<p>Sigh…I knew someone was saying something that I didn’t. </p>
<p>I had actually said
</p>
<p>They can’t have a policy that says that anyone with any conviction is not eligible for admission. They have to review the particular violation and then determine if that particular violation would warrant denying admission.</p>
<p>I know this because once I was with an organization that tried to put a clause that said “any candidate for board of directors is automatically disqualified if they have criminal conviction”, and the attorney advised not putting that policy in place because of double jeporady.</p>
<p>Not all attorneys agree and perhaps you would have disagreed with that attorney. But everytime I have seen a place where you have to list your criminal convictions, there is always the wording that says something along the lines of a criminal conviction is not necessarily grounds for termination/denying employment/denying admission, and I’m pretty sure that is there on the advice of an attorney.</p>
<p>This doesn’t make any sense. Double jeopardy refers to** being tried in court twice for the same crime** after acquittal or conviction or receiving multiple **criminal **penalties for the same crime after acquittal or conviction. What you are describing has nothing to do with being tried in court a second time for the first offense and a university not admitting someone based on their criminal record is not the same thing as imposing multiple criminal penalties for the same offense.</p>
<p>I’m not saying there may not be special wording with regard to employment policies involving hiring or firing of candidates having criminal records, but it is not because of the concept of double jeopardy.</p>
<p>I know a person who lied on a job application for a federal government job. She didn’t write down the reason for leaving her last job, because her previous employer assured her that they would not disclose it. Well, they did anyway when the federal government did the background investigation. And promptly terminated her when they discovered she lied.</p>
<p>So now she is probably permenantly barred from working for the federal government because she committed fraud on a federal government form. And to make matters worse - the person told her the real reason for leaving the prior company would have been ok if he actually disclosed it. But the fact that she commited fraud on a signed document warranted immediate termination.</p>
<p>Maybe, maybe not the word “everything”. I absolutely think you disclose what you need to disclose. For instance if some form asks for felony convictions and someone has a civil infraction…they aren’t asking if you have a civil infraction no need to disclose. If a student has had detention etc. that is not a suspension or dismissal…etc. And if you don’t know the differences…ask a lawyer. I think if I had a child that had a issue like an MIP and I knew legally that it was expunged or had deferred adjudication or something I would tell said child not to disclose but again, I’d probably double check with a lawyer just to make sure with regard to the legal aspects. Clearly if a child is suspended, expelled or dismissed from a school answering that question is pretty clean cut…you either have been or you haven’t been.</p>
<p>I know someone who started training as flight attendant for an airline. He worked there for a couple of months, and I don’t recall why, but he decided to transfer for job training with a new airline. He did not tell the second airline he began working for 2 months with the first airline. The second one found out after he was sent for a blood test. He turned up clean both times, but the airline was informed that he had been tested by another airline. I do not know how the lab disclosed this without getting into privacy issues, but this guy was fired. This ended that career.</p>
<p>First of all- we all have these “stories” of people losing jobs, etc. We had someone here at our company who had one of those online degrees that you buy for $500. Fired.</p>
<p>We are talking about a (probably) juvenile arrest that is most likely expunged or the subject of some sort of deferred adjudication. I would NEVER disclose an arrest without a conviction. You can get arrested for anything and it says nothing about your guilt or innocence. I think you are asked for convictions on the college apps- not arrests.
Expunged is expunged and in most states (need to check with criminal lawyer) it means it is GONE. Yes, the FBI and some other search bureaus can access it, but mainstream searches will NOT find it. I think it is too prejudicial to disclose a juvenile violation that has been removed from the record and I would not do so.</p>
<p>I understand that not everyone agrees with this approach, but wait until you are in this position with your kid and see how you feel then. (Mine did NOT have arrests to disclose, but did have other “attachments” to his applications…"</p>
<p>The Common App says “convicted”. If a minor is convicted of a crime, even if it is later expunged, he was still convicted. If the prosecution agrees to a “deferred prosecution” and later dismisses the charges, then Junior has not been convicted.</p>
<p>As stated above, this has nothing to do with double jeopardy and probably little to do with due process. If some school decides that it doesn’t want to admit anyone with a criminal record, there is nothing to stop them. I tend to believe that colleges want to know what the criminal offense is before passing judgment, but they do not have to.</p>
<p>bigtrees, I apologize. You are right that I didn’t summarize the second paragraph of your first post on this topic very well. I should have just said that I disagree with your second paragraph.</p>
<p>I will try to explain what I meant. In referring to “protection from being denied admission” I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to use shorthand for the concept of protected class. Institutions may not discriminate against a member of a protected class, as defined by either federal or state law. Examples of protected classes include age, race, national origin or religion. A college may not decline to admit someone solely because of his national origin, for example; it would have to have a valid reason for denying admission. </p>
<p>While it is hard to prove a negative, I would find it hard to believe that criminal recordholders are part of a protected class for purposes of college admission in any state. As a result, it would seem odd that a college would have to have a “valid or specific reason” other than the criminal record in order to deny admission. If someone knows of a state that makes criminal recordholders a protected class for the purposes of college admission (not for employment), it would be good to post it, and I would stand corrected.</p>
<p>It is certainly true that lying on a college application is grounds for expulsion, and as a result, the OP or her child should answer the application questions truthfully. If there is a legal question as to whether the specific application question requires disclosure of the event, he or she should consult an attorney licensed in the college’s state.</p>
<p>^ Oops, I meant… the student should consult an attorney licensed in his own state (because different states can treat criminal records differently.)</p>
