Details

• Sponsor - Rangel
• Proposed - February 8, 2005
• Congressional Record Link - HR662
• Amends - None.
• Amendments - None.
• Vote - None yet.
• Results - No change in law.

Status

February 8, 2005 -  Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

March 2, 2005 - Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

Synopsis

From the Congressional Record:

Second Chance for Ex-Offenders Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal criminal code to allow an individual to file a petition for expungement of a record of conviction for a nonviolent criminal offense if such individual has: (1) never been convicted of a violent offense and has never been convicted of a nonviolent offense other than the one for which expungement is sought; (2) fulfilled all requirements of the sentence of the court in which conviction was obtained; (3) remained free from dependency on or abuse of alcohol or a controlled substance for a minimum of one year and has been rehabilitated, to the court's satisfaction, if so required by the terms of supervised release; (4) obtained a high school diploma or completed a high school equivalency program; and (5) completed at least one year of community service.

Authorizes an individual convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor to file an expungement petition. Directs the court, in ruling on such petition, after determining petitioner eligibility, to weigh the petitioner's interests against the best interests of justice and public safety.

Authorizes the Department of Justice to maintain a nonpublic manual or computerized index of expunged records, to be made available only to Federal and State law enforcement personnel who have custody of such records for limited disclosure purposes.

Requires the restoration of expunged records of individuals subsequently convicted of any Federal or State offense.

Analysis

This bill is interesting in its implications. On one hand, it would probably allow voting by 'former' felons who had their records expunged. On the other hand it might serve to restore Second Amendment rights, as well. The scope of 'limited disclosure' is currently unclear.

On the Lautenberg end, a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction would probably considered a violent offence, even if the 'violence' occurred over the phone. Therefore it probably have no benefit to Lautenberg victims.

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment 2.0!