Police Cautions Must Be Removed

Dear All I was given a police caution for a very minor event which I cannot go into details for legal reasons. This has dramatically changed my life because although I have numerous degrees behind me it was all for nothing because it seems as if no one is interested in employing me. I am currently being treated by psychologists for depression and trauma.
However, there are many of us who were given or accepted a police caution for numerous reasons. This includes signing the form under pressure by a police officer, being given the wrong information such as the caution would be removed within a period of time (mainly 5years), or for fear of being kept in a cell for over a night. Whatever the reason may be, I am of the opinion that those who have received a police caution particular for minor offences should not be punished for the rest of their life. Though the police have the power to caution individuals, they are not judges and it is not certain that if you have gone ahead with court proceedings you would be convicted. I am sure that many of us now wished that we went ahead with court proceedings because in my case I was advised that CPS would not accept my case but now is too late. A CAUTION IS AS GOOD AS A CONVICTION. My only problem is I cannot live under this oppression of being labelled a criminal by employers and other members
of the public. I much prefer to get a prison life sentence than to live in this society being turned down jobs after jobs and having only one option of depending in benefits. As you may be aware the Protection of Freedoms Bill 2011-2012 maintains that adults with cautions will have their records kept indefinitely which is disproportionate. Therefore, I am asking those who have not got a chance to come before a judge to sign a caution Epetition at HM Government. Website is: Epetitions.direct.uk/petitions. 100.000 signatures are required for the government to consider the discussion in the parliament. Let us do something or lets us live in rejection, discrimination, and in misery for the rest of our lives for a minor mistake or choice that we have taken. Thanks

Why is this idea important?

Dear All I was given a police caution for a very minor event which I cannot go into details for legal reasons. This has dramatically changed my life because although I have numerous degrees behind me it was all for nothing because it seems as if no one is interested in employing me. I am currently being treated by psychologists for depression and trauma.
However, there are many of us who were given or accepted a police caution for numerous reasons. This includes signing the form under pressure by a police officer, being given the wrong information such as the caution would be removed within a period of time (mainly 5years), or for fear of being kept in a cell for over a night. Whatever the reason may be, I am of the opinion that those who have received a police caution particular for minor offences should not be punished for the rest of their life. Though the police have the power to caution individuals, they are not judges and it is not certain that if you have gone ahead with court proceedings you would be convicted. I am sure that many of us now wished that we went ahead with court proceedings because in my case I was advised that CPS would not accept my case but now is too late. A CAUTION IS AS GOOD AS A CONVICTION. My only problem is I cannot live under this oppression of being labelled a criminal by employers and other members
of the public. I much prefer to get a prison life sentence than to live in this society being turned down jobs after jobs and having only one option of depending in benefits. As you may be aware the Protection of Freedoms Bill 2011-2012 maintains that adults with cautions will have their records kept indefinitely which is disproportionate. Therefore, I am asking those who have not got a chance to come before a judge to sign a caution Epetition at HM Government. Website is: Epetitions.direct.uk/petitions. 100.000 signatures are required for the government to consider the discussion in the parliament. Let us do something or lets us live in rejection, discrimination, and in misery for the rest of our lives for a minor mistake or choice that we have taken. Thanks

Repeal the CJ&IAct 2008 s49sch10 which treats cautions as ‘convictions’.

Section 49, Schedule 10 of the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act (2008) provides protection for spent cautions in Section 8a of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in England and Wales. 

In my view this is wrong and this should be repealed along with the growing number of laws passed in the last two years exempting employers from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Whilst some would argue that this is a good thing in that after 5 years the 'conviction' is spent and is non-declarable unless when applying for a non-exempt post,  I argue that it is treating those people with cautions as 'rehabilitated' 'convicts' and 'ex-offenders' when this is not the case.

Most often recipients of cautions are not 'ex-offenders', were not 'convicted' of any crime in a court of law and were not 'rehabilitated'. So why should they be treated as such in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of future employers? THIS IS WRONG.

