Who deserves a second chance? And what should they have to do to earn it?

As we reported last week, a woman named Kimberly Rolanda Kimball recently took advantage of an Oregon law that allows people previously convicted of certain crimes to have their conviction set aside, a process known as expungement. If enough time has passed, and if the petitioner has kept their nose clean since their release from prison, the law requires the court to set the conviction aside.

The result of an expungement is that all official records in the case, including the record of the person’s arrest and the charges filed against them, are placed under seal and hidden away from public view. As stated in Oregon Revised Statute 137.225, “Upon entry of the (court) order, the person for purposes of the law shall be deemed not to have been previously convicted, arrested, cited or charged.”

Kimball’s crimes were not insignificant. According to prosecutors, during her employment as a clerk at the Prairie City School District from 1997 to 2003, she stole more than $70,000 from the district. Arraigned on a 40-count indictment, Kimball cut a deal, pleading guilty in March 2005 to two counts of first-degree aggravated theft, one count of first-degree forgery and one count of official misconduct. In exchange, the other 36 counts were dropped.

She was sentenced to six months in jail, 120 hours of community service and three years of probation, and was ordered to pay $74,000 in restitution and fines.

Kim Kimball served her time, completed her probation and made restitution. She moved to Union County, where by all accounts she has stayed out of trouble.

And now her 18-year-old conviction has been set aside. As far as the law is concerned, she has a clean slate. A second chance.

And what’s wrong with that?

When offenders have completed their sentences, we expect them to reintegrate into their communities, to become productive members of society. That can be hard to do with a criminal record, which can prevent people from getting a job, establishing credit or even renting an apartment.

But what about the rights of those employers, lenders and landlords? Don’t they deserve to know who they’re dealing with? Is it fair to a potential employer to conceal the fact that an applicant has been previously convicted of theft?

We believe in second chances. We hope that Kim Kimball will prove worthy of hers and spend the rest of her life as a productive and law-abiding member of society.

But we find it impossible to condone the state’s willingness to paper over the record of a significant crime. It strikes us as a misguided attempt to deny reality, to rewrite history.

And it’s worth pointing out that Oregon’s expungement law applies only to court records, not newspaper archives — thank goodness. In the age of Google, the facts of Kimball’s offenses will still be available through an internet search.

In the end, despite the expungement proceeding, Kimball will have to persuade society that she does indeed deserve a second chance — not by pretending that her crimes never happened, but by demonstrating that she has well and truly reformed.