Collateral Sanctions

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alec C. Ewald
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Mass Incarceration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Benefits ◽  
Life Chances ◽  
Regulatory Law ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
The Military ◽  
Collateral Sanctions

Collateral sanctions are legal restrictions on the rights and privileges of people who have experienced contact with the criminal justice system, particularly contact resulting in conviction. Usually placed in civil and regulatory codes, collateral sanctions may limit a person’s ability to vote, live in public housing, own a firearm, qualify for an occupational license, serve in the military, receive public benefits, sit on a jury, or borrow money for college, among other activities. Yet, because they are usually defined as “indirect” consequences of a conviction, they may never surface in the criminal justice process, and they frequently extend far beyond the sentence. Such restrictions can deeply compromise the civic status and life chances of Americans with conviction records. But they are far from uniform: some serious restrictions are triggered by criminal justice involvement well short of a conviction, while others mark only some classes of offenders or operate only in some states. Layered into the federal system, multiplying the complications of criminal law and regulatory law, and imposed by civil servants with wide leeway in their interpretation of rules, American collateral sanctions are varied and complex. Their reach and severity in the United States appear to be unique in the democratic world and mark an important respect in which the American carceral state extends beyond mass incarceration.

Home Detention with Electronic Monitoring: Comparing Pretrial and Postconviction Programs

1990 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 521-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael G. Maxfield ◽  
Terry L. Baumer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Electronic Monitoring ◽  
The United States ◽  
Preliminary Results ◽  
Client Population ◽  
Similar Program ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
Two Populations

Since its introduction, electronically monitored home detention has become a common disposition throughout the United States. At the present time individuals at virtually every point in the criminal justice process are being monitored. This article describes studies of two populations. Preliminary results are presented from an evaluation of a pretrial home detention program. Salient differences are noted between the pretrial program and a similar program for convicted offenders delivered by the same agency, in the same jurisdiction. It is concluded that the nature of the client population significantly affects the design, delivery, and impact of electronically monitored home detention programs.

Forensic Psychology in Historical Perspective

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Wolffram
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Forensic Psychology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Offender Profiling ◽  
Witness Credibility ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
Psychological Knowledge ◽  
Psychological Expertise

Forensic psychology in the 21st century entails the application of psychology to all aspects of the criminal justice process. Forensic psychologists, therefore, are engaged in the theorization of offending, offender profiling, the psychology of testimony, investigative interviewing, the psychology of juries and judges, and psychological approaches to the punishment and treatment of offenders. Historically, however, forensic psychology, has been narrower in scope. Founded principally in Europe during the late 19th century as a response to the reform of criminal procedure and research on suggestion, which undermined confidence in witness credibility, forensic psychology was initially pursued by jurists and psychiatrists eager to understand the behavior of all those involved in the criminal justice process. While this ambition was pursued piecemeal by jurists throughout the early 20th century in their studies of guilty knowledge, judges, jurors, and investigators, the exigencies of the courtroom, soon saw the field become focused on the psychology of the witness, particularly the juvenile witness. Important, in this regard were the efforts of both European and American experimental psychologists, whose precarious position within universities at the fin de siècle saw them look for real-world applications for psychology and led them to campaign voraciously for the inclusion of psychological knowledge and psychological expertise in legal proceedings. Competition between several disciplines, including law, psychology, psychiatry, and pedagogy, over the role of psychological expert made the professionalization of this field difficult up until the Second World War. During the late 1940s and 1950s, however, not only did forensic psychology increasingly become the exclusive purview of psychologists, but the discipline’s scope began to expand. Notable in this regard was offender profiling, which emerged from the psychological analysis of war criminals and the application of the insights gained here to several high-profile criminal cases in the United States.

Prosecution and Courts

Criminology ◽  
2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Forst
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Case Processing ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
Scholarly Attention ◽  
Made In

Prosecution and courts are at the heart and center of our criminal justice system. They serve as stages of case processing that follow the police arrest and precede the delivery of convicted defendants to correctional authorities. The prosecutor, usually a politically elected official, is the chief law enforcement officer in a jurisdiction (county, state, federal) yet carries out an administrative function within the executive branch of government. To put the prosecutor and court in perspective, it is useful to think about the two million or so felony arrests made in the United States annually. About a million end in conviction and sentencing each year. What happens between arrest and sentencing is driven by the prosecutor and court adjudication system. Yet remarkably little scholarly attention is paid to prosecution and adjudication, relative to the stages before (offending and policing) and after (corrections and subsequent offender behaviors). The information that follows aims to help interested people to learn about prosecution and adjudication and the forces that shape practices in these two critical and largely hidden-from-view stages of the criminal justice process.

The Criminal Justice Process as a Rite of Passage

1992 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 22-24
Author(s):  
Livingston Sutro
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Rite Of Passage ◽  
Local Authorities ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
State And Local

Crime in the 1990s continues to be a massive problem in the United States. Federal, state, and local authorities expend tremendous resources to combat crime and punish criminals, but nothing seems to stem the tide. Psychologists and sociologists have identified what they consider to be the sources of crime, and some measures have been taken to implement their suggestions, yet crime is no less prevalent.

The Agreement of Uncontroversial Evidence and the Presumption of Innocence: An Insoluble Dilemma?

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Duff
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Relationship

On 1 April 1996, a rather odd provision was introduced into the Scottish criminal justice process, namely a duty on both prosecution and defence to try to agree uncontroversial evidence in advance of criminal trial.1 As far as the writer is aware, such a provision is unique, although the philosophy underlying its introduction is not totally alien to inquisitorial systems of criminal justice.2 What is particularly peculiar about this duty is that there is no sanction for a failure, however unreasonable, to agree uncontroversial evidence.3 The lack of a sanction resulted from a concern that the creation of any penalty would impinge unjustifiably upon the rights of the accused. The intention in this article is to explore in detail the relationship between the duty to agree uncontroversial evidence and the position of the accused, and to suggest that the imposition of a sanction for a breach of this duty is not as problematic as was thought by those responsible for the legislation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document