CCRC seeking lawyer to work on Restoration of Rights Project

The CCRC is seeking a lawyer to join its staff to work primarily on the Restoration of Rights Project (RRP).  The primary duties of the RRP Legal Analyst, as described in the position description below, involve collecting and analyzing the law and practice in each U.S. jurisdiction relating to restoration of rights; and, updating the on-line resources that comprise the RRP.  An important part of the job is identifying and tracking bills relating to restoration of rights as they become law, which has become an increasingly important and challenging task in the past several years.  In conducting legal research, preparing reports, and responding to inquiries, the RRP Legal Analyst will have a unique opportunity to engage with CCRC staff and lawyers across the country who are working in this emerging area of scholarship and practice.

The RRP Legal Analyst position is part-time, though applicants should be prepared to commit to at least 15-20 hours per week for at least six months.  The position may be particularly attractive to individuals seeking a flexible work schedule and workplace.  The position will be compensated on an hourly basis, starting at a base rate of $26.50 per hour, a rate that may be negotiable depending on experience.

Applicants should have familiarity with criminal law and procedure, and preferably with the legislative process, and they should have proven research and writing skills.  Please see the position description for further details.  A letter of interest, resume and writing sample, as well as the names of references, should be sent to Margaret Love, CCRC executive director, at margaretlove@pardonlaw.com.

Read more

Comparison of collateral consequences in Europe and the U.S.

Alessandro Corda has a new article that compares the treatment of regulatory collateral consequences in the United States and in European legal systems.  He argues that the primary difference is that in Europe proportionality is central to punishment schemes, and that sentencing courts must consider the impact of all combined sanctions on the defendant, including collateral consequences, in deciding whether a sentence is proportional to the crime.  “Collateral restrictions in the United States, instead, are not taken into account in determining the overall proportionality of the sentence to the seriousness of the offense since they are not considered as punishment.”  Criminal courts in the United States rarely consider collateral consequences in imposing a sentence, and for the most part have not regarded them as any of their business.

Corda points out that “Europe never moved completely away from a rehabilitative model of punishment,” and that “the ultimate goal of European penal systems widely remains the reintegration of ex-offenders.”  In contrast, “the approach toward collateral restrictions in the United States tends to mirror prevailing criminal justice attitudes oriented primarily toward harsh and prolonged measures of penal control.”  Even during a period of “penal climate-change,” when sentencing and corrections policies are being rethought in this country, collateral consequences have been largely left out of the reform picture.  He argues that “no reform aimed at moving away from mass incarceration and overreliance on penal control can ultimately succeed if indirect ramifications of ‘being a criminal’ are ignored.”

Read more

California enacts modest occupational licensing reform

On September 30, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 2138, making California the twelfth state this year to enact occupational licensing reform. This flurry of legislation will make it easier for people with a criminal record to obtain occupational and professional licenses. (As discussed in recent posts, the Institute for Justice’s model occupational licensing act and the National Employment Law Project’s model state law have influenced this legislative trend.) However, California’s take on licensing reform is relatively tepid compared to more extensive reforms in states like Indiana, Kansas, New Hampshire, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

In California, nearly 30 percent of jobs require licensure, certification, or clearance. When AB 2138 takes effect in 2020, it will prohibit licensing boards from denying a license based on certain acts not resulting in conviction, or certain less serious convictions after seven years. The law will require boards to consider rehabilitation evidence for any conviction (not just misdemeanors, as under existing law), to establish more detailed criteria for evaluating convictions, and to issue annual reports.

While a more robust version of the bill first passed the California Assembly, it was weakened in the California State Senate, and ultimately, the Senate’s version prevailed. The legislative process and bill’s provisions are discussed in more detail below.

Read more

David Schlussel joins CCRC as its first Fellow

I am delighted to announce that David Schlussel will join CCRC as its first Fellow at the end of this month.  Most recently, David served as a law clerk for the Honorable David O. Carter on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. While attending law school at Berkeley, David represented clients in juvenile delinquency, school discipline, and clean slate proceedings as a clinical student for the East Bay Community Law Center. He also interned at public defender offices, taught outreach courses in Juvenile Hall, and wrote a law review note on marijuana, race, and collateral consequences. David has been interested in inequities in the criminal justice system since college, when he volunteered as a GED tutor at the New Haven jail.

