A Single Mother Loses Her Job Because of Faulty Police Record
A single mother of six is without gainful employment tonight after losing her job at a call center on Thursday due to an error on her police record. According to thirty-four-year-old Tiffany Gideon, she was charged for a common assault back in 2001 after getting into a fight with another young lady. The charge initially appeared on her criminal record, but mysteriously it has morphed into a drug trafficking offense. According to Gideon, she has never been arrested, charged or convicted for drug trafficking, but the fact that it now appears on her record, despite all attempts to have that document amended, has ended with her termination. She shared her misfortune with us earlier today and is hoping that she can get an audience with the Commissioner of Police to rectify the situation.
Tiffany Gideon, Complainant
Tiffany Gideon
“This is something that has been going on for a while now. Yesterday, I was fired from my job establishment which is Transparent BPO. They fired me because when I got the job I did not have my police record at the time, I just gave them the receipt. So because I gave them the receipt they were not aware that I had something on my record. Now yesterday, they came and logged me out of the system and took me to the human resources department. When they took me there to the human resources department they gave me a letter and told me that this is a record that we have on your file which is a drug trafficking record that is on my file which is not my charge. I have never been convicted of a crime before like that. I know I have a record which is common assault which is the only record that I know because when I was younger I was in couple fights and stuff like that, so I got a couple records for fighting. Now all of a sudden I have a record that is showing that I have a drug trafficking charge. Now, Isani, that is something that is totally, I don’t know where that is coming from and I have been back and forth to Belmopan trying to fix this record and stuff like that before I got this job at Transparent BPO. Now when I got the job at Transparent, I could not further with that record situation trying to fix it.”
This should never be happening in this time and age, i stand to be corrected……..it is clear that this lady was a Juvenile when she was charge for both offenses, she was between the ages of 16-17 years which means her criminal records should have been seal or expunge upon reaching adulthood….if not why is Belize a signatory to the CRC and other instruments that govern our juvenile justice system.
furthermore; she was charged for a common assault back in 2001 after getting into a fight with another young lady. common assault is a misdemeanor offense….it carry a fine not a custodial sentence….
the drug trafficking charge is a serious offense but as indicated she was a juvenile when she allegedly committed both offense.
SHE IS CLEARLY BEING VICTIMIZE BY A SYSTEM THAT IS SUPPOSE TO BE PROTECTING HER FROM DISCRIMINATION……
Belize is a signatory to both the CRC Convention on the Rights of a Child as well as the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (“The Beijing Rules”)
CRC: Signiture 02nd March 1990-Ratification 02 May 1990
According to the:
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
12. Criminal Records within the Juvenile Criminal Justice System
219. The Commission believes that in order to prevent stigmatization of children and adolescents, personal details registered in criminal records must be automatically expunged once they attain adulthood, unless a competent authority, in response to a request filed by an interested party within a reasonable period of time, deems that information to be exceptionally relevant to the preservation of the rights of the child (now an adult) or the rights of third parties, provided that retention of that information serves a legitimate, objective and reasonable end The same would apply to the administrative records of children subject to alternatives to adjudication.
220. The IACHR concurs with the Beijing Rules in the sense that States must ensure the confidentiality of information contained in the records of children and adolescents in the juvenile justice system who have been accused, prosecuted or convicted of violating a criminal law, and that access to such records should be limited to persons directly concerned with the disposition of the case at hand or other duly authorized persons. In keeping with the Beijing Rules, the Commission reaffirms that the information contained in the records of juvenile offenders should not be used in adult proceedings in subsequent cases involving the same offender.[185] For the Commission, that person’s criminal record within the juvenile criminal justice system should not be taken into account when determining whether the offense being prosecuted is a repeat offense as an adult.
The Beijing Rules: GENERAL PRINCIPLES
“The Standard Minimum Rules are deliberately formulated so as to be applicable within different legal systems and, at the same time, to set some minimum standards for the handling of juvenile offenders under any definition of a juvenile and under any system of dealing with juvenile offenders. The Rules are always to be applied impartially and without distinction of any kind.”
Rule 2.1 therefore stresses the importance of the Rules always being applied impartially and without distinction of any kind. The rule follows the formulation of principle 2 of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Rule 2.2 defines “juvenile” and “offence” as the components of the notion of the “juvenile offender”, who is the main subject of these Standard Minimum Rules (see, however, also rules 3 and 4). It should be noted that age limits will depend on, and are explicitly made dependent on, each respective legal system, thus fully respecting the economic, social, political, cultural and legal systems of Member States. This makes for a wide variety of ages coming under the definition of “juvenile”, ranging from 7 years to 18 years or above. Such a variety seems inevitable in view of the different national legal systems and does not diminish the impact of these Standard Minimum Rules.
just wanted to spark a conversation that truly need to be had…….and a story that need to be seriously revisited….