People have been claiming quite rightly that their civil liberties are being blighted by the fact that all cautions and other non-conviction data are declared on CRB checks. So what do they do? They  treat them as 'convictions' which then become 'spent' after a period of 'rehabilitation' but are still disclosable to most employers as they've expanded the list of occupations exempt from The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not provide recipients of cautions with any protection but instead labels them as 'ex-offenders' with 'convictions'.

WRONG.

UNTIL SOMEONE HAS BEEN TRIED IN A COURT OF LAW AND FOUND TO BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE AFTER BEING ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, ONLY THEN SHOULD THEY BE LABELLED AS AN EX-OFFENDER WHO HAS BEEN REHABILITATED AND WHO HAS A STATUTORY CRIMINAL RECORD. 

A CAUTION IS NOT STATUTORY BUT INFORMAL, GIVEN TO THE RECIPIENT BY A POLICEMAN WHO IN MANY CASES ADVISED OR CAJOLLED  THEM INTO 'ACCEPTING' IT AND WHICH WAS 'ACCEPTED' BY THE RECIPIENT OFTEN WITHOUT LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND ADVICE AND NOT IN A COURT OF LAW WHERE PROCEDURES CAN BE ADHERED TO.

AS SUCH, NON-STATUTORY INFORMATION IS PRIVATE AND SHOULD NOT BE PROVIDED TO ANYONE REGARDLESS OF THE POSITION OF EMPLOYMENT APPLIED FOR.

This whole mess needs to be unwound, starting with:

1) Repeal Section 115(7)a and 115(7)b of the Police Act 1997 which states that 'relevant matters' which 'might be useful' 'ought to be included' in CRB checks,

2) Repeal Section 115(5) of the Police Act 1997 which states that cautions are a 'relevant matter'.

3) Repeal the numerous amendments made by the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act which provide exemption of occupations from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

4) Repeal the Criminal & Justice Act 2008 S49,sch10 which states 'it protects cautions by treating them as 'spent' after a period of 'rehabilitation' when in fact it treats cautions as 'convictions' and recipients as 'ex-offenders' who have or have been 'rehabilitated'.

5) Delete all non-conviction data including cautions, bind overs, reprimands and malicious hearsay from police databases that feed the CRB system and remove fingerprints, DNA, photographs, etc.

In my view a caution is a caution, it was spent as soon as it was given.

Why is this idea important?

Section 49, Schedule 10 of the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act (2008) provides protection for spent cautions in Section 8a of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in England and Wales. 

In my view this is wrong and this should be repealed along with the growing number of laws passed in the last two years exempting employers from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Whilst some would argue that this is a good thing in that after 5 years the 'conviction' is spent and is non-declarable unless when applying for a non-exempt post,  I argue that it is treating those people with cautions as 'rehabilitated' 'convicts' and 'ex-offenders' when this is not the case.

Most often recipients of cautions are not 'ex-offenders', were not 'convicted' of any crime in a court of law and were not 'rehabilitated'. So why should they be treated as such in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of future employers? THIS IS WRONG.

People have been claiming quite rightly that their civil liberties are being blighted by the fact that all cautions and other non-conviction data are declared on CRB checks. So what do they do? They  treat them as 'convictions' which then become 'spent' after a period of 'rehabilitation' but are still disclosable to most employers as they've expanded the list of occupations exempt from The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not provide recipients of cautions with any protection but instead labels them as 'ex-offenders' with 'convictions'.

WRONG.

UNTIL SOMEONE HAS BEEN TRIED IN A COURT OF LAW AND FOUND TO BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE AFTER BEING ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, ONLY THEN SHOULD THEY BE LABELLED AS AN EX-OFFENDER WHO HAS BEEN REHABILITATED AND WHO HAS A STATUTORY CRIMINAL RECORD. 

