E.g. you go to buy a gun and the NICS system
holds you up, or an employer fires you for a conviction found on a third party
database what are you going to do?

~~~
flensortow
In the US, most states ban the use of an arrest that did not lead to a
conviction for the purpose of excluding you for employment.

Many states limit how far you can go back in considering convictions. I
believe California allows background checks to look at seven years of history.

~~~
Spooky23
Those bans come with loopholes that you could drive a bus through.

You can determine from free public records search that somebody has an arrest
without even knowing what it is, and people use that to filter folks all of
the time.

~~~
flensortow
Yes, you can illegally discriminate in hiring if you choose to. Most major
companies are very careful not to do this. In every case I have had a
background check done on me I have asked for the company doing the check to
send a copy and in every case the report sent to me certainly appeared to be
following the law (the reports explicitly mention how far back they are
reviewing).

------
save_ferris
I known it’s not the main point of the story, but the fact that this
legislation was intentionally held up by a congressman (a die-hard Ohio State
fan) in committee who relented only after meeting with a famous former Ohio
State football player who turned his life around after prison is really
interesting given the blowback athletes like Kaepernick have gotten for
getting political.

~~~
Fjolsvith
Kaepernick tried to change the system in a manner that lots of people found
offensive, rather than by trying to be a good example.

~~~
scarface74
As did every single peaceful civil right leader throughout history.

Many of the same people who hold up MLK as the way you “should” protest were
calling him a troublemaker riling up the good people that didn’t want any
trouble.

~~~
Fjolsvith
Obama used the Betsy Ross flag at his inauguration.

------
Aloha
I think this is great, and I hope programs like this expand nationally over
time.

~~~
raxxorrax
It is a way toward better rehabilitation. Same should be true for financial
data. Private prisons the US maintains leave the impression of abusing slave
labor.

------
microcolonel
> _...interesting given the blowback athletes like Kaepernick have gotten for
> getting political._

Colin Kaepernick didn't get blowback for recognizing a cause , he got blowback
for dragging it into the game, and choosing a particularly _political_ way of
expressing it.

In this case, the cause remained personal rather than political, and was not
dragged onto the field.

~~~
tw04
>he got blowback for dragging it into the game

Why are we playing the national anthem before games in the first place? The
NFL dragged politics into football long before Colin was in the league. He
just used the only platform he had to peacefully protest.

~~~
chrisco255
Why not play the national anthem? The whole song is about the war of 1812 with
Great Britain, and it's a ceremony of unison just before a competitive game.
It's a reminder that we're on the same team even though we're rooting for
different teams.

It's also laughable to say that a very rich NFL star's only platform is the
national anthem. Especially in 2019, when even unheard of people go viral via
Twitter and YouTube.

~~~
tw04
He literally did go on YouTube. And you just proved my point - he used the
platform he had available to reach the broadest audience. Which absolutely
wasn't YouTube.

And why not play the anthem? Because this constant barrage of "support the
military or else" is toxic to democracy and is yet another page out of the
playbook to stop the public from ever being against another Vietnam.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "even though we're on different teams
we're all on the same team". The visceral reaction to his protest proves that
out.

~~~
chrisco255
The national anthem isn't about supporting the military or else. It's about
supporting your country. And it is about remembering that sports is just
entertainment. It's all for nothing without a unified country. Every other
country on the planet plays their national anthem before sports events. It's
not unique to the U.S. and it's not toxic. It's okay to be proud of your
country. Even when it's not perfect.

~~~
MegaButts
> It's okay to be proud of your country. Even when it's not perfect.

I think the problem is Americans are taught to be proud of America just
because it's America (or more specifically because it's the land of the
free...although few people can define what "free" is other than being in
America). It's jingoism and, based on my own observations, removes critical
thought from the process of supporting your country. Just because other
countries do it doesn't mean it's right (or wrong).

I'm pretty cynical, but it seems pretty easy to draw the connection between
playing patriotic songs at sporting events (and grade school, before students
are even able to comprehend the words they are saying) and how it instills a
sense of zealotry in fans.

~~~
microcolonel
> _or more specifically because it 's the land of the free...although few
> people can define what "free" is other than being in America_

Like the freedom in the fact that the U.S. government, unlike all other
governments I'm aware of, is prevented by superiour law from considering a law
that would prosecute you for this criticism you are writing. Lots of other
places have "free expression... until it's inconvenient" or "free expression,
while the establishment appreciates it", the U.S. has free expression
especially when the establishment dislikes it.

> _I 'm pretty cynical, but it seems pretty easy to draw the connection
> between playing patriotic songs at sporting events (and grade school, before
> students are even able to comprehend the words they are saying) and how it
> instills a sense of zealotry in fans._

The fans of sporting events are zealous everywhere, regardless of national
anthems. Participation in the anthem seems low here in southern Ontario, and
yet the fans will gladly riot, burn vehicles, etc.