During his fellowship year, David will be maintaining CCRC resources, including the Restoration of Rights Project; reporting on new laws and developments in the courts; and drafting analytical pieces on significant scholarship and research relating to collateral consequences.  One of his first assignments will be preparing a round-up of the “second chance” legislation enacted during 2018 – to date, more than 50 separate laws in thirty-two states.  During his tenure, David hopes to participate in drafting an amicus brief, an opportunity that could come very soon with a major new challenge to Pennsylvania’s sex offender registration scheme pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
David’s piece on California’s new occupational licensing law that will post later today on the site is the first of what I expect will be many of his thought-provoking analyses of significant new “second chance” legislation.

Marijuana decriminalization drives expungement reform

The national trend toward expanding opportunities for restoration of rights after conviction has continued to accelerate throughout 2018.  By our count, so far this year alone 31 states have broadened existing second chance laws or enacted entirely new ones, enhancing the prospects for successful reentry and reintegration for many thousands of Americans.  On November 6, Florida could take the most politically momentous step of the year if its voters approve a ballot initiative amending the state constitution to re-enfranchise more than a million and a half individuals who are now permanently barred from voting because of a past felony conviction.  We expect to publish a full report on these 2018 reforms, similar to the report we published last winter on 2017 laws, by the end of the year.  Expect it to feature the broad occupational licensing reforms enacted in more than a dozen states since last spring.

Another important series of second chance reforms this year has accompanied marijuana decriminalization.  These reforms are documented and analyzed by Professor Douglas Berman in an important new paper titled “Leveraging Marijuana Reform to Enhance Expungement Practices.”  Published in a symposium issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter devoted to various aspects of collateral consequences and criminal records management, Professor Berman’s paper showcases issues that will becomes increasingly important as the War on Drugs winds down.  Professor Berman is the executive director of Ohio State University’s Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, whose official launch is November 2.  We expect that the Center under his management will give restoration of rights an important place on its policy agenda.

The abstract of Professor Berman’s article follows:  Read more

NJ AG tells prosecutors collateral consequences may determine which marijuana violations to pursue

New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal recently issued new Guidance reminding municipal prosecutors that they cannot categorically refuse to prosecute marijuana cases while the Legislature is considering proposals relating to decriminalization.  That said, the guidance reminds prosecutors that they have considerable discretion when deciding which maijuana cases to pursue.  While this advice is fairly standard stuff, the second half of the guidance document is a fascinating glimpse into prosecutorial decision-making as it relates to collateral consequences.  It follows a growing scholarly and legal consensus calling for opening the “black box” that is the prosecutorial mindset. For too long, the thought-processes behind prosecutorial decisions have eluded the public eye.

In essence, the guidance advises that the decision whether or not to bring charges may depend upon a defendant’s exposure to severe collateral consequences if convicted. Recognizing that prosecutors should consider collateral consequences brings their obligations closer to those imposed on defense attorneys by the Supreme Court eight years ago in Padilla v. Kentucky. Padilla required defense attorneys to know the immigration consequences faced by their clients or risk being labeled constitutionally ineffective. Many defense attorneys, public defenders, and legal aid organizations have devoted substantial effort to ensuring their clients know about housing, employment, educational, and other consequences that might attach to a conviction.

But any public defender can tell you that reliance on overburdened defense and legal aid attorneys to warn defendants and educate prosecutors about collateral consequences is bound to frustrate the goal of increasing systemic literacy.  The value of the new AG guidance is in placing a burden on prosecutors to discover and take into account the effect of collateral consequences in particular cases in deciding whether or not to prosecute.

Read more

Prisoners fighting California fires denied licenses after release

Nick Sibilla, a legislative analyst at the Institute for Justice, has published this fine op ed piece in today’s USA Today, describing how the 2,000 state prisoners currently engaged in fighting the largest fire in California history, are barred from obtaining the necessary EMT license that would enable them to continue this work after their release.  It contains, inter alia, a description of the two bills currently pending in the California legislature that would end what Nick describes as a “bitterly ironic” situation, where prisoners gain valuable training in certain vocations that they cannot use after their release.  The piece seems particularly relevant, in light of the amazing work being done on occupational licensing reform across the country, much of it inspired by the Institute for Justice’s Model Collateral Consequences in Occupational Licensing Act.   See, e.g. New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Kansas, Indiana, Arizona, and Tennessee.  We hope California will soon join this group of enlightened jurisdictions, and that other states will follow in the coming year.

