Do you agree with this editorial, which originally ran in the Shakopee Valley News?

For people convicted of a crime, the road back to the straight and narrow is often hindered by a lack of job opportunities. Having a felony conviction doesn't help matters. And for some, the frustration in attempting to find legitimate work can lead to the bad decision to turn back to crime.

State Sen. Julianne Ortman, R-Chanhassen, believes she has a solution. She's proposed a bill by which some people convicted of crimes could legally conceal their criminal records from the public.

Ortman, an attorney, contended that some people "have earned society's forgiveness and a fresh start in life." She has advanced the idea of expungement, which would “seal” a person's criminal record but not destroy it.

 Courts now have the right to grant expungements, but she said that the law is restrictive and that some courts seem to grant them freely, while others don't grant them at all. The result, she said, is inconsistency and a lack of public accountability and no process that ensures and protects the public's interest.

Ortman said her bill would create such a process, under which a judge would be required to consider an applicant's criminal record, employment background and chemical dependency treatment efforts, the severity of the crimes and the length of time that has elapsed, whether there is a continuing risk to public safety, the concerns of victims and any objections of the county attorney and law enforcement officials. If the public's interest in keeping the records available to the public outweighs the interests of the applicant, the court would be required to deny the request, under the bill.

Those on probation or facing charges could not apply. Nor could people convicted of sex offenses or those crimes involving violence. Only one expungement per offender would be allowed, and if there were a subsequent felony conviction, that person's entire criminal record would become permanent once again.

Ortman's bill proposes public hearings on such matters and that the decisions could be appealed.

But once a judge grants the expungement, government agencies would be required to seal the records from the public and media.

Ortman is right in her contention that people with criminal records have a harder time than ever finding jobs or housing because technology has put people's background information at our fingertips.

But while Ortman has her heart in the right place and certainly brings a societal problem to the surface, we should not support her bill.

Leaving it up to judges to make decisions on a person's prospects for staying on the straight and narrow in the future is too much to ask. Just because an individual judge has a hunch that someone is done with a life of crime would not be reassuring to the person who needs to make a hiring decision. Also, prospective employers should be privy to a job applicant's relevant background. For example, a small-business owner who needs a bookkeeper or cashier should have the opportunity to learn that an applicant was previously convicted of theft.

Without a doubt, people with criminal records face a daunting task in finding work. Many companies in Minnesota have showed great compassion and humanitarian gestures by employing people who come out of prison or jail. Often, they find great employees who will serve them for years to come.

But, again, sadly, it's not the case for many people. This bill would certainly help a lot of people find jobs and stay out of prison. But it would unfairly leave prospective employers without information they deserve to have before they hire someone.