Beginning in july, California is set to implement the country's
most expansive law that would seal criminal records of
individuals who have completed their sentences.
Now California will join seven other states with similar so
called clean slate laws, but I want to be clear the law in California
is the most expansive and the most aggressive action any state
has taken in an effort to seal records of criminal history.
Now, the new law makes California the first state that will automatically seal
most, not all, most criminal records for those who complete their sentences.
Advocates pushed for the change because they said such records can prevent once
incarcerated people from getting jobs, housing, schooling, and more.
So I wanna pause for one second and just say that that is absolutely true.
I mean, one of the reasons why recidivism is so high meaning people who reoffend and
they end up in prison again is because after you've served your prison sentence,
after you have paid your penalty to society for
the crime that you have committed, it is nearly impossible to get hired because
you'll be asked whether or not you've been convicted of a felony in the past.
It's incredibly difficult to get an apartment to rent because landlords won't
rent to you.
So there are really some positive potential upsides here, okay?
Now applicants with criminal records can be half as likely as those without them
to get a callback or job offer.
Nearly 9 in 10 employers use criminal background checks, so
do 4 in 5 landlords and 3 in 5 colleges and universities.
Proponents say about one in five Californians are living with a past record
facing around 5000 legal restrictions, most of which are employment related.
Of those restrictions, 73% remain permanent, officials said.
So, think about it.
If you're not able to get gainful employment,
if you're not able to find a place to live, you're much more likely to resort
to a life of crime in order to survive, and that's what increases recidivism.
If you've paid your debt to society, if you've done your time,
you should be able to reintegrate into society, get a job, find a place to live
without all these obstacles in its place, right, in your way, I should say.
So Cenk, what do you think about this?
>> Yeah, so this requires a balancing act.
So, first of all the things that Ana said are of course true.
And think about it, I mean, we have the worst of all worlds, right?
We don't have any reform in any part of our system other than things like this.
And so if we had a halfway decent prison system like Norway does,
for example, our recidivism rate could be cut in half.
But we have this brutal system where we just pack these folks in sometimes
do solitary confinement, which is a former torture, drives people crazy, right?
All we do is just pour more fuel onto the fire, right?
So if they can't get a job, they're gonna have to go back to the trade that got them
into the prison in the first place,
that is indisputably true especially cuz they probably learned the craft a little
bit better in the ridiculous prisons that we run in America.
Now having said that, the reason I say requires balance is because there's some
crimes that are so bad that no, we should know about it.
So, for example, some things are obvious, right, like child molesters.
>> I mean, look, I agree with you that it's obvious.
In California, nothing is obvious.
In California, all sorts of incredibly violent crimes,
including domestic violence where strangulation takes place,
not considered a violent crime in California.
>> So that's what I'm getting to here.
>> Yeah.
>> So, for example, if you're an employer and that person has
committed sexual assault before, pretty relevant, right?
So, I mean, I know people have to get reintegrated back into society,
but if a person has done sexual assault, let's say a couple of times and
then you expunge it and nobody knows and you let folks like that into
an environment where you are exposing other people, that's a problem, right?
>> Yeah. >> So,
then it becomes an interesting balancing test.
If you're in the camp of, no, I don't care, there is no balancing and
there is no nuance, all the records should be wiped clean,
I don't think you're gonna get a lot of people to agree with you.
If you're in the camp of no, none of the records should be wiped clean, that should
be a stain on them for the rest of their lives no matter how small the offense was,
you're unfortunately gonna have a lot of people in that camp, but you shouldn't,
that's a crazy position, right?
The answer is got to be balance.
>> So in California, what ended up happening was in 2016,
there was a ballot initiative known as Prop 57, which I voted for
because I was misled much like other Californians who voted for it.
The idea behind Prop 57 was for
people who are serving time for nonviolent offenses.
A program would be implemented with good behavior credits so
their prison sentence will be shortened,
which sounds great when you think about actual nonviolent offenses.
