New book argues collateral consequences can’t be justified

University of Nottingham philosophy professor Zachary Hoskins has written an important new book about “collateral legal consequences” (CLCs), just published by Oxford University Press.  Beyond Punishment? A Normative Account of the Collateral Legal Consequences of Conviction engages cases and statutes from the United States and other countries, but it is primarily a philosophical interrogation of the legitimacy of CLCs, not an analysis of legal doctrine or constitutional limitations.

A core principle is the powerful one that harsh treatment and disadvantage requires justification, particularly when hardships are imposed on specific groups.  Beyond Punishment argues that CLCs could be justified as criminal punishment to some degree, but that legitimate punishment is that which is necessary and sufficient to pay one’s debt to society. The way CLCs actually operate in the United States often does not fit into this category.  First, CLCs are not characterized as punishment (and therefore are exempt from the constitutional limitations on criminal punishment) but as civil, regulatory measures.  Second, they are often imposed years after completion of the criminal sentence.

A non-punitive rationale might be that by breaching the social contract, people with convictions are not entitled to the benefits of that contract.  But this proves too much–because someone jaywalked in 1989 does not mean they can legitimately be robbed or defrauded today.  If breaching the social contract justifies only a proportional as opposed to an unlimited response, most CLCs go too far. Beyond Punishment also criticizes public safety as a justification for CLCs, for essentially the same reason: The more or less random and arbitrary imposition of collateral consequences is unduly harsh on some, while others who should be restrained for the same reason but have no criminal conviction are not subject to CLCs.

Beyond Punishment’s careful analysis and precise definitions make a strong case that CLCs are, as Justice Kennedy said about imprisonment itself, disabling “too many persons for too long.”  But the tradition of American constitutional jurisprudence, anyway, has not been to require rigorous fairness or precise justification for hard treatment.  Even with regard to incarceration, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment has not been much of a limitation on brutal sentences for minor crimes.  This is, to some extent, good news as well as bad.  While courts have proved, thus far, of only limited help in reining in collateral consequences and other criminal sanctions, legislatures are as unconstrained in repealing or mitigating them as they were in imposing them in the first place.  Legislators and voters, as well as students and lawyers, will be hard-pressed to justify our current system of CLCs after reading this book.

 

PA’s new pardon chief was just pardoned himself

Freed from prison nine years ago, Brandon Flood is new secretary of Pa.’s pardon board

Philadelphia Inquirer, April 7, 2019

by Will Bunch

This column will probably come as something of a shock to all the people in Harrisburg who only know Brandon Flood – a bow-tied, bespectacled policy wonk with sartorial flair – as the persona that he laughingly calls “Urkel Brandon,” in a homage to one of TV’s most famous nerds.

Flood, now 36, readily admits most folks who know him from nearly a decade as a legislative aide or lobbyist will be shocked to learn of his past that includes boot camp for juvenile offenders, a physical scuffle with Harrisburg’s then-police chief, and finally felony convictions and two lengthy prison stints for dealing crack cocaine and carrying an unlicensed gun.

But starting last week, Flood’s turnaround saga has become a talking point and a mission statement for his new job as secretary of the five-member Pennsylvania Board of Pardons – anchoring one leg of a broader push in Harrisburg for criminal justice reform, aimed at giving more convicted felons a chance for clemency or to wipe their slate clean with a pardon.

What makes Flood’s appointment even more remarkable is that – to steal a phrase from TV infomercial lore – he’s not just Pennsylvania’s new top pardons administrator, he’s also a client. Gov. Wolf signed off on Flood’s own board-approved pardon, erasing his past convictions, just a few weeks before Flood stepped in as secretary.

Read more

Updated report on 2018 fair chance and expungement reforms

On January 10, 2019, we released a report documenting the extraordinary number of laws passed in 2018 aimed at reducing barriers to successful reintegration for individuals with a criminal record.  Since that time, we discovered five additional laws enacted in 2018 (in AL, PA, OR, MO, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), and have updated our report accordingly.

