Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:37 pm
Time: 11:37 pm
Results for collateral consequences
21 results foundAuthor: Bronstein, Berjamin Title: Felony Disenfranchisement: An Annotated Bibliography Summary: While the right to vote is a cornerstone of American democracy, a substantial and growing population of citizens is restricted from participation in the electoral process. Current estimates suggest that about five million Americans are ineligible to vote as a result of having a felony conviction. Depending on the state in which they have been convicted, these people may be disenfranchised while incarcerated, on probation or parole, or even after completing a sentence. As a result of the dramatic expansion of the criminal justice system in recent decades, the number of people with convictions, and hence disenfranchised, is at a record high. Since the first modern-day estimates of the disenfranchised population were developed in the late 1990s, there has been a surge of policy reform activity around the country. Two dozen states have enacted various policy and practice reforms designed to either scale back the number of persons disenfranchised or remove some of the barriers to rights restoration. Along with this movement has come a new generation of scholarship on the issue of felony disenfranchisement. A wealth of studies and analyses have been produced in recent years that examine disenfranchisement from a variety of perspectives – law, social science, history, and journalism. Overall, these writings provide new estimates of the statistical impact of disenfranchisement, assess legal and moral perspectives on the policy, and place the issue in a comparative international context. This bibliography provides an overview of the scholarship on felony disenfranchisement over the past two decades. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2012. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 30, 2012 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/vr_Felony_Disenfranchisement_Annotated_Bibliography.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/vr_Felony_Disenfranchisement_Annotated_Bibliography.pdf Shelf Number: 124768 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal DisenfranchisementFelony DisenfranchisementFelony OffendersVoting Rights |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: Democracy Imprisoned: A review of the prevalence and impact of felony disenfranchisement laws in the United States Summary: This report has been authored by a coalition of non-profit organizations working on civil rights and criminal justice issues in the United States. The following organizations contributed to this report: the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Florida, the Hip Hop Caucus, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. and The Sentencing Project (collectively, the "Reporting Organizations"). Descriptions of each organization are attached as Appendix A. Some of the Reporting Organizations made List of Issues Submissions to the Human Rights Committee (the "Committee") in December 2012. This report updates items from those submissions and provides additional information to aid in the Committee's review of the United States' ("U.S." or "Government") felony disenfranchisement practices. As a supplement to those Submissions, this report includes an overview of the history of and rationale for felony disenfranchisement laws in the United States, considers the U.S.' disenfranchisement practices in the context of other nations, and discusses recent state law developments. After its review of the United States' second and third periodic report, the Committee expressed concern that the country's felony disenfranchisement practices have "significant racial implications." It also noted that "general deprivation of the right to vote for persons who have received a felony conviction, and in particular for those who are no longer deprived of liberty, do not meet the requirements of articles 25 and 26 of the Covenant, nor serves the rehabilitation goals of article 10(3)." The Reporting Organizations are encouraged by the Committee's interest in felony disenfranchisement practices in the United States and share the Committee's concerns about the extent to which these laws and their impact are consistent with the critical human rights protections enshrined in the Convention. The United States continues to lead the world in the rate of incarcerating its own citizens. The reach of the American correctional system has expanded over the course of the past half-century. In 1980, fewer than two million individuals were either incarcerated or on probation or parole; in 2011, that number was over seven million. Despite a decrease in the prison population over the past three years and substantial reform efforts in some states, the overall disenfranchisement rate has increased dramatically in conjunction with the growing U.S. corrections population, rising from 1.17 million in 1976 to 5.85 million by 2010. The growing incarceration rate has been mirrored by the disenfranchisement rate, which has increased by about 500% since 1980. The fact that felony disenfranchisement is so wide-reaching is deeply disturbing, and indicates that these laws undermine the open, participatory nature of our democratic process. Details: New York: ACLU, 2014. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2014 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/fd_ICCPR%20Felony%20Disenfranchisement%20Shadow%20Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/fd_ICCPR%20Felony%20Disenfranchisement%20Shadow%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 133811 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal DisenfranchisementFelony Disenfranchisement Laws (U.S.)Felony OffendersPolitical Rights, Loss ofRacial DisparitiesVoting Rights |
Author: Subramanian, Ram Title: Relief in Sight? States Rethink the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction, 2009-2014 Summary: As this report makes clear, the legal and life-restricting consequences of having a criminal conviction are many, varied, and often bewildering. They can impact the most fundamental necessities of life - like a job, a place to live, and education - and affect not just the individuals with convictions but also their families. In some jurisdictions, they are onerous and numerous; you have to wonder what their creators thought they would accomplish in terms of enhancing public safety. The breadth and reach of collateral consequences are indeed wide when one considers the range of behaviors that are considered felonies in most states: from possession of drugs found to indicate an "intent to distribute" or stealing $500 worth of goods from a garage to more clearly serious offenses, such as stalking, armed robbery, and home invasion. Yet they are all treated the same in terms of consequences long after sentence completion. No one would argue against banning those convicted of identity theft or fraud from working in a bank, but there are many other kinds of employment opportunities for which they may be suited and should be permitted to pursue. This report documents the efforts in many states to revaluate some of these consequences, while making clear that many of the recently enacted reforms are easily undermined, worked around, or ignored. Even more frequently, the fixes are relatively insignificant or apply to such small group that they don't begin to address the problem. Collateral consequences are, of course, just one piece of the problem. The existing system of proliferating criminal penalties and attendant collateral consequences not only remains in place, it continues to grow - for example, with hundreds of new federal offenses created over the last several years. Too often we criminalize behavior that decades ago would not have been. We add on specific category or penalty enhancements for everything from where a crime was committed to the status of the victim or intended victim. Intent is equated with commission. Too many of our criminal laws are written to respond to behavior that should be dealt with (and would more effectively be dealt with) outside the criminal justice system. And evidence on the impact of public safety is mixed or limited at best. Other laws are written in ways that do not distinguish between truly harmful acts and those that only approximate those acts as exemplified by the overly broad definition of "violent", ensnaring people who may only possess a weapon in commission of an offense, even when it was not used, or never intended to be used. And finally, too often we respond to many members of our communities who are primarily sick, poor, homeless, or unable to care for themselves or their families with the hammer of the criminal justice system. And then we continue to hammer them long after they have satisfied our need for retribution. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2014. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2015 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/states-rethink-collateral-consequences-report-v3.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/states-rethink-collateral-consequences-report-v3.pdf Shelf Number: 134587 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal RecordsEx-Offenders EmploymentEx-Offenders Rights |
