Category: Policy

“The president’s idle executive power: pardoning”

As the presidential pardon of everyone’s favorite Thanksgiving galliformes makes front-page news across the country (a tradition that the many human clemency petitioners who have spent years awaiting action must struggle to find the whimsy in), two law professors take the federal clemency system to task in a new Washington Post opinion piece.  In the piece, professors Rachel E. Barkow (NYU) and Mark Osler (University of St. Thomas) argue that the long and multi-tiered review process for federal clemency petitions could be significantly improved if the president would minimize the Justice Department’s involvement in the process while shifting responsibility to a bi-partisan review commission.  From the article: What is broken is no mystery. The key gatekeepers for this process are in the Justice Department — the same agency that prosecutes federal crimes. Unsurprisingly, the department has been reluctant to second-guess its own decisions and rarely recommends that the White House approve a clemency petition. Moreover, each petition must pass through as many as seven levels of review prior to approval, and many of those doing the reviewing (such as the deputy attorney general and the White House counsel) have plates already full with other duties. That’s why the average review time for approved clemency petitions in this administration has been about four years, according to P.S. Ruckman Jr., a political science professor who edits the Pardon Power blog. It’s easy to envision a better method. As in countless other areas of law, from communications and securities regulation to establishing sentencing guidelines, a dedicated agency comprising experts could address the problem efficiently and effectively. The president should appoint a bipartisan commission of Democrats and Republicans with expertise in criminal law to consider all applications and track data on recidivism and other outcomes. The agency can work with the president’s reentry council to coordinate prisoners’ transitions back to civil society. And because the commission would be politically balanced, the president would not need to worry about being exposed to Willie Horton-style attacks, should a convict commit some new crime after being freed; these will be cases that people of all political stripes agreed deserved relief. Read the full article here. Read more

Ohio’s on-line inventory of collateral consequences – a useful tool for defense lawyers

