Beyond the New Jim Crow: Public Support for Removing and Regulating Collateral Consequences.
Saved in:
| Title: | Beyond the New Jim Crow: Public Support for Removing and Regulating Collateral Consequences. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Burton, Alexander L., Burton, Jr., Velmer S., Cullen, Francis T., Pickett, Justin T., Butler, Leah C., Thielo, Angela J. |
| Source: | Federal Probation. Dec2020, Vol. 84 Issue 3, p19-33. 15p. |
| Subjects: | Public support, Crime, Felonies, Law reform, American law, Recidivism, Social order, Punishment |
| Abstract: | Collateral sanctions are separate from the direct punishments for crimes (such as a prison sentence or a probation term) and offenders are generally not told about these restrictions when they are convicted of a crime. Thus, Redeemability is a mean index ( = .718) created from the respondents' opinions (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree) to the following four statements: (1) "Most offenders can go on to lead productive lives with help and hard work"; (2) "Given the right conditions, a great many offenders can turn their lives around and become law-abiding citizens"; (3) "Most criminal offenders are unlikely to change for the better"; and (4) "Some offenders are so damaged that they can never lead productive lives." For example, because most Americans commit crimes for which they have not been detected (e.g., illegal drug use, driving while intoxicated, domestic violence, tax fraud, and common crimes), it is an empirical question whether a criminal record reliably distinguishes who is morally appropriate for jury service (see Barnes, 2014; Pratt, Barnes, Cullen, & Turanovic, 2016). When specific crime types were used, the level of support declined, but was still 66 percent for violent offenders, 63 percent for white-collar offenders, and 52 percent for sex offenders. The remaining states impose some conditions limiting jury service, such as a waiting period following sentence completion, nature of the conviction offense, type of jury, and dismissal as a potential juror simply on the basis of a felony conviction (see Binnall, 2016, 2018a). [Extracted from the article] |
| Copyright of Federal Probation is the property of Superintendent of Documents and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Collateral sanctions are separate from the direct punishments for crimes (such as a prison sentence or a probation term) and offenders are generally not told about these restrictions when they are convicted of a crime. Thus, Redeemability is a mean index ( = .718) created from the respondents' opinions (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree) to the following four statements: (1) "Most offenders can go on to lead productive lives with help and hard work"; (2) "Given the right conditions, a great many offenders can turn their lives around and become law-abiding citizens"; (3) "Most criminal offenders are unlikely to change for the better"; and (4) "Some offenders are so damaged that they can never lead productive lives." For example, because most Americans commit crimes for which they have not been detected (e.g., illegal drug use, driving while intoxicated, domestic violence, tax fraud, and common crimes), it is an empirical question whether a criminal record reliably distinguishes who is morally appropriate for jury service (see Barnes, 2014; Pratt, Barnes, Cullen, & Turanovic, 2016). When specific crime types were used, the level of support declined, but was still 66 percent for violent offenders, 63 percent for white-collar offenders, and 52 percent for sex offenders. The remaining states impose some conditions limiting jury service, such as a waiting period following sentence completion, nature of the conviction offense, type of jury, and dismissal as a potential juror simply on the basis of a felony conviction (see Binnall, 2016, 2018a). [Extracted from the article] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00149128 |