Author: Rodriguez, Michelle Natividad Title: Unlicensed and Untapped: Removing Barriers to State Occuptional Licenses for People with Records Summary: Nearly one in three U.S. adults has a record in the criminal justice system. It's hardly uncommon, but the resulting stigma and its lifelong consequences prove devastating for many. Sonja Blake is one of the estimated 70 million people in the United States who have an arrest or conviction record. Ms. Blake, a grandmother, cared for children at her Wisconsin in-home daycare center.[ii] After nearly a decade in business, her daycare-owner certification was permanently revoked after a change in state law, because of a 30-year-old misdemeanor conviction for overpayment of public assistance. conviction for overpayment of public assistance. Ms. Blake is one of the more than one-quarter of U.S. workers who require a state license to practice their occupations.[iii] In addition to the more typically known regulated jobs, such as nurses and teachers, many occupations in sales, management, and construction also require a state license. Critics of licensing argue that regulating occupations does little to advance safety or quality of service and instead negatively impacts consumers and low-wage workers. Others counter that state licensing for certain jobs is necessary to maintain public safety and results in higher practitioner wages and greater respect for the profession. Despite this disagreement over the value of licensing, common ground can be found in the call to reduce unnecessary conviction barriers to occupational licenses. Passing a criminal background check is a common requirement to obtain a state license. In fact, the American Bar Association's inventory of penalties against those with a record has documented 27,254 state occupational licensing restrictions. Thousands of these restrictions vary widely among states and professions. And because the criminal justice system disproportionately impacts people of color, these extrajudicial penalties - known as "collateral consequences" - perpetuate racial disparities in employment. Although no national data exists as to the number of people denied licenses because of these collateral consequences, analogous data is available in the hiring context. For example, after submitting a job application, people with records on average are only half as likely to get a callback as those without a record. And for black men with records, the impact is more severe - only one in three receive a callback. Thus, having a conviction record, particularly for people of color, is a major barrier to participation in the labor market. Details: National Employment Law Project, 2016. 85p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2016 at: http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/Unlicensed-Untapped-Removing-Barriers-State-Occupational-Licenses.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/Unlicensed-Untapped-Removing-Barriers-State-Occupational-Licenses.pdf Shelf Number: 138836 Keywords: Background ChecksCollateral ConsequencesCriminal RecordsEmploymentEx-offender Employment |
Author: Uggen, Christopher Title: 6 Million Lost Voters: State-Level Estimates of Felony Disenfranchisement, 2016 Summary: In this election year, the question of voting restrictions is once again receiving great public attention. This report is intended to update and expand our previous work on the scope and distribution of felony disenfranchisement in the United States (see Uggen, Shannon, and Manza 2012; Uggen and Manza 2002; Manza and Uggen 2006). The numbers presented here represent our best assessment of the state of felony disenfranchisement as of the November 2016 election. Our key findings include the following: - As of 2016, an estimated 6.1 million people are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, a figure that has escalated dramatically in recent decades as the population under criminal justice supervision has increased. There were an estimated 1.17 million people disenfranchised in 1976, 3.34 million in 1996, and 5.85 million in 2010. - Approximately 2.5 percent of the total U.S. voting age population - 1 of every 40 adults - is disenfranchised due to a current or previous felony conviction. - Individuals who have completed their sentences in the twelve states that disenfranchise people post-sentence make up over 50 percent of the entire disenfranchised population, totaling almost 3.1 million people. - Rates of disenfranchisement vary dramatically by state due to broad variations in voting prohibitions. In six states - Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia - more than 7 percent of the adult population is disenfranchised. - The state of Florida alone accounts for more than a quarter (27 percent) of the disenfranchised population nationally, and its nearly 1.5 million individuals disenfranchised post-sentence account for nearly half (48 percent) of the national total. - One in 13 African Americans of voting age is disenfranchised, a rate more than four times greater than that of non-African Americans. Over 7.4 percent of the adult African American population is disenfranchised compared to 1.8 percent of the non-African American population. - African American disenfranchisement rates also vary significantly by state. In four states - Florida (21 percent), Kentucky (26 percent), Tennessee (21 percent), and Virginia (22 percent) - more than one in five African Americans is disenfranchised. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2016. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2016 at: http://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/6-million-lost-voters-state-level-estimates-felony-disenfranchisement-2016/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/6-million-lost-voters-state-level-estimates-felony-disenfranchisement-2016/ Shelf Number: 140825 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesEx-OffendersFelony DisenfranchisementFelony OffendersRacial DisparitiesVoting Rights |
Author: Mungan, Murat C. Title: Disenfranchisement and Over-Incarceration Summary: Disenfranchisement laws in many states prohibit convicted felons from voting. The removal of ex-convicts from the pool of eligible voters reduces the pressure politicians may otherwise face to protect the interests of this group. In particular, disenfranchisement laws may cause the political process to push the sentences for criminal offenses upwards. In this article, I construct a simple model with elected law enforcers who propose sentences to maximize their likelihood of election. I show, with the help of the median voter theorem, that even without disenfranchisement, elections typically generate over-incarceration, i.e. longer than optimal sentences. Disenfranchisement further widens the gap between the optimal sentence and the equilibrium sentence, and thereby exacerbates the problem of over-incarceration. Moreover, this result is valid even when voter turnout is negatively correlated with people's criminal tendencies, i.e. when criminals vote less frequently than non-criminals. Details: Arlington, VA: George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School, 2016. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 16-43 : Accessed November 21, 2016 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2863035 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2863035 Shelf Number: 140231 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesFelony DisenfranchisementFelony OffendersMass IncarcerationVoting Rights |
Author: Wood, Erika Title: Florida: An Outlier in Denying Voting Rights Summary: In recent years, Americans have endured a wave of highly partisan and discriminatory voting restrictions passed in state legislatures across the country. These restrictions have drawn attention for the ways in which they make voting more difficult for many citizens — especially those who are low-income, minority, young, or old. The wave included strict voter ID laws, restrictions on voter registration, and laws to limit access to voter-friendly reforms like early voting. Challenges to those laws are ongoing in courts throughout the country, and their long-term fates are still at issue. But efforts to restrict the right to vote are not new in the United States, and few, if any, restrictions have endured for as long, and disenfranchised as many Americans, as criminal disenfranchisement laws. Across the nation, criminal disenfranchisement laws deny over 6 million Americans a say in our democracy. More than 4.7 million of these citizens have left prison and are in their communities — working, raising families, and paying taxes. At the same time, they remain blocked from joining their neighbors at the polls. People of color bear the brunt of the practice, with over 1 in 13 African Americans disenfranchised — one-third of the total denied the right to vote. Each state has different rules governing who can or cannot vote. In some places the rules are simple: 14 states plus D.C. automatically restore rights when an individual leaves incarceration. But others extend disenfranchisement well beyond prison. For instance, 20 states deny voting rights to people on parole or probation. That includes states like Georgia, where an estimated 250,000 citizens cannot vote, and Texas, where nearly 500,000 people currently cannot vote because of a criminal conviction. But no state disenfranchises more of its citizens than Florida. The state imposes a what for all practical purposes is a lifetime voting ban for people with past felony convictions. In total, more than 1.6 million people have lost their right to vote in Florida, including one in five African-American adults. And to get their voting rights back, citizens must wait five to seven years and submit an application with supporting documentation to the state's governor, who in recent years has denied all but a few hundred applicants out of tens of thousands. Mass disenfranchisement has severe consequences for Florida's communities. For instance, one study found that African Americans in communities subject to harsh disenfranchisement laws experience a decrease in turnout levels, regardless if they themselves were incarcerated. These costs come with no benefits for Florida's public