Arbeiten bei spiel casino

Willkommenspaket: Bis zu 1.000 € Bonus + 200 Freispiele auf ausgewählte Slots.

Wöchentliche und monatliche Reload-Boni mit Progressiven Bonusstufen.

VIP-Programm mit exklusiven Vorteilen: persönlicher Accountmanager, schnellerer Auszahlungsprozess, exklusive Turniere und persönliche Geschenke.

Aber was macht die Bonusangebote besonders? Die Transparenz. cool cat casino free spins 2020 Jeder Bonus ist klar strukturiert, mit klaren Umsatzbedingungen (Wettanforderungen), die sich an den jeweiligen Spieltypen orientieren. Spieler können sich selbst entscheiden, cool cat casino free spins 2020 ob sie lieber einen Bonus mit hohem Umsatz (x30) oder einen mit flexibleren Bedingungen (x20) bevorzugen.

Beliebte Casinospiele: Von klassischen Klassikern bis zu innovativen Spielmechaniken

Spiel Casino bietet eine riesige Auswahl an Spielen, die für jeden Geschmack etwas bereithält:

Tischspiele: Roulette (European, American, Live-Roulette), Blackjack (mit mehreren Varianten wie Blackjack Switch, Perfect Pairs), Baccarat und Poker (Texas Hold’em, Caribbean Stud).

Live-Casino-Abende: Hier arbeiten echte Dealer in Studio-Atmosphäre, und Spieler können live per Videochat mit ihnen interagieren – ein echtes „Gefühl, dabei zu sein”.

Jackpot-Spiele: Von Mega Moolah bis zu der exklusiven Spiel Casino Mega Jackpot, wo Spieler weltweit gemeinsam an einem riesigen, wachsenden Jackpot spielen.

Doch das Highlight bleibt der Online-Slots-Bereich, der in der Welt von Spiel Casino eine besondere Rolle spielt.

Online-Slots: Die Welt der Gewinnmechaniken und Slot-Themen

Arbeiten bei Spiel Casino bedeutet, die Welt der Slots ständig zu optimieren, zu erweitern und zu personalisieren. Die Plattform bietet über 1.000 Slots von führenden Entwicklern wie NetEnt, Pragmatic Play, Microgaming und Play’n GO.

Beliebte Slot-Themen

Mythologie: „Gods of Olympus”, „Book of Dead”

Abenteuer & Fantasy: „Starburst”, „Gonzo’s Quest”, „Valhalla”

Kino & Serien: „The Walking Dead”, „Game of Thrones”, „Stranger Things”

Klassische Slots mit modernem Touch: „Mega Moolah”, „Gonzo’s Quest”, „Bonanza”

Funktionen, die überzeugen

Freispiele mit Multiplikatoren,

Bonus-Runden mit interaktiven Mini-Spielen,

Expanding Wilds, Stacking Symbols, Progressive Jackpots,

sowie Volatilität – ein entscheidender Faktor für Spieler.

Was ist Volatilität?

Niedrige Volatilität: Häufige, moderate Gewinne (z. B. „Book of Dead”).

Mittlere Volatilität: Gleichmäßiges Gewinnprofil (z. B. „Starburst”).

Hohe Volatilität: Seltene, aber große Jackpots (z. B. „Gonzo’s Quest”).

Spieler können ihre Strategie an die Volatilität anpassen – und arbeiten bei Spiel Casino heißt, dass sie stets die besten Tools und Empfehlungen dafür erhalten.

Auszahlungsraten: Schnell, sicher, transparent

Allgem casino no deposit bonus

Allgem Casino No Deposit Bonus: Der perfekte Einstieg ins Online-Casino für deutsche Spieler

Willkommen im pulsierenden Welt der Online-Casinos – und genau hier, an der Schwelle zu unendlichen Spielspaßmöglichkeiten, erwartet Sie ein wahrer Glücksbringer: der allgem casino no deposit bonus. Für alle, die erst jetzt in die Welt des digitalen Glücksspiels eintauchen oder bereits erfahrene Spieler, die nach neuen Herausforderungen, Bonusvorteilen und einer herausragenden Spielerfahrung suchen, ist dieser Bonus ein echter Game-Changer. In diesem umfassenden Leitfaden entdecken Sie, warum der allgem casino no deposit bonus nicht nur ein Werbeversprechen ist, sondern eine echte Spielwelt für deutsche Casino-Fans.

