Some people believe that a person’s criminal record should be removed when they reach the age of 18. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Young offenders who commit crimes will maintain a criminal record however some argue that after turning 18 this should be revoked. I disagree with this statement and this essay will providing reasoning why. Firstly, a criminal record is a form of punishment where it restricts future opportunities because of past actions. By having a criminal record certain countries will not allow you in and jobs will not hire you. This is a serious threat to people’s future which is a good reason for crimes not to be committed. For instance, if potential criminal knew that their record was to be cleared then the concern of ruining their future is removed and this will increase the number of underage crimes being committed. Secondly, a criminal record below the age of 18 isn’t likely to interfere with a convicts life too much therefore they won’t understand the severity of their actions. It is after the age of 18 where people look to go on holiday abroad or get serious jobs. As the convict hasn’t fully understood the repercussions of committing a felony, they are more likely to commit a crime again. An alternative would be to have mandatory rehabilitation at 18 as assurance to the general public the criminal is not a threat to society and can be accepted into the workforce. In conclusion, this essay argues that the criminal record should remain in place as deterrent for could-be criminal before committing a crime, and if there was a case where it was to be cleared then mandatory rehab must be complete.