Missouri lawmakers are being asked to help some convicted felons get their records cleared from public view.
The state Senate's Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee heard testimony on three bills Tuesday afternoon, all with the same goal but with slightly different ways to get there.
"I believe (it is) time for the Legislature to have a very frank discussion about a real expungement process," Sen. Bob Dixon, R-Springfield, explained, "that provides for a path of restoration to those who have done wrong and learned from their mistakes - and have corrected their ways over a period of time, so that they can, among other things, find employment."
Sen. Kiki Curls, D-Kansas City, said lawmakers should consider the proposals seriously for people who should get a second chance, "certainly for those individuals who have paid their debt to society ... having made past mistakes but have been on the straight and productive path for some time."
Also, Sen. Jamilah Nasheed, D-St. Louis, told the committee: "Keep in mind that expungement is important for those individuals who are trying to rebuild their lives.
"They go out and knock on the doors of opportunity - and the doors are slammed in their faces, each and every day, because they walk in that door with the stigma of being an ex-felon."
In all, 16 different people testified in favor of at least one of the three bills - and no one testified against any of them.
All three bills would prohibit expungement of crimes involving violence, weapons or sex offenses.
Also, Nasheed's bill wouldn't cover DWI convictions.
"I'm hard on DWIs," she told the committee. "If you are an alcoholic, we need to know (if) in the past you killed someone."
Dixon's bill would require the person to wait three years after completing the ordered sentence or probation period before a misdemeanor could be closed, and five years for a felony.
Curls' bill would require a five-year wait after a misdemeanor, and 10 years for a felony.
Nasheed's proposal would require a five-year period regardless of the kind of crime. However, her plan also limits the expungement request to one time only - although that request could include multiple offenses.
Dixon's bill would require a $500 fee for the expungement request. Curls' bill requires a $100 fee - the same cost as in the current law. Nasheed's proposal has no cost.
All three sponsors said the current law that allows only some expungement requests results in more people qualifying for public assistance, because their criminal records keep them from getting jobs.
Several witnesses agreed.
Tim Gillam said he's been out of the Corrections system since 1994, but his past crimes - which he didn't identify - still cause problems.
"I pick up and deliver for the company I work with now at a government facility," he said, "and it was hard just for me to get in to make a delivery, for all the screening process and everything else."
He added: "I'd like to have my rights back. I've paid my debt to society, I feel."
Edward Mayer told the senators he was convicted of receiving stolen property in 1997.
"I've been out for 18 years," Mayer reported. "I have four children I cannot support because of my felony conviction.
"If this bill doesn't go through and I can't get a job because of my felony conviction, who's going to take care of my kids? The Legislature?"
Patty Burger, of St. Louis, said she had several convictions, and at $500 for each expungement request, it would cost her $9,000 to clear her records.
However, after finally getting drug treatment at the Missouri Women's Prison in Vandalia in 1998, she said, "For the past 15 years, I've been drug and alcohol free."
Also, she has stayed out of prison and now is working with other "formerly incarcerated" women to help turn their lives around, she said.
Columbia lawyer Dan Viets told lawmakers the current system, where records generally remain open forever, often hurt people's chances of getting a job or a loan.
"There ought to be a point at which society allows a defendant to be forgiven, and not to eternally pay the penalty for a non-violent offense," Viets said.
The state Prosecutors Association and the Public Defender system testified together in support of the bills.
Testifying for Dixon's proposal, State Public Defender Michael Barrett said, "We think that it represents a balance between restoring civil liberties and protecting the public."
Randolph County Prosecutor Mike Fusselman said the state prosecutors prefer having records sealed from public view rather than being destroyed.
"We have people who are not going to be successful and we are going to see them again (in court)," he explained, "and we need the ability to enhance their charges and to punish them accordingly."
The committee took no action on the bills Tuesday.