In 2018, 32 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands enacted at least 61 new laws aimed at avoiding or mitigating the collateral consequences of arrest and conviction, consequences that may otherwise last a lifetime. The CCRC report analyzes last year’s lawmaking and summarizes all 61 new authorities, which include 57 statutes, 3 executive orders, and one ballot initiative.

Last year saw the most productive legislative year since a wave of “fair chance” reforms began in 2013.  CCRC documented these earlier developments in reports on the 2013-2016 reforms and 2017 reforms.  In the period 2012–2018, every state legislature has in some way addressed the problem of reintegration.  Congress has not enacted any laws dealing with the problems presented by collateral consequences for more than a decade.

The state laws enacted in 2018 aim to break down legal and other barriers to success in the courts, the workplace, the pardon process, and at the ballot box:

Read more

“High Time for Marijuana Expungement”

Any state that legalizes or decriminalizes marijuana should automatically include an expungement provision that clears the criminal record of individuals who engaged in activities deemed lawful under the new legalization or decriminalization laws.  This is the thesis of my new article, “High Time for Criminal Justice Reform: Marijuana Expungement Statutes in States with Legalized or Decriminalized Laws.”  At the federal level, Senator Cory Booker’s recently reintroduced Senate Bill 597, the “Marijuana Justice Act of 2019,” would do just that: remove marijuana from the Schedule of Controlled Substances and expunge records of marijuana possession and use convictions.  At the same time, some local governments are focusing on more efficient and expeditious expungement processes.  Earlier this year, the San Francisco District Attorney partnered with Code for America to identify and process eligible marijuana cases, including past convictions dating back to 1975.  The Denver District Attorney launched “Turn Over a New Leaf Program,” which helps individuals who committed now-repealed marijuana-related offenses vacate the records of their convictions.  While Colorado has a marijuana sealing statute (Col. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-710 allows sealing of misdemeanor marijuana possession or use offenses if an individual files a petition, pays a filing fee plus $65, and proves that the offense is no longer considered a crime), the New Leaf Program has attorneys from the Denver City Attorney’s Office guide individuals through the process and ask courts to vacate, dismiss, and seal convictions for marijuana offenses that are no longer illegal.

However—as I document in my article—of the ten states that have legalized, only four states have enacted marijuana-expungement legislation; of the thirteen states that have decriminalized marijuana, only three have enacted marijuana-expungement legislation.  My article includes charts compiling the status of expungement statutes in states that have legalized or decriminalized recreational marijuana and includes a model marijuana expungement statute.  My article draws on previous scholarship in this area by Professor Douglas Berman (Leveraging Marijuana Reform to Enhance Expungement Practices) and CCRC fellow David Schlussel (The Mellow Pot-Smoker: White Individualism in Marijuana Legalization Campaigns).

Read more

New drug policy center blends scholarship and public engagement

The Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC), which is housed at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, focuses on promoting and supporting interdisciplinary, evidence-based research, scholarship, education, community outreach and public engagement on the myriad issues and societal impacts surrounding the reform of criminal and civil laws prohibiting or regulating the use and distribution of traditionally illicit drugs.  DEPC examines the impact of modern drug laws, policies and enforcement on personal freedoms and human well-being, giving particularized and sustained attention to analyzing the rapid evolution of marijuana laws and the impacts of state-level reform efforts.  DEPC strives to advance scholarship from across academia, while also working with government actors, legal practitioners, public policy advocates and other stakeholders, in order to help shape and thoughtfully enrich public conversations about the intersecting fields of drug policy and criminal justice reform.

Questions relating to drug enforcement and policy intersect with collateral consequences in any number of ways.  One obvious example involves the on-going robust discussion of whether and how marijuana reforms at the state level should incorporate distinct provisions for the expungement of past marijuana convictions – a conversation now taking place in New Jersey as that state prepares to vote on legalization.  The Executive Director of DEPC, Professor Douglas Berman, wrote on this topic last year in his article for the Federal Sentencing Reporter titled “Leveraging Marijuana Reform to Enhance Expungement Practices.”

