No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
The collateral consequences of a felony conviction: A national study of state legal codes 10 years later
... This includes but is not limited to voting, parenting, holding public office, serving on a jury, and working. In the realm of employment, federal and state governments have not only restricted individuals' access to government employment, they have also enacted numerous provisions against extending licenses to justice-involved people for government-regulated, private occupations, with distressing results (Dale 1976;May 1995;Olivares, Burton, and Cullen 1996;Petersilia 2003;Bushway and Sweeten 2007;Mills 2008). Nationwide, roughly eight hundred occupations are formally of limits to ex-felons because of such statutes (Bushway and Sweeten 2007). ...
... Federal and state governments have not only restricted access to government employment for individuals with criminal records, but also enacted numerous provisions against extending licenses to justice-involved people for government-regulated, private occupations (Dale 1976;May 1995;Olivares, Burton, and Cullen 1996;Petersilia 2003;Bushway and Sweeten 2007;Mills 2008). For instance, in New York, ex-felons are restricted from owning barber shops, distributing commercial feed, and acting as emergency medical technicians (Uggen et al. 2006). ...
... In Florida, speech-language pathology and cosmetology are of limits. According to Kathleen Olivares, Velmer Burton Jr., and Francis Cullen (1996), six states have permanently denied access to public employment-Alabama, Delaware, Iowa, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. For the remaining states, restrictions in access vary in length and by given contingencies. ...
In the United States, almost seven million people are under correctional control. This includes 2.3 million held in the nation's jails, prisons, detention centers, and involuntary commitment facilities. It also includes 4.5 million people in community corrections-3.7 million on probation and more than eight hundred thousand on parole (Sawyer and Wagner 2019). That works out to be roughly 2,160 per hundred thousand adult residents (Kaeble and Cowhig 2018). Among low-income people of color, who are far more likely to be caught in the system's web, the rate is much higher.¹ Although these figures represent modest declines over the past decade in the population under supervision, by historical standards, current rates are still extraordinarily high. They are roughly seven times higher than at any other period in the United States between 1900 and 1975 (and probably since the genesis of the prison in the nineteenth century), and higher per capita than any other nation, including China and Russia.
... While colonial sanctions included forfeiture of property and the right to vote, the advent of new public rights and services such as drivers' licenses, public assistance, and criminal record keeping created new applications for collateral sanctions. Olivares, Burton, and Cullen (1996) provide evidence of increased use of collateral sanctions by the states between 1986 and 1996, pointing to the influence of tough-on-crime policies emphasizing deterrence and incapacitation during this time. In addition, the federal adoption of Megan's Law in 1994 prompted a wave of sex offender registration laws, another type of collateral sanction (Olivares, Burton, & Cullen, 1996). ...
... Olivares, Burton, and Cullen (1996) provide evidence of increased use of collateral sanctions by the states between 1986 and 1996, pointing to the influence of tough-on-crime policies emphasizing deterrence and incapacitation during this time. In addition, the federal adoption of Megan's Law in 1994 prompted a wave of sex offender registration laws, another type of collateral sanction (Olivares, Burton, & Cullen, 1996). ...
... Research on the statelevel predictors of collateral sanctions is sparse. Burton, Cullen, and Travis (1987), and later Olivares et al. (1996), conducted national studies of state legal codes related to collateral consequences, showing that sanctions increased between 1986 and 1996 and that they were more restrictive in southern states across points in time. Stopping short of empirical analysis, Olivares et al. (1996) suggested the centrality of tough-on-crime ideology in influencing 10-year trends in collateral sanctions and proposed areas for future exploration, including the influence of crime rates, prison construction, population growth, and state budget reductions. ...
Collateral sanctions are civil penalties or disabilities imposed upon people who are arrested, charged, or convicted of a crime. Little research is available concerning state-level predictors of these policies in the United States. Current research suggests that racial threat and political conservatism are associated with harsher sanctions or more restrictions in the realms of employment, housing, social benefits, and other categories. Using state report cards from the Legal Action Center, this study builds on existing knowledge by testing the relationship between state-level variables consistent with a social exclusion framework and collateral sanctions policies while also testing the relationship between social exclusion and changes in these policies over time. Results indicate that higher levels of social exclusion, measured by affordable housing scarcity, public benefit usage, and state fiscal health, may play a role in the adoption of state collateral sanction policies over time. In contrast to previous research, results offer mixed evidence regarding the relationship between the racial makeup of the state and the adoption of collateral sanctions policies. Policy implications are discussed.
... These restrictions are outside of the criminal code, and they are not considered to be part of the traditional criminal justice system (Pinard, 2010). These consequences disqualify criminal offenders from certain employment, voting in general elections, sitting on a jury, or holding public office (Grant, Lecornu, Pickens, Rivken, and Vinson, 1970;Mossoney and Roecker, 2005;Olivares, Burton, and Cullen, 1996). Also, a prior conviction can also affect parental rights in child custody cases, and imprisonment may be used as a ground for divorce (Buckler and Travis, 2003;Burton, Cullen, and Travis, 1987;Mossoney and Roecker, 2005). ...
... A series of national surveys of collateral consequences begun in the middle 1980s has attempted to track recent trends. Three national surveys of statutorily imposed collateral consequences have been reported (Burton, Cullen, and Travis, 1987;Olivares, Burton, and Cullen, 1996;Buckler and Travis, 2003). These surveys revealed that over the past twenty years, the number and types of collateral consequences of conviction have grown rapidly. ...
... The only exceptions were an increase in restrictions of parental rights, and firearms possession. Olivares, Burton, and Cullen (1996) reported a reversal of this trend, finding an expansion in collateral consequences of conviction in general, with the greatest increase in the area of criminal registration, especially for sex offenders. They reported increased numbers of states that restricted voting, parental rights, and possession of firearms. ...
... To ensure that as much detailed and accurate information on each state's castle doctrine status was collected for our analysis, a multistep approach was employed by the authors. Such methodology has been utilized in similar academic works examining legislative and/or case law content (see, for example, Olivares, Burton, & Cullen, 1996;Turner, Sundt, Applegate, & Cullen, 1995). ...
... This study utilized a content analysis approach to synthesize numerous statutes and information collected from various state government, national organization, and scholastic databases. This technique has been employed in similar works that investigated statutory histories for other criminal justice policies such as states' acceptance of battered woman syndrome versus battered child syndrome (Heide, Boots, Alldredge, Donerly, & White, 2005), felony conviction outcomes (Olivares et al., 1996), and three-strikes legislation (Turner et al., 1995). Despite the strengths and practicality that this methodology provided, we acknowledge that there are limitations as to what can be determined from this type of exploratory analysis. ...