safety. There is no connection between disenfranchisement and deterrence of future crime. Indeed, evidence from Florida suggests that voting makes criminal behavior less likely, explaining support for reform from figures in the law enforcement and corrections sectors. In this report, Professor Erika Wood of New York Law School makes the case against Florida's law — from its Jim Crow roots to its troubling present. Historical accounts make the law's original racist intent very clear. The most current data detail not only the millions of Floridians barred from the polls, but the way in which the state's system perpetuates their disenfranchisement and has even interfered with the voting rights of eligible citizens. This report explains the burden that Florida’s law places on both voters and the state itself, and the urgent need to finally replace it. Change is possible. It's happening throughout the country. Over the last two decades, more than 20 states have allowed more people with past convictions to vote, to vote sooner, or to access that right more easily. In 2016 alone, Maryland’s legislature enfranchised more than 40,000 people, Delaware removed financial barriers to rights restoration, and Virginia's governor committed to restoring voting rights for over 200,000 citizens. And more broadly, Americans are looking for ways to make our criminal justice system smarter, less punitive, and more rehabilitative. Today in Florida, citizens are calling for a ballot initiative to change the state's constitution and dramatically reform Florida's disenfranchisement policy. If successful, the change could restore voting rights to nearly one-quarter of America’s disenfranchised population. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 19, 2016 at: Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 147757 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal DisenfranchisementFelony DisenfranchisementFelony OffendersRacial DistaritiesVoting Rights |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Title: Unlock the Vote Wisconsin! Summary: The right to vote is what makes a country a true democracy, and it is the most basic right Americans share. The U.S. Census Bureau reported historically high levels of voter turnout by African-American, Latino, and young voters in the 2008 Presidential Election . Unfortunately, in the wake of that success, conservative lawmakers nationwide have erected more barriers to the ballot box. States are making it harder and harder for people to vote, virtually guranteeing that many people won't really have the right at all. Poll taxes and literacy tests have given way to more modern voter suppression tactics packaged as voter ID laws, restrictions to voter registration and cuts to early voting. With these new laws in effect, up to 5 million voters could be turned away at the polls in November 2012. The national trend to disenfranchise voters has impacted some of the same groups that saw increased turnout in 2008: communities of color and young voters. However, there is a group that has a longer history of disenfranchisement: individuals with felony convictions. Felon disfranchisement, the set of policies and practices barring individuals with criminal convictions from the ballot box, is the most significant barrier to political participation for people with criminal records across the country. Nationally, 5.3 million Americans are barred from voting due to criminal convictions. Nearly 4 million of those disfranchised are no longer incarcerated and are members of our communities.iii Wisconsin law bars individuals with with felony convictions from voting while incarcerated and while on probation, parole or extended supervision. In 2009, the Wisconsin State Legislature considered legislation, known as the Wisconsin Democracy Restoration Act, which sought to restore the right to vote upon release from incarceration. Wisconsin Assembly Bill 353 and its companion State Senate Bill 240 would have enfranchised over 42,000 Wisconsin citizens who live in the community, work and pay taxes, but are unable to participate in the political process. These individuals are from all walks of life, men and women of all races, religions, and political backgrounds who have been deemed safe enough to return to our communities but continue to be barred from the ballot box. Ninety-seven percent of Wisconsin's incarcerated population will one day be released from prison.iv We must encourage these individuals to participate in their communities, not prevent them from doing so. Wisconsin's current policy of continuing to disfranchise citizens after their release from incarceration is a financial drain on all Wisconsinites, does nothing to enhance public safety, and is an impediment to democracy. There is support from voters throughout the state for reforming this unfair practice, and Wisconsin should move quickly to change its law in favor of greater democracy Details: Milwaukee, WI: ACLU of Wisconsin, 2012. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 4, 2017 at: https://www.aclu-wi.org/sites/default/files/resources/documents/ACLU_Unlock_the_Vote_WI_2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu-wi.org/sites/default/files/resources/documents/ACLU_Unlock_the_Vote_WI_2012.pdf Shelf Number: 141334 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal DisenfranchisementFelony DisenfranchisementVoting Rights |
Author: Clifford, Robert Title: The Criminal Population in New England: Records, Convictions, and Barriers to Employment Summary: The portion of the U.S. population with a criminal record has been receiving mounting attention in recent years. Policymakers across the ideological spectrum have worked to propose policies that could improve employment outcomes for these individuals, and limit what in many cases are the long-term negative consequences that a criminal record imposes on these people, their families, and society at large. The collateral consequences of having a criminal record impact very clearly on employment outcomes, but the negative impact of a criminal record can affect many other life outcomes, ranging from limited transportation access to housing instability (Rodriguez and Brown 2003). It is important to understand who has a criminal record, what is known about this population, and what barriers they face when transitioning back into their communities and the labor market. There is a significant amount of data about the criminal population under supervision, but there is very limited linked data identifying how most individuals move through the criminal justice system and what happens to them after serving their sentences. By analyzing multiple national and state data sources, this report aims to identify the size of the New England population with a criminal record and to describe the broad demographic characteristics of this population. Due to cross-state crime, migration, and deaths, it is difficult to accurately estimate the amount of people in New England who have a criminal record, but there are 5.3 million individuals in criminal record databases in New England and over 107 million records in state criminal databases nationwide (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2015). The vast majority of these people are charged with committing misdemeanors, not felonies. Unlike felons, misdemeanants usually avoid incarceration, but having a criminal record may significantly impact their ability to gain employment, which often determines how well they transition back into society. Most formal analyses of the U.S. population with a criminal record concentrate on the outcomes of felons who have served time in prison. Through its use of broader data relating to arrests, court cases, probation, and repeat offenders, this report attempts to help bridge the gap in knowledge about the entire population in New England with a criminal record. Due to limitations and gaps in the data available, it is impossible to concretely determine exactly how many individuals in New England have criminal records and to compile detailed demographic information about this group, but through using a combination of state and national data, this report showcases the trends in each state. Through this analysis, it is apparent that the size of the New England population with a criminal record is significant, and that having such a record means these individuals face multiple barriers, particularly in the labor market, to achieving a better life once they have exited the criminal justice system. Key findings relevant to policymakers at the state and national level include the following: • Young men between 20 and 24 years of age account for a disproportionate number of arrests and convictions. • Most of the people who have a criminal record committed a misdemeanor, not a felony. • There are adverse collateral consequences for all types of criminal convictions, including low-level misdemeanors. • Ex-offenders are on community supervision across New England, but the concentration varies greatly across cities and towns. Mid-sized cities often host a disproportionately larger share of ex-offenders. • Policies aimed at removing the barriers ex-offenders face, such as ban the box initiatives, have been growing in popularity across the United States. • There is a lack of linked data showing how individuals progress through the criminal justice system and the outcomes that ex-offenders experience after exiting the system. This absence of information hinders the ability to analyze and devise effective policies to help this sizable population living in New England and the United States. These key findings underscore the need for a broad reconsideration of how the portion of the U.S. population with a criminal record is treated after completing their sentences. The concentration of people with criminal records living in certain areas could have very significant adverse impacts on their cities and towns if these individuals are impeded from fully participating in and contributing to their communities (Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls 1997). After ex-offenders have served their sentences, reducing the collateral consequences they experience as a result of having a criminal record and promoting their successful reintegration into mainstream society should be a priority for policymakers. This issue poses a continuing challenge that requires a multi-pronged approach, as no single policy can solve all the difficulties ex-offenders encounter after exiting the criminal justice system. Details: Boston: New England Public Policy Center, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 2017. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Report 17-1: Accessed March 21, 2017 at: https://www.bostonfed.org/news-and-events/news/2017-cori-reform-research.aspx Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.bostonfed.org/news-and-events/news/2017-cori-reform-research.aspx Shelf Number: 144530 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal Records Ex-Offender Employment Ex-Offenders Prisoner Reentry |