Was ist ein No Deposit Bonus?

Ein No Deposit Bonus ist ein Bonus, den ein Spieler direkt nach der Registrierung im Online-Casino erhält – und das ohne eine erste Einzahlung. Der allgem casino no deposit bonus ist genau das: cat spins casino no deposit bonus ein Geschenk aus der Tasche des Casinos, das Ihnen direkt nach der Anmeldung zur Verfügung steht. Typischerweise erhalten Spieler zwischen 5 und 20 Euro Bonusgeld, manchmal sogar Freispiele auf beliebte Slots. Der Vorteil? Sie können sofort loslegen – mit echtem Geld, ohne ein Euro in die Kasse zu legen.

Warum Allgem Casino No Deposit Bonus so besonders ist

Allgem Casino hat sich in den letzten Jahren als eine der führenden Plattformen im deutschen Online-Glücksspielmarkt etabliert. Mit einem klaren Fokus auf Benutzerfreundlichkeit, Sicherheit und einem breiten Spielangebot, hat das Casino den allgem casino no deposit bonus zu einem echten Markenversprechen gemacht. Was macht ihn so einzigartig?

Sofortige Freigabe: Der Bonus ist bereits nach der Registrierung verfügbar – kein Warten, keine Komplikationen.

cat spins casino no deposit bonus Keine Mindesteinzahlung nötig: Im Gegensatz zu anderen Boni muss man nicht erst 20 Euro einzahlen, um den Bonus zu erhalten.

Flexible Einsatzbedingungen: Die Umsatzanforderungen (Wagering Requirements) sind fair gestaltet und passen sich den Bedürfnissen verschiedener Spielergruppen an.

Sicherheit & Lizenz: Vertrauen, das man spürt

Ein guter Bonus ist nur so gut wie die Plattform, auf der er angeboten wird. Allgem Casino setzt dabei auf höchste Sicherheitsstandards:

Allgem casino no deposit bonus

Allgem Casino No Deposit Bonus: Der perfekte Einstieg ins Online-Casino für deutsche Spieler

Willkommen im pulsierenden Welt der Online-Casinos – und genau hier, an der Schwelle zu unendlichen Spielspaßmöglichkeiten, erwartet Sie ein wahrer Glücksbringer: der allgem casino no deposit bonus. Für alle, die erst jetzt in die Welt des digitalen Glücksspiels eintauchen oder bereits erfahrene Spieler, die nach neuen Herausforderungen, Bonusvorteilen und einer herausragenden Spielerfahrung suchen, ist dieser Bonus ein echter Game-Changer. In diesem umfassenden Leitfaden entdecken Sie, warum der allgem casino no deposit bonus nicht nur ein Werbeversprechen ist, sondern eine echte Spielwelt für deutsche Casino-Fans.

Was ist ein No Deposit Bonus?

Ein No Deposit Bonus ist ein Bonus, den ein Spieler direkt nach der Registrierung im Online-Casino erhält – und das ohne eine erste Einzahlung. Der allgem casino no deposit bonus ist genau das: cat spins casino no deposit bonus ein Geschenk aus der Tasche des Casinos, das Ihnen direkt nach der Anmeldung zur Verfügung steht. Typischerweise erhalten Spieler zwischen 5 und 20 Euro Bonusgeld, manchmal sogar Freispiele auf beliebte Slots. Der Vorteil? Sie können sofort loslegen – mit echtem Geld, ohne ein Euro in die Kasse zu legen.

Warum Allgem Casino No Deposit Bonus so besonders ist

Allgem Casino hat sich in den letzten Jahren als eine der führenden Plattformen im deutschen Online-Glücksspielmarkt etabliert. Mit einem klaren Fokus auf Benutzerfreundlichkeit, Sicherheit und einem breiten Spielangebot, hat das Casino den allgem casino no deposit bonus zu einem echten Markenversprechen gemacht. Was macht ihn so einzigartig?