Second Amendment issues regarding the right to bear arms in the home have come into focus recently with the U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Despite strong antigun sentiment in the wake of high-profile shootings, sweeping new castle doctrine legislation has passed in 23 states in the last 4 years. These laws effectively expand individuals’ right to defend their home and possessions with lethal force without the necessity to retreat. To date, there is little criminological research that examines the evolution of the modern castle doctrine legislation in the United States. The present article addresses this gap in the literature by offering a historical perspective on the legal etiology of the castle doctrine relating to self-defense and then analyzes existing and pending castle doctrine legislation through December 2008. A discussion of the legal and criminological implications of these statutes on public policy is offered.
... To ensure that as much detailed and accurate information on each state's castle doctrine status was collected for our analysis, a multistep approach was employed by the authors. Such methodology has been utilized in similar academic works examining legislative and/or case law content (see, for example, Olivares, Burton, & Cullen, 1996;Turner, Sundt, Applegate, & Cullen, 1995). ...
... This study utilized a content analysis approach to synthesize numerous statutes and information collected from various state government, national organization, and scholastic databases. This technique has been employed in similar works that investigated statutory histories for other criminal justice policies such as states' acceptance of battered woman syndrome versus battered child syndrome (Heide, Boots, Alldredge, Donerly, & White, 2005), felony conviction outcomes (Olivares et al., 1996), and three-strikes legislation (Turner et al., 1995). Despite the strengths and practicality that this methodology provided, we acknowledge that there are limitations as to what can be determined from this type of exploratory analysis. ...
Second Amendment issues regarding the right to bear arms in the home have come into focus recently with the U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Despite strong antigun sentiment in the wake of high-profile shootings, sweeping new castle doctrine legislation has passed in 23 states in the last 4 years. These laws effectively expand individuals' right to defend their home and possessions with lethal force without the necessity to retreat. To date, there is little criminological research that examines the evolution of the modern castle doctrine legislation in the United States. The present article addresses this gap in the literature by offering a historical perspective on the legal etiology of the castle doctrine relating to self-defense and then analyzes existing and pending castle doctrine legislation through December 2008. A discussion of the legal and criminological implications of these statutes on public policy is offered.
... New York Times, June 29, 2000 [internet edition]). Even in these states, however, those convicted of treason, bribery, or election offenses may be permanently disfranchised (Olivares et al. 1996;U.S. Department of Justice 1996;Mauer 1997a). ...
... We first examined state statutes and secondary sources documenting the voting rights of offenders to determine which correctional populations to count among the disfranchised population (e.g. Burton et al. 1986;Olivares et al. 1996;Mauer 1997a;Fellner and Mauer 1998). To establish the number of disfranchised felons currently under supervision, we sum the relevant prison, parole, felony-probation, and convicted felony jail populations. ...
ABSTRACT As incarcerationlevels have risen in the United States, an ever-larger number of citizens have temporarily or permanently lost the right to vote. What are the political consequences,of such franchise restrictions for convicted felons? To estimate expected turnout and vote choice among disfranchised felons, we combine legal sources with data series from the National Election Study, the Current Population Survey Voting Supplement, Surveys of State Prison Inmates, and National Corrections Reporting Program. To assess political impact, we examine two counterfactual conditions: (1) whether removing,disfranchisementlaws would have altered the composition of the U.S. Senate; and, (2) whether applying contemporary rates of disfranchisement to prior presidential elections would have affected their outcomes. Because felons are drawn disproportionately from the ranks of racial minorities and the poor, disfranchisementlaws tend to take votes from Democratic candidates. Our results suggest that felon disfranchisementplayed a decisive role in several U.S. Senate elections, contributing to the Republican Senate majority of the early 1980s and mid-1990s. Moreover, at least one
... Although there have been calls for policy reform to interrupt the collateral consequences of criminal conviction and incarceration for decades (e.g., Burton et al., 1987;Olivares et al., 1996), little progress has been made in dismantling the web of tens of thousands of local, state, and federal policies which limit formerly incarcerated women from full participation in the community. These policies-especially for those with felony convictions-have long-lasting negative effects on women's ability to secure housing and employment, regain child custody, and achieve financial independence (e.g., Kirk & Wakefield, 2018;McConnell, 2017). ...
... In recent times, writings on collateral consequences have been extensive (see, e.g., Chin, 2017;United States Commission on Civil Rights, 2019;Whittle, 2018). Within criminology, scholarship detailing the pervasiveness of these restrictions extends back several decades, most notably in the writings of Burton and colleagues (see, e.g., Burton, 1990;Burton, Cullen, & Travis, 1987;Burton, Travis, & Cullen, 1988;Olivares, Burton, & Cullen, 1996). The concern over reentry, which surfaced early in the 2000s-especially in the work of Jeremy Travis (2002Travis ( , 2005 on invisible punishments-was crucial in calling attention to how collateral consequences serve as barriers to reentry (see also Bushway, Stoll, & Weiman, 2007;Petersilia, 2003). ...
In The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander drew national attention to the extensive imposition of collateral consequences on those convicted of a crime and to their racially disparate effects. These so-called invisible punishments are intended to restrict offender participation in civil, economic, and social institutions. At issue, however, is how the American public views collateral consequences and whether it would support a reduction in their usage. Based on a 2017 national- level YouGov survey (N = 1,000), supplemented by a second 2019 YouGov survey (N = 1,200), the current study finds that the public is split on allowing ex-offenders to sit on juries, but supportive of removing barriers to voting and employment (i.e., endorses ban-the-box reforms). The respondents also favored providing defendants with a list of restrictions linked to conviction as well as having lawmakers review and eliminate collateral consequences found to have no purpose and to not reduce crime. Belief in offender redeemability is a robust source of these policy preferences. Overall, the American public, including White adults, seems prepared to move beyond “the new Jim Crow” by reforming a legacy of the get-tough era—a byzantine system of collateral consequences that imposes disabilities without transparency and with no evidence of their efficacy.
... Likewise, a sex off ense can result in registration requirements and housing and travel limitations, among many other consequences that could impact an off ender's ability to successfully reintegrate ( Tewksbury, 2005 ;Oliver, 2010 ). In general, felony convictions can aff ect an off ender's future employment prospects, housing options, right to vote, ability to carry legal fi rearms, friendships, familial relationships, and a host of many other legislated consequences ( Olivares, Burton, & Cullen, 1996 ;Chiricos, Barrick, Bales, & Bontrager, 2007 ;Love et al., 2013). ...
