Tracing the lifecycle of Canadian criminal records

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is twofold. First, it explains the current records management practices for Canadian criminal records. Second, it details the larger social and cultural implications of those practices, toward considering the role records management plays in long‐term sustainable offender rehabilitation outcomes.Design/methodology/approachThis paper is based on a thorough literature review, which considered research on the history of Canadian criminal record management; current records management procedures for Canadian criminal records; and current Canadian social and cultural understandings of offenders, criminal records, and the relationship between criminal record management and public policy.FindingsThis paper finds that Canadian records management procedures for criminal records can have grave impacts on offenders' lives. Specifically, this paper explores how records management practices are shaped by the social norms and values embedded in public policy mandates, which ultimately appear to disrupt, rather than support, offenders' rehabilitation.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper's research is limited by its current approach. Consequently, it encourages researchers to further develop its findings in the future, both domestic to Canada and internationally.Practical implicationsThis paper includes implications that advocate for increased awareness about how public policy dictated records management procedures can limit offenders' ability to reintegrate into society.Social implicationsThis paper addresses the grave social consequences and burdens offenders face when they are unable to seal their previous criminal record.Originality/valueThis paper addresses the need to study how offenders' rehabilitation is affected by the policy dictating the management of their criminal record.

“Out but in”: The complexities of adult re-integration post-incarceration in the Canadian context

“…Police records can be created from a variety of interactions with the police, including: having informal contact with police; calling 9-1-1 or being present when an officer was called; calling 9-1-1 for themselves or an individual experiencing a mental health crisis; being involved in a police investigation; being charged with a criminal offence but not convicted; being arrested; being found guilty of a criminal offence; being convicted of a criminal offence (JHS, 2018). The Criminal Record Check is typically used for employment opportunities where a basic criminal background check is requested; it is highly used among employers during the hiring process, and the use of it seems to be increasing (Holzer & Raphael, 2007;JHS & CCLA, 2014;Kilgour, 2013). Toronto police reported the highest number of record checks compared to all of Canada; the number of checks conducted by Toronto Police Service increased by roughly 7% from 2010 to 2012 (JHS & CCLA, 2014).…”

Mitigating and bordering: The dual nature of Canadian collateral consequences of conviction

“…The literature on collateral consequences in Canada has focussed primarily on the barriers criminal records pose for reintegration and rehabilitation, particularly with regard to employment, and on sealing and expungement processes (e.g. Kilgour, 2013; McAleese, 2019; Ricciardelli and Mooney, 2017). Critiques have been levied at the Canadian record sealing scheme since the implementation of the Criminal Records Act in 1970 for its failure to sufficiently promote rehabilitation, and its inaccessibility due to costs, long waiting periods and bureaucratic complexity (Eizadirad and Chambers, 2021; Kilgour, 2013; McAleese, 2019; Nadin-Davis, 1980).…”

“…Kilgour, 2013; McAleese, 2019; Ricciardelli and Mooney, 2017). Critiques have been levied at the Canadian record sealing scheme since the implementation of the Criminal Records Act in 1970 for its failure to sufficiently promote rehabilitation, and its inaccessibility due to costs, long waiting periods and bureaucratic complexity (Eizadirad and Chambers, 2021; Kilgour, 2013; McAleese, 2019; Nadin-Davis, 1980).…”