A CAUTION IS NOT STATUTORY BUT INFORMAL, GIVEN TO THE RECIPIENT BY A POLICEMAN WHO IN MANY CASES ADVISED OR CAJOLLED  THEM INTO 'ACCEPTING' IT AND WHICH WAS 'ACCEPTED' BY THE RECIPIENT OFTEN WITHOUT LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND ADVICE AND NOT IN A COURT OF LAW WHERE PROCEDURES CAN BE ADHERED TO.

AS SUCH, NON-STATUTORY INFORMATION IS PRIVATE AND SHOULD NOT BE PROVIDED TO ANYONE REGARDLESS OF THE POSITION OF EMPLOYMENT APPLIED FOR.

This whole mess needs to be unwound, starting with:

1) Repeal Section 115(7)a and 115(7)b of the Police Act 1997 which states that 'relevant matters' which 'might be useful' 'ought to be included' in CRB checks,

2) Repeal Section 115(5) of the Police Act 1997 which states that cautions are a 'relevant matter'.

3) Repeal the numerous amendments made by the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act which provide exemption of occupations from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

4) Repeal the Criminal & Justice Act 2008 S49,sch10 which states 'it protects cautions by treating them as 'spent' after a period of 'rehabilitation' when in fact it treats cautions as 'convictions' and recipients as 'ex-offenders' who have or have been 'rehabilitated'.

5) Delete all non-conviction data including cautions, bind overs, reprimands and malicious hearsay from police databases that feed the CRB system and remove fingerprints, DNA, photographs, etc.

In my view a caution is a caution, it was spent as soon as it was given.

Remove cautions from CRB

Cautions are blighting people's job prospects and ruining lives. I received a caution after my abusive ex-husband reported me to the police for common assault.  He had threatened my life and the lives of my children and had assaulted me on several occasions (including when pregnant).  Whilst feeling under threat and duress I I used reasonable force to remove him from my house.  I ended up with a caution (very much sold to me by the police) after spending hours without food in the police station.  I was too scared of the consequences of going to court , but now very much regret having my day in court.  The police did not charge my ex-husband despite him admitting to kicking me whilst pregnant in his statement!

I have a PhD and hoped to train as a teacher (my ex knew this and knew the consequences of his malicious complaint).  I do not want to have to discuss my appalling marriage every time I apply for a job, so I only apply for those that do not require a CRB. These tend to be low paid jobs.

My ex-husband also got cautioned, but due to his career will never need a CRB check…

I should never have been cautioned in the first place. Now my earning potential has plumetted and my ability to forge a career is pretty much ruined. 

Cautions were supposed to be a 'telling off', not a black mark that sticks for life,

Remove cautions fom CRB checks and allow people such as myself to have the career opportunities that we deserve.

Why is this idea important?

Cautions are blighting people's job prospects and ruining lives. I received a caution after my abusive ex-husband reported me to the police for common assault.  He had threatened my life and the lives of my children and had assaulted me on several occasions (including when pregnant).  Whilst feeling under threat and duress I I used reasonable force to remove him from my house.  I ended up with a caution (very much sold to me by the police) after spending hours without food in the police station.  I was too scared of the consequences of going to court , but now very much regret having my day in court.  The police did not charge my ex-husband despite him admitting to kicking me whilst pregnant in his statement!

I have a PhD and hoped to train as a teacher (my ex knew this and knew the consequences of his malicious complaint).  I do not want to have to discuss my appalling marriage every time I apply for a job, so I only apply for those that do not require a CRB. These tend to be low paid jobs.

My ex-husband also got cautioned, but due to his career will never need a CRB check…

I should never have been cautioned in the first place. Now my earning potential has plumetted and my ability to forge a career is pretty much ruined. 

Cautions were supposed to be a 'telling off', not a black mark that sticks for life,

Remove cautions fom CRB checks and allow people such as myself to have the career opportunities that we deserve.