Kelley Williams-Bolar was a single mother in Akron Ohio, a teacher’s aide who was studying to become a teacher herself.  Her story made headlines in 2011, when she was accused of misusing her father’s home address to enroll her two young daughters in a public school they were not entitled to attend.  After her own home was burglarized, Kelley had enrolled the girls in their grandfather’s school district, so they could spend each afternoon after school safely at their grandfather’s house.  To make this possible she had signed a “grandparent affidavit” saying that the girls lived with their grandfather.  The new school district ultimately rejected the affidavit, and she withdrew the girls from their new school at the end of the school year. Ohio’s “grandparent affidavit” form contains a printed warning, advising that anyone who submits a false affidavit can be charged with “Falsification, a first degree misdemeanor.”  But that warning gave no hint of what would actually happen to Kelley.  Eighteen months after her daughters left the new school, the district attorney charged Kelley with felony Grand Theft, claiming she had “stolen” tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of tuition for her children. Particularly given Kelley’s career aspiration to be a teacher, her defense lawyer could have made good use of a new online resource called CIVICC (Civil Impacts of Criminal Convictions), a computerized compendium of state collateral consequences linked to the crimes that trigger them.  (Kelley’s felony conviction was eventually reduced to a misdemeanor by Governor John Kasich, high level intervention that cannot be counted on to substitute for effective advocacy.) At the CIVICC website, counsel in a case like Kelley’s could run a quick search using the keyword “theft,” and learn right away that conviction on the Grand Theft charge would expose her to 509 possible collateral consequences (“civil impacts”) under Ohio law, burdens she would bear long after her criminal sentence was complete. Those consequences could include denial of a teaching license and ineligibility for employment in a school.   Even if she received a comparatively light sentence for the offense, the simple fact of conviction would likely destroy Kelley’s hopes of becoming a teacher.  CIVICC would also show the same consequences flowing from any conviction for felony Tampering with Records, the conviction that Kelley ultimately received. In contrast, counsel would learn that a conviction for Falsification — the misdemeanor offense specifically identified on the grandparent affidavit form — would trigger “only” 192 collateral consequences, and the worst threat to Kelley’s teaching ambitions would be the right of licensing officials to question her about her criminal record.  The stark contrast between these long-term outcomes would provoke at minimum a serious attorney-client discussion about priorities.   The knowledge could significantly influence defense strategy and perhaps lead to a better outcome — not only for Kelley but for the state as well, as research has shown that secure employment offers by far the best assurance that an ex-offender will go on to live a law-abiding life. The CIVICC database is an ongoing project of the Ohio Justice & Policy Center in partnership with the Ohio Public Defender’s office.  The project began in 2010 to address a constellation of related circumstances that Ohio shares with other states across the country:  The explosion of criminal convictions in recent decades has produced a statewide population where 1 in 6 Ohioans has a felony or misdemeanor conviction record. Collateral consequences have proliferated correspondingly: CIVICC presently contains 844 and counting, nearly all enacted in the last 40 years. 95% of convictions are the result of guilty pleas, entered by defendants who have been informed of the potential criminal penalties but have no clue of the long-term collateral consequences they will confront when the sentence is complete. The cumulative economic effects of mass incarceration and lifelong collateral consequences have finally begun to capture attention from policymakers across the political spectrum. The collateral consequences in Ohio law are scattered throughout the statutory and administrative codes with no discernible order or system.  Anyone searching the codes for the collateral consequences of a particular conviction — whether a defense lawyer, a returning citizen, a workforce development professional or a social service volunteer — will spend hours if not days winding through the labyrinth of potentially applicable laws and rules. In response to these multiple concerns, CIVICC was created to collect in one searchable online database all the collateral consequences of conviction that exist in Ohio statutes.  More than that, its “relational database” structure enables users to see which collateral consequences are linked to which offenses under Ohio law.  Starting with an “Offense search,” the user can look up a particular criminal offense or type of offense, and find out what civil penalties that offense will trigger in addition to the court-imposed sentence.  Starting with an “Impact search,” the user can look up a particular right, privilege or field of endeavor, and find out what types of criminal conviction might block access to it. The CIVICC database first went online experimentally in March 2011, with information about 56 “civil impacts” of conviction.  It now contains 844 consequences, of which more than 300 have been newly enacted and/or amended since March, 2011.  CIVICC’s design and features have similarly evolved to meet the practical needs of its widely varied users. Certain essential characteristics do not change, however.  Among them are the following: CIVICC provides a narrative description of each consequence, which is searchable in an “Impact Keyword” query.  Many descriptions include citations to the multiple statutes and regulations that must be read together in order to understand a single consequence. CIVICC’s searchable content identifies the type of case outcome required to trigger each consequence. This is particularly valuable in Ohio, whose collateral consequence statutes vary enormously in their reach.  Some collateral consequences can be triggered by an arrest or indictment, some by participation in a diversion program, and some by an offense that has been officially “sealed” or “expunged.”  Juvenile defenders value the ability to use the Impact keyword “juvenile” and find the consequences that can be triggered specifically by a juvenile adjudication. CIVICC search results provide a link to the full text each offense statute and each consequence statute, plus additional links to certain exceptions found in Ohio statutes and regulations.  This is possible because Ohio provides online public access to the official text of its statutes and regulations via Lawriter. CIVICC is designed to be easy to use, but each page has a link to the User Guide/FAQs which can also be downloaded for offline use. OJPC first envisioned CIVICC as a one-year project but after almost five years it is still under construction, continually expanding with both new and updated content even as it handles over one thousand public queries each month.  While CIVICC users are anonymous, system reports show that queries come from community organizations, employers, courts, government agencies, public library users, public defenders, treatment providers, law firms and academic institutions, both within and outside Ohio.  Such reports echo what OJPC has learned directly from the users themselves:  that CIVICC is being used in a wide range of settings for purposes that include: identifying a particular applicable collateral consequences, as required when applying for a Certificate of Achievement and Employability (“CAE”) or Certificate for Qualification for Employment (“CQE”) under recently enacted Ohio laws; finding the range of collateral consequences that may result from a particular kind of criminal case outcome; identifying all the collateral consequences related to a particular occupation or field of study; examining the scope and effects of particular legislative enactments; and evaluating and comparing the types of collateral consequences that affect various segments of the community. News and inquiries from CIVICC users feed OJPC’s determination make continual improvements in CIVICC’s scope and functionality.  Encouragement comes especially from OJPC’s current collaboration with community college faculty, administrators and students; and from our work with Ohio’s statewide Ex-Offender Reentry Coalition, which involves state agencies and community organizations in advancing social and economic success for individuals with criminal records and for their families and communities. OJPC provides training about CIVICC and collateral consequences to user groups of all sizes and stripes, and we welcome inquiries and insights from all sources.  The website’s Contact page provides conventional contact information plus a direct e-mail link for user questions.  Try CIVICC at http://CIVICCOhio.org, and let us know what you think!   Read more