Sofortige Freigabe: Der Bonus ist bereits nach der Registrierung verfügbar – kein Warten, keine Komplikationen.

cat spins casino no deposit bonus Keine Mindesteinzahlung nötig: Im Gegensatz zu anderen Boni muss man nicht erst 20 Euro einzahlen, um den Bonus zu erhalten.

Flexible Einsatzbedingungen: Die Umsatzanforderungen (Wagering Requirements) sind fair gestaltet und passen sich den Bedürfnissen verschiedener Spielergruppen an.

Sicherheit & Lizenz: Vertrauen, das man spürt

Ein guter Bonus ist nur so gut wie die Plattform, auf der er angeboten wird. Allgem Casino setzt dabei auf höchste Sicherheitsstandards:

Illinois poised to enact Nation’s broadest automatic sealing law

On October 30, 2025, the Illinois General Assembly approved HB 1836, making Illinois the 13th “Clean Slate” state. Illinois will also have the broadest automated record-sealing program of them all.  

The Governor’s signature will launch the implementation toward an automated record-sealing process to bridge the “second chance gap” for an estimated 2.2 million people with an Illinois criminal record. After necessary preparatory measures, sealing of existing conviction and non-conviction records is scheduled to begin in January 2029.

Illinois’ law will apply to most of the misdemeanor and felony convictions for which petition-based sealing is already authorized, with the same short waiting period. In addition, Illinois will now join the large group of states for which sealing of non-conviction records is mandatory and accomplished immediately upon a favorable case disposition.

Building on a Legacy of Progress

Illinois already leads the nation with one of the most expansive petition-based sealing laws. Since 2017, when lawmakers passed HB 2373, most felony conviction records have been eligible for sealing relief, after a comparatively brief waiting period of just three years from the end of a sentence. That law marked a turning point, expanding eligibility from only nine felony convictions to nearly all, with just a few exceptions.

The new Illinois Clean Slate Act builds directly on the foundation laid by the 2017 law. Like the petition-based process, automated sealing will apply to nearly all conviction records (unless already excluded under the petition-based process) after a three-year period from the end of sentence, except for a limited set of additional ineligible offenses involving the most serious felonies. Even these additional convictions ineligible for automatic relief, however, will remain eligible for petition-based relief. (Details of the existing laws and new Clean Slate legislation can be found in the Illinois profile from the Restoration of Rights Project.)

Read more

Update on federal firearms restoration program

Last spring, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced its intention to revive a long-dormant program to remove federal restrictions on firearm possession, including for those with a criminal record.  In July DOJ published for comment a proposed rule that would, when finalized, accomplish this for people who are determined to pose no public safety risk. See 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). See Trump’s Justice Department aims to restore gun rights for nonviolent offenders.

The comment period closed on October 20, and it is therefore possible that a final rule will be published at any time to launch the revived program. This will open the door, for the first time in more than 30 years, to many individuals who have been unable to regain their firearm rights because of their criminal record. It is anticipated that thousands of people will want to apply for this relief, which will be administered by the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney.

We have some concerns about whether the demanding § 925(c) application process described in the proposed rule will deliver on its promise. For example, the document production requirements may be challenging for many people, especially those with dated minor convictions. See proposed 28 CFR § 107.1(d).  Hopefully, the final rule will facilitate application rather than discourage it for those unable to hire counsel. At a minimum, the revived § 925(c) process will provide an alternative to presidential pardon for people dispossessed because of a federal conviction.

But relief under § 925(c) affects only restrictions on firearm possession arising under federal law, and will not affect analogous restrictions in the laws of most states. As a result, individuals who benefit from the federal restoration program will need to determine what their rights are under state law.  In all likelihood, states will also want to determine whether restrictions in their own laws should conform to or outlive federal ones.

While the new federal restoration program may be good news for people who can successfully navigate it, the not-so-good news is that many of these same people (including those with federal convictions) will remain frustrated by restrictive state laws that permanently prohibit their possession of any firearm without regard to public safety risk.

In June of 2025, CCRC published a report on state law firearm restrictions that will inform these determinations. CCRC’s report, Restoration of Firearm Rights After Conviction: A National Survey and Suggestions for Reform, offers a comprehensive picture of the differing ways states restrict and restore the right to possess a firearm for those dispossessed because of a criminal record, including relevant sections of statutory text to facilitate analysis and comparison. CCRC’s report concluded that most states restrict firearm rights too broadly and make restoration difficult, in potential violation of the Second Amendment.