Criminal convictions can stigmatize and significantly impact individuals throughout their life-course. Of particular note, the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction and the stigma associated with being labeled a "felon" may impact one's future behavior. The academic with a felony conviction often exists outside the perceived sphere of relative professional stability and support experienced by other established members of their field. This chapter reviews prior literature on collateral consequences, stigma, and stigma management strategies. Then, we introduce the concept of status fragility along with its basic theoretical components. Next, we propose two major insights. First, we propose that openly identifying with the label of "convict criminologist" may render such individuals more susceptible to the negative impacts of status fragility at larger research focused universities, yet less susceptible at smaller teaching and liberal arts focused universities/colleges. Second, we suggest that the CC discipline in the United States should further shift their research focus (founded in the 1990s) beyond the detriments of the harsh "tough on crime" era to research that reflects the current inclusive, diverse, and reform centered movements within criminology. We make this suggestion premised on the argument that the impact of status fragility on formerly incarcerated CC scholars entering the academy over time is not static, but has shifted from the 1990s, due to changes in criminal justice policy and socio-cultural factors. We then conclude with an explanation of how status-fragility affects and interacts with convict criminologists and their scholarship, highlight policy suggestions, and make recommendations for future research.
... L. Wacquant silvia.gomes@ics.uminho.pt services, privileges, and benefits, from public housing and public employment to college scholarships, parenting and voting rights (Olivares, Burton, & Cullen, 1996). ...
This book provides a unique analysis of prisons and the violence at work inside them. It not only addresses aspects such as racial discrimination, especially in US prisons, but also gender differences, specific criminal groups operating within prisons, the reintegration processes and its failures. Combining works by various authors, it presents diverse perspectives on prison violence: in countries ranging from the USA to Australia, crossing European countries such as Portugal and Spain, among others, but also specific aspects such as prohibitions on phone calls, the economic crisis, and the current challenges of mass incarceration. As such, it offers a broad overview of several problems relevant to all scholars interested in deepening their understanding of violence in prisons.
... His family also struggled financially-they were in no position to secure the funds needed to get Efren released from custody and, because Efren did not drive, they took on the responsibility of taking him to court. Efren's time in detention was also difficult and, while there were other people in the facility in a similar situation, there was no camaraderie-"You're not friends," Efren said-leading to further feelings of isolation (see Olivares, Burton, and Cullen 1996). Efren was in detention for a relatively short period of time, but the stress following his release became even more palpable, causing him to feel "impotent . . . ...
Recent years have seen a broadening of the scope of immigration enforcement. As a result, even immigrants free of criminal convictions, once considered low priorities for enforcement, are increasingly subject to arrest, detention, and removal. At the same time, federal immigration authorities have sought the cooperation of local and state authorities in the enforcement of immigration laws. While there has been growing scholarly attention paid to the ways in which legal geographies can account for variation in local immigration policies, the long‐term effects of these policies on immigrants themselves are often overlooked. In this paper, we use the case of Colorado, one of the first states to pass a “show‐me‐your‐papers” law in 2006, and data from two qualitative studies to highlight the collateral consequences of enhanced immigration enforcement on immigrants’ ability to work, emotional health and well being, and academic trajectories. We situate our analysis within the crimmigration literature and discuss the implications of our findings in light of the current political climate.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
... Finally, there are additional collateral consequences of a conviction that might affect the ability of the formerly incarcerated to provide for their families. Collateral consequences are statutory restrictions imposed on the offenders in addition to the convictions and sentences administered by the courts (Olivares, Burton, and Cullen 1996;Travis 2002). These limitations apply to certain felony convictions and may include prohibitions on voting, parenting, public employment, as well as debarment from certain federal benefits such as Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and public housing (American Bar Association 2009, Sentencing Project 2009 There is also some evidence to suggest that stricter child support enforcement during and after incarceration can reduce work incentives for noncustodial fathers (Holzer et al. 2005). ...
Previous work has found that incarceration (defined as confinement in an adult correctional facility) has a variety of impacts on the incarcerated individual and their families including effects on employment and income, educational outcomes of children, and food insecurity (Wallace and Cox 2012). However, previous literature does not identify a causal impact of incarceration on food insecurity. From a policy perspective, identification of a causal link may aid in understanding why some affected families experience food insecurity, while similarly situated families do not. In this article, we utilize microlevel data from the Fragile Families and Child Well Being Study to provide evidence of a causal impact of incarceration on food insecurity. This is an important dynamic to understand because the prevalence of incarceration in the United States is relatively high, especially among groups where food insecurity is more prevalent (e.g., Blacks), and the associated externalities can have substantial impacts on families that may reach well beyond traditional costs associated with incarceration. The complex relationship between food insecurity and incarceration is estimated within a causal inference approach. We find evidence that incarceration leads to roughly a 4 percentage point increase in the likelihood of food insecurity among households with children that have experienced a parental incarceration.
... Former offenders experience statutory and regulatory restrictions of their civil and legal rights, also known as the collateral consequences of conviction (Archer & Williams, 2006;Burton, Travis, & Cullen, 1987;Ewald, 2012;Olivares, Burton, & Cullen, 1996). These ''blanket'' restrictions are routinely applied to rights such as voting, offender registration, professional licensure, serving as a juror obtaining public employment, public assistance and housing, and even retaining parental rights (Chin, 2007;Love, 2006;Mule & Yavinsky, 2006;Owens & Smith, 2012;Truman, 2003). ...
Millions of former offenders—often members of racial/ethnic minority or other disenfranchised groups—experience restrictions on their legal and civil rights as the collateral consequences of their criminal conviction. It is critical for the social workers and other human service professionals who frequently interface with this population to understand these collateral consequences to effectively serve their clients with criminal convictions. This exploratory study examined the impact these collateral consequences may have on social work practice with offenders. We assessed practitioners' awareness, knowledge, and experiences with the collateral consequences of clients' criminal convictions and practitioner efforts as “agents of restoration” to pursue statutorily available court-ordered expungements of their clients' criminal conviction records. Findings revealed that practitioners lacked awareness of collateral consequences, their application, and expungement. Recommendations to enhance social work practitioners' ability to address and reduce the far-reaching collateral consequences of incurring a criminal conviction are discussed.
... But perhaps no challenge is greater or more important than finding employment. Prior research demonstrates that employment is a key – perhaps the key – factor affecting successful re-entry following imprisonment (Holzer, Raphael, & Stoll, 2002a; Waldfogel, 1994), largely because those who are unemployed are substantially more likely to return to crime than those who are employed (Burton, Cullen, & Travis, 1987; Clear, 2007; Freeman, 1994 ). Employment also integrates people into society, organizes their lives, and expands social capital. ...