Another important question relates to whether people with a criminal record (including for long-ago drug crimes) should be barred from working or otherwise participating in the lucrative marijuana industry.

But other important (and uncertain) intersections abound.  For example, given the large number of drug arrests annually, are non-conviction records distinct and distinctly important in the drug enforcement arena?  We expect to consider this issue in our study of non-conviction records presently underway.  Also, given the tendency of some employment restrictions and other collateral consequences to focus on certain types of prior convictions, do past drug offenses present a uniquely problematic barrier for reentry?    DEPC is eager to help develop and promote research on these kinds of critical topics (and many more).

Starr and Prescott publish groundbreaking empirical study of expungement

Professors Sonja B. Starr and J.J. Prescott of Michigan Law School have released the first-ever broad-based empirical study of the effects of a state law limiting public access to criminal records.   CCRC’s reports have noted the lack of empirical research to inform policies aimed at promoting reentry and reintegration for people with a criminal record—something this study of Michigan’s set-aside law begins to correct.  As its authors observe, “Despite the considerable legislative ferment and the excitement that surrounds ‘clean slate’ initiatives in the civil rights and criminal justice reform worlds, what has been missing from the debate is hard evidence about the effects and true potential of conviction expungement laws.”  A reason for this, as the authors also note, is that by definition criminal records that are the subject of sealing or expungement relief are often unavailable to study.  [Note:  In the summer of 2019, the study was accepted for publication in the Harvard Law Review.]

Using a data-sharing agreement with multiple Michigan state agencies, Starr and Prescott completed an extensive statewide analysis of expungement of criminal convictions in Michigan over the course of decades.  Their analysis reveals three key findings:

  • Uptake:  Just 6.5% of those eligible for expungement successfully complete Michigan’s application process within five years of eligibility.
  • Recidivism:  Expungement recipients “have extremely low subsequent crime rates, comparing favorably to the general population—a finding that defuses a common public-safety objection to expungement laws.”
  • Employment:  Expungement receipts see a “sharp upturn” in wage and employment: wages go up on average by 25% within two years, driven mostly by “unemployed people finding jobs and very minimally employed people finding steadier or higher-paying work.”

These conclusions just about cover the waterfront of findings we would most like to see about laws that limit public access to criminal records.  Looking at them in reverse order, Starr and Prescott find that expungement is valuable in economic terms for those who receive this relief, and improvements in their economic status will in turn benefit their families and communities.

They also find that those who benefit from expungement present no particular threat to public safety, whether because recipients of expungement are self-selected criminal justice success, because the courts that grant them relief take their likelihood of reoffending into account, or because expungement itself does not tend to increase recidivism risk (and in fact may reduce it).

Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, few of the people who are intended beneficiaries of Michigan’s expungement law actually obtain this relief, either because they don’t apply for it or because their applications for expungement are not approved.  The authors find six reasons that account for this “uptake gap” (which is greater for people with misdemeanors than felonies):

  • lack of information about the availability of relief;
  • administrative hassle and time constraints;
  • cost (including court filing fees, lost wages, and transportation costs);
  • distrust and fear of the criminal justice system;
  • lack of access to counsel; and
  • insufficient motivation to remove conviction.

In addition, while not a part of the “uptake gap” strictly speaking, the authors note that “every advocate that we spoke to also emphasized the stringency of the eligibility requirements, which in their view exclude a great many worthy candidates.”  (A person must have no more than one felony conviction and no more than two misdemeanor convictions in order to be eligible for “set-aside” under what is commonly known as the “general expungement statute.”  In contrast to most states, however, most felony convictions are eligible for set-aside.  A Michigan set-aside limits public access to the record, but it remains available to law enforcement and some other government agencies.  See the description of Michigan’s law providing for set-aside in the Michigan profile from the Restoration of Rights Project.)  The authors remark about the eligibility requirements for set-aside in Michigan:

All of these restrictions mean that the low uptake rate we estimated is even starker when viewed in context: it is a very small fraction of a very small fraction. For the past decade about two thousand set asides per year have been granted in Michigan. Meanwhile, each year the Michigan state courts add about 300,000 new criminal convictions. On balance, the population of people living with criminal records is continuing to grow quickly; the set-aside law is like a bucket removing water from an ever-rising ocean.

