“When you’re trying to support your family, get your life on track, and be a role model, you can only have the door slammed in your face so many times,” Steve O’Neil, Executive Director of Ex-prisoners and Prisoners Organizing for Community Advancement (EPOCA). “We’ve been educating people across the state for over 6 years-even in a 5-day walk from Worcester to Boston-exposing CORI as an arcane and counterproductive system.”
CORI reform has long been a rallying cry on Beacon Hill, with advocates regularly bringing hundreds of supporters to rallies and lobby days to push changes. In 2007, Boston Workers Alliance organized thousands to march from Roxbury to the State House for CORI reform, in one of the state’s largest grassroots mobilizations in the last decade. This spring, members of the Black Ministerial Alliance held a 40-day fast for CORI
reform during lent season.
Despite dramatic actions and apparent political consensus, a CORI bill remained elusive even into the last hours of formal session. Reportedly caught in the political impasse of expanded gambling proposals, final enactment votes only moved until after Speaker DeLeo and 100 legislators dared the Governor in a forceful press conference to veto their gaming bill. But by 11pm, CORI cleared both chambers, and the legislature sent a comprehensive bill to the governor’s desk to sign within 10 days.
As a crowd of overjoyed supporters flooded into the State House hallways, Boston Workers’ Alliance member Cheryl Jefferson embraced her colleagues. “I’ve been waiting so long for this. This gives me a chance to support my daughter and myself and move on with our lives.”
In an emotional scene, lead House sponsor Representative Malia (D-Jamaica Plain) congratulated advocates for the hard fought victory. “These reforms are the product of your work. You’ve told your stories, put your sweat and tears into bringing my colleagues around, and I thank you!”
Coalition leader Aaron Tanaka, Executive Director of Boston Workers’ Alliance, recognized Conference Committee chairs Rep. Eugene O’Flaherty and Senator Cynthia Creem for the significance of the final bill. “These laws will not only give second chances to hundreds of thousands of residents across the state, it is also a national precedent setting reform. Massachusetts will become the first state in the country to ban the criminal history box from initial application forms so job seekers can have a fair shot at being considered before having to divulge the nature of a past offense.”
Speaking from the House floor, Representative Eugene O’Flaherty also highlighted reductions in the waiting period to seal criminal offenses as a critical aspect of CORI reforms. Felony offenses could be closed after 10 years and misdemeanors after 5. The reduction of 5 years from current law would not apply to sex offenses or cases of
homicide.
Wilnelia Rivera, Neighbor to Neighbor campaign director and Commonwealth CORI Coalition chair applauded legislative leadership as well as Governor Patrick for his realization of a central campaign goal. “Governor Patrick has helped set the tone for the passage of reforms. And despite apparent disagreements on other issues, Speaker DeLeo, Senate President Murray, and Governor Patrick were able to move beyond politics and shepherd this highly anticipated policy victory for the residents of the Commonwealth.”
–
This is a press release from Boston Workers Alliance 8/1/10
johnd says
ward3dem says
has a link to the Conference Committee Report – left side 1/2 way down
michaelbate says
http://www.cjpc.org/
<
p>CJPC is an excellent organization that works for sanity and compassion in our criminal justice system. They have the full text of an earlier version of the law on their website, and will probably post the enacted version before too long.
<
p>I have been a dues paying member of this organization for many years, and encourage others to join.
hesterprynne says
As other posts have said, the waiting period for sealing a conviction starts, as common sense would dictate, at the completion of the sentence. The clock doesn’t run while the sentence is being served. And if you are convicted of anything bigger than a $50 traffic ticket during the waiting period, the clock starts all over.
<
p>It’s all in Section 128 of the law.
<
p>Also, the law doesn’t provide for “expungement,” in the sense that the fact of the crime is completely erased from memory, including from law enforcement records. What happens under CORI reform is called “sealing,” and law enforcement doesn’t lose its access to these criminal records. They are sealed for some civil purposes, like job and housing applications.
<
p>So Mr. PP – where do you get your info?
christopher says
…is that all political hell will break loose the first time someone reoffends AFTER the window has closed on access to these records.
peter-porcupine says
Look for the hikes in business insurance premiums for employee theft, etc. Those will come MUCH sooner than the re-offenses.
demredsox says
Has this happened in any other state where this sort of happened?
peter-porcupine says
That said, I spent a lot of time looking at underwriting factors. And since the new system will require a second interview, at best, and might miss an embezzler serving a five year misdemeanor sentence entirely – I’d look hard at guaranteeing the increased unreliability of the CORI available to employers by increasing premium.