The government MUST review CRB checks as well as the Vetting and Barring System

In the coalition government's manifesto ' The Coalition: Our Programme for Government' published in May 2010, it states, in Section 3: Civil Liberties, Page 11 :

We will protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

In order to do this the Government MUST review the information included in CRB checks as well as the effectiveness of the Vetting & Barring Scheme and arrive at the conclusion that only true convictions where a person has defended him/herself in a court of law yet has still been found guilty by tiral and jury are included in the checks made available to employers.

As cautions, reprimands, warnings etc do not fall under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, CRB checks currently provide no protection whatsoever for people's freedoms with the inclusion of NON-CONVICTION data held on Police databases. 

Instead, each time a CRB check is returned with non-conviction data, the subject is effectively forced to stand trial by his/her future employer without any ability to defend themselves. Forcing a person to explain themselves (if they get as far as interview) and thus discuss very private data in order to be deemed guilty or not by a future employer (not a judge in a court of law but joe bloggs)  is just MORALLY AND ETHICALLY WRONG. Why not just set up public stocks or brand people across their foreheads as this procedure is archaic!

The only way to protect people's freedoms and also privacy (relying on future employers to not discuss very private and often unproven incidents is no protection at all is to have a blanket approach and that is to:

OMIT ALL NON-CONVICTION DATA (INCLUDING CAUTIONS, REPRIMANDS, WARNINGS, NFA's, OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION, ETC) FOR EVERYBODY, REGARDLESS OF AGE OR IMPLIED SEVERITY OF EVENTS MENTIONED.
 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

In the coalition government's manifesto ' The Coalition: Our Programme for Government' published in May 2010, it states, in Section 3: Civil Liberties, Page 11 :

We will protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

In order to do this the Government MUST review the information included in CRB checks as well as the effectiveness of the Vetting & Barring Scheme and arrive at the conclusion that only true convictions where a person has defended him/herself in a court of law yet has still been found guilty by tiral and jury are included in the checks made available to employers.

As cautions, reprimands, warnings etc do not fall under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, CRB checks currently provide no protection whatsoever for people's freedoms with the inclusion of NON-CONVICTION data held on Police databases. 

Instead, each time a CRB check is returned with non-conviction data, the subject is effectively forced to stand trial by his/her future employer without any ability to defend themselves. Forcing a person to explain themselves (if they get as far as interview) and thus discuss very private data in order to be deemed guilty or not by a future employer (not a judge in a court of law but joe bloggs)  is just MORALLY AND ETHICALLY WRONG. Why not just set up public stocks or brand people across their foreheads as this procedure is archaic!

The only way to protect people's freedoms and also privacy (relying on future employers to not discuss very private and often unproven incidents is no protection at all is to have a blanket approach and that is to:

OMIT ALL NON-CONVICTION DATA (INCLUDING CAUTIONS, REPRIMANDS, WARNINGS, NFA's, OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION, ETC) FOR EVERYBODY, REGARDLESS OF AGE OR IMPLIED SEVERITY OF EVENTS MENTIONED.
 

 

 

Remove cautions from CRB Checks

Remove cautions from CRB checks

 

UNTIL A PERSON IS TRIED AND FOUND GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE IN A COURT OF LAW THEY DO NOT HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD AND AS SUCH ANY CAUTIONS (ADMINISTERED BY THE POLICE) OR MALICIOUS HEARSAY REPORTED TO THE POLICE MUST BE OMMITTED FROM CRB CHECKS.

PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE BEING DESTROYED.

Why is this idea important?

Remove cautions from CRB checks

 

UNTIL A PERSON IS TRIED AND FOUND GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE IN A COURT OF LAW THEY DO NOT HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD AND AS SUCH ANY CAUTIONS (ADMINISTERED BY THE POLICE) OR MALICIOUS HEARSAY REPORTED TO THE POLICE MUST BE OMMITTED FROM CRB CHECKS.

PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE BEING DESTROYED.

