All Downloads are FREE. Search and download functionalities are using the official Maven repository.

com.gravity.goose.statichtml.issue_32.txt Maven / Gradle / Ivy

The newest version!





	Plan to restrict public-records data draws mounting opposition | Tulsa World


        

            
            
            

            

        
        
        
        



    


















































READ TODAY'S STORIES AND E-EDITION SUBSCRIBE |  CONTACT US |  SIGN IN
Print Email Twitter Facebook

Plan to restrict public-records data draws mounting opposition

By World's Editorial Writers


Opposition to a proposal to remove certain personal data from court records is mounting and with good reason. Or good reasons, we should say.



The Oklahoma Supreme Court has proposed what's known as Rule 31, which would lead to the removal of such information as dates of birth and addresses from court records. The court has sought public comment on the proposal, and it sure got an earful.

We in the news business have long opposed the move because it would make it more difficult for reporters and editors to verify identities and uncover background information on people in the news.

But now, members of law enforcement, district attorneys' offices and the business community have come out against the proposal, for varying reasons.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt wrote the court, saying his office is concerned "about our ability as a law enforcement agency to correctly identify a suspect prior to arrest or a defendant in the courtroom or a proper prior conviction with only partial data available."

The staff in the District 12 district attorneys office, which represents Rogers, Craig and Mayes counties, also spoke up.

District 12 District Attorney Janice Steidley called the proposed rules "an injustice to criminal prosecution."

Assistant District Attorney Donald Palik said that redacting personal information from criminal records would make it difficult or impossible for prosecutors to prove to a jury that a person who was convicted of a prior offense is the same person who is on trial.

The Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association Board of Directors also opposes the proposal, arguing in its letter that the information now available assures law officers "they are locating, arresting and detaining the proper person."

The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber wrote that the proposed rule "would be detrimental to the numerous businesses which both provide as a product and utilize during the hiring process detailed court records to prevent the employment of convicted felons."

Other responses noted that identity theft arising from personal information in court records has not proven to be a big problem.

And, another complaint was that restricting such personal information would lead to higher fees for people needing to conduct investigations. An official with a background screening company said the rule could even result in more discrimination against minorities if employers cannot obtain the information they need on an applicant's background.

Does the court need any more reasons to jettison this proposed rule? We think not.


Original Print Headline: More reasons


Copyright 2011 World Publishing Co. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


Reader Comments 3 Total

Simply ghastly. I side with the World's Editors on this one.

Look, if there's a problem with identity theft, then divert some of the trillions of dollars wasted on the war on drugs and fund a branch of the FBI that would concern itself with identity theft crimes. Deal with the bad guys; don't invite a looming data catastrophe.

Whose flippin' idea was this anyway?
Eagle 4 (1 day ago)
I think the proposal started at the Big House in McAlester and found favor among the elite, incognito crowd. If I have to guess one person, it would be Gene Stipe. The real purpose is likely to make it harder to follow the money and the crooks, both legal and illegal.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court came up with this idea?? Are they trying to make things harder for the legal system?? If it is identity theft they are concerned with, I have one question: Who would want to steal the identity of a possible child molester or rapist??? I think we owe it to the law abiding citizens of Oklahoma to make sure the right person is "identified" in any legal matter. I lived in a neighborhood once where one house had "child molester", "sex offender", and "pervert" spray painted on his garage door, and guess what?? WRONG PERSON!
3 comments displayed


In order to post a comment on this page, you must sign in to Tulsaworld.com. If you do not have a site account, you can create an account for free.



Most Popular Stories
Most Viewed
Most Commented
 
View the Top 50
These are the most viewed stories in the last 24 hours.





Home | Contact Us | Search | Subscribe | Customer Service | About | Advertise | Privacy
Copyright © 2011, World Publishing Co. All rights reserved.





© 2015 - 2024 Weber Informatics LLC | Privacy Policy