But little did Californians know that a bunch of violent crimes had been
reclassified as non violent or non serious crimes,
including domestic violence, with the exception of causing great bodily harm.
But even that's unclear because if you're strangling your partner,
[LAUGH] I would say that causes great bodily harm,
raping someone who's unconscious, not considered a violent crime in California.
Another one is, believe it or not, child trafficking in California,
not considered a violent crime, I think it's insane, I don't care.
>> Yes. >> So the criminal justice reformers who
don't think it's insane, come at me if you want, you're crazy, okay?
If you're trafficking children, that is a violent crime.
So it's all about how these policies are implemented, right, balancing
the undoubtable need for criminal justice reform with public safety.
And so far from what I've seen with California, cuz like, look,
there was a court order to do something about our overcrowded prisons,
we do have overcrowded prisons in California.
And so, in my opinion, reclassifying violent offenses or violent crimes to
allow four inmates who committed those violent crimes to get out earlier,
not the right way to deal with overcrowded prisons, [LAUGH] in my opinion.
>> Yeah, >> Yeah.
>> I totally agree.
So, look, Prop 57 had a clear mistake in it,
it only listed 23 crimes so that led to vagueness because there
are more crimes that are violent as Ana just explained, right?
And so people thought, people could use this to mean only those 23 crimes,
and in fact, that is what happened, right?
And so that led to the absurdity of someone who's strangling their
domestic partner is not considered a violent crime, that's absurd.
So what should happen next is fairly obvious, you propose a law, in this case
there actually is a bipartisan bill that was proposed, and then all the legislators
agree instantly to fix it cuz it's nuts to call that not violent, right?
Human trafficking, obviously violent, I mean,
why are we having this conversation, right?
And that's where the crazy part comes in, where the democrats said, no.
>> Yeah.
>> I don't know why they said that, I think that's crazy.
>> Yeah. >> If you did a poll on it in California,
even though California is a very,
very democratic state and in fact very progressive state,
I think the poll would show you that that has about 12% popularity.
Nobody wants to say that these things are not violent,
because part of the reason is cuz they're not detached from reality.
Domestic violence has violence in the name, right?
[LAUGH] >> I mean,
>> I mean, it's obviously violent.
So for people to say, no, those are not violent crimes is absurd on its face.
They have to fix that particular law.
But by the way, then, do prison reform in the ways that we explain?
>> That's the other thing I have to mention that.
So, look, the other issue is reforming prisons to
ensure that it's just a punitive form of punishing people,
like just punishment, that's all it is.
No, we need to rehabilitate people because people are coming out of prison as
hardened criminals, more violent than when they came in
because of the violent environment within these prisons.
They don't focus on rehabilitation at all.
So the other part of it is, okay, sure, I guess seal records, but
that's under this assumption that people who are leaving prison
are being rehabilitated when they're not, right?
That's a problem too.
>> Look, I just- >> So, overall, I agree with this.
I don't think that someone who's paid their debt to society should be punished
for the rest of their life, should not be able to get a job,
should not be able to find an apartment to rent.
I think that the good intentions here are clear and I'm in favor of this, but
it has to be a more holistic approach and we keep doing these things piecemeal
without ensuring that we have a system in place that's rehabilitating people.
>> Yeah, look, I can't stand the extremes and most of the time,
mainstream media will tell you that democrats and
republicans have extremes that are the same, and that's not remotely true.
It's 90% of the time that's not true at all, democrats are just corporate,
they're corporate property that doesn't really have anything extreme about it
other than their love of corporations and their donors.
But in this case, there are extremes here.
People saying that we should never seal the records of anyone that's
committed a crime, they're being absurd.
When are you gonna stop punishing these people?
You're gonna just hold that over their head for the rest of their lives.
It's counterproductive anyway,
doesn't make any of us safer even if that was your objective.
And the other extreme saying, no,
we should seal all the records it doesn't matter how violent the crimes were,
I don't agree with, and I would venture to guess 90% of people don't agree with.