The purpose of this paper is to assess the role of race/ethnicity and prior prison sentences on employment opportunities. Secondarily, we compare the impact of applying for jobs (in-person and online), and the role of education in securing employment. This work was conducted in a large southwestern city (Phoenix AZ) with high rates of imprisonment for blacks and Hispanics. Methods: First, an audit test involving matched pairs of males within race/ethnicity categories (black, Hispanic, white) who applied for jobs in-person was conducted. More than 500 jobs were applied for by the audit testers. Second, a correspondence test was conducted using three pairs of résumés matched within race/ethnicity. In the correspondence test, over 3,000 jobs were applied for online. Each test used random assignment. Because of its importance for entry level employment, a separate analysis of food service jobs applied for online was conducted. Results: Both sets of analyses were completed using cross-classified random effects (CCRE) models. Contrary to expectations, neither race/ethnicity nor prior prison record affected outcomes in the online application process. In contrast, both race/ethnicity and prison record had significant effects in the in-person audit analysis. The effect of a prison record was particularly strong for blacks. Conclusions: Race/ethnicity and prior prison sentence remain important impediments to success in gaining employment. These results are particularly strong for in-person job applications and are somewhat smaller for online job applications.
... For instance, the fact that ethnic minorities are sometimes disproportionately represented in the prison population means that disenfranchisement laws may lead to inequality and political disempowerment of such groups (e.g., Davidson, 2004;Fellnar & Mauer, 1998;Harvey, 1994;Prison Reform Trust, 2010). Often disenfranchisement is an automatic, collateral consequence of being in prison rather than reflecting a criminal sanction imposed by the courts, and so it may be considered an unjust punishment (Olivares, Burton, & Cullen, 1996). This extends to prisoners on remand awaiting trial, conviction, and sentence. ...
A prison sentence is often geared toward punishment of offenders, reduction of crime, and/or protection of the public. However, in many jurisdictions, those in prison may suffer from collateral or “invisible” consequences such as denial of their voting rights. Despite the growing global social and legal debates on prisoner disenfranchisement policy, there have been few empirical studies of this issue. We explored and compared a sample of the prisoners’ and the public's views of prisoner disenfranchisement policy in the United Kingdom. Although the public were more likely than prisoners to consider voting as important, they were less aware of prisoner disenfranchisement. A high proportion of prisoners said they would vote in prison, however, only a third had voted in the past (outside prison). Prisoners and the public held different attitudes toward prisoner disenfranchisement, and the public were more likely to view this policy as fair. Prisoners were more likely to believe that their vote could influence elections, and this best predicted their intentions to vote. These findings are further considered in relation to political party affiliation, prisoner populations, and offense types. We identify future directions for research on prisoner disenfranchisement.
... Finally, there are additional collateral consequences of a conviction that might affect the ability of the formerly incarcerated to provide for their families. Collateral consequences are statutory restrictions imposed on the offenders in addition to the convictions and sentences administered by the courts (Olivares, Burton, and Cullen 1996;Travis 2002). These limitations apply to certain felony convictions and may include prohibitions on voting, parenting, public employment, as well as debarment from certain federal benefits such as Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and public housing (American Bar Association 2009, Sentencing Project 2009). ...
This study seeks to determine the role that parental incarceration plays on the probability of food insecurity among families with children and very low food security of children using micro-level data from the Fragile Families and Child Well Being Study (FFCWS). The data set contains the 18-question food security module which allows us to explore the link between incarceration and food insecurity and very low food security among children, families, and adults. The incidence of very low food security in our data is somewhat higher than the national average, but the incidence of other levels of food security is similar to national aggregates. Since there is likely reverse causality in the relationship between parental incarceration and food insecurity, we employ a variety of program evaluation techniques to identify the causal relationship between food insecurity and parental incarceration. We employ imputation techniques to account for non-response among the food security variables and independent variables. Our ordinary least squares results suggest that having at least one parent that has ever been incarcerated has a small positive effect (1 to 4 percentage points) on the probability of very low food security among children, adults and households with children, but the results are sensitive to specification and in most regressions, the incarceration variable is not significantly different from zero. Food insecurity for adults and households with children (a less dire level of food insecurity than very low food security) is affected by parental incarceration under most specifications with magnitudes of impact from 4 to 15 percentage points. This research provides some evidence that incarceration adversely affects children and families in terms of food insecurity. Policies to mitigate the impact could be addressed through the court system whereby children are provided with court-sanctioned support to address food needs.
... Because mandatory sex offender registration is a relatively recent phenomenon, most research has simply addressed effects of collateral consequences that accompany any felony conviction. Research has identified numerous legal consequences including disenfranchisement, loss of the ability to own or possess a firearm, and numerous employment restrictions (Burton, Cullen, & Travis, 1987;Olivares, Burton, & Cullen, 1996). Social consequences such as stigmatization, relationship difficulties, employment problems, and feelings of shame and diminished self-worth have also been found to accompany felony convictions Goffman, 1963;Pogrebin, Dodge, & Katsampes, 2001). ...
Sex offender registries (SORs) are a societal response to serious and presumably dangerous criminal offenders. Existing research on registries has focused on demographic overviews of registrants, assessments of registrants' recidivism, accuracy and completeness of listed information, and collateral consequences for registrants. The present research assesses the perceptions of registrants regarding the value of SORs as a tool to enhance community awareness and promote public safety. In addition, this study examines offenders' perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of registry format and structure and suggestions for improvement. Results show that registrants see significant potential for registries but seriously question the efficacy and efficiency of how registries are currently constructed and used.
Bringing together a variety of diverse international contributors from the Convict Criminology community, Convict Criminology for the Future surveys the historical roots of Convict Criminology, the current challenges experienced by formerly incarcerated people, and future directions for the field. Over the past two decades, research has been conducted in the field of Convict Criminology, recognizing that the convict voice has long been ignored or marginalized in academia, criminal justice practice, and public policy debates. This edited volume provides a much-needed update on the state of the field and how it has evolved. Seven primary themes are examined: • Historical underpinnings of Convict Criminology • Adaptations to prison life • Longstanding challenges for prisoners and formerly incarcerated people • Post-secondary education behind bars • The expansion of Convict Criminology beyond North America • Conducting scholarly research in carceral settings • Future directions in Convict Criminology A global lineup of contributors, from the fields of Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law, Political Science, and Sociology, comprehensively tackle each topic, reviewing causes, reactions, and solutions to challenges. The volume also includes a chronology of significant events in the history of Convict Criminology. Integrating current events with research using a variety of methods in scholarly analysis, Convict Criminology for the Future is invaluable reading for students and scholars of corrections, criminology, criminal justice, law, and sociology.
