This law isn’t wise because the previous system worked fine. The ability to only get one minor offense wiped off a criminal record meant that a single offense carried weight. It meant that the consequences from a single poor decision motivated minors to not make a second, equally poor one. Giving three strikes to minors removes the gravity from that first offense and offers no motivation to not continue the behavior that got them in trouble in the first place. Three offenses shows a pattern of behavior, one that shouldn’t be rewarded with a clean slate.

The previous law already offered young adults a second chance. Offering them four chances simply is too many; they need to understand that actions have repercussions.

Why enact this law now? Supposedly, it’s to give young people a second (or third or fourth) chance in order to put more people into the workforce.

If the point of the law is to put young people in the workforce, it isn’t even effective at doing that. The law forces people to wait five years after their last offense to get their record erased. Forcing people to wait for their records to be cleared before getting back into job market doesn’t exactly fill the workplace immediately.

There already are enough people in the workforce who don’t have jobs in this state. The unemployment rate in the state of Michigan was 10.2 percent in April, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The problem is not a lack of young people in the workforce; the problem is a lack of jobs to offer people, young or otherwise, in the state.

Employers understand the difference between owning up to a single minor offense and a pattern of criminal behavior and hire people accordingly. Employers will be reluctant to hire any individual with multiple minor criminal offenses, and waiting five years for charges to be erased in order to get hired doesn’t appear to be the time frame that this administration wants to push.

There is one good thing about this new law: It forces judges to review cases individually. Having the ability to review on a case-by-case basis and having to use discretion when it comes to the clearing of criminal records maintains some of the pressure the original legislation had. For example, a judge will be less likely to erase a minor in possession of alcohol offense if it’s the second or third such offense, and that young adult will have to face the consequences of those actions.

The spirit in which this law is written is admirable. The governor and the legislature are after giving young adults second and third chances. However, young adults don’t need more opportunities to make mistakes; they need to understand the consequences of making mistakes. That’s why this law is a misstep for the Snyder administration.