Our report found that only 13 states limit dispossession to violent crimes, and 34 states offer no route to firearm relief to residents convicted in another state or in federal court. Sixteen (16) states make pardon the exclusive way to regain state firearm rights, and not all of those states offer pardon as a reliable remedy. Even in those states where pardoning is frequent and regular, those with out of state or federal convictions may be out of luck (unless the state gives effect to pardons issued by other jurisdictions).

Our research revealed that only 16 states provide a way to regain lost rights that is easily accessible to all state residents wherever they were convicted, usually from an administrative agency or a court in the county of their residence. That is the kind of relief system we recommend. 

We are in the process of updating our report on state firearms dispossession laws to reflect new enactments in a dozen states since June, and we expect to republish it before Thanksgiving. 

NOTE: One interesting additional development since June is that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could add to our understanding of how the Second Amendment applies to federal firearm restrictions. The case, United States v. Hemani, involves the federal prosecution of a Texas man for violating the prohibition on gun possession by anyone who is “an unlawful user of” any controlled substance. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). The district court found § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Hemani, and the court of appeals agreed.

The Justice Department has urged the Supreme Court to find § 922(g)(3) constitutional as analogous to Founding Era gun laws applicable to “habitual drunkards,” despite the absence of any record facts to support such a finding in Mr. Hemani’s case.  It has also argued that the impending revival of the § 925(c) relief program obviates any constitutional problem with this provision, which the proposed regulation explains applies only to those currently using drugs in violation of the law.  The Court’s willingness to hear the case suggests an openness to curbing aggressive federal firearm prosecution policies in cases implicating the Second Amendment.  

 

Virginia enacts significant record reforms in 2025

Note: We are very pleased to publish a summary of the several significant record reforms enacted by Virginia in 2025, prepared by Rob Poggenklass. Rob is executive director of Justice Forward Virginia, a public defender-led criminal justice policy advocacy organization. He was deputy director of CCRC in 2022. 

The Commonwealth of Virginia has continued to make significant progress toward reducing the collateral consequences of criminal conviction, although a closely divided government has meant that reforms have been more incremental in recent years. Here are the several new laws that Virginia enacted during the 2025 legislative session:

  • Occupational licensing reforms;
  • Expansion of vacatur eligibility for victims of human trafficking;
  • Two bills easing employment restrictions for people convicted of “barrier crimes”; and
  • Technical updates and policy changes to the major 2021 record sealing law, which will take effect July 1, 2026;

In addition, the General Assembly took the first step toward amending the Virginia Constitution to ensure that a felony conviction results in loss of the right to vote (and potentially other civil rights) only during actual incarceration.

These six major new authorities are described below. I expect that the Virginia General Assembly’s exemplary performance in enacting these important new provisions will be in for recognition in CCRC’s annual round-up of new record reforms.

Read more

New information about revived federal firearm restoration process

On March 20 of this year, the Justice Department announced its intention to revive the long-dormant administrative process for restoring federal firearm rights lost because of a criminal conviction. It did not explain how it intended to do this.

We have now learned more about how the revived federal firearm restoration process will work.

The DOJ budget for FY 2026 published on June 13 confirms that, while a number of departmental components will be reduced or phased out entirely, the Office of the Pardon Attorney has an entirely new responsibility and additional funding for “leading the Department’s initiative on creating and establishing a process for restoring firearm rights to citizens.”

The budget document explains (at p. 96) that the office now headed by Pardon Attorney Ed Martin “is developing a process to allow individuals with prior felony convictions and other disqualifiers to petition the Department for restoration of federal firearm rights pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 925(c).” The § 925(c) process was administered by ATF until Congress defunded it in 1992, leaving those with federal convictions and many others without a readily available way of regaining their rights. (We explored these issues in a report on restoration of firearm rights published earlier this month.)

DOJ estimates that “[t]he population of potentially eligible applicants is estimated to be over 25 million and, given the length of time since a working process has been in place, it is anticipated that there will be significant interest from the public in pursuing this remedy.” An additional $448,000 allotted to the Pardon Attorney’s budget “will allow the office to accomplish its clemency mission and firearm rights restoration efforts for the Department.” As explained in the DOJ budget document, the Pardon Attorney has been working to develop “an IT case management system to implement an application intake, review, and management process for citizens applying for the restoration of firearms rights.” The document adds that Justice “is committed to establishing a process to review and evaluate these claims at minimal cost.”

