Opinion
At a first glance, Auckland man Aaron Amor seems just the sort of person the 2004 Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act was designed to benefit. At a second glance, nothing much changes.
Yet Mr Amor has been forced to quit his Ministry for Social Development job because of minor criminal
convictions he received more than 20 years ago.
There has been no suggestion of a relapse since, but the ministry and its minister have confirmed his dismissal.
Mr Amor has every right to think he has been treated unfairly.
The clean slate law wipes the criminal records of people whose convictions did not attract a custodial sentence and who have not reoffended for seven years. Mr Amor's convictions for theft, burglary and minor drug offences earned him a two-month sentence of corrective training in 1988.
In a strict technical sense, the ministry may be right to regard this as custodial. But, in terms of the spirit of the act, it has erred.
Crimes that lead to prison sentences of less than six months or attract corrective training represent offences that do not have a substantial social impact.
In imposing these penalties, society has delivered its verdict on their gravity, deeming them to be misdemeanours or minor crimes. That being so, Mr Amor's convictions cannot be considered of a "serious nature", as the ministry insists.
Nothing is gained by continuing to punish people for such acts, which were often the product of nothing more than youthful indiscretion.
In the case of Mr Amor, who is now 41, mistakes at that stage of his life have cost him a job. He is now on the dole, so there is also a cost to the taxpayer.
Mr Amor can be excused for thinking his record should have been wiped. His employer has no excuse for being so inflexible.