We note that Michigan’s eligibility requirements are actually more inclusive than those in most states.  See this 50-state chart.

We expect that the findings of this remarkable new study will prove uniquely valuable to advocates and policy-makers considering changes to laws authorizing relief from collateral consequences in the days and years ahead.

Administration wants federal job seekers to disclose participation in diversion

A proposed federal rule, now open for public comment, would expand the types of criminal records that must be disclosed by applicants seeking federal jobs and contracting work.  On February 22, 2019, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) proposed a new rule to modify its “Declaration for Federal Employment” form (OF–306)—used by federal agencies in applications for federal employment or contracting—to require applicants to disclose not only whether they have been convicted, imprisoned, on probation, or on parole in the last 7 years, as under the current rule, but also whether they have participated in any pretrial diversion or intervention programs during that look-back period.  Such pretrial diversion and intervention programs “allow individuals to agree to comply with specific conditions in lieu of criminal prosecution and upon compliance, to have the charge(s) dismissed.”  No conviction is entered—and in some cases, neither is a plea.

**Update (5/29/19): The federal government has withdrawn this proposal, as reported by the Washington Post.

Reform advocates and a growing number of state and federal prosecutors rightfully promote diversionary dispositions as key tools to reduce the collateral consequences of criminal justice system involvement.  But OPM’s proposed rule treats participation in a diversion program—even where there is no admission of guilt—as a marker of criminality.  By requiring candidates to disclose participation in diversion programs, OPM’s new proposed rule subverts the benefits of diversion: “prevent[ing] collateral consequences associated with [an] incident and allow[ing] for positive community perceptions of the justice system.”  See, e.g., Erica McWhorter & David LaBahn, Confronting the Elephants in the Courtroom Through Prosecutor Led Diversion Efforts, 79 Alb. L. Rev. 1221, 1239 (2016).

The new disclosure requirement is described further below.  Public comments on the proposed rule may be submitted by April 23, 2019.

Read more

PA prepares to implement clean slate

Community Legal Services of Philadelphia (CLS), with the leadership of Sharon M. Dietrich, has issued a report on the progress made towards implementing Pennsylvania’s Clean Slate Act.  (See our post describing this ground-breaking law when it was enacted last June.)  Notably, the state is “on target” to start automated sealing of criminal records by the onset date of June 28, 2019.  As the report explains, “[a]utomated sealing will permit Pennsylvania to close the large ‘second chance gap’ between those eligible for expungement or sealing and those who actually benefit, by allowing cases to be sealed in a volume not possible in the absence of technology.”  The most ambitious aspect of the new law is its retroactive application to millions of people, some of whom were convicted decades ago.

CLS is to be commended for marshaling lawyers and other advocates to make the relief promised by this law a reality.  Other jurisdictions across the country will have their eyes on Pennsylvania as it works to harness technology in the service of reintegration.

The report’s overview is reprinted below:

Get Ready, Get Set: Pennsylvania Prepares for Clean Slate Implementation

By: Community Legal Services, Inc., Philadelphia, PA
First Published: March 6, 2019
Last Updated: March 13, 2019

Overview

Read more

CCRC launches major study of non-conviction records

CCRC is pleased to announce that we are undertaking a major study of the public availability and use of non-conviction records – including arrests that are never charged, charges that are dismissed, deferred and diversionary dispositions, and acquittals.   Law enforcement agencies and courts frequently make these records available to the public allowing widespread dissemination on the internet, both directly and through private for-profit databases.  Their appearance in background checks can lead to significant discrimination against people who have never been convicted of a crime, and result unfairly in barriers to employment, housing, education, and many other opportunities.  Research has shown that limiting public access to these records through mechanisms like sealing and expungement is valuable in economic terms for those who receive this relief, and improvements in their economic status will in turn benefit their families and communities.