Police caution unfairness

 

A Police Caution, while not a criminal conviction, will remain on a person's police record for life. It will show up on a CRB check when applying for certain jobs. Cautions are intended for minor offences to prevent people reoffending. However, even if the person does not commit any further offences, they will forever have to live with the stigma of a police record. Instead of a caution being used to put someone "back on track" after a misdemeanour, they act as a weight round their neck and hinder the person's ability to prove they can do better and positively fulfil their ambitions.

 

I believe this is damaging to our society, and as such police cautions should be removed from a person's record after say 2-3 years. After all, they only apply to minor, usually first-time, offences, which can arguably be less serious than some motoring offences that are dealt with by points. We need greater proportion in the system.

Why is this idea important?

 

A Police Caution, while not a criminal conviction, will remain on a person's police record for life. It will show up on a CRB check when applying for certain jobs. Cautions are intended for minor offences to prevent people reoffending. However, even if the person does not commit any further offences, they will forever have to live with the stigma of a police record. Instead of a caution being used to put someone "back on track" after a misdemeanour, they act as a weight round their neck and hinder the person's ability to prove they can do better and positively fulfil their ambitions.

 

I believe this is damaging to our society, and as such police cautions should be removed from a person's record after say 2-3 years. After all, they only apply to minor, usually first-time, offences, which can arguably be less serious than some motoring offences that are dealt with by points. We need greater proportion in the system.

End the Police State

Police can (and do) arrest law-abiding citizens knowing they are innocent and then put them on databases as 'court convictions'. In theory the innocent can apply to have their Samples deleted. In practice it is next to impossible. a) A malcious complaint is made b) The police arrest 'to preserve the evidence c)  The allegation is disproved d) The police NFA leaving samples on the databases and inaccurate input based on the complaint e) Details of the complaint are refused citing the Data Protection Act and the malicious complainant is not pursued f) if the Accused manages (despite Westcott b Westcott) to prove that arrest was not necessary ('exceptional case') samples might be removed. Compenation: peanuts. Cost to innocent: tens of thousands. Career and earnings limitations: enhanced CRB checks = a whole industry with some 300,000+ in annually Essex alone. Police should be made to examine the evidence before arrest wherever possible and allow the 'suspect' to disprove the allegation BEFORE being put on the databases.

Why is this idea important?

Police can (and do) arrest law-abiding citizens knowing they are innocent and then put them on databases as 'court convictions'. In theory the innocent can apply to have their Samples deleted. In practice it is next to impossible. a) A malcious complaint is made b) The police arrest 'to preserve the evidence c)  The allegation is disproved d) The police NFA leaving samples on the databases and inaccurate input based on the complaint e) Details of the complaint are refused citing the Data Protection Act and the malicious complainant is not pursued f) if the Accused manages (despite Westcott b Westcott) to prove that arrest was not necessary ('exceptional case') samples might be removed. Compenation: peanuts. Cost to innocent: tens of thousands. Career and earnings limitations: enhanced CRB checks = a whole industry with some 300,000+ in annually Essex alone. Police should be made to examine the evidence before arrest wherever possible and allow the 'suspect' to disprove the allegation BEFORE being put on the databases.

total unfairness of police caution system.

In a country which is quite happy to protect the interests of disgusting vermin like Jon Venables,by giving him numerous new identities,and being rewarded for being a criminal,contrast this with a system of police cautions which is used by lazy police forces to "clear up"crimes,by persuading people to admit to crimes,not going to court.What people do not realize,is that this information stays on yor record forever,since the Association of Chief Police officers overturned a ruling which meant information was "stepped down"after 5 years.This MEANS THAT DECENT PEOPLE WHO HAVE ONE SMALL MISTAKE,or even an unfair record,are prevented for getting jobs in areas they are qualified for.Dont site the Rehabilitation of offenders act,as enhance checks are handed out like confetti.I am disgusted at this blatant diregard foe poeples rights(unless you are a member of the royal family or an MP)

Why is this idea important?