Despite fighting California’s largest fires, inmates are denied licenses they need to become firefighters after they get out.

by Nick Sibilla, USA Today, August 20, 2018

As California struggles to contain the largest fire in state history, more than 2,000 inmates have volunteered to fight the flames. Offering just $1 an hour, the state has long  encouraged low-level prisoners to risk their lives and serve alongside professional firefighters, who earn nearly $74,000 a year on average. Firefighting, along with less life-threatening trades like plumbing, welding, and cosmetology, is one of several vocational training programs offered to prisoners by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

But in a bitterly ironic twist, once inmates leave prison, they often can’t work as firefighters, despite their frontline experience. In California, nearly all counties require firefighters to become licensed emergency medical technician (EMTs) — a credential that can be denied to almost anyone with a criminal record.

Read more

Common Application bans the box!

On August 7, 2018, the Common Application announced  that it is dropping the criminal history question from its college application form starting with 2019-2020 applicants.  Currently over 800 colleges and universities use the common application.  The criminal history question first appeared on the common application in 2006.  Individual colleges who are members of the Common Application will still be able to make inquiry on their own.

For the past decade, the Common Application has been under pressure from advocates, educators and the U.S. Education Department under the Obama administration to remove the criminal history question from its application form.  The call to remove the criminal history question from college applications first came from the Center for Community Alternatives (CCA) in its 2010 publication, The Use of Criminal History Records in College Admissions Reconsidered.  A second study with policy recommendation was published by CCA in collaboration with the Education from the Inside Out Coalition in 2015, Boxed Out: Criminal History Screening and College Application Attrition, and underscored the harm done by the use of the criminal history box on college applications.

As more colleges and universities have banned the box, the Common Application has been under growing pressure to abolish this discriminatory and counterproductive practice.  Removing barriers to the admission of students with criminal history records to higher education is one way to improve public safety, combat mass incarceration, and make reentry meaningful.

Vermont AG supports opportunities for diversion and expungement

Vermont Business Magazine recently showcased the leadership shown by Vermont Attorney General TJ Donovan in criminal justice reform.  Most notably, he has streamlined the process for seeking expungement, and increased opportunities to avoid a record entirely through greater use of diversion for less serious offenses.  The importance of enabling people to avoid a criminal record altogether through these two mechanisms cannot be overstated.  Donovan also championed last year’s bail reforms that will ensure low-income individuals are not held in jail prior to trial simply because they are poor. The article is worth posting in full as an illustration of a new breed of prosecutor committed to reducing the ill effects of the “tough on crime” era on individuals and communities least able to overcome them.

Read more

Landmark criminal record disclosure case in the UK Supreme Court

Court litigation and policy debate revolving around the issue of criminal record disclosure are not unique to the United States. Especially in the United Kingdom, the past few years have witnessed important court decisions on the legal framework in place regulating access to criminal history information and the amount of information that can be obtained by third parties. For people with criminal records in the United Kingdom, last month was pretty significant.  This is why I am very happy to post on the CCRC blog a commentary on recent litigation before the UK Supreme Court authored by Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, an independent charity organization that provides a voice and support for people with convictions who are facing stigma and obstacles because of their criminal record. Christopher last month led Unlock’s intervention before the UK Supreme Court. They put forward strong arguments on behalf of those who are unfairly affected by the criminal records disclosure regime.

Before discussing the case, let me briefly summarize the framework of the disclosure regime currently in place in the UK.  This regime and the ongoing court litigation should be particularly interesting to advocates and lawmakers in the U.S. who are working to reform their own regimes.

Following the adoption of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in 1974, adult and juvenile convictions automatically become “spent” after the passage of a certain amount of “rehabilitation” time following completion of the sentence if the punishment imposed in court did not exceed a certain threshold provided for by the law (currently, a custodial sentence of over four years). Convictions triggering a custodial sentence of more than four years can never become spent.  Required periods of post-sentence rehabilitation before a conviction is considered spent currently range from one to seven years for adult convictions, and from six months to three and a half years for juvenile offenses.  There is no rehabilitation period before criminal records not resulting in conviction are considered spent.

Read more

1 … 21 22 23 24 25 … 57