While almost every U.S. jurisdiction makes some provision for limiting public access to non-conviction records, such relief varies widely in availability and effect, and is often difficult to take advantage of without a lawyer.  What’s more, arrest records may remain accessible on the internet long after official court files have been made confidential or even destroyed.  While CCRC’s Restoration of Rights Project now includes state-by-state information on how non-conviction records may be sealed or expunged, our new project will examine the operation of applicable laws more closely.

The first phase of this project will produce by early June 2019 a detailed inventory of the laws in each U.S. jurisdiction for limiting public use of and access to records of arrests and/or judicial proceedings that do not result in conviction.  Among other things, this inventory will examine both: (1) categorical or automatic relief (such as general confidentiality laws and limits on considering non-conviction records by employers and licensing boards); and (2) case-specific relief (such as sealing and expungement, either automatic or by application).  For this second type of relief, the study will look at eligibility criteria (including waiting periods and overall criminal record), procedures (including filing fees or other financial barriers), and effect (entities excepted from restrictions on access and use). It will also note where state law or court rulings permit redaction of records so that dismissed charges may be sealed even if one or more charges in a case do result in conviction.

After completing the research phase of the project, CCRC will consult with scholars and practitioners to prepare a nationwide analysis, examining specific issues across all jurisdictions, identifying patterns and gaps in existing laws and policies.

The second and final phase of the project will be launched at a roundtable meeting on August 16-17, 2019, hosted by the University of Michigan Law School. The roundtable will produce a set of policy recommendations and model legislation aimed at neutralizing the effect of non-conviction records.  Professors JJ Prescott and Sonja Starr of the Law School faculty will serve as conference hosts and collaborators on this second phrase.  A number of legal scholars, practitioners, judges, law enforcement officials, and legislators have already agreed to participate.  At least three of those invited themselves have criminal records.  We expect to have several technology experts at the table to advise about the operational implications of the policies and legislation we are considering, in light of how states manage their criminal records systems.

Following the August roundtable, we will finalize its recommendations and model law with the assistance of scholars and other experts; publish them in a report; and promote them widely in the academic and advocacy community.

The principal value of this project will be to inform and strengthen efforts underway in legislatures and advocacy organizations across the country to mitigate the disabling effects of a criminal record on the lives of people who have one, on their families and on their communities.  We believe that reforming the law is as important a part of the reintegration agenda as advocating for and providing services to those who are seeking a second chance, and we hope this project will be the first stage of a larger national law reform effort to address access to and use of all types of criminal records. In light of the intense interest in legislatures across the country in mitigating the effect of criminal records, as evidenced in our 2018 report on relevant laws passed just last year, there is an obvious need for such guidance.  The first months of 2019 have evidenced an even greater level of legislative interest, on which we expect to report again shortly.

Read more

WA lifetime ban on childcare work held unconstitutional

On February 21, 2019, the Washington State Supreme Court declared that a state regulation imposing a lifetime ban from ever obtaining a childcare license, or having unsupervised access to children in childcare, is unconstitutional as applied to Chrystal Fields.  The lifetime ban was triggered by Ms. Fields’ 1988 attempted second degree robbery conviction for trying to grab a woman’s purse in front of a drugstore.  (The licensing agency has a list of 50 permanently disqualifying convictions, one of which is robbery; an attempted offense is treated the same as a completed offense.)  The court held that the licensing agency’s failure to conduct an individualized determination of Ms. Fields’ qualifications violated her federal right to due process.  Fields v. Dep’t of Early Learning, No. 95024-5 (Wash. Feb. 21, 2019).  The full decision is available here.  A brief discussion of the case follows.

Read more

1 … 19 20 21 22 23 … 57