Author: Kelley, Erin Title: Racism & Felony Disenfranchisement: An Intertwined History Summary: The United States stands alone among modern democracies in stripping voting rights from millions of citizens on the basis of criminal convictions. Across the country, states impose varying felony disenfranchisement policies, preventing an estimated 6.1 million Americans from casting ballots. To give a sense of scope - this population is larger than the voting-eligible population of New Jersey. And of this total, nearly 4.7 million are people living in our communities - working, paying taxes, and raising families, all while barred from joining their neighbors at the polls. This widespread disenfranchisement disproportionately impacts people of color.5 One in every 13 voting-age African Americans cannot vote, a disenfranchisement rate more than four times greater than that of all other Americans. In four states, more than one in five black adults are denied their right to vote. Although the data on Latino disenfranchisement is less comprehensive, a 2003 study of ten states ranging in size from California to Nebraska found that nine of those states "disenfranchise the Latino community at rates greater than the general population." While the origins of disenfranchisement can be traced back to early colonial law in North America, and even farther back to ancient Greece, the punishment was typically applied only in individual cases for particularly serious or elections-related crimes. It wasn't until the end of the Civil War and the expansion of suffrage to black men that felony disenfranchisement became a significant barrier to U.S. ballot boxes. At that point, two interconnected trends combined to make disenfranchisement a major obstacle for newly enfranchised black voters. First, lawmakers - especially in the South - implemented a slew of criminal laws designed to target black citizens. And nearly simultaneously, many states enacted broad disenfranchisement laws that revoked voting rights from anyone convicted of any felony. These two trends laid the foundation for the form of mass disenfranchisement seen in this country today. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2017. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 7, 2017 at: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Disenfranchisement_History.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Disenfranchisement_History.pdf Shelf Number: 146769 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal DisenfranchisementFelony DisenfranchisementFelony OffendersRacial DisparitiesVoting Rights |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Nonviolent Drug Convictions: Stakeholders' Views on Potential Actions to Address Collateral Consequences Summary: In 2015, certain federal, state, and other law enforcement agencies made about 11 million arrests, according to the Department of Justice's Federal Bureau of Investigation. Individuals ultimately convicted of a crime may face federal or state collateral consequences. According to the ABA's NICCC, roughly 46,000 collateral consequences existed in federal and state laws and regulations, as of December 31, 2016. According to the ABA, collateral consequences have been a feature of the justice system since colonial times, but have become more pervasive in the past 20 years. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 included a provision for GAO to review collateral consequences for individuals with NVDC. This report identifies (1) collateral consequences in federal laws and regulations that can be imposed upon individuals with NVDC, (2) mechanisms that exist to relieve individuals from these collateral consequences, and (3) selected stakeholders' views on actions the federal government could consider to mitigate these collateral consequences. GAO analyzed NICCC data as of December 31, 2016; reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and federal agency documents; and conducted interviews with ABA staff, selected federal officials, and 14 stakeholders. GAO selected stakeholders with relevant experience, among other factors. Selected stakeholders included leaders of organizations representing judges, victims of crime, and states, among others. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2017. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-17-691: Accessed September 11, 2017 at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/687003.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/687003.pdf Shelf Number: 147218 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesDrug ConvictionsDrug Offenders |
Author: White, Ariel R. Title: Voter Behavior in the Wake of Punitive Policies Summary: Millions of people in the US have direct experience with the machinery of immigration enforcement or criminal courts, and millions more have seen family members, friends, or neighbors face these experiences. What do these experiences mean for political behavior in the United States? Do these proximate observers decide that government is a dangerous and capricious force to be avoided, and withdraw from political participation entirely? Or is there sometimes a mobilization response, where some people organize to push back against what they see as unjust government actions? This is an important policy feedback story. Large-scale punitive policies could either "lock themselves in" via community disengagement, or hasten their own demise by fueling political responses. The three papers of this dissertation examine policies at varying distances (people living in an area where the policy is introduced, those directly affected, and those living with people directly affected), and with different time-frames and geographic coverage. The results of these papers, and the approach of using administrative datasets and finding causal leverage from "natural experiments," point us toward a new understanding of policy feedbacks. In the first paper, I find that Latino voters living in counties where a new deportation program was introduced before the 2010 election became more likely to vote. This effect seems driven not by personal experience seeing deportation activities, but by activists mobilizing voters in affected counties. In the second paper, I use random courtroom assignment to measure the causal effect of short jail sentences (from misdemeanor cases) on voting. I find that even short jail sentences can deter people from voting in the next election, with particularly large effects among black voters. In the third paper, I find that the household members of incarcerated people also become several percentage points less likely to vote. This finding is particularly striking given the narrow scope of the effect measured: this is only the additional effect of seeing a household member jailed for a short period, among a set of people that have already seen their household member arrested and charged with a crime. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2016. 127p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed September 19, 2017 at: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/33493481/WHITE-DISSERTATION-2016.pdf?sequence=1 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/33493481/WHITE-DISSERTATION-2016.pdf?sequence=1 Shelf Number: 147411 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesDeportation PolicyFelony DisenfranchisementImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementPoliticsVoting Rights |
Author: Behan, Cormac Title: Punishment, prisoners and the franchise Summary: In 2005, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK law banning all convicted prisoners from voting contravened the European Convention on Human Rights. Despite numerous court cases - both domestic and European - extensive consultations and a parliamentary committee established specifically to consider the issue, successive UK governments have rejected this judgment and resisted changing the law to allow prisoners access to the franchise. This paper begins by considering the key arguments for and against the enfranchisement of prisoners, many of which have been used in the debates on the issue. It analyses why prisoner voting has caused so much controversy in the UK and why parliament continues to maintain a blanket ban. It examines the experience of prisoner voting in other jurisdictions and finds little evidence for the contention that allowing prisoners access to the franchise will have a detrimental impact on the democratic process. It concludes with an argument in favour of allowing prisoners to vote. Details: London: The Howard League for Penal Reform, 2015. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Howard League What is Justice? Working Papers 20/2015: Accessed November 28, 2017 at: http://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/HLWP_20_2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/HLWP_20_2015.pdf Shelf Number: 148517 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal DisenfranchisementFelony DisenfranchisementVoting Rights |