In a country which is quite happy to protect the interests of disgusting vermin like Jon Venables,by giving him numerous new identities,and being rewarded for being a criminal,contrast this with a system of police cautions which is used by lazy police forces to "clear up"crimes,by persuading people to admit to crimes,not going to court.What people do not realize,is that this information stays on yor record forever,since the Association of Chief Police officers overturned a ruling which meant information was "stepped down"after 5 years.This MEANS THAT DECENT PEOPLE WHO HAVE ONE SMALL MISTAKE,or even an unfair record,are prevented for getting jobs in areas they are qualified for.Dont site the Rehabilitation of offenders act,as enhance checks are handed out like confetti.I am disgusted at this blatant diregard foe poeples rights(unless you are a member of the royal family or an MP)

Police Caution Step Down

Being silly some years ago, I broke a window in a bar, nothing like that since, nothing like that after (2004) BUT this stays with you for 100 years.  Police Cautions (given to less serious crimes whhere in this case I admitted through caution and paid to correct the damage! rightly so) should be stepped down and not visible on a normal CRB check and should only be available to the police or as part of a enhanced CRB check.  The way the law stands at the moment if I want to be a receptionist in some instances I need to declare this!  surely one misdemanour shouldnt mean you could be exposed to insurance refusal, job refusal for the rest of your life….

Why is this idea important?

Being silly some years ago, I broke a window in a bar, nothing like that since, nothing like that after (2004) BUT this stays with you for 100 years.  Police Cautions (given to less serious crimes whhere in this case I admitted through caution and paid to correct the damage! rightly so) should be stepped down and not visible on a normal CRB check and should only be available to the police or as part of a enhanced CRB check.  The way the law stands at the moment if I want to be a receptionist in some instances I need to declare this!  surely one misdemanour shouldnt mean you could be exposed to insurance refusal, job refusal for the rest of your life….

Police Cautions Need an Urgent Review

Up until recently a Police caution stood for five years and then it came off. Now in my own case I have a police caution for assault based purely on the say so of the alleged assaultee- and it appears that it stands not for five years but for life.

Now, I am about to finish a degree and start my career which is now severely hampered by this unjustified caution and for the rest of my life I have to explain this asault that i did not commit to potential empolyers again on the say so of someone I ended a relationship with and who thought it a fitting act of revenge to get me this caution.

Surely given the nature of a caution, i.e its a pretty flimsy non event that doesnt warrant court action, hampering a persons career for life when there is the distinct possibility of innocence, is just wrong?

It is wrong, we all know its wrong. Limiting it to 5 years would adequately act as a deterrent for those that commit minor offences but a lifetime caution is a punishment for life based on flimsy and questionable evidence and decided by the hunches of two police officers.

I would reccomend changing this.

 

Why is this idea important?

Up until recently a Police caution stood for five years and then it came off. Now in my own case I have a police caution for assault based purely on the say so of the alleged assaultee- and it appears that it stands not for five years but for life.

Now, I am about to finish a degree and start my career which is now severely hampered by this unjustified caution and for the rest of my life I have to explain this asault that i did not commit to potential empolyers again on the say so of someone I ended a relationship with and who thought it a fitting act of revenge to get me this caution.

Surely given the nature of a caution, i.e its a pretty flimsy non event that doesnt warrant court action, hampering a persons career for life when there is the distinct possibility of innocence, is just wrong?

It is wrong, we all know its wrong. Limiting it to 5 years would adequately act as a deterrent for those that commit minor offences but a lifetime caution is a punishment for life based on flimsy and questionable evidence and decided by the hunches of two police officers.

I would reccomend changing this.

 

Criminal Record Check

A reprimand by police to a child under 16 is first and final warning and will show the offence

on CRB for the rest of his life !!!!

I think there should be 2 or  3 warnings for under 18 or should have points system ,like on driving licence.If he or she reaches a certain points they should be put on Criminal Records for

the rest of their lives and not for just one offence

Why is this idea important?

A reprimand by police to a child under 16 is first and final warning and will show the offence

on CRB for the rest of his life !!!!