<
p>And the DOI would be hard pressed to refute the logic of the rate increase application.
stomv says
Surely there are different regulations for hiring folks across 50 states. Surely there are states with looser CORI-type laws and states with tighter CORI-type laws. A regression analysis could be used to demonstrate that the insurance premiums you write about are lower in states with “tougher” CORI-type laws. It wouldn’t be perfect, but it might shed some light.
<
p>Of course, that requires work and research, not idle speculation on a message board or blog.
peter-porcupine says
Neutral, in that they are not connected with a particular carrier.
<
p>A Q&A about employee dishonesty cover in general. It notes the time limits most policies have, which makes the initial inquiry loss difficult.
<
p>NAIC articles are text files and I can’t post them – as you say there are 50 states. And while the DOLLAR amounts may differ, it’s hard to judge what they are vis-a-vis the accessibility of criminal records, as a dollar is worth more in Arkansas than in high-cost Massachusetts. But they DO require employers to procure the information available to them for underwriting purposes.
<
p>How’s this? It used to be when isnuring a driver on a fleet policy that agents could independently verify RMV records for violations for drunken driving, accidents. then the state decided that was a violation of privacy and ended the practice. So the premiums for coverage for drivers increased by about 10%. I saw that happen in my own work.
<
p>Of course, you can just call me an uninformed liar.
stomv says
I know you’re not uninformed, and I can’t recall ever seeing you post a blatant lie — that doesn’t mean you are correct though.
<
p>I’d add that your use of rhetorical nonsense isn’t uncommon; I note your last line (pre-sig). Pointing out that you’ve not substantiated your claim with data or analysis is not calling you a liar, nor calling you uninformed. But you knew that; you were merely interested in moving the window. kthx.
johnd says
and I will be happy to post about it.
stomv says
your joy will suggest quite a bit about you.
peter-porcupine says
sue-kennedy says
Any honest concern about reoffending should deal with discouraging weapons, alcohol, etc., and encouraging productive activities like working and voting.
peter-porcupine says
In MA, larceny by a caregiver from a person over 65 carries a jail sentence of not more than 5 years. While the sentence is being served, the time is also ticked towards expungement.
<
p>Most CORI requests are for jobs like this – where a person is in a position to exploit. And such exploitation is common and there are many deliberate reoffenders. The risk is small, the potential rewards are great, and you can easily move on when you’ve picked the victim clean.
<
p>Now a person cannot even be asked if they’ve been arrested or convicted for this before.
<
p>Vulnerable people are less protected. I really don’t see where guns and liquor play a big role in this.
ryepower12 says
While we can squabble over the few people who may be able to slip through some kind of new crack, I think it’s much more important to look at the tens of thousands of people who are willing to work hard and have long since moved on from their mistakes and just want a fair shot.
<
p>This law will help exponentially more people than it hurts, PP, including those who may have felt like they didn’t have a choice but to return to whatever mistakes it was that brought them to prison in the first place, because they couldn’t find any kind of legitimate opportunity, anywhere… this law may very well reduce those white collar crimes you seem to be worried about, IMO. Our society has the tendency to kick people when they’re down… we need to work on that.
stomv says
<
p>As “most” means “more than 50%”, I doubt this claim very much. Got any evidence whatsoever? Hell, do you even know how many CORI requests were placed in any given year within the past 10? Frankly, CORI needed reform because, for years, we set up CORI laws based on anecdotes and claims like yours, completely free of any evidence whatsoever.
<
p>
<
p>Look: don’t think that a person who’s been released from jail is fit to be in society? Argue that he should still be in jail. In the mean time, let’s have some numbers please.
demolisher says
Should you as a potential employer be allowed to find out if they’ve been in jail, or not?
<
p>How come you are always telling pp to go do a bunch of work, without doing the same yourself btw?
kathy says
That’s the way reality-based, thoughtful people debate. You make a statement. You back it up with evidence.
centralmassdad says
is that this reform is necessary and beneficial.
stomv says
When I make a claim, I support it with tons of research. Have a scan over my comments of an empirical nature.