Author: Beckett, Katherine Title: The Assessment and Consequences of Legal Financial Obligations in Washington State: Research Report Summary: This study explores the assessment and consequences of Legal Financial Obligations (LFOs) in Washington State. For the purposes of this study, LFOs include the fees, fines and restitution orders assessed by judges at the time of criminal conviction. Persons assessed LFOs for offenses committed after July 1, 2000 may remain under the court's jurisdiction "until the [financial] obligation is completely satisfied, regardless of the statutory maximum for the crime." It is important to note that other financial obligations may result from an arrest and/or criminal conviction, including jail booking and operations fees, Department of Corrections fees, and collection fees. This report focuses solely on the LFOs assessed by Washington State Superior Courts, and addresses three main research topics. Part I describes the nature of the fees and fines typically assessed, and identifies the case, defendant, and county-level factors that predict variation in the assessment of LFOs. Part II assesses how LFOs affect the lives of those who possess them, and, in particular, how legal debt affects the re-entry process. The concluding section considers whether the assessment of LFOs is consistent with legislative intent and other important policy goals, including the promotion of reintegration and the reduction of recidivism. The study draws primarily on two main data sources to address these topics. First, data pertaining to 3,366 Washington State Superior Court cases sentenced in the first two months of 2004 were analyzed to quantitatively assess the nature of the LFOs imposed by the courts. Insofar as these records include all Washington State Superior Court cases sentenced in this time period, the results of the quantitative analysis pertain to the state as a whole. The study also draws upon interviews with fifty Washington State residents who were assessed LFOs in at least one of four selected Washington State counties, as well as interviews with Department of Corrections (DOC) personnel, county clerks, defense attorneys, and others with particular expertise regarding LFOs. These interviews provide important information about collection processes and the consequences of LFOs for the reintegration process. However, because these interviews were conducted in four counties, the results may not capture dynamics across the state as a whole. The results of the study indicate that the assessment of LFOs is characterized by a high degree of variability that cannot be attributed solely to the seriousness of the offense or the offender. The dollar value of assessed fees and fines varies a great deal, from a low of $500 to a high of $21,110 per felony conviction. If restitution is included, the maximum LFO assessed for a single felony conviction was $256,257. A very small percentage of these debts had been collected three years post-sentencing. As a result of high rates of non-payment and the accrual of interest, the legal debt of most of those sentenced in 2004 had grown rather than shrunk by 2007. The analysis of court records also indicates that defendant, case and county characteristics significantly influence LFO assessment even after the seriousness of the offense and offender are taken into account. Specifically, convictions involving Hispanic defendants are associated with significantly higher fees and fines than those involving white defendants, even after controlling for relevant legal factors. Drug convictions are associated with significantly higher fees and fines than convictions involving violent offense charges. Convictions that result from a trial rather than a guilty plea are also associated with significantly higher fees and fines. Finally, cases involving male defendants are assessed higher fees and fines than cases involving female defendants. The assessment of LFOs also varies by jurisdiction. That is, even among cases involving identical charges and defendants with similar offense histories, there is significant county-level variation in the assessment of fees and fines. Counties characterized by smaller populations, higher drug arrest and violent crime rates, and/or comparatively small proportions of their budgets devoted to law and justice assess significantly higher fees and fines. The evidence thus indicates that defendants with similar criminal histories and charges may accrue very different amounts of legal debt depending upon where they are convicted. In addition, the interview and survey data indicate that LFOs are an important barrier to the reintegration process. Like people living with a criminal conviction across the United States, many of those interviewed for this study reported living on quite limited incomes; over half of those interviewed have incomes that fall under federal poverty guidelines. Most of those interviewed were also parents and were financially supporting minor children at the time of the interview. As a result, many fell behind on their LFOs, which continued to grow as the result of the accrual of interest. Their legal debt not only potentially limits their income, but their credit ratings as well, which in turn limits their ability to secure stable housing. Some respondents also reported that the threat of lost wages and garnishment created an incentive for them to avoid work. Given evidence that employment, adequate income and stable housing reduce recidivism among persons with criminal histories, it is quite possible that by reducing income and employment, and rendering the search for stable housing more difficult, LFOs encourage repeat offending. The long term nature of the legal debt also prevents many with LFOs from applying to have their criminal record sealed, which in turn perpetuates their economic disadvantage. Some respondents were so overwhelmed by their legal debt that they ceased making payments altogether. In some of these cases, warrants were issued for failure to pay. The issuance of an arrest warrant has many adverse consequences. Persons with warrants stemming from violation of a felony sentence are considered "fleeing felons", and thus are ineligible for federal benefits including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Social Security Insurance (SSI), public or federally assisted housing, and food stamps. In addition, respondents in two of the four counties in which interviews were conducted reported being arrested and re-incarcerated as a result of their failure to make regular LFO payments. The threat of criminal justice intervention created an incentive for those who had not made regular LFO payments to hide from the authorities, but nonetheless made it difficult for those same persons to disentangle themselves from the criminal justice system. In short, the interview findings suggest that LFOs exacerbate the many difficulties associated with the re-entry process. Even without legal debt, research indicates that people living with a criminal conviction have a difficult time securing stable housing and employment as a result of their criminal record. Our interview data indicate that LFOs added to these difficulties by: reducing income and worsening credit ratings, both of which make it more difficult to secure stable housing; hindering efforts to obtain employment, education and occupational training; reducing eligibility for federal benefits; creating incentives to avoid work and/or hide from the authorities; ensnaring some in the criminal justice system; and making it more difficult to secure a certificate of discharge, which in turn prevents people from restoring their civil rights and applying to seal one's criminal record. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Minority and Justice Commission, 2008. 110p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 3, 2018 at: http://media.spokesman.com/documents/2009/05/study_LFOimpact.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://media.spokesman.com/documents/2009/05/study_LFOimpact.pdf Shelf Number: 149656 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCourt CostsCriminal DebtFees and FinesRestitution |
