|
|
« Bolivian independence fest in Providence tomorrow | Today | Ronstadt, Allmans and more: Newport Folk begins » August 3, 2007Moving up adult age clouds public records accessBRISTOL -- When they pushed the new law that treats 17-year-olds as adults on criminal charges, the General Assembly and Governor Carcieri’s administration introduced some vagueness into the state’s Access to Public Records laws, a special assistant attorney general said today. Christy Hetherington, special assistant to Attorney General Patrick Lynch, told a group of lawyers and public officials meeting at the Roger Williams University Law School that her office has not determined yet whether the state’s open records laws should apply to 17-year-olds who are now treated as adults. "I really have no idea,’’ said Hetherington, who oversees public records and public meetings compliance for the attorney general. ``I don’t think it is a black and white case, it is not easy.’’ Hetherington confirmed that a Rhode Island "police agency’’ has asked the attorney general’s office for an opinion on the issue, but declined to say which police agency had made the request. The issue comes into play when citizens -- often media representatives -- ask police officials for police and criminal arrest records. For example, all initial arrest records of an adult are public records, but most juvenile records are shielded from public disclosure. "This is something we are trying to sort out,’’ said Hetherington. -- Journal staff writer Scott MacKay At the urging of Carcieri, the legislature enacted a budget for the 2007-2008 fiscal year that includes treating 17-year-olds as adults, rather than juveniles, for purposes of criminal charging and sentencing. The reason the change was made: Carcieri and legislative leaders believed that the move would save money, because sending 17-year-olds to the state Adult Correctional Institutions, the state’s adult prison, would be cheaper than incarcerating them at the Rhode Island Training School, which houses juvenile offenders. While the change was supposed to save $3.6 million, some have disputed whether that figure will be reached in the next 11 months. But what is known is that the change has presented a conundrum for those -- such as police officers -- who must administer the open records provisions of state law. Posted by Mike McKinney CommentsTML | August 3, 2007 10:43 PM link Post a commentPlease be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish. |
|
ADVERTISING |
|
|
|
|
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
ProJo 9 to 5 News Blog
Oct 2005 - March 2006
Does this mean our 17 years olds can now move out at 17 ? or even register to vote at 17 ? or even graduate at 17 ? i think not . they can change the age of when a child can enter kindergarten to 5 years by sept 1. . now this when is someone going to do something about protecting our children. cause, yes most 17 year olds are still immature and to me this is insanity of politics at it's best in GOOD OLE' RHODE ISLAND