Do consequences of crimes still matter?

Is there anything more satisfying than washing your car, and then stepping back and admiring your now pristine vehicle? It’s like a fresh coat of paint on a wall or decluttering your desk, even though by week’s end the car will be a mess again. It seems we’re hardwired to appreciate a fresh start.
This is especially true when it comes to people. We all root for the underdog to turn misfortune around. It’s why some New Yorkers support the Clean Slate Law recently signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul. The law automatically seals criminal records for most offenders, in the hope that people will more easily shake any stigma associated with their convictions. This idea certainly comes from a good place, but there are never any one-size-fits-all answers when it comes to social issues or justice.
The core of this debate revolves around recidivism — the likelihood that a person will relapse into criminal behavior after completing a prison sentence. The hard, cold facts about the rates of recidivism are shocking. According to the Harvard Political Review, more than 600,000 individuals are released from state and federal prisons each year. Another 9 million are released from local jails. But within three years, two out of three are rearrested, and more than 50 percent go back to jail. That’s not good.
These statistics make it clear that a disproportionate number of ex-offenders return to criminal behavior. Now, that might very well fuel a legitimate sociological discussion as to why, but Clean Slate doesn’t address those issues. Descriptions of the bill say it’s simply for “people who have truly committed to turning their lives around.” The question is, how do we know who those people are? With such high recidivism, it’s apparent that there are very few of them, so why are we embracing such an across-the-board approach?
For years we allowed judges to seal records using their own discretion. Individuals could apply for certificates of good conduct, relief from civil disability, and expungement of records. Yet promoters of Clean Slate believe it’s wiser to hand that authority to legislators in Albany rather than leave it to knowledgeable legal professionals with years of decision-making experience.

And though I wish I had a solution for recidivism rates, I don’t, nor does anyone else. While the problem certainly merits our attention, the primary goal of government is to keep citizens safe. Therefore, the more important question for me is how to protect innocent people from becoming victims of that recurrent crime.
The most obvious method, for thousands of years, has been disseminating information. If you’re aware of potential danger, you can avoid it. This is as much a universal law of nature as is our love of second chances. That’s why we have fire alarms and weather reports.
From that standpoint, this new law is flawed. It expressly limits a person’s ability to size up a situation and make decisions. Further, it hinders an employer’s ability to hire and a landlord’s ability to protect tenants. Worse, it openly ignores the advice from the front lines, because law enforcement and victims’ rights advocates are among those who oppose it.
Consider that our state has emptied prisons faster than any other, a nearly 27 percent drop in the prison population between 2019 and 2022. We’ve also eliminated bail in many cases, and we’re suffering a “smash and grab” epidemic that puts New York City at the top in shoplifting numbers among the nation’s largest cities. You might understandably guess that New York has thrown away the idea of there being any consequences at all.
But everyday people still have common sense. They know what’s fair, and they understand consequences, putting them squarely at odds with Albany. Simply stated, this law prioritizes the concerns of ex-offenders over the concerns of victims, law enforcement and legal experts. But we can overturn laws that don’t work, so this is one I’ll be fighting.

Jack Martins represents the 7th Senate District.