1 / 46

COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES

COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES. Chris Uggen University of Minnesota With Sarah Shannon and Suzy McElrath. consequences of consequences. social facts and social choices numbers and pictures justice and public safety opportunity “ America’s Criminal Class”

chesmu
Download Presentation

COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. COLLATERALCONSEQUENCES Chris Uggen University of Minnesota With Sarah Shannon and Suzy McElrath

  2. consequences of consequences • social facts and social choices • numbers and pictures • justice and public safety • opportunity • “America’s Criminal Class” • defined by punishment and relation between individual and state, not offending • “ex-prison” v. “ex-felon” v. “low-level” distinction • consequences have consequences • political and civic life • work and markets • personal and community health

  3. Part I VISUALIZING PUNISHMENT (W/ SARAH SHANNON)

  4. 1. PrisonersIncarceration in global perspective

  5. 2. “felons” • current: 4.2 million • current prison, parole, felony probation, convicted felony jail population • 1.8% of adult voting age population • 5.0% of African American adults (decline) • ex: 16.2 million • 6.9% of adults • 18.2% of African American adults • total: 20.4 million in 2010 • 8.7% of adult population • 23% of African American adults • 33%+ of African American adult males

  6. growth of felons and ex-felons, 1948-2010

  7. 1980 ex-felons

  8. 2010 ex-felons

  9. 1980 African American ex-felons

  10. 2010 African American ex-felons

  11. 2010 African American “current” felons

  12. Part IICOLLATERAL SANCTIONS AS DIRTY BOMBS

  13. Socioeconomic Occupational licensure (character+) Public employment Pell grants (drug) Public assistance (drug) Driver’s licenses (drug) Family Public housing (drug; sex) Parental rights Divorce Civic Voting Juror Military Internet record Deportation collateral consequences(Ewald & Uggen 2012)

  14. “dirty bomb” analogy • Weapons of mass disruption • Conventional punishment, plus a small amount of radioactive material • Induces fear and panic, contaminates broadly, and necessitates massive cleanup • Pare back egregious (e.g., lifetime bans) • Like addressing radiation sickness, but not water contamination or building safety • Padilla v. Kentucky (2010); integral, not “collateral” • Utopian • impose at sentencing on individual, crime-specific basis • retain “checklist”

  15. how many are disenfranchised?

  16. who is disenfranchised?

  17. where are the disenfranchised?

  18. the picture in 1980

  19. 2010 cartogram

  20. African American Disenfranchisement, 1980

  21. African American Disenfranchisement, 2010

  22. reforms 1997-2010 • 9 states repealed or scaled back lifetime bans • 2 states (Connecticut and Rhode Island) extended voting rights to persons under probation or parole supervision • 8 states eased restoration process after completion of sentence ---------------------------------------------- • 800,000 citizens regained voting rights

  23. in Oregon, voting probationers and parolees have significantly lower recidivism rates

  24. Part III CommunitySpillover

  25. effects on elections • Potential impact of 5.85 million disenfranchised: • 7 U.S. Senate seats [VA, TX, KY, FL, GA, KY, FL +/- WY] • 2 Presidential elections • Shifts debate on other issues

  26. public assistance bans (with Thompson and Western)

  27. deportation (with King and Massoglia)

  28. criminal deportation & unemployment

  29. health effects • Prison effects on community health depend on prison care • public health benefit where prisons are testing and treating (TB, syphilis) • continuity of care after release • Spillover effects on community • diminished access to care • less access to specialists • reduced physician trust • less satisfaction with care

  30. Part IV Clean up low-level garbage cases

  31. low-level arrestannual arrest v. imprisonment rate per 1000, Minnesota 2007

  32. our moment • proliferation of low-level “records” • big change in dissemination and use • at least half of employers routinely checking • do employers really care about 3-year old disorderly conduct arrests? • Yes – run screaming from any negative signal • No – too commonplace and/or honesty effect • should we “ban the box”? • threshold (arrest v. conviction) • severity (misdemeanor v. felony) • duration (7 years v. life)

  33. callbacks by race and record

  34. modest but measurable • low-level arrest w/o charge or conviction • employers attend to the lowest-level records: 4% difference; not disqualifying • personal contact swamps other predictors • expungement as partial relief • burdensome and costly process • real utopia? • introducing record at “finalist” stage (MN) • avoiding records in first place; new social welfare and community service institutions

  35. arrest and feeling on time (MN 30-year-olds)

  36. Part V “CONSEQUENCING” SMARTER

  37. easier said than done • Focused and effective response to crime • Reserve prison beds for those who need to be in prison, when they need to be in prison • Reduce the scope and number of unnecessary collateral sanctions • Redirect low-level offenses away from criminal justice system • Reintegration • from prison, to community corrections, to taxpaying citizen in good standing

  38. supplemental

  39. pragmatic note • JQ Wilson critique • When social scientists were asked for advice by national policy-making bodies they could not respond with suggestions derived from and supported by their scholarly work. • getting our hands dirty • need knowledge and sophistication about how the criminal justice system actually works: health impact • capacity to imagine and enact alternatives • identifying real models • Documentation is fine, but… we need clear-headed, rigorous, viable answers

  40. growth of people “on paper”

More Related