New reports evaluate national policy on juvenile record confidentiality

This month the Juvenile Law Center released an impressive pair of reports evaluating national policy on public access to juvenile criminal records. The first report, Juvenile Records: A National Review of State Laws on Confidentiality, Sealing and Expungement, provides a national overview of state laws, and proposes standards to mitigate exposure to collateral consequences as a result of a juvenile record.  The report also makes recommendations for policy-makers, courts, defense attorneys, and youth-serving agencies. Supplementing the national overview are fact sheets on the law in each state, including the availability and effect of expungement or sealing, and an overview of the process for obtaining such relief. (These fact sheets can be found by clicking on the relevant state on the map here). A second complementary report, Failed Policies, Forfeited Futures: A Nationwide Scorecard on Juvenile Records, scores each state on the degree to which it meets the Center’s ideal standards for juvenile record protection. The Center based its evaluation of the states on its “core principles for record protection” including: Records are not widely available or online Public access is limited before expungement Records are automatically sealed and expunged Expungement includes physical destruction and deletion from electronic databases Eligibility for expungement begins as soon as case is closed All offenses are eligible for expungement At least one state entity responsible for informing youth about expungement availability and process Youth-friendly forms No fees for expungement Sanctions for violations enforced No state fully met these standards, and the scores of the top 8 states fell between 60 and 79 percent.  On average, the nation as a whole scored only 49 percent. An interactive version of the states’ scorecards can be found here.  The Center’s press release and a summary of the reports can be found here. Read more

The Democrat who would be the “Reentry President”: James Webb

This week’s New Yorker features an article by Ryan Lizza about potential democratic candidates.  One, James Webb, former U.S. Senator from Virginia, has a history of interest in prisons and reentry of people with convictions.  The article states: “In the Senate, he pushed for creating a national commission that would study the American prison system, and he convened hearings on the economic consequences of mass incarceration. He says he even hired three staffers who had criminal records. ‘If you have been in prison, God help you if you want to really rebuild your life,’ Webb told me. ‘We’ve got seven million people somehow involved in the system right now, and they need a structured way to reënter society and be productive again.’ He didn’t mention it, but he is aware that the prison population in the U.S. exploded after the Clinton Administration signed tough new sentencing laws.” Of course, reentry is not necessarily a partisan issue; President George W. Bush also cared about it, calling America “the land of second chance” in his 2004 State of the Union address, and signing into law the Second Chance Act.  It will be interesting to see if prison spending and reentry become issues in the primaries or the general election. Read more

Labels and stereotypes in the President’s immigration speech

The President’s decision to take unilateral executive action to insulate certain undocumented immigrants from the immediate threat of deportation has provoked outrage in some quarters and profound relief in others.   The legal issues raised by this decision are important and debatable, some of its line-drawing is problematic, and its success stands or falls on the uncertain terrain of bureaucratic discretion.  No doubt its political implications are yet to be revealed. But amid all the uncertainty, one thing is clear.  In his speech announcing the initiative the President said, repeatedly and definitively, that no one with a criminal record would benefit from his reprieve.   Thus, he emphasized that enforcement resources would remain focused on “actual threats to our security,” by which he meant “Felons, not families. Criminals, not children.”   Again, it is possible to benefit from the law if you can “pass a criminal background check” (whatever that means), but “[i]f you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported.”   Even people convicted of misdemeanors will not be spared under the new DHS enforcement priorities. Entirely apart from the wisdom or fairness of the immigration policy choice involved in this broad blanket exclusion (and there are good reasons to be critical of it), it was disheartening to hear the President present it in such unfortunate language.  The ugly labels of “felon” and “criminal” do, after all, at least technically describe a status shared by 25% of adult Americans.  Labels like these serve only to demonize and exclude, and they are fundamentally at odds with our national policy of encouraging rehabilitation to reduce crime.  There were other ways the President could have justified continuing his policy of deporting based on criminal record than by using words that do more to stir up fear of “the other” than to describe relevant functional attributes. The President’s words suggest that people who have been convicted of a crime are evermore to be regarded as “felons” and “criminals,” categorically threatening to our safety and security, and uniformly deserving to be segregated and sent away.  But he himself pardoned such a person less than two years ago, precisely to keep her from being deported. And he is surely aware of the bipartisan conversation now underway about the need to curb over-criminalization, one of the few matters on which Republicans and Democrats can agree.   It is tempting to take linguistic shortcuts when politically expedient, but it is a temptation he might have resisted without jeopardizing his larger objective. It is time we stopped using negative stereotypes and labels to describe people who at some point in their past have committed a crime, in the immigration context or otherwise.  It is no longer acceptable to describe undocumented immigrants as “illegal aliens.”  Our language needs a similar makeover where past convictions are concerned. Read more