DOI: 10.21202/1993-047X.12.2018.3.660-676

скачать PDF

---

Collateral consequences of criminal conviction

---

Objective: to analyze the collateral consequences of conviction in criminal law (by the example of the United States of America).

Methods: dialectical approach to the cognition of social phenomena, allowing to analyze them in the historical development and functioning in the context of a set of objective and subjective factors, which determined the choice of the following research methods: formal-logical, comparative-legal, and sociological.

Results: for many people convicted of crime, the greatest effect will not be imprisonment, but being marked as a criminal and subjected to collateral consequences. Consequences can include loss of civil rights, public benefits, and ineligibility for employment, licenses, and permits. The United States, the 50 states, and their agencies and subdivisions impose collateral consequences – often applicable for life – based on convictions from any jurisdiction. Collateral consequences are so numerous and scattered as to be virtually uncountable. In recent years, the American Law Institute, American Bar Association, and Uniform Law Commission all have proposed reforms. Collateral consequences should be: (1) collected and published, so that defendants, lawyers, judges and policymakers can know what they are; (2) incorporated into counselling, plea bargaining, sentencing and other aspects of the criminal process; (3) subject to relief so that individuals can pursue law-abiding lives, and regain equal status; and (4) limited to those that evidence shows reasonably promote public safety.

Scientific novelty: for the first time, the work substantiates the necessity to rationalize and reform the collateral consequences of conviction. The collateral consequences should be integrated into the criminal justice policy process in general, and into the process of disposition of each case. It is proposed to publish the National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Conviction so that any individual can learn the legal implications of a conviction under the law of each jurisdiction. At the same time, defense attorneys should inform clients of collateral consequences, judges should inform defendants of applicable collateral consequences at plea and sentencing, prosecutors should take collateral consequences into account in charging and plea bargaining. It is proved that Congress and state legislatures should develop mechanisms to relieve individual collateral consequences to facilitate an individual’s employment and rehabilitation.

Practical significance: the main provisions and conclusions can be used in scientific and educational activities for the development of the issues related to collateral consequences of conviction in criminal law.

Keywords :

Collateral consequences of criminal conviction; Reform of criminal law

Bibliography :

1. Logan W. A. Informal collateral consequences, Washington Law Review, 2013, Vol. 88, pp. 1103–1118.
2. Carson E. A., Anderson E. Prisoners in 2015, Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016.
3. Friedman M. Just facts: As many Americans have criminal records as college diplomas, New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice, 2015, November 17, available at: https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/iust-facts-many-americans-have-criminal-records-college-diplomas

4. Osler M. Clemency, Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, ed. E. Luna, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice, 2017, pp. 419–439.
5. Alexander M. The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness, New York, NY, The New Press, 2010.
6. Clear T. R. Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse, Oxford, NY, Oxford University Press, 2007.
7. Gottschalk M. The prison and the gallows: The politics of mass incarceration in America, New York, NY, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
8. Pager D. Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 2007.
9. Kennedy J. E. The Jena six, mass incarceration, and the remoralization of civil rights, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 2009, Vol. 44, pp. 477–511.
10. Roberts D. E. The social and moral cost of mass incarceration in African American communities, Stanford Law Review, 2004, Vol. 56, pp. 1271–1307.
11. Simon J. Consuming obsessions: Housing, homicide, and mass incarceration since 1950, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2010, Vol. 1, pp. 165–205.
12. Thompson A. C. Unlocking democracy: Examining the collateral consequences of mass incarceration on Black political power, Howard Law Journal, 2011, Vol. 54, pp. 587–638.
13. Forman J. Jr. Why care about mass incarceration?, Michigan Law Review, 2010, Vol. 108, pp. 993–1011.
14. Haney-Lopez I. F. Post-racial racism: Racial stratification and mass incarceration in the age of Obama, California Law Review, 2010, Vol. 98, No. 3, pp. 1023–1074.
15. McCulloch J., Scraton P. The violence of incarceration: An introduction, The violence of incarceration, eds. P. Scraton, J. McCulloch, New York, NY, Routledge, 2009, pp. 1–18.
16. Beck A. J., Gillard D. K. Prisoners in 1994, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs, 1995, available at: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/Pi94.pdf
17. Glaze L. E. Correctional populations in the United States, 2010, available at: https://www.bjs.gov/index.
cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2237
18. Guerino P., Harrison P. M., Sabol W. J. Prisoners in 2010, available at: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p10.pdf
19. Kaeble D., Glaze L. E. Correctional populations in the United States, 2015, available at: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus15.pdf
20. Rosenmerkel S., Durose M., Farole D. Felony sentences in state courts, 2006, available at: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fssc06st.pdf
21. Harris K. D. Crime in California 2015, available at: https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/candd/cd15/cd15.pdf
22. Examining the work of state courts: An analysis of 2010 state court caseloads? National Center for State Courts, available at: http://www.courtstatistics.org/other-pages/csp2010.aspx
23. Langton L., Farole D. J. Jr. Public defender offices, 2007, available at: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1758
24. Natapoff A. Misdemeanors, Southern California Law Review, 2012, Vol. 85, pp. 1313–1376.
25. Natapoff A. Misdemeanors, Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, ed. E. Luna, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice, 2017, pp. 71–98.
26. Minor crimes, massive waste: The terrible toll of America’s broken misdemeanor court, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, available at: https://www.nacdl.org/reports/misdemeanor
27. Logan W. A., Wright R. F. Mercenary criminal justice, University of Illinois Law Review, 2014, pp. 1175–1225.
28. Federal justice statistics, 2008, U.S. Department of Justice, available at: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1745
29. Tonry M. Community punishments, Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, ed. E. Luna, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice, 2017, pp. 187–204.
30. Kaeble D., Bonczar T. P. Probation and parole in the United States, 2015, available at: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5784
31. Neighly M., Emsellem M. Wanted: Accurate FBI background checks for employment, 2013, available at: http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Report-Wanted-Accurate-FBI-Background-Checks-Employment.pdf
32. Rodriguez M. N., Emsellem M. 65 Million “need not apply”: The case for reforming criminal background checks for employment, 2011, available at: http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/65_Million_Need_Not_Apply.pdf
33. Love M. C., Roberts J., Klingele C. Collateral consequences of criminal conviction: Law, policy and practice, Eagan, MN, Thomson West, 2016.