Author: Weaver, Beth Title: Time for Policy Redemption? A Review of the Evidence on Disclosure of Criminal Records Summary: There is wide variation in disclosure practices within and between the U.S, the U.K and Europe, although there is some consensus that reasons for checking criminal records by employers include: minimising risk of liability and loss; concerns surrounding public protection where the nature of employment includes working with vulnerable groups; assessments of moral character in terms of honesty and trustworthiness; and compliance with statutory occupational requirements (Blumstein and Nakamura, 2009). As the use of criminal record background checks by employers has become increasingly pervasive, having a criminal record can have significant effects on employment prospects producing 'invisible punishment' or 'collateral consequences' of contact with the justice system (Travis 2002). Taking into account that over 38% of men and 9% of women in Scotland are estimated to have at least one criminal conviction (McGuinness, McNeill and Armstrong, 2013), issues surrounding criminal record checking and disclosure in an employment context affect a large proportion of people. In recent years, reforms to both the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and to practices of disclosure have been and are being implemented, with the aim of reducing unnecessary barriers to employment for people with convictions while promoting the protection of vulnerable groups. Additionally, a social movement to 'Ban the Box' aims to eliminate criminal history questions from standard employment applications by deferring the stage at which an employer can inquire into criminal history (Smith, 2014), based on the belief that employers use that information to immediately eliminate those with convictions from consideration. 'Ban the Box' aims to support those with convictions to be considered on the basis of their skills and experience before disclosing criminal histories (Vuolo, Lageson and Uggen, 2017). In the USA around 30 states and over 150 cities and counties have taken steps to remove barriers to employment for qualified workers with records.3 In the UK, 87 employers have signed up to 'Ban the Box'.4 How this is implemented in the USA is variable but most call for the removal of any criminal record question on applications for public and private employers. Many also include fairer hiring practice provisions informed by the guidance document issued by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2012. This document was designed to clarify standards and provide 'best practice' on how employers may check criminal backgrounds without violating prohibitions against employment discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (EEOC 2012). This proposes that employers assess criminal records on an individualised basis, considering factors such as the nature of the crime, the time elapsed since it was committed, and the nature of the job (Lageson, Vuolo, Uggen, 2015). There is some evidence that the move to more formal, regulated checks has led employers to more people with criminal records for employment than they might have previously (Hartstein, Fliegel, Mora and Zuba, 2015; Lageson, et al., 2015). These guidelines are, in part at least, informed by 'Time to Redemption' studies which empirically investigate the period of time when people with convictions can statistically be considered as exhibiting the same risk of reconviction as people with no convictions. In what follows, the findings of these 'Time to Redemption' studies are discussed, following a brief review of the evidence into the relationship between employment and desistance. This paper then explores research into employers' attitudes, beliefs and behaviours with regard to the employment of people with convictions, prior to exploring practices of disclosure and vetting in the UK, Europe and the USA. Existing practices of disclosure tend to retain the requirement that certain spent convictions will always be disclosed in certain circumstances, for the purposes of public protection. By contrast, time to redemption research measures the extent to which people with convictions become statistically close to people without convictions in terms of risk, taking into account age at offence, periods of desistance and crime type, suggesting that in general that period is between 7 and 10 years. This paper suggests that the findings of Time to Redemption studies allows for information pertaining to criminal histories to be used in a more nuanced way, concluding by bringing together these different areas of inquiry to consider implications for approaches to reform. In so doing, this paper ends by reviewing four, not necessarily mutually exclusive, approaches to reform, that might bring Scotland and the UK into closer alignment with European practices and the European Convention on Human Rights, and in particular, Article 8 which provides a right to respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence. These approaches, based on a review of and informed by the evidence include: (1) reviewing spent periods and the issue of enduringly unspent convictions; (2) certificates of rehabilitation; (3) court imposed Occupational Disqualification; and the (4) guidance and revisions to anti-discrimination legislation. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research, 2018. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2018 at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Weaver_Time-For-Policy-Redemption1.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Weaver_Time-For-Policy-Redemption1.pdf Shelf Number: 149836 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal History Criminal Records Ex-Offender Employment |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: Out of Step with the World: An Analysis of Felony Disfranchisement in the U.S. and Other Democracies Summary: Well over 100 years ago, the Supreme Court concluded in Yick Wo v. Hopkins that the right to vote is "fundamental" because it is "preservative of all rights." Even the most basic civil rights, the Court has said, "are illusory if the right to vote is undermined." Foreign courts examining voting rights cases frequently cite American voting rights jurisprudence. Yet, the United States bars from the vote nearly 5.3 million American citizens on the grounds that they committed a crime, although most committed nonviolent offenses and only a quarter are in prison or jail, with three-quarters either on probation or parole or having completed sentences. Particularly since the contested presidential election of 2000, American laws barring people with criminal convictions from voting have come under considerable public scrutiny. In the United States, each state has its own criminal disfranchisement law. In two states people retain the right to vote even while incarcerated, but policies in the other 48 states and the District of Columbia range from disqualification for incarcerated felons to lifetime bans on voting: 48 states bar prison inmates from voting; 36 bar convicted felons from voting while on parole, 31 of these states also excluding felony probationers from voting; 3 states prohibit all ex-felons from voting even after they have fully completed their sentences, and another 9 states permanently restrict from voting those convicted of specific offenses, or require a post-sentence waiting period for some offenders. While disfranchisement policies have been in effect for many years, they are affecting a growing segment of the population, as the United States' criminal justice system continues to convict and imprison more people than ever before. The United States now incarcerates over 2 million people, at a rate of 702 per 100,000. (Including those on parole or probation, or housed in jails, the U.S. has more than 6 million people under some form of criminal supervision.) This incarceration rate is 5-8 times that in comparable industrialized nations, western Europe (e.g., Germany: 97; England & Wales: 144 and Canada: 107). If current trends continue, black males would have a 1 in 3 chance of going to prison during their lifetimes; Hispanics, 1 in 6, and whites, 1 in 17. And though American disfranchisement policies keep a large segment of the entire population from the voting booth, they have a disproportionate impact on African Americans and other minorities. While disfranchisement policies prevent 2.5% of the total population from voting, they prevent 13% of the total population of African American men from casting a ballot. States have begun to alter their disfranchisement rules in the last few years, motivated by concerns about the policy's uneasy relationship with modern American ideas about the right to vote, its illdefined punitive purposes, or its linkages to the racial inequities of the U.S. criminal-justice system. As citizens, lawmakers, and judges in the United States and elsewhere consider the wisdom of laws barring people with criminal convictions from voting, relatively little detailed information has been available about similar policies - or the lack thereof - in other democracies. This report has been written in the hope of improving our understanding of disfranchisement law in the twenty-first century, with a particular eye towards enriching the ongoing discussion of disfranchisement law in the United States - a democracy that has very unusual policies in this area. This report offers the first in-depth analysis of the criminal disfranchisement policies of the world's democracies, with a focus on Europe. (We do also examine, though perhaps not in the same depth, other developed democracies' policies and precedents, namely those of Israel, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.) Simply describing these laws accurately has proven a surprisingly difficult task; a few previous authors have attempted to do so, focusing their attention mostly on documents such as constitutions and election-law statutes.6 We have drawn on their important work here, but have found that constitutions and statutes alone often fail to deliver a full understanding of a given country's disfranchisement policies and practices. In addition to such formal legal sources, this report benefits from exhaustive research into legislative materials, judicial proceedings, advocacy reports, and numerous other sources, including information from original surveys and interviews with governmental and non-governmental officials of several countries. No previous publication has synthesized so much country-by-country disfranchisement data, decisions of high courts, and international legal instruments. Following this Introduction, Section II of the report describes the policies of European nations, and Section III offers detailed summaries of the decisions rendered by various countries' constitutional courts in the last decade. Section IV examines mechanisms used in various