Working in conjunction with the Criminal Justice Information Services Team at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of the Pardon Attorney is developing an easy-to-use web portal for the acceptance of applications. The new process will leverage technological advancements and system integrations to maximize efficiencies and minimize the manual review of applications for restoration.

This surge in applications will likely require significant outreach efforts to ensure eligible individuals are aware of the new process and requirements. Clear guidance and support resources will be essential to help applicants navigate the procedure efficiently and avoid unnecessary delays.

We understand that the Pardon Attorney will publish implementing regulations for public comment shortly after June 18, the date the comment period for the March 20 regulation concludes.  It will be interesting to see the specifics of a case management system that can at once handle the claims of 25 million people while faithfully complying (“at minimal cost”) with the § 925(c) standard for relief (“the Attorney General may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest”). It will also be interesting to see how broad the category of “other disqualifiers” mentioned in the budget document may be, including whether it extends to categories of citizens dispossessed under federal law for reasons other than a criminal conviction, such as drug addiction, dishonorable military discharge, and “mental defect.” See 18 U.S. C. § 922(g). 

In any event, dispensing with federal restrictions will not be sufficient to fully restore the firearm rights of many presently dispossessed by virtue of a criminal conviction, since most states impose firearm restrictions based on criminal conviction that are entirely independent of federal law, as CCRC’s report documents. It may be that, with the revival of a § 925(c) process that is essentially automatic, state law will become the primary regulator of firearm rights for those dispossessed by virtue of a criminal conviction.

 

New report: Most states restrict firearm rights too broadly and make restoration difficult

Most states restrict firearm rights too broadly and make restoration difficult, in potential violation of the Second Amendment, according to new report

 

 

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 5, 2025

Media Contact: Margaret Love

Margaretlove@pardonlaw.com

Loss of firearm rights after a felony conviction extends well beyond what is necessary to advance public safety objectives, according to a study released today by the Collateral Consequences Resource Center. The loss of rights is permanent in most states, and under federal law.

The study shows that each state operates under its own complex legal framework with overlapping federal requirements that create the possibility of further criminal jeopardy for inadvertent violations.  Only 13 states limit dispossession to violent crimes, and more than two-thirds of the states offer no route to firearm relief to residents convicted in another state or in federal court. Only 16 states provide a way to regain lost rights that is easily accessible to all state residents.

CCRC’s report, Restoration of Firearm Rights After Conviction: A National Survey and Suggestions for Reform, offers a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the differing ways states restrict and restore the right to possess a firearm, including relevant sections of statutory text to facilitate analysis and comparison.  This detailed information on state laws has not been made previously available, and is timely in light of impending changes to federal firearm restoration.

In almost every state, the process for regaining firearm rights is complex and difficult to navigate. Restoration of federal rights currently depends on restoration under state law, which means that restoration is effectively unavailable to many people, notably including those convicted in federal court whose only remedy is a presidential pardon. It also means that federal firearms restrictions are unevenly applied across the country.

Broad categorical dispossession laws like those in most states are more vulnerable to constitutional challenge under the Second Amendment when there is no individualized assessment of public safety risk, according to Margaret Love, one of the co-authors of the report. “There is no empirical research that would support restricting firearm rights for those convicted of non-violent offenses.”

Love said that “A close look at how firearm rights are restored in states across the country is important because of prospective changes to federal restoration procedures announced in March by the Department of Justice.” She pointed out that “The revival of an alternate way of avoiding federal restrictions means that federal rights will no longer depend on how states restore rights. At the same time, it will leave applicable state restrictions in place, and challenge states to consider whether any analogous state restrictions should remain after federal rights have been restored.”   

The change in federal firearm restoration procedures under consideration by the Department of Justice should encourage states to look carefully at restoration provisions in their own laws to determine whether more restrictive state provisions should outlive federal ones. States will also have to consider whether to offer opportunities for restoration of rights to all state residents rather than restricting them to people convicted in their own state courts.