34. Manza J., Uggen C. Locked out: Felon disenfranchisement and American democracy, New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 2006.
35. Mauer M., Chesney-Lind M. Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment, New York, NY, New Press, 2002.
36. Mele C., Miller T. A. Civil penalties, social consequences, New York, NY, Routledge, 2005.
37. Collateral damage: America’s failure to forgive or forget in the war on crime, a roadmap to restore rights and status after arrest or conviction, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 2014, available at: https://www.nacdl.org/restoration/roadmapreport
38. Ewald A. C. “Civil death”: The ideological paradox of criminal disenfranchisement law in the United States, Wisconsin Law Review, 2002, pp. 1045–1132.
39. Holloway P. Living in infamy: Felon disfranchisement and the history of American citizenship, New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 2013.
40. After prison: Roadblocks to reentry, Legal Action Center, 2004, available at: https://lac.org/roadblocks-to-reentry
41. Laisne M., Wool J., Henrichson C. Past due: Examining the cost and consequences of charging for justice in New Orleans, 2017, available at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/past-due-costs-consequences-chargingfor-justice-new-orleans/legacy_downloads/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans.pdf
42. Zimring F. E. Firearms and violence, Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, ed. E. Luna, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice, 2017, pp. 167–186.
43. Chacon J. M. Crimmigration, Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, ed. E. Luna, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice, 2017, pp. 205–228.
44. Lasch C. N. “Crimmigration” and the right to counsel at the border between civil and criminal proceedings, Iowa Law Review, 2014, Vol. 99, pp. 2131–2161.
45. Love M. C. Restrictions on access to criminal records: A national survey, 2017, available at: http://ccresourcecenter.org/2017/03/09/restrictions-on-access-to-criminal-records-a-national-survey/#more-11938
46. Markowitz P. L. Straddling the civil-criminal divide: A bifurcated approach to understanding the nature of immigration removal proceedings, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 2008, Vol. 43, pp. 289–353.
47. Cammett A. Confronting race and collateral consequences in public housing, Seattle University Law Review, 2016, Vol. 39, pp. 1126–1159.
48. Silva L. R. Collateral damage: A public housing consequence of the “war on drugs”, U.C. Irvine Law Review, 2015, Vol. 5, pp. 783–813.
49. Logan W. A. Knowledge as power: Criminal registration and community notification laws in America, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 2009.
50. Jacobs J. B. The eternal criminal record, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2015.
51. Jacobs J., Crepet T. The expanding scope, use, and availability of criminal record, New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 2007, Vol. 11, pp. 177–215.
52. Slobogin C. Policing, databases, and surveillance, Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, ed. E. Luna, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice, 2017, pp. 209–232.
53. Butler P. Race and adjudication, Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, ed. E. Luna, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice, 2017, pp. 211–226.
54. Carbado D. W. Race and the Fourth Amendment, Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, ed. E. Luna, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice, 2017, pp. 153–184.
55. Chin G. J. Race, the war on drugs, and the collateral consequences of criminal conviction, Gender, Race, & Justice, 2003, Vol. 6, pp. 253–277. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.390109
56. Fletcher G. P. Disenfranchisement as punishment: Reflections on the racial uses of Infamia, UCLA Law Review, 1999, Vol. 46, pp. 1895–1906.
57. Harris D. A. Racial profiling, Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, ed. E. Luna, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice, 2017, pp. 117–152.
58. Pinard M. Collateral consequences of criminal convictions: Confronting issues of race and dignity, New York University Law Review, 2010, Vol. 85, pp. 4570–4648.
59. Spohn C. Race and sentencing disparity, Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, ed. E. Luna, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice, 2017, pp. 169–186.
60. Mayson S. G. Collateral consequences and the preventive state, Notre Dame Law Review, 2015, Vol. 91, pp. 301–363.