democracies to implement prisoner voting, and Section V considers treaties and other legal instruments, both binding and advisory, which bear on the voting rights of people with criminal convictions. These are among the central findings of this study: - Almost half of European countries allow all incarcerated people to vote while others disqualify only a small number of prisoners from the polls. As we explain below, almost all of the countries that disqualify all inmates are in Eastern Europe. - In most countries where disfranchisement does exist, the policy is both more narrowly targeted and more visible in its application than in the United States. - A number of treaties and other types of international instruments support either the abolition of criminal disfranchisement law, or considerably narrower restrictions than those employed by most American states. - All foreign constitutional courts that have evaluated disfranchisement law have found the automatic, blanket disqualification of prisoners to violate basic democratic principles. In countries where courts have called for enfranchisement of inmates, the legislative and executive branches have complied without significant resistance. - Where prisoners are allowed to vote, they do so either in the correctional facilities themselves - with no threat to security - or by some version of absentee ballot, in their town of previous residence, in all cases with government entities facilitating the voting. In no country do prisoners vote in a manner that allows them to shape the politics of the prison locality. Readers will have different responses to this evidence. Some will deduce from the widespread and unproblematic fact of prisoner voting elsewhere that the United States should promptly overhaul its policies. Others may scoff, perhaps having already concluded that the ideas and policies of other countries are and should remain irrelevant to the American political context. We believe no less an authority than the American Declaration of Independence counsels against the latter conclusion. As Jefferson famously wrote, "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires" that we be able to explain the reasons for our policies to others. While it is not our view that the international setting alone justifies a change in American law, we do argue that the evidence compiled here should induce greater skepticism about the wisdom of disfranchisement law in the United States. In our view, this evidence, coupled with the serious and extensive problems these laws pose for both the officials administering them and those affected by them, counsels in favor of rethinking the broad bans and replacing them with rational, tailored bans, or none at all. Given the relative ease (and low cost) of administering absentee ballot voting in prisons, states may want to seriously consider the examples of Maine, Vermont and Puerto Rico. Or, following the example of some European democracies, consider barring only those it makes sense to bar - for example, those convicted of election fraud. Another possibility would be to enfranchise all except the incarcerated, with no documentary requirement complicating reinstatement on the rolls after release from prison. Although such a policy now survives only in the most regressive European nations, it would constitute a significant movement forward for most American states, given how far out of step the United States is on this issue. Moreover, inmate-only disfranchisement - if you are able to appear physically at the polls and meet age and residency requirements, you are eligible to vote - would solve the multitude of problems now bedeviling the administration of disfranchisement policies in the U.S. Details: New York: ACLU, 2006. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 18, 2018 at: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/asset_upload_file825_25663.pdf Year: 2006 Country: International URL: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/asset_upload_file825_25663.pdf Shelf Number: 117111 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal DisenfranchisementFelony Disenfranchisement Felony OffendersRacial DisparitiesVoting Rights |
Author: Thielo, Angela J. Title: Redemption in an Era of Penal Harm: Moving Beyond Offender Exclusion Summary: For nearly forty years, the United States was in the grips of punitive thinking and mired in an era of mass imprisonment. The hallmarks of this paradigm were the embrace of policies and practices that systematically excluded convicted offenders from full participation in civic, social, and economic life. In recent years, however, it appears that American corrections has experienced a historic transformation that involves efforts to foster offender inclusion in society. Thus, policymakers are increasingly questioning the use of mass imprisonment and are embracing a campaign to downsize American prisons. Similarly, they are advocating for reentry services for released offenders and calling for reductions in the collateral consequences that attach to a criminal conviction. Punitive rhetoric seems in decline, replaced by discussion of the importance of offender rehabilitation and, ultimately, redemption. This dissertation is an attempt to explore these developments. Specifically, based on a 2017 national, opt-in Internet survey of 1,000 respondents, the study investigates the extent to which the American public rejects the exclusion of offenders and supports their inclusion. In this regard, public support of four aspects of offender inclusion was assessed: the (1) rehabilitation, (2) reentry, (3) reintegration, and (4) redemption of individuals with criminal records. The results reveal that support for offender inclusion is extensive. First, regardless of how it is measured, support for rehabilitation is strong. Americans see rehabilitation as a central goal of prisons, support treatment programs, and favor the new innovation of problem-solving specialty courts. This embrace of treatment is long-standing and must be considered a core American cultural belief or what Alexis de Tocqueville called a "habit of the heart." Second, the respondents endorsed the concept of prisoner reentry programs, supporting the delivery of an array of supportive services to inmates released to the community. Third, the sample members recognized that collateral consequences could be barriers to offender reintegration, stating that such legal restrictions should be disclosed to criminal defendants, reviewed regularly by legislators, and eliminated if not shown to prevent criminal conduct. The respondents favored voting rights for ex-offenders but were divided on access to jury duty. Support for ban-the-box statutes was high. The subjects were split on the policy of the expungement of records, apparently trying to balance concerns of public safety with concerns over offenders being allowed to resume a prosocial life. It appears that the extent to which citizens permit record expungement is conditioned by how long offenders have been crime free and the dangerousness of the crime committed. Fourth, the public manifested a realistic assessment of the extent to which offenders are capable of leaving a life in crime. Still, about four in five supported rehabilitation ceremonies that would declare ex-offenders "rehabilitated" and the granting of official "certificates of rehabilitation" that could be used when seeking employment, licenses, and other social goods. Taken together, these findings reveal that the American public possesses a "sensibility" (to use Michael Tonry's term) that is far more inclusionary than exclusionary. Although not necessarily demanding a transformation of correctional policy, it is clear that the citizenry is open to a range of progressive policy initiatives that seek to foster offender redemption in this era of penal harm. Details: Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, 2017. 179p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed April 30, 2018 at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?210335119405562::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:148896 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?210335119405562::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:148896 Shelf Number: 149966 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesOffender RehabilitationOffender ReintegrationPrisoner Reentry |
Author: Novisky, Meghan A. Title: Aging in Prison as a Collateral Consequence of Mass Incarceration Summary: The United States has been characterized by an era of mass incarceration since the 1970's. With decades of research now in place, it is clear that in addition to the financial costs of housing so many men and women behind bars, incarceration carries with it a multitude of collateral consequences. These consequences are extensive and include the reproduction of racial and social class inequalities, weakened neighborhoods and families, and diminished social standing and health. One area that is particularly important yet underdeveloped in the literature involves understanding how incarceration is impacting a new and growing population of prisoners: the elderly. Older prisoners are now the fastest growing age group within our prison system and they are at risk for a variety of negative health outcomes, accelerated aging, and premature mortality. Given the dearth of empirical attention in the literature regarding this class of prisoners, the focus of my dissertation was to address what it means to age within environments (prisons) that are inherently depriving, status stripping, and coercive. To answer this question, I collected original quantitative and qualitative data from interviews with 279 older, incarcerated men who were housed across three varying security level state correctional institutions. These data allowed me to concentrate on three different but related components of aging for prisoners: overall health, chronic disease management, and end-of-life planning. Results show that deprivation was an important predictor of health outcomes and end-of-life planning preferences among this sample of older prisoners. Additionally, cultural health capital was central to prisoners' abilities to manage their chronic health conditions, providing further evidence of the stratifying nature of the incarceration experience. This dissertation contributes to a growing body of research by highlighting the barriers of aging in prison are yet another collateral consequence of mass incarceration. Details: Kent, OH: Kent State University, 2016. 212p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: accessed May 9, 2018 at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=kent1470057807&disposition=inline Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=kent1470057807&disposition=inline Shelf Number: 150134 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesElderly InmatesMass IncarcerationPrisoners |