<
p>If somebody else makes a claim, it’s their job to back up the statement, as Kathy points out above. When PP makes a claim that I suspect is bunk, I ask for some evidence. Sometimes the poster produces it and I learn something. Sometimes they respond with more rhetoric, and sometimes they dial back their claims to something more reasonable.
demolisher says
Anything you wrote in this thread that evidences a ton of research, but that’s ok because I also think it’s sometimes ok to have a back and forth without burning off loads of time in between every comment. I’ll grant that you do some of the best writing on bmg but the idea that a significant amount of the dialogue here is well researched seems kind of silly. Christpher posts his arbitrary beliefs as facts on a regular basis, for example, and others go so far as to post the contents of their imagination regarding other posters here (ahem).
<
p>Anyhoo. I like calling for backup but that’s just about all you’ve done in this thread. Sometimes it’s ok to voice a counterpoint.
stomv says
I haven’t made any claims in this thread calling for empirical results to back them up.
<
p>An example of when I did the research to dispute a claim recently is here when a poster claimed that a small number of states with a majority of EVs might not even have the majority of the population (provably incorrect).
<
p>An example of when I felt the numbers seemed wrong and did some quick and dirty math on marginal tax rates is here.
<
p>Another NPV issue was when somebody claimed that a POTUS election was never within 0.1%. Here I go doing the fairly straightforward research of finding a link to 1960 POTUS election results.
<
p>Here is where I did a not-unsubstantial amount of research on felony voting, hours the polls are open, and ID requirements to show that conservative states have more restrictive access for possible voters than liberal states.
<
p>
<
p>Oh, and in this thread I research posts made within the past few weeks to show a poster that stomv does in fact use research and data to back up assertions.
jamie-sabino says
I do not think that the time ticks while serving a sentence. I am pretty sure that the ten and five years is from after final disposition which includes the termination of any period of incarceration or the end of parole or probation. But I do not have my CORI stuff with me – so will stand corrected if someone has different information.
theloquaciousliberal says
As Jamie Sabino tenatiely points out in his late night posts below, you are misreading (or purposfully misrepresenting?) the CORI reform law.
<
p>CORI records (for employer purposes) are sealed “following the disposition thereof, including termination of any period of incarceration or custody.” 10 years following disposition (as defined) for felonies and 5 years for misdemeanor convictions.
<
p>You are simply wrong is saying “While the sentence is being served, the time is also ticked towards expungement.”
christopher says
Don’t get me wrong – I support this legislation. My understanding is that now employers won’t have access to records more than ten years old. So say somebody has gone ten years without incident and gets work. Then they get a job and maybe they do run afoul of the law again. JohnD was honest enough to say he would happily post about it and I suspect that he is not the only one. I can just too easily imagine a Willie Horton ad against a politician who supported this.
johnd says
but I would much rather we err by “not” allowing a criminal to get a job who might remain a law abiding employee vs. erring and allowing the fox into the chicken coop.
christopher says
Life without parole for all manner of crimes? Certainly it’s better for all concerned that former inmates have an opportunity to be productive members of society. I sense a Javert-esque attitude that people can never change:(
centralmassdad says
No one says that the former inmate shouldn’t be allowed to get a job, but that a prospective employer should be able to know who they are hiring.
johnd says
From PP
<
p>
<
p>So if someone gets a 6 year sentence for a crime, they will emerge from prison with no record of being in prison (from a CORI perspective)? That BS!
jamie-sabino says
AS I said above – I do not think that the time ticks while serving a sentence. I am pretty sure that the ten and five years is from after final disposition which includes the termination of any period of incarceration or the end of parole or probation. But I do not have my CORI stuff with me – so will stand corrected if someone has different information.
michaelbate says
I cannot imagine that the time ticks while serving a sentence.
<
p>This topic has been filled with Republican scare-mongering. But when you only care about the wealthiest one or two percent of Americans (which is obvious from their positions on the issues) and need to get others to support you, scare mongering is a common tactic – look at the Republican campaigns of the last several years.
lasthorseman says
for the paltry sum of 49.95 information about everyone and everything is available regardless of who wants to pay to look such things up.
lasthorseman says
for such bogus “reform” measures clearly points out the uselessness of the compassionate left in this data mined totalitarian society.
Cockroaches of the universe as I say, the forgiving power of religion aside. The real power of forgiveness lies in your personal net worth financial figures. And don’t deny that as fact.
demolisher says
I hope that both bmg and rmg find a way to analyze your comments and ban you and your dumb Ilk permanently from everything.
<
p>What. A damn waste.
lasthorseman says
to be in the same class as Hilter’s Nazi party. Controlling dispassionate scumbags in the sociopathic class disrupting the good intentions of the 95% of humanity.