Research Summary:
In The Eternal Criminal Record, James Jacobs detailed how it has become increasingly difficult for ex-offenders to escape the mark of their criminal record. One way to “wipe the slate clean” is through the official expungement of criminal records. We assess public views toward this policy using a national sample of American adults (N = 1,000). Public support for expungement is high for persons convicted of property and substance-related offenses, who stay crime free for 7 to 10 years, and who “signal” their reform through stable employment and completion of a rehabilitation program. Members of the public are also concerned about unfettered public access to criminal records and want to ensure that any available criminal record information is accurate. The strongest predictor of support for expungement is a belief in redeemability.
Policy Implications:
There is a growing movement in the United States that seeks to curtail the effects of criminal records through their expungement. In recent years, most states have enacted bills creating, expanding, or streamlining criminal record relief. Public opinion is important in this context, because it can motivate or constrain reform efforts. Our findings show that, when the risk to public safety appears low, the American public favors providing second chances by using expungement to wipe clean the record of a criminal offense committed years previously. Further, knowledge about the public’s belief in redeemability may be key to understanding and promoting reform efforts that seek to include rather than exclude offenders back into society.
The single greatest political transformation of the post-Civil Rights era in America is the joint rolling back of the stingy social state and rolling out of the gargantuan penal state that have remade the country’s stratification, cities, and civic culture, and are recasting the very character of “blackness” itself. Together, these two concurrent and convergent thrusts have effectively redrawn the perimeter, mission, and modalities of action of public authority when it turns to managing the deprived and stigmatized populations stuck at the bottom of the class, ethnic, and urban hierarchies. The concomitant downsizing of the welfare wing and upsizing of the justice wing of the American state have not been driven by trends in poverty and crime but fueled by a politics of resentment toward categories deemed undeserving and unruly, chief among them the public aid recipients and street criminals framed as the two demonic figureheads of the black “underclass” that came to dominate the journalistic, scholarly, and policy debate on the plight of America’s urban poor in the revanchist decades that digested the civil disorders of the 1960s and the stagflation of the 1970s and witnessed the biggest carceral boom in world history. In this article, I show that the stupendous expansion and intensification of the activities of the American police, criminal courts, and prisons over the past 30 years have been finely targeted, first by class, second by race, and third by place, leading not to mass incarceration but to the hyperincarceration of (sub)proletarian black men from the imploding ghetto. This triple selectivity reveals that the building of the hyperactive and hypertrophic penal state that has made the US world champion in incarceration is at once a delayed reaction to the Civil Rights movement and the ghetto riots of the mid-1960s and a disciplinary instrument unfurled to foster the neoliberal revolution by helping to impose insecure labor as the normal horizon of work for the unskilled fractions of the postindustrial laboring class. The double coupling of the prison with the dilapidated hyperghetto, on the one side, and with supervisory workfare, on the other, is not a moral dilemma but a political quandary calling for an expanded analysis of the nexus of class inequality, ethnic stigma, and the state in the age of social insecurity. To reverse the racialized penalization of poverty in the crumbling inner city requires a different policy response than mass incarceration would and calls for an analysis of the political obstacles to this response, which must go beyond “trickle-down” penal reform to encompass the multifaceted role of the state in producing and entrenching marginality.
With the recent emphasis on reentry and the reintegration of offenders back into society, both academics and policy makers have voiced concern over both the process of applying collateral consequences in a particular case and the expanding number of collateral restrictions, some of which are quite severe. Many of these restrictions create significant barriers to reintegration for offenders released from incarceration. While reforms have been proposed, there is a lack of research examining the perceptions of criminal justice actors about collateral consequences of conviction. As parties most familiar with the application of consequences in cases, and the burdens they place on involved parties, the present study surveyed practitioners in a large Midwestern state. The findings suggest that judges, defense attorneys, probation and parole supervisors, and prosecutors are troubled by the role of collateral consequences in offender reentry and are not opposed to repealing or reforming some of these policies. Further, there are significant differences between practitioner groups as to reforms that should be implemented within the state’s criminal justice system.
Since the 1980s, the number of individuals in the U.S. criminal justice system has more than quadrupled and, as a result, incarcerates more people per capita than any other industrialized nation. The dramatic surge in incarceration can in part be attributed to the four decades of punitive crime policies that have produced large racial and ethnic disparities. While prior research has consistently demonstrated these sizable disparities, the purpose of the current research is 3-fold. First, we explore the current state of race–justice research with regard to offending/victimization, policing, and sentencing. We then explore the consequences of employment/earnings, families, and communities. We conclude by offering directions for future research.
In their chapter, “Families, Prisoner Reentry, and Reintegration,” Harding and colleagues speak powerfully to the role that the family plays in shaping former prisoners’ life chances immediately post-release. The authors could do more, however, to deepen our understanding of the challenges the formerly incarcerated face upon exit from prison and of families’ responses to these challenges. Because Harding and colleagues do not engage the growing body of research linking former prisoners’ employment problems to their lack of engagement in a job search, resulting from a whole host of challenges structural in nature, these issues largely go unexamined, as do the family’s response. The authors also seek to make sense of the ways in which the family helps and hinders without directly studying the families involved in the process. In this chapter, I complicate both our understanding of the labor market challenges faced by prisoners and also the family’s role in facilitating and hindering their reintegration, given these challenges.
Despite much interest, we still know little about criminal disenfranchisement in Europe. This article conducts an original study of the practice of disenfranchisement in 43 European democracies, accounting for the size and traits of the targeted population, the components of restricted rights, and the timing and length of limitations. Based on these findings, and taking the US as a reference, the article demonstrates that considerable disenfranchisement policies persist in Europe. The article concludes by arguing that disenfranchisement is but one of many restrictions that alter offenders’ citizenship status, and proposes further venues of research in this area.
Every year, hundreds of thousands of jailed Americans leave prison and return to society. Largely uneducated, unskilled, often without family support, and with the stigma of a prison record hanging over them, many, if not most, will experience serious social and psychological problems after release. Fewer than one in three prisoners receive substance abuse or mental health treatment while incarcerated, and each year fewer and fewer participate in the dwindling number of vocational or educational pre-release programs, leaving many all but unemployable. Not surprisingly, the great majority is rearrested, most within six months of their release. As long as there have been prisons, society has struggled with how best to help prisoners reintegrate once released. But the current situation is unprecedented. As a result of the quadrupling of the American prison population in the last quarter century, the number of returning offenders dwarfs anything in America's history. A crisis looms, and the criminal justice and social welfare system is wholly unprepared to confront it. Drawing on dozens of interviews with inmates, former prisoners, and prison officials, the book shows us how the current system is failing, and failing badly. Unwilling merely to sound the alarm, it explores the harsh realities of prisoner re-entry and offers specific solutions to prepare inmates for release, reduce recidivism, and restore them to full citizenship, while never losing sight of the demands of public safety. As the number of ex-convicts in America continues to grow, their systemic marginalization threatens the very society their imprisonment was meant to protect.