I think there should be 2 or  3 warnings for under 18 or should have points system ,like on driving licence.If he or she reaches a certain points they should be put on Criminal Records for

the rest of their lives and not for just one offence

Past Cautions

I slapped my Step Daughter across the face when she was 15 for Lying she called the police and I recieved a caution. Since then I was given community service for drink driving and was put in a placement at Ability working with people with severe learning difficulties I asked to keep going as a volunteer but when they did a CRB check on me I was stopped because the caution came up as assault on a minor I enjoy working with Disabled people but because of this caution some 17 years ago I am prohibited. I have no history of violance against children or vulnerable adults and don't see myself as a threat why can't this caution be removed so I can work in a position I consider myself very good at I have a lot of patients when it comes to the disabled and mentaly handicapped people and while I was at ability did a lot of good work. But because of slapping my step daughter for telling lies this limits me where employment is concerned. I feel all circumstances should be looked into then decisions as to wheather you can work with these people taken accordingly not a blanket ban.

Why is this idea important?

I slapped my Step Daughter across the face when she was 15 for Lying she called the police and I recieved a caution. Since then I was given community service for drink driving and was put in a placement at Ability working with people with severe learning difficulties I asked to keep going as a volunteer but when they did a CRB check on me I was stopped because the caution came up as assault on a minor I enjoy working with Disabled people but because of this caution some 17 years ago I am prohibited. I have no history of violance against children or vulnerable adults and don't see myself as a threat why can't this caution be removed so I can work in a position I consider myself very good at I have a lot of patients when it comes to the disabled and mentaly handicapped people and while I was at ability did a lot of good work. But because of slapping my step daughter for telling lies this limits me where employment is concerned. I feel all circumstances should be looked into then decisions as to wheather you can work with these people taken accordingly not a blanket ban.

All convictions should eventually become spent

Under the current Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, a conviction resulting in a custodial sentence of 36 months or more will never be 'spent' and must  be disclosed for the rest of that person's life.

What incentive does this offer them not to offend again? Many never will – but even they can never be officially 'rehabilitated', no matter how hard they try and how long for. This is surely a huge obstacle to the Government's efforts to cut re-offending – not to mention the number of people who are being supported by the state because their criminal record ensures no employer will take them on.

The consequent social exclusion plays a large part in some people's return to offending. Isolation affects mental health and decision-making. And no matter how spartan or unpleasant the prison environment is made in future, for many it will still be preferable to be part of a community where they are accepted.

Were these convictions to become spent after a certain number of (law-abiding) years, it would NOT put vulnerable people at risk – the procedures for vetting those working with children, the elderly etc already require an enhanced CRB check which shows both spent and unspent convictions. It WOULD, however, give ex-offenders something concrete to aim for and be a huge incentive not to re-offend.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Under the current Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, a conviction resulting in a custodial sentence of 36 months or more will never be 'spent' and must  be disclosed for the rest of that person's life.

What incentive does this offer them not to offend again? Many never will – but even they can never be officially 'rehabilitated', no matter how hard they try and how long for. This is surely a huge obstacle to the Government's efforts to cut re-offending – not to mention the number of people who are being supported by the state because their criminal record ensures no employer will take them on.

The consequent social exclusion plays a large part in some people's return to offending. Isolation affects mental health and decision-making. And no matter how spartan or unpleasant the prison environment is made in future, for many it will still be preferable to be part of a community where they are accepted.

Were these convictions to become spent after a certain number of (law-abiding) years, it would NOT put vulnerable people at risk – the procedures for vetting those working with children, the elderly etc already require an enhanced CRB check which shows both spent and unspent convictions. It WOULD, however, give ex-offenders something concrete to aim for and be a huge incentive not to re-offend.

