US newspapers are deleting old crime stories, offering subjects a 'clean slate'

US arrest and criminal-record prevalence

• Many are shocked by claims that ~1/3 of US adults have been arrested by 23 or have some criminal record; others confirm this with cited NLSY and Sentencing Project data.
• Clarifications: figures generally exclude minor traffic violations but can include misdemeanors (e.g., some speeding, DUIs, petty offenses).
• Commenters stress big demographic variation: poor, urban, and especially Black men face much higher arrest/record rates than middle‑class suburban whites.
• Several note the US has an unusually high incarceration rate versus much of the world, even if not the “safest” country.

Criminal records, public access, and data brokers

• In the US, adult criminal records are usually public; juvenile records are often sealed.
• Historically, accessing records required in‑person courthouse visits; now digitization and data brokers make national background checks cheap and persistent.
• Once something is in public court records or news archives, getting it fully removed is described as “whack‑a‑mole.”
• Some employers use a hard “no criminal record” rule; others are more nuanced, but desirable jobs often lean toward strict screening.

Life after conviction and recidivism

• Multiple first‑hand accounts describe how post‑release life is stacked against ex‑prisoners: no money, ID, housing, or support; only social network is other ex‑inmates and drug users.
• Jail/prison can become psychologically easier than struggling outside, contributing to high recidivism (US figures compared unfavorably with places like Finland).
• Some argue this is structurally tied to the “prison‑industrial complex” and, in the US, to prison labor enabled by the 13th Amendment’s “except as punishment for crime” clause; others push back on the “slavery” label or demand tighter evidence.

Deleting crime stories vs. right to be forgotten

• One camp sees newspapers deleting old crime stories as “memory‑holing” and betraying their role as historical record and public watchdog, especially for serious or powerful offenders.
• Another camp argues for limited “clean slate” ideas: automatic removal/redaction of names for minor, non‑violent or youthful offenses, especially when charges were dropped or records expunged.
• European practices (e.g., partial naming, right‑to‑be‑forgotten, focus on reintegration) are cited as alternative models.
• Concerns raised: unequal access (rich can scrub, poor cannot), chilling effects of permanent searchable records, and the risk that secrecy undercuts community safety in cases of repeat violent or sexual offenders.
• Suggested middle paths: redact names, add prominent corrections/rebuttals, limit background checks, or emphasize “Fair Chance” employment over blanket bans.