Individuals who have been incarcerated are significantly more likely than the never-incarcerated to have an unstable work career and low earnings potential, owing in part to the stigmatizing impact of a criminal history record.1 Attempts to measure the negative impact on employment outcomes associated with having a criminal record have consistently shown that contact with the criminal-justice system leads to increased job instability and an average decline in income (Nagin and Waldfogel 1995; Grogger 1995; Freeman 1991; Waldfogel 1994; Lott 1992; Bushway 1998; Western 2002; Western, Kling, and Weiman 2001).2 And compelling evidence presented in this volume suggests that employers use criminal history records to screen employees. Harry Holzer, Steven Raphael, and Michael Stoll (chapter 4, this volume) found that 65 percent of all employers would not knowingly hire an ex-offender, and between 30 and 40 percent of all employers actually checked the criminal history records of their most recently hired employees. Devah Pager (2003; chapter 5, this volume) used a matched-pair audit study to understand whether criminal history plays a role in a job applicant's getting a callback from an employer. The study showed that whites with a criminal history record had a 50 percent reduction in the probability of a callback compared to their matched partner without a criminal history record, whereas blacks had a 64 percent reduction in the probability of a callback. The finding that ex-offenders are one-half to one-third as likely to be considered by employers suggests that having a criminal record represents a major barrier to employment (Pager 2003; chapter 5, this volume). Employers have many incentives to screen applicants for criminal history records. Some employers believe the existence of a criminal history record is indicative of a lack of trustworthiness (Hulsey 1990), while others are worried about their liability for the actions of their employees. Under the legal theory of negligent hiring, employers who know, or should have known, that an employee has had a history of criminal activity may be liable for the employee's criminal or tortious acts. Negligent-hiring actions are now recognized in most states (Craig 1987). In addition, most states require an ever-expanding list of employers to check the criminal history records of applicants and to refuse employment to anyone convicted of a crime. This is especially true of jobs in which work includes caring for children or vulnerable adults.3 This concern for security can be understood in the context of a post- 9/11 world, but there is also a competing concern that ex-offenders whose criminal histories might restrict them from jobs might be forced to resort to further criminal activity in order to survive. This concern is supported by research published in the academic literature to the effect that the maintenance of employment is at least moderately helpful in curbing ex-offenders return to crime (see Sampson and Laub 1993; Fagan and Freeman 1999; Bushway and Reuter 2002). As a result of concerns about both the reentry process of ex-offenders and the potential for racial discrimination, researchers who study the employment situation of ex-offenders often call for tighter controls on the release of information about criminal histories (Pager 2003; Petersilia 2003). Recent reports by national committees constructed to study the surge of background checks by nongovernment agencies routinely recommend increased rights for ex-offenders (Search Inc. 2006). But the suggestions that records be sealed or that employers should be restricted from having access to criminal history information miss the fact that state-operated repositories, used by state criminal-justice systems, or larger data repositories maintained at the federal level for use by government agencies, are no longer the sole source of information about criminal history records. Private companies also regularly provide criminal background information to employers that are based on court and prison records. A recent employer survey in Los Angeles showed that over half of all employers who check for criminal records do so through private companies (Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll 2003). Unlike public repositories, private records providers operate in a largely unregulated environment and very little information is known about the accuracy and completeness of these private background checks. In this article we attempt to shed light on the nature of information provided by private record companies. The first step of our comprehen sive search approach involved a search of the Internet, which resulted in our identifying more than four hundred private providers of criminal history records. A review of a random sample of fifty firms established that, in general, the private sector promises to provide background checks faster than public sources, with fewer restrictions. Additionally, we compared FBI rap sheets with a county-level check of court records by a private Internet company for a sample of one hundred twenty parolees and probationers in Virginia. From this review it was found that information provided by the private company was less complete than what was available from the FBI. Although a correlation was not found between the presence of a record from the private provider and employment outcomes for this sample of probationers and parolees, the high number of false negatives and the poor quality of the private records raise some troubling questions about the use of private background screening firms by employers. Policies that allow these private sources of information to become the de facto source for employers represent a missed opportunity for policymakers to help balance the competing demands of employers and ex-offenders.
This student-friendly introductory core text describes the criminal justice process in the United States - outlining the decisions, practices, people, and issues involved. It provides a solid introduction to the mechanisms of the criminal justice system, with balanced coverage of the issues presented by each facet of the process, including a thorough review of practices and controversies in law enforcement, the criminal courts, and corrections.
At the start of the twenty-first century, 1 percent of the U.S. population is behind bars. An additional 3 percent is on parole or probation. In all but two states, incarcerated felons cannot vote, and in three states felon disenfranchisement is for life. More than 5 million adult Americans cannot vote because of a felony-class criminal conviction, meaning that more than 2 percent of otherwise eligible voters are stripped of their political rights. Nationally, fully a third of the disenfranchised are African American, effectively disenfranchising 8 percent of all African Americans in the United States. In Alabama, Kentucky, and Florida, one in every five adult African Americans cannot vote. Punishment and Inclusion gives a theoretical and historical account of this pernicious practice of felon disenfranchisement, drawing widely on early modern political philosophy, continental and postcolonial political thought, critical race theory, feminist philosophy, disability theory, critical legal studies, and archival research into state constitutional conventions. It demonstrates that the history of felon disenfranchisement, rooted in postslavery restrictions on suffrage and the contemporaneous emergence of the modern "American" penal system, reveals the deep connections between two political institutions often thought to be separate, showing the work of membership done by the criminal punishment system and the work of punishment done by the electoral franchise. Felon disenfranchisement is a symptom of the tension that persists in democratic politics between membership and punishment. This book shows how this tension is managed via the persistence of white supremacy in contemporary regimes of punishment and governance.
This study presents a survey of state statutes which restrict the civil rights of persons with a mental illness or who have been declared mentally incompetent. Five civil rights (voting, holding public office, jury service, parenting, and marriage) are examined. The results of this study are compared with the results of studies conducted in 1989 and 1999 to determine what changes have occurred over time in the restriction of civil rights of those suffering from mental health problems. This comparison reveals that states continue to restrict the rights of the mentally ill and incompetent, and that there is a trend towards increased restriction of political rights, including the right to vote and hold public office.
