A big part to help would be forbidding employers, landlords and banks to access or use conviction databases, with limited exceptions for security-sensitive employment such as banks, security guards, childcare/education and the likes.
Or, simply, do not make them "public" in the sense of "putting it on the Internet". By all means, make convictions and court documents public in the sense that one can go to the local library and do research there in person (to provide a natural scaling limit), but it should not be acceptable that there are "data mining" companies that get the name searches on Google polluted by conviction records or court documents as sensitive as one's financial worth during / after a divorce judgement process and then charge people extortion fees to "remove" the records from their site (only to reappear on another site, rinse and repeat).
In Germany, this is the norm. Drug testing by employers or checking their credit score is also not allowed, with highly limited exceptions. As a result, while we do have a problem with convicts being discriminated against after release, it doesn't even come close to the level of problems the US has.
There is a fundamental flaw with the approach - the right to remember and the right to print/speak. You can keep a newspaper in your house. Why then is it permissible to stop someone from archiving the facts? Even if later proven false it is still useful data that say the New York Times featured an angry Trump full page editorial calling for the death penalty for them?
I don't disagree that undue judgement is an issue for rehabilitation but I have heavy doubts that forced amnesia is a good idea - especially given the repeat scammers who would exploit it.
There's an absolutely huge distinction between "try to rewrite history so [thing] doesn't exist anymore" and "law preventing you from taking [thing] into account when making hiring/renting/whatever decisions."
It's not impossible, insurance companies have no problem with this, the insurance industry is highly regulated about specific things they can/can't consider while underwriting a policy, which varies by jurisdiction. They just don't ask about/look up factors that they aren't allowed to take into consideration while underwriting a policy, but aggressively ask about/look up factors they are allowed to take into consideration.
For example, in Massachusetts insurance companies are forbidden from considering credits score when setting premiums and making underwriting decisions, a practice which is extremely common in the industry where legal (people with high credit scores have less insurance claims). That doesn't mean Massachusetts is trying to rewrite history so that your poor credit doesn't exist, it still exists, and others are allowed to use it for other reasons (such as underwriting loans).
Saying "we forbid you to take into consideration conviction history when hiring" isn't anywhere near "forced amnesia."
Unfortunately, if "people with high credit scores have less insurance claims," then preventing insurance companies from taking this into account is a deadweight loss to society.
People who are more likely to have more insurance claims should pay more for insurance (that's the whole point of underwriting), otherwise people who are less likely to have claims are being unfairly overcharged.
Now if you take a look at how many people got hits to their credit score thanks to the recent government shutdown or due to massive medical bills or due to identity theft/other fraud, things look differently.
Credit scores deserve to rot in hell forever. Humanity has managed to exist for thousands of years without this degradation of human worth to arbitrary totally intransparent numbers.
> Why then is it permissible to stop someone from archiving the facts?
The "publication" laws were written in a different time - newspapers have, simply because they're physical objects, not searchable at the vast scale and speed that a quick Google search allows now. The laws simply have to be modernized, that's it.
> especially given the repeat scammers who would exploit it.
These can be sued until they burn down to the ground. Making money off of people's misery in that way is as despicable as it gets in a civilized society.
Or, simply, do not make them "public" in the sense of "putting it on the Internet". By all means, make convictions and court documents public in the sense that one can go to the local library and do research there in person (to provide a natural scaling limit), but it should not be acceptable that there are "data mining" companies that get the name searches on Google polluted by conviction records or court documents as sensitive as one's financial worth during / after a divorce judgement process and then charge people extortion fees to "remove" the records from their site (only to reappear on another site, rinse and repeat).
In Germany, this is the norm. Drug testing by employers or checking their credit score is also not allowed, with highly limited exceptions. As a result, while we do have a problem with convicts being discriminated against after release, it doesn't even come close to the level of problems the US has.