Author: Ghandnoosh, Nazgol Title: The Next Step: Ending Excessive Punishment for Violent Crimes Summary: While the First Step Act and other criminal justice reforms have limited the number of people imprisoned for drug crimes, they have yet to meaningfully reduce excessive penalties for violent crimes. Nearly half of the U.S. prison population is now serving time for a violent offense, including assault and robbery, Although the violent crime rate has plummeted to half of its early-1990s level, the number of people imprisoned for a violent offense grew until 2009, and has since declined by just 3%. This trend stems from increased prison admissions and sentence lengths, despite evidence that excessive penalties are counterproductive. Long sentences incapacitate older people who pose little public safety threat, produce limited deterrent effect since most people do not expect to be caught, and detract from more effective investments in public safety. For those who seek to end mass incarceration, there are signs of hope. In the past two decades, local, state, and federal lawmakers, governors, judges, and practitioners have rejected the death penalty, shortened excessive prison terms for violent convictions, scaled back collateral consequences, narrowed broad definitions of violence, and ended long term solitary confinement. The 15 reforms featured in this report, implemented in over 19 states, represent more effective, fiscally sound, and morally just responses to violence.5 While exceptions in a punitive era, these reforms serve as models for the future. For example: Rejecting torture in prison -- In 2017, Colorado Department of Corrections' executive director Rick Raemisch restricted solitary confinement to only serious violations in prisons and set a maximum duration of 15 days. Using discretion to reduce extreme sentences Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner seeks to end the city's heavy reliance on life without parole (LWOP) sentences. He has made case-by-case evaluations when making resentencing offers to individuals convicted as juveniles, shown restraint in charging decisions and plea offers in homicide cases, and endorsed legislation to allow people serving LWOP to be evaluated for parole after 15 years of incarceration. Legislators reducing excessive sentences Mississippi legislators reformed the state's truth-in-sentencing requirement for violent crimes in 2014, reducing the proportion of a sentence that individuals with certain violent convictions have to serve before becoming eligible for parole from 85% to 50%. Recognizing the rehabilitative potential of youth and young adults In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that LWOP sentences were unconstitutional for non-homicide crimes committed by juveniles. The Court also later ruled that mandatory LWOP sentences for homicide failed to recognize young people's "diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform." In 2018, California built on this precedent by directing individuals convicted under age 26 to "Youth Offender Parole Hearings." Scaling back collateral consequences -- Floridians voted in 2018 to re-enfranchise people with felony convictions, including those convicted of most violent crimes. The reforms identified in this report demonstrate that it is possible to undo excessive penalties for violent crimes while also promoting public safety. They are the next step of criminal justice reform and offer blueprints for policies that will better enable an end to mass incarceration within our lifetime. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2019. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 2, 2019 at: https://www.sentencingproject.org/issues/sentencing-policy/ Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.sentencingproject.org/issues/sentencing-policy/ Shelf Number: 155269 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal Justice Reform Felony Offenders Mass Incarceration Punishment Sentencing Policy Violent Crimes |
Author: O'Hear, Michael M. Title: Third-Class Citizenship: The Escalating Legal Consequences of Committing a 'Violent' Crime Summary: For many years, American legislatures have been steadily attaching a wide range of legal consequences to convictions - and sometimes even just charges - for crimes that are classified as "violent." These consequences affect many key aspects of the criminal process, including pretrial detention, eligibility for pretrial diversion, sentencing, eligibility for parole and other opportunities for release from incarceration, and the length and intensity of supervision in the community. The consequences can also affect a person's legal status and rights long after the sentence for the underlying offense has been served. A conviction for a violent crime can result in registration requirements, lifetime disqualification from employment in certain fields, and a loss of parental rights, among many other "collateral consequences." While a criminal conviction of any sort relegates a person to a kind of second-class citizenship in the United States, a conviction for a violent crime increasingly seems even more momentous - pushing the person into a veritable third-class citizenship. This article provides the first systematic treatment of the legal consequences that result from a violence charge or conviction. The article surveys the statutory law of all fifty states, including the diverse and sometimes surprisingly broad definitions of what counts as a violent crime. While the article's aims are primarily empirical, concerns are raised along the way regarding the fairness and utility of the growing length and severity of sentences imposed on "violent" offenders and of the increasingly daunting barriers to their reintegration into society. Details: Milwaukee: Marquette University - Law School, 2019. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Marquette Law School Legal Studies Paper No. 19-05: Accessed April 12, 2019 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3365248 Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3365248 Shelf Number: 155376 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal Conviction Sentencing Violence Violent Crime |
Author: Calaway, Wendy R. Title: Sex Offenders, Custody and Habeas Summary: Habeas Corpus is lauded as the ultimate bastion of protection for individual liberty. It is often the last opportunity criminal defendants have at their disposal to unshackle themselves from a criminal conviction or sentence. Despite the rhetoric surrounding habeas corpus, legislative efforts to limit access to habeas review are well known and have become pervasive. However, at least one aspect of these limitations has traditionally been given very liberal interpretation by the courts. The requirement that the habeas petitioner be in custody in order to be eligible for habeas review has been given broad definition. The courts have not required that an individual be physically held in order to satisfy the custody requirement. In a series of cases, the courts have determined that everything from parole, to probation, to an OR bond pending trial satisfy the statutory requirement of custody. However, the courts have uniformly refused to extend this liberal interpretation of custody to individuals subject to statutory sex offender requirements. This Article argues that the requirements imposed on sex offenders are at least as onerous and burdensome as those imposed on parolees, probationers and those on bond awaiting trial. In many cases, the sex offender requirements are considerably more arduous. The Article discusses the history and evolution of the custody requirement and its application to sex offender cases. Using specific examples of cases where individuals subject to the sex offender requirements have suffered tangible and intangible restrictions on liberty and have failed to obtain relief in the courts, the Article argues that the courts have failed to consider the actual implications of these restrictions. Social science research on the collateral consequences of sex offender requirements is reviewed. The Article concludes that courts should re-examine the application of the custody doctrine to sex offenders, acknowledging the actual effects these restrictions have on the liberty interests of the individuals. Details: Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, College of Law, 2019. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 1, 2019 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3234043 Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3234043 Shelf Number: 2019 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesHabeas Corpus Sex Offenders |