<p>I generally don’t argue with lawyers and I know she was referring to college applications:
One exception to this is the US Military. If a kid is told this and doesn’t think he ever has to reveal it and decides to join ROTC or the National Guard or the Military then all of it must be disclosed. including juvenile records. including traffic violations. The military will find expunged records. They will find it on a security clearance. Ditto if they decide to apply for any Federal Government jobs after graduation.</p>
<p>In many states kids who are in teacher education programs must disclose all infractions - even juvenile. If the record able to be expunged they need to make sure it gets expunged. Often this needs to happen while they are still in college and before they can observe or do student teaching.</p>
<p>And Y’all are teaching your kids exactly what now? That in addition to whatever youthful infractions said kid has committed you are now colluding with him to lie about it? In order to get into college?</p>
<p>This is really a parallel universe here.</p>
<p>Disclose exactly what is asked for. My company has dismissed senior vice presidents for obfuscating the truth on resumes which date back 10 years. We ask if you’ve been arrested, we don’t care if you burned the flag at a rally protesting our presence in Hanoi (or even more recently) and we don’t care if you gave the finger to a cop when you were pulled over for speeding. But we care if you lie- so if you say you’ve never been arrested, that means NEVER. Not, “I was arrested and convicted but mummy and daddy and uncle Trent who is a very good lawyer with a very good firm made sure the record was sealed forever because I was only 14 and very impressionable and if they find out at Groton then I won’t get into Princeton and have a super life”.</p>
<p>Why is this concept so hard to understand? Were you or weren’t you? Surely your kid understands the simple yes or no- if the kid has already had some trouble with the law, how are you helping the kid come to terms with responsible adulthood by encouraging him to lie about it? Do you think your kid is going to become an upstanding adult by following the example of the adults in his life who say lying doesn’t count if nobody rats you out?</p>
<p>One should probably be careful to know if the arrest is public knowledge or referred to on the student’s facebook, etc. before failing to disclose.</p>
<p>(Relative was second-semester senior and just turned 18 when arrested. Since not a minor, his name with in a very sensational story in the newspaper. Legal resolution was a lot tamer than originally expected and school didn’t mention any of this in recs.)</p>
<p>Blossom- The concept is hard to understand because in some states an expungement means that the matter is GONE and that, in essence, there was no arrest. Just as an annulment means there was no marriage. Expungements happen for a reason and the reason is so the alleged offense doesn’t follow the person.</p>
<p>I agree that government, military, security clearances, perhaps bar applications are a different matter.</p>
<p>I knew this would turn into one of those threads…</p>
<p>MOWC- couldn’t the kid just write, “I was arrested and found innocent”? </p>
<p>And exactly what kind of a thread has this turned into? OP asked a question, got a number of different opinions, consensus has emerged that OP needs a lawyer in the appropriate jurisdiction to give an accurate summation of the legal options.</p>
<p>Because that would not be a true statement if the kid got deferred adjudication and completed community service. Expungement means it does not have to be disclosed.</p>
<p>as a practicing criminal lawyer (you still have to consult your own lawyer to address your specific situation/hypothetical), I disagree with the posts here that seem to assume that a juvenile adjudication is a “conviction” of a “crime” as those terms are used in the Common App. Most states’ juvenile laws provide not only that juvenile proceedings are confidential, but also that they do not result in criminal convictions (this relates to the underlying theory and purpose of juvenile proceedings). So, unless the conduct occurred in a school related context (and thus fell within the scope of the Common App question related to school discipline), this would not be a matter even requested by the Common App and non-disclosure would not appear to be misleading in anyway. Indeed, I suspect that the developers of the Common App received significant legal advice about what could and could not properly be asked of applicants.</p>
<p>OK, out of the courts and into how a student navigates honestly and successfully. I think I’d have an “auntie” contact the college admissions office of the specific college involved and ask a hypothetical “if a student did XX and the consequences were YYY and the records were then sealed/expunged, what would YOU at Friendly College want detailed to you?” No lying. Just some hypothetical researching to begin. </p>
<p>If the admissions officer was tremendously cool to the notion that said hypothetical student would ever be a good fit at Friendly College, then our student knows that some doors have been closed. </p>
<p>I do believe that time passed and subsequent behavior do count. I know the attorneys out there may think I am naive, but I’d rather be the kid who made a mistake, owned it, and moved past it rather than the kid who is constantly in fear of being found out. If Friendly College won’t take me with my imperfections, then it’s time to find Cozy College that will.</p>
<p>I realize nobody here contradicted what I’ve said but I’ll say it again - consult an attorney IN YOUR STATE because these are state sensitive issues.</p>
<p>Example: In New York, a felony conviction for a person under 19 at the time of the offense can be replaced with an adjudication as a youthful offender. What that means under New York law is that there is no conviction, i.e. you can truthfully answer “no” to the question as to whether you have been “convicted of a crime.” But that’s a New York example only and only applies if your conviction was replaced with a youthful offender adjudication. In New York, it’s possible to spend as long as 2 years 8 months in state prison and not be a convicted criminal. It’s possible to be on parole and not be a convicted criminal. But it is also possible that you can be a convicted criminal even though it’s your first offense, you were only 16, and you didn’t even have to do probation. Every case is different. The laws are different in every state and relying on advice here is foolish when, for the cost of one hour or less of attorney time, you can get the right answer and avoid a huge potential problem.</p>
<p>Too often these threads degenerate into “how can I get out of this?” or “how can I shade the truth?” or even “isn’t this unfair?” But what people in these situations need is solid advice about how not to compound problems and either commit new crimes by lying on their applications (yes, it’s possible that lying on an application could constitute a crime in some states, especially if you are applying to a state school) or how to avoid putting themselves in a situation where, for the next four years, they sleep with one eye open because they know they lied and they’re waiting for the other shoe to drop.</p>