61. Aukerman M. J. The somewhat suspect class: Towards a constitutional framework for evaluation occupational restrictions affecting people with criminal records, Journal of Law in Society, 2005, Vol. 7, pp. 18–87.
62. Turner J. I. Plea bargaining, Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, ed. E. Luna, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice, 2017, pp. 73–100.
63. Murray B. M. Beyond the right to counsel: Increasing notice of collateral consequences, University of Richmond Law Review, 2015, Vol. 49, pp. 1139–1191.
64. Primus E. B. Defense counsel and public defense, Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, ed. E. Luna, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice, 2017, pp. 121–146.
65. Logan W. A. Sex offender registration and notification, Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, ed. E. Luna, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice, 2017, pp. 397–418.
66. State-specific resources, Collateral Consequences Resource Center, 2017, available at: http://ccresourcecenter.org/resources-2/state-specific-resources
67. 50-state comparison characteristics of pardon authorities, Restoration of Rights Project, 2017, available at: http://ccresourcecenter.org/resources-2/restoration-of-rights/50-state-comparisoncharacteristics-of-pardon-authorities
68. Love M. What (if anything) does the Virginia voting rights decision tell us about the president’s pardon power?, Collateral Consequences Resource Center, available at: http://ccresourcecenter.org/2016/07/24/virginia-court-strikes-down-vote-restoration-order/
69. Kuck J. B. Elections: Effect of conviction under federal law, or law of another state or country, on right to vote or hold public office, American Law Reports, Third, 1971, Vol. 39, p. 303.
70. Damaska M. R. Adverse legal consequences of conviction and their removal: A comparative study, Criminal Law, Criminology & Police Science, 1968, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 347–361. DOI: 10.2307/1141759
71. Love M. C. Starting over with a clean slate: In praise of a forgotten section of the Model Penal Code, Fordham Urban Law Journal, 2003, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 1705–1745.
72. Steiker C. S., Steiker J. M. Capital punishment, Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, ed. E. Luna, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice, 2017, pp. 147–168.
73. Chin G. J. The new civil death: Rethinking punishment in the era of mass conviction, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 2012, Vol. 160, pp. 1789–1833.
74. Bright S. B. Counsel for the poor: The death sentence not for the worst crime but for the worst lawyer, Yale Law Journal, 1994, Vol. 103, pp. 1877–1883.
75. Jones D. R. When the fallout of a criminal conviction goes too far: Challenging collateral consequences, Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, 2015, Vol. 11, pp. 237–268.
76. Chin G. J. Making Padilla practical: Defense counsel and collateral consequences at guilty plea, Howard Law Journal, 2011, Vol. 47, pp. 675–691.
77. Chin G. J., Holmes R. W. Effective assistance of counsel and the consequences of guilty pleas, Cornell Law Review, 2002, Vol. 87, No. 3, pp. 697–743.
78. Eagly I. V. Immigrant protective policies in criminal justice, Texas Law Review, 2016, Vol. 95, pp. 245–324.
79. Jain E. Prosecuting collateral consequences, Georgia Law Journal, 2016, Vol. 104, pp. 1197–1245.
80. Murray B. M. Prosecutorial responsibility and collateral consequences, Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, 2016, Vol. 12, pp. 213–247.
81. Chin G. J. Taking plea bargaining seriously: Reforming pre-sentence reports after Padilla v. Kentucky, St. Louis University Public Law Review, 2011, Vol. 31, pp. 61–78.
82. Colgan B. A. Fines, fees, and forfeitures, Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 2017, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 21–39.
83. Berman D. A. Sentencing guidelines, Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, ed. E. Luna, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice, 2017, pp. 95–116.
84. Luna E. Mandatory minimums, Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, ed. E. Luna, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice, 2017, pp. 117–146.
85. Hessick C. B., Berman D. A. Towards a theory of mitigation, Boston University Law Review, 2016, Vol. 96, pp. 161–219.
86. Murphy J. G. Retribution, Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, ed. E. Luna, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice, 2017, pp. 171–192.
87. Ellman I. M., Ellman T. “Frightening and high”: The Supreme Court’s crucial mistake about sex crime statistics, Constitutional Commentary, 2015, Vol. 30, pp. 499–513.
88. Monahan J. Risk assessment in sentencing, Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, ed. E. Luna, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice, 2017, pp. 77–94.