 

 

Cautions on CRBs

I thougth that CRB checks were to protect children from paedophiles. I know someone who had a caution for having a small amount of cannabis at a music festival as a 18 year old. This was a mistake, and he has learnt a hard lesson as he has been penalised for this in the jobs market even though he has gone onto get a Degree and does not have a drugs problem at all. Is it necessary for this and other minor cautions to go on record? The police should be able to use their discretion a bit more and give one off offences a 'ticking off' without it blighting their lives and ruining their chances. The majority of youths make a mistake and learn form it, they should not be criminalised.

Why is this idea important?

I thougth that CRB checks were to protect children from paedophiles. I know someone who had a caution for having a small amount of cannabis at a music festival as a 18 year old. This was a mistake, and he has learnt a hard lesson as he has been penalised for this in the jobs market even though he has gone onto get a Degree and does not have a drugs problem at all. Is it necessary for this and other minor cautions to go on record? The police should be able to use their discretion a bit more and give one off offences a 'ticking off' without it blighting their lives and ruining their chances. The majority of youths make a mistake and learn form it, they should not be criminalised.

Limit the time Cautions & Minor Offences remain on an individual’s Criminal Record

A reasonable limit should be put on the amount of time Cautions or Warnings remain on a persons criminal record. Once this time has expired, given that the person has not committed any more offences, then their police profile or Criminal Record should be cleared of items that represent minor offences.

Cautions are routinely given out, quite often for actions that have not caused any harm to society and for actions that were not serious enough to warrant any form of judicial prosecution. With this in mind it seems unbalanced that the person will go on to suffer a lifetime of stigma and restricted opportunities from employment. This is particularly relevant to the blanket use of CRB checks in the modern recruitment process.

The current system of holding such information for life (as introduced by John Major's Tory government) goes against principles of rehabilitation and is leading to the exclusion of an increasing number of people from social & economic activity.

Why is this idea important?

A reasonable limit should be put on the amount of time Cautions or Warnings remain on a persons criminal record. Once this time has expired, given that the person has not committed any more offences, then their police profile or Criminal Record should be cleared of items that represent minor offences.

Cautions are routinely given out, quite often for actions that have not caused any harm to society and for actions that were not serious enough to warrant any form of judicial prosecution. With this in mind it seems unbalanced that the person will go on to suffer a lifetime of stigma and restricted opportunities from employment. This is particularly relevant to the blanket use of CRB checks in the modern recruitment process.

The current system of holding such information for life (as introduced by John Major's Tory government) goes against principles of rehabilitation and is leading to the exclusion of an increasing number of people from social & economic activity.

Repeal law on length of time a police caution remains active

Allow people the opportunity to serve a community and in return remove the police caution record completely (DNA excepted) after a defined period of time.

Why is this idea important?

Allow people the opportunity to serve a community and in return remove the police caution record completely (DNA excepted) after a defined period of time.

Do away with most fixed penalties, cautions and other similar punishments.

I believe that fixed penalties and cautions are used as a quick fix for seeming to deal with crime rarther than being appropriate punishment for real offenders. They are bad in two ways. Firstly they are used as a "slap on the wrist" for criminals who just go away and commit more crimes feeling they have gotten away with it. They are also open up to abuse in cases where there would not be enough or public interest evidance to take a case to court.

For the police, and increasingly private security contractors, these methods provide an easy way of dealing with crimes that looks good on statistics but is not good for justice. Cautions particularly can be given in cases where people really should be locked up, yet are also given in cases where under normal circumstances prosecution would never be considered.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that fixed penalties and cautions are used as a quick fix for seeming to deal with crime rarther than being appropriate punishment for real offenders. They are bad in two ways. Firstly they are used as a "slap on the wrist" for criminals who just go away and commit more crimes feeling they have gotten away with it. They are also open up to abuse in cases where there would not be enough or public interest evidance to take a case to court.

For the police, and increasingly private security contractors, these methods provide an easy way of dealing with crimes that looks good on statistics but is not good for justice. Cautions particularly can be given in cases where people really should be locked up, yet are also given in cases where under normal circumstances prosecution would never be considered.