Beth Johnson, the other co-author of the report, said that facilitating relief from felony dispossession has not been a focus of organizations seeking to remove criminal record restrictions on basic needs such as housing, employment, and access to social supports. It has also not been a familiar part of the advocacy program of organizations dedicated to challenging other types of restrictions on firearm possession.

“Gun violence has been too volatile an issue on the national scene to make support for restoring firearm rights to ‘convicted felons’ anything but a political third rail,” Johnson said. “Lost in the debate is what should be common ground: treating people fairly and supporting their reintegration includes restoring, with appropriate safeguards, their full access to housing, jobs, credit, and yes, also firearm rights.”

The report recommends that the federal government should make relief from federal felony dispossession under the proposed new restoration program broadly available to those who present no public safety risk.  It also recommends that states should narrow the scope of their felony dispossession laws, and provide a procedure for regaining firearm rights that incorporates a public safety determination and is easily accessible to all residents.

Both of the report’s authors have each spent decades representing people seeking to regain their firearm rights, Love in the Federal system through the presidential pardon process, and Johnson in the State of Illinois through the various relief mechanisms that state provides. “We are convinced that the time is right for a serious and open-minded effort to reform the law applicable to a collateral consequence of conviction that is in many ways unreasonable and unfair,” they said. “We are optimistic that the proposed changes to federal restoration will encourage states to reform their unduly restrictive laws.”

###

ABOUT CCRC

The Collateral Consequences Resource Center is a non-profit organization that researches laws and policies relating to restoration of rights and criminal record relief throughout the country, whose work makes it possible to see national patterns and emerging trends in efforts to mitigate the adverse impact of a criminal record. For more information visit https://ccresourcecenter.org/.  

 

New report: Most states restrict firearm rights too broadly and make restoration difficult

Most states restrict firearm rights too broadly and make restoration difficult, in potential violation of the Second Amendment, according to new report

 

 

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 5, 2025

Media Contact: Margaret Love

Margaretlove@pardonlaw.com

Loss of firearm rights after a felony conviction extends well beyond what is necessary to advance public safety objectives, according to a study released today by the Collateral Consequences Resource Center. The loss of rights is permanent in most states, and under federal law.

The study shows that each state operates under its own complex legal framework with overlapping federal requirements that create the possibility of further criminal jeopardy for inadvertent violations.  Only 13 states limit dispossession to violent crimes, and more than two-thirds of the states offer no route to firearm relief to residents convicted in another state or in federal court. Only 16 states provide a way to regain lost rights that is easily accessible to all state residents.

CCRC’s report, Restoration of Firearm Rights After Conviction: A National Survey and Suggestions for Reform, offers a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the differing ways states restrict and restore the right to possess a firearm, including relevant sections of statutory text to facilitate analysis and comparison.  This detailed information on state laws has not been made previously available and is particularly timely in light of impending changes to federal firearm restoration.

In almost every state, the process for regaining firearm rights is complex and difficult to navigate. Restoration of federal rights currently depends on restoration under state law, which means that restoration is effectively unavailable to many people, notably including those convicted in federal court whose only remedy is a presidential pardon.

Broad categorical dispossession laws like those in most states are more vulnerable to constitutional challenge under the Second Amendment when there is no individualized assessment of public safety risk, according to Margaret Love, one of the co-authors of the report. “There is no empirical research that would support restricting firearm rights in the case of non-violent offenses.”

Love said that “A close look at how firearm rights are restored in states across the country is important because of prospective changes to federal restoration procedures announced in March by the Department of Justice.” She pointed out that “The revival of an alternate way of avoiding federal restrictions means that federal rights will no longer depend on how states restore rights. At the same time, it will leave applicable state restrictions in place, and challenge states to consider whether any analogous state restrictions should remain after federal rights have been restored.”   

The change in federal firearm restoration procedures under consideration by the Department of Justice should encourage states to look carefully at restoration provisions in their own laws to determine whether more restrictive state provisions should outlive federal ones. States will also have to consider whether to offer opportunities for restoration of rights to all state residents rather than restricting them to people convicted in their own state courts.