89. Blumstein A., Nakamura K. Redemption in the presence of widespread criminal background checks, Criminology, 2009, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 327–359. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00155.x
90. Bushway S. D., Nieuwbeerta P., Blokland A. The predictive value of criminal background checks: Do age and criminal history affect time to redemption?, Criminology, 2011, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 27–60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00217.x
91. Kurlychek M. C., Bushway S. D., Brame R. Long-term crime desistence and recidivism patterns- Evidence from the Essex County convicted felon study, Criminology, 2012, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 71–103. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00259.x
92. Denver M., Siwach G., Bushway S. D. A new look at the employment and recidivism relationship through the lens of a criminal background check, Criminology, 2017, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 174–204. DOI: 10.1111/1745-9125.12130
93. Denver M. Evaluating the impact of “old” criminal conviction decision guidelines on subsequent employment and arrest outcomes, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2016, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 379–408. DOI: 10.1177/0022427816680252
94. Siwach G., Bushway S. D., Kurlychek M. C. Legal mandates in criminal background checks: An evaluation of disparate impact in New York State (unpublished manuscript), 2017, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2986384
95. Restoration of rights, Collateral Consequences Resource Center, 2017, available at: http://ccresourcecenter.org/resources-2/restoration-of-rights
96. Leasure P., Andersen T. S. The effectiveness of certificates of relief as collateral consequence relief mechanisms: An experimental study, Yale Law and Policy Review Inter Alia, 2016, Vol. 35, pp. 11–23.
97. Selbin J., McCray J., Epstein J. Unmarked? Criminal record clearing and employment outcomes, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 108, No. 1 (в печати), DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2486867
98. Logan W. A. “When mercy seasons justice”: Interstate recognition of ex-offender rights, U.C. Davis Law Review, 2015, Vol. 49, pp. 1–58.
99. Logan W. A. Database Infamia: Exit from the sex offender registries, Wisconsin Law Review, 2015, pp. 219–247.
100. Hager E. Forgiving v. forgetting, 2015, March 17, available at: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/03/17/
forgiving-vs-forgetting#
101. Wayne L. D. The data-broker threat: Proposing federal legislation to protect post-expungement privacy, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 2012, Vol. 102, No. 1, pp. 253–282.
102. Simon-Kerr J. A. Moral turpitude, Utah Law Review, 2012, pp. 1001–1072.
103. Meek A. P. Street vendors, taxicabs, and exclusion zones: The impact of collateral consequences of criminal convictions at the local level, Ohio State Law Journal, 2014, Vol. 75, pp. 1–57.
104. Roberts J. Why misdemeanors matter: Defining effective advocacy in lower courts, U.C. Davis Law Review, 2012, Vol. 45, pp. 277–373.
105. King J. D. Beyond “life and liberty”: The evolving right to counsel, Harvard Civil Rights - Civil Liberties Law Review, 2013, Vol. 48, pp. 1–49.
106. Chin G. J. Collateral consequences of criminal conviction, Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, Vol. 18, Iss. 3, pp. 1–17.

Original publication: https://ccjls.scholasticahq.com/article/2721-collateral-consequences-of-criminal-conviction

Citation :

Chin G. J. Collateral consequences of criminal conviction, Actual Problems of Economics and Law, 2018, vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 660–676. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21202/1993-047X.12.2018.3.660-676

Type of article : The scientific article

Date of receipt of the article :
23.06.2018

Date of adoption of the print :
04.09.2018

Date of online accommodation :
25.09.2018