Incarceration has pervasive negative effects on life outcomes, including employment, but explanations for these effects (apart from those based on selection) tend to be divided between those that focus on the lingering pains of imprisonment and those that focus on discrimination. In this Article, we attempt to provide a bridge between these two foci by situating both within a larger sociocognitive context. This involves reviewing the contemporary literature on prisonization with an eye toward identifying corollaries in the social-psychological literature. It also involves situating research on the "mark" of a criminal record within the larger social-psychological literature on stigma. Recasting the incarceration literature using sociocognitive terms and concepts sheds some additional light. In particular, some of the self-defeating behavior of former inmates, including disengagement, can be seen as reflecting the psychological dilemmas former inmates face after release. Furthermore, a sociocognitive perspective sheds light on some of the unique features of incarceration stigma. Although coping with stigma is difficult for all stigmatized persons, the situation of former inmates may be especially difficult given a confluence of factors, including some atypical features of incarceration stigma, institutional pressures that amplify that stigma, and the lingering psychological pains of imprisonment, which mitigate effective coping.
This article examines the long-term impact of incarceration during the teens and 20s on labor market outcomes and its causal pathways via education and job experience. Using the 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, this article finds that incarceration in youth correctional institutions significantly reduces wages and the total number of weeks worked per year at age 39 or 40 while incarceration during the 20s only lowers wages. Further, this study finds that incarceration in youth correctional institutions lowers education and job experience at age 39 or 40 while incarceration in the 20s only significantly depresses job experience.
Scholars and policy makers wish to eliminate many collateral consequences to promote successful offender reentry. Current proposals to reduce collateral consequences of conviction typically involve the participation of criminal justice practitioners. This study surveyed criminal justice practitioners in Ohio to assess their perceptions of the percentage of offenders affected by particular collateral consequences and the magnitude of the impact of these consequences. The findings suggest that, although there is variability in perceptions across different categories of restrictions, justice officials believe relatively few offenders are affected by collateral consequences, and the perceived impact is relatively small. Efforts to eliminate collateral consequences may not have their intended effect on offender reentry.
Objective
This study highlights the complex role that race plays in the restrictiveness of felon collateral consequence policies in the 50 states by introducing the combination of symbolic racism and racial threat as integral dimensions of the traditional race-based arguments made in this policy area.Methods
Using Alec Ewald's felon collateral consequence scores for the 50 states as the dependent variable and symbolic racism and racial threat variables as the major independent variables, an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model estimated the effects of race-based, ideological, political, and demographic independent variables on a state's felon collateral consequence score.ResultsThe combination of symbolic racism and racial threat add an additional dimension to the traditional race-policy connection within this policy area. Specifically, states with high levels of racial threat and symbolic racism were more likely to have higher felon collateral consequence scores. Yet, the presence of a state with a high level of black representatives in its state's legislature negated the effect of these variables.Conclusions
Although similar studies have confirmed that racially neutral policies, such as felon collateral consequence policies, are affected by race, they have limited their discussion to one specific dimension—racial threat. The evidence presented in this study provided support for the inclusion of a multidimensional race-based argument in this policy area.
By 1975, the long-standing rehabilitative ideal had collapsed, a demise that was sudden and advocated by conservatives and liberals alike. Through the prism of the author's personal involvement in the issue of correctional rehabilitation, what occurred from this time to the present is recounted. This story includes identifying a period of pessimism in which a “nothing works” doctrine was widely embraced and a period of optimism in which knowledge has grown about the effectiveness of offender treatment. Given the current context, eight developments are likely to unfold in coming years: the continued policy appeal of rehabilitation, widening influence of the risk-need-responsivity paradigm, popularity of desistance-based treatment models, use of reentry programs as a conduit for rehabilitation, integration of early intervention with correctional intervention, use of financial incentives to fund effective programs, spread of rehabilitation ceremonies, and growth of specialty courts that target treatment to specific categories of offenders. For the rehabilitative ideal to retain legitimacy, however, two major challenges will need to be addressed. First, with support from policy makers, practitioners must embrace evidence-based corrections and professionalism. And second, criminologists must take seriously their obligation to develop a correctional science that can invent treatment interventions capable of reducing offender recidivism.
Utilizing data from university websites, this exploratory study examined criminology and criminal justice doctoral program admission requirements, while focusing on identifying barriers and challenges unique to applicants with criminal records. Findings reveal that all doctoral programs in criminology and criminal justice expect applicants to complete the GRE, submit recommendation letters, and provide personal statements. The majority of programs also specify minimum grade point averages necessary for admission, while just over one-half request academic writing samples. Further, data show that many academic institutions housing criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs make deliberate efforts to identify ex-offender applicants, particularly sex offenders. Limitations and directions for future research concerning equal and equitable educational access for ex-offenders are discussed.
Abstract Previous research suggests that incarceration can have a negative effect on health. These health effects have an especially profound impact on HIV-positive individuals. As such, the current study investigates how incarceration affects the health of 12 African American HIV-positive formerly incarcerated males recruited via an AIDS Service Organization. Individuals were enrolled via purposive sampling and engaged in a series of in-depth interviews over a yearlong period (n=46). Participants ranged in age from 33 to 61 years. Most had finished high school, were not employed at time of first and last interview, and most were primarily residing at a homeless shelter. The time incarcerated ranged among participants from 3 months to 3 years. Findings suggest that health is impacted via limited and delayed access to medication, stigma, and poor quality of medical care while incarcerated. Health continues to worsen after release, largely due to incarceration's impact on individuals' social context. Macro-level policy limits opportunity to fulfill basic needs such as housing and hinders one's ability to be gainfully employed. Moreover, stigma, loss of social support, and a delay in accessing HIV-related services deleteriously impacts individuals' mental and physical health status. Implications for practice, policy and future research are also discussed.
This essay fills an important gap in the national discussion now taking place with regard to collateral consequences, the broad array of non-penal disabilities attaching to criminal convictions. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires advisement of the potential immigration consequences of conviction, efforts are now underway to inventory collateral consequences imposed by state, local, and federal law. Only when the full gamut of such consequences is known, law reformers urge, can Padilla’s mandate of effective assistance be realized. Increased interest in collateral consequences, while surely weoclome and crtically important, has however been lacking in a key respect: it has ignored the adverse social, medical and economic consequences of conviction experienced by individuals, independent of formal operation of law. This essay augments the consciousness-raising effort now occurring and makes the case that informal, and not just formal collateral consequences of conviction, should figure in post-Padilla efforts to achieve a fairer and more transparent criminal justice system.
