Abstract
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>Do we have a right to know about each other’s criminal past? And if so, just how publicly accessible should criminal records be? Does publicity serve an important purpose in fulfilling the public’s right to know about who amongst their fellow citizens is dangerous or has violated collective moral norms? Does it provide transparency in criminal justice, the just punishment of the guilty, and the protection of the vulnerable from serial perpetrators? Or does it stigmatize people as dangerous or untrustworthy for life, so that those who have made mistakes in the past are still paying for them long after they have served their time? And how should we design our laws and policies to reconcile or balance these apparently competing demands of (criminal) justice? This book draws on philosophical and legal theory as well as new empirical evidence about the impacts of criminal records to address these questions. It argues that there is no general right of citizens to know about each other’s criminal past. But disclosures of criminal records to prevent harm are often justified when the risk relates to predatory crimes and crimes of abuse. The reasons relate to the distinctive features of such crimes, in particular their serial nature, the widespread impunity with which they are committed, and the special role of secrecy, lies, and silencing in their perpetration. The analysis provides the intellectual groundwork for fairer and more effective policies and practices for the management of criminal records in a digital age.</jats:p>