Beth Johnson, the other co-author of the report, said that facilitating relief from felony dispossession has not been a focus of organizations seeking to remove criminal record restrictions on basic needs such as housing, employment, and access to social supports. It has also not been a familiar part of the advocacy program of organizations dedicated to challenging other types of restrictions on firearm possession.

“Gun violence has been too volatile an issue on the national scene to make support for restoring firearm rights to ‘convicted felons’ anything but a political third rail,” Johnson said. “Lost in the debate is what should be common ground: treating people fairly and supporting their reintegration includes restoring, with appropriate safeguards, their full access to housing, jobs, credit, and yes, also firearm rights.”

The report recommends that the federal government should make relief from federal felony dispossession under the proposed new restoration program broadly available to those who present no public safety risk.  It also recommends that states should narrow the scope of their felony dispossession laws, and provide a procedure for regaining firearm rights that incorporates a public safety determination and is easily accessible to all residents.

Both of the report’s authors have each spent decades representing people seeking to regain their firearm rights, Love in the Federal system through the presidential pardon process, and Johnson in the State of Illinois through the various relief mechanisms that state provides. “We are convinced that the time is right for a serious and open-minded effort to reform the law applicable to a collateral consequence of conviction that is in many ways unreasonable and unfair,” they said. “We are optimistic that the proposed changes to federal restoration will encourage states to reform their unduly restrictive laws.”

###

ABOUT CCRC

The Collateral Consequences Resource Center is a non-profit organization that researches laws and policies relating to restoration of rights and criminal record relief throughout the country, whose work makes it possible to see national patterns and emerging trends in efforts to mitigate the adverse impact of a criminal record. For more information visit https://ccresourcecenter.org/.  

 

Study: Texas diversion provides dramatic benefits for people facing their first felony

NOTE: In light of renewed interest in state legislatures in judicially-administered diversion and deferred adjudication programs, we are re-publishing our 2021 report on a remarkable study of deferred adjudication in Texas by researchers Michael Mueller-Smith and Kevin Schnepel. We noted at the time that “The deferred adjudication program in Texas represents the largest diversion program in the U.S. with over 200,000 participants during 2017 (the most recent year with state-wide caseload data available). Based on the findings of Mueller-Smith and Schnepel, this program may serve as a good model for other jurisdictions considering an expansion of diversion options, especially for people possibly facing their first felony conviction.

by Margaret Love and David Schlussel (Feb 23, 2021).

Increased use of diversion is a key feature of America’s new age of criminal justice reform. Whether administered informally by prosecutors or under the auspices of courts, diversionary dispositions aim to resolve cases without a conviction—and in so doing, conserve scarce legal resources, provide supportive services, reduce recidivism, and provide defendants with a chance to avoid the lingering stigma of a conviction record.

Despite the growing popularity of diversion in this country and around the world, there has been little empirical study of its impacts on future behavior. Until now.

By conjecture, the opportunity to steer clear of a criminal conviction might affect future behavior in opposing ways. An optimist might expect that diversion would motivate a person to avoid returning to court in the future, while preserving the ability to hold lawful employment, especially in places where criminal background checks are used to screen applicants. A skeptic might argue that diversion represents a lesser punishment that could increase offending by reducing either a specific or general deterrence effect.

Without research showing the likelihood of one or the other outcome, policymakers, prosecutors, and judges have had to operate on untested assumptions, hoping for the best. This vacuum has now been filled by a new study of Texas’ court-managed diversion program by two economists, which should be welcome news for the optimists.

Michael Mueller-Smith and Kevin Schnepel (2020) use detailed administrative data from Harris County (which covers the Houston area) to estimate the first causal impacts of a diversion program available to a large fraction of felony defendants in the state. Texas’ “deferred adjudication community supervision” allows defendants to plead guilty but have entry of a conviction deferred during a period of community supervision, with the case dismissed without a conviction upon successful completion. The arrangement must be approved by the judge. This diversion program is comparable to numerous programs administered by prosecutors and judges across the U.S., Europe, and several other countries—although many programs do not necessarily require a guilty plea. At the same time, Texas law has broad eligibility for its program compared to many otherwise-comparable American programs, making deferred adjudication potentially available to all defendants except those charged with DUI-related offenses, repeat drug trafficking near a school, a range of repeat sex crimes, and murder.

Read more

1 2 3 … 59