As most of us are aware, the failure to comply with the tax law can lead to civil and criminal tax penalties. But tax noncompliance has other consequences as well. Collateral sanctions for tax noncompliance, which are imposed on top of tax penalties and are often administered by agencies other than the taxing authority, increasingly apply to individuals who have failed to obey the tax law. They range from denial of hunting permits to suspension of driver’s licenses to revocation of passports. Further, as the recent Supreme Court case Kawashima v. Holder demonstrates, some individuals who are subject to tax penalties for committing tax offenses involving “fraud or deceit” may even face deportation from the United States. Criminal law scholars have written dozens of articles on the collateral consequences of convictions. Yet tax scholars have virtually ignored collateral tax sanctions, even though their use by the federal and state governments is growing.This Article offers a comprehensive analysis of collateral consequences in the taxation context. While many criminal law scholars have proposed ways to alleviate collateral consequences, this Article argues that, when applied in connection with violations of the tax law, collateral consequences may offer previously unappreciated social benefits. In many cases, collateral tax sanctions can promote voluntary tax compliance more effectively than additional monetary tax penalties, especially if governments increase public awareness of collateral tax sanctions. Governments should therefore embrace these sanctions as a means of tax enforcement and taxing authorities should publicize them affirmatively.After considering the effects of collateral tax sanctions under each of the predominant theories of voluntary compliance, I propose principles that governments should consider when designing collateral tax sanctions. These principles suggest, for example, that initiatives to revoke driver’s licenses from individuals who have failed to pay outstanding taxes or professional licenses from individuals who have failed to file tax returns would likely promote tax compliance. However, whether the sanction of deportation for tax offenses involving fraud or deceit will have positive compliance effects is far less certain. Finally, I suggest how taxing authorities should publicize these sanctions to foster voluntary compliance.
This article seeks to analyze varying collateral-consequences policies—laws restricting the rights and privileges of people who have had contact with the criminal-justice system, particularly those with conviction records—in the American states.
State policies in eight areas are examined, coded, and combined into an eight-point scale, which then serves as the dependent variable for a regression analysis. The analysis models such restrictions as products of ideological and partisan, racial, and criminal-justice-based predictors.
Neither Democratic Party influence nor crime levels appear to influence significantly state collateral-sanctions levels; more liberal citizen ideology predicts slightly more lenient policies, while harsher restrictions accompany rising state incarceration rates. Racial variables press in opposite directions: within the model, scores rise as a state's black population increases, but fall as the percentage of African Americans in the state legislature rises.
Formally creatures of civil rather than criminal law, these “collateral” restrictions appear to possess important affinities with other punitive policies in the United States, yet also resist unambiguous linkage to ideological, criminal-justice, and racial predictors.
Most people convicted of felonies are not sentenced to prison; a majority receive straight probation, or probation with a jail term. However, this hardly means that the conviction is inconsequential. Tens of thousands of federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances restrict the civil rights, employment, eligibility for public benefits, residence and other aspects of the status of convicted persons. Accordingly, for many, the most serious and long-lasting effects of conviction flow from the status of being convicted and the concomitant lifetime subjection to collateral consequences. However, courts generally treat collateral consequences as non-punitive civil regulations, and therefore not subject to constitutional limitations on criminal punishment. This treatment of collateral consequences is surprising. In cases like Weems v. United States and Trop v. Dulles, the Supreme Court understood systematic loss of status not only to be punishment, but to be cruel and unusual punishment. Further, collateral consequences have practically revived the traditional punishment of civil death. Civil death deprived offenders of civil rights, such as the right to sue, and other aspects of legal status. Most civil death statutes were repealed in the Twentieth Century, but its equivalent has been reproduced through systematic collateral consequences. Instead of losing rights immediately, convicted people now hold their rights at sufferance, subject to limitation and restriction at the discretion of the government. The new civil death, loss of equal legal status and susceptibility to a network of collateral consequences, should be understood as constitutional punishment. In the era of the regulatory state, collateral consequences may now be more significant than was civil death in past decades. The actions of judges, defense attorneys, and prosecutors should attend to what is really at stake in criminal prosecutions.
The right to vote is one of the fundamental principles of democracy. However, full suffrage of the adult population has not been realized in many presentday democracies. Internationally, millions of prisoners (and exoffenders in some nations) are disenfranchised. Being excluded from the civic process is a threat to democracy. In this article, I argue that removing a prisoner's right to vote can lead to inequality and injustice that is counter to democratic ideals. By contrast, enfranchisement of prisoners can promote their rehabilitation and social reintegration, and can have a real impact on the political climate of a nation. I also discuss the arguments for and against prisoner disenfranchisement, explore public opinion on this issue, and track recent legislative changes to disenfranchisement policy internationally. Areas for future psychological inquiry are highlighted.
The research findings with respect to the relationship between incarceration and employment are consistent enough that it is tempting to conclude that incarceration causes deterioration in ex-inmates' employment prospects. Yet, causality remains tenuous for several reasons. For one, studies frequently rely on samples of nonincarcerated subjects that are not truly "at risk" of incarceration, which undermines their use as comparison samples and potentially biases estimates of the impact of incarceration on life outcomes. Additionally, even with confidence about causal identification, the field remains ignorant about the precise mechanism by which incarceration erodes employment and earnings. To address these gaps, this study uses the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 to estimate the impact of incarceration during late adolescence and early adulthood on short- and long-term employment outcomes. The subjects of interest are all individuals who are convicted of a crime for the first time, some of whom receive a sentence of incarceration following their conviction. Broad measures of legal and illegal employment are used to explore possible avenues by which incarceration affects individual work histories.
The number of prisoners across the country has increased dramatically throughout the 1980s. Texas is one state that has felt the strain of prisoner population pressures. To keep abreast of demand, more state prison units were built. However, new prisons were soon filled to capacity. This situation forced policymakers to implement a population cap and an allocation formula. To keep the prisoner population within the cap, prisoners were released early and time served declined rapidly over the course of the 1980s. These latter consequences severely affected the ability of the Windham School System to deliver prison education programs. The data showed that one in seven inmates was released prior to taking a vocational certification test. Various policy options are then explored.
The following paper was prepared by the Safer Society Foundation regarding the issue of public notification of convicted sex offender release to the community. It does not represent the views or opinions of any other organization or group, professional or otherwise. The Safer Society advocates for community safety, victim restitution and treatment, and quality comprehensive sex offender treatment. While the Safer Society supports adult sex offender registration laws in general, it is totally opposed to public notification laws. This document is designed to assist states considering public notification to explore related issues and the impact of public notification on the greater community, including citizens, families, victims, and offenders. Numbers preceding the following points do NOT indicate relative importance, but are used for ease of reference.