Wisconsin court records should remain open to public
People have right to know legal decisions
Ashley Hofer
Issue date: 3/11/10 Section: Editorial/Opinion
|
I was introduced at an early age to the Wisconsin public records search online. Sometimes in middle school, my best friend and I would amuse ourselves by searching the database, checking out which teachers had received speeding tickets recently and similar happenings. We've all done it, but I'm guessing this was not the intention of the Wisconsin government when it set up the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access Web site.
By now, of course, I know the database serves a much larger purpose: providing valuable information to the public and keeping government activities out in the open. But the Wisconsin legislature is reviewing the Consolidated Court Automation Programs. A bill has been proposed that would limit what records the public can view. While the changes might not be all that bad, it is setting the precedent of limiting public access that is the problem.
Looking at the specifics of the bill, the changes don't appear to be too drastic. According to an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, only select records would be displayed in search results. These include records of:
• People actually convicted of a crime
• People found liable in a civil case
• People evicted or restrained by a court order or injunction
Under this system, pending cases and not guilty verdicts would not be viewable to the public online. However, a separate database for law enforcement, real estate agents, journalists and others deemed in need of access would contain those records.
The changes seem reasonable; average citizens like you and me can still see the biggest pieces of information. Meanwhile, the groups who could use the additional data will have special access to it online. That sounds pretty fair.
But there is more to this issue than just this particular bill and this specific set of limitations. By imposing any sort of limitation to the public's access, the government is setting another dangerous precedent of excluding the public. This time, the new rules don't actually change much. What about next time? What will the interpretation of the law lead to?
Much of our government was built upon the ideal of transparency. Since it is a representation of the people, it is critical to ensure the government is acting appropriately. Limiting public access can allow for less understanding of government actions. After all, isn't the purpose of open information to protect the public and serve as a watchdog of government activities?
Be the first to comment on this story