Criminal Justice Practitioners’ Perceptions of Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction on Offenders

• Author: Angela K. Reitler,Whitney Flesher,Natalie W. Goulette,James Frank,Lawrence F. Travis
• Date: 01 September 2014
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016814526752
• Published date: 01 September 2014
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
Criminal Justice Review
2014, Vol. 39(3) 290-304
Criminal Justice Practitioners’
ª 2014 Georgia State University
Reprints and permission:
Perceptions of Collateral
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734016814526752
cjr.sagepub.com
Consequences of Criminal
Conviction on Offenders
Natalie W. Goulette1, Angela K. Reitler2, James Frank3,
Whitney Flesher3, and Lawrence F. Travis III3
Abstract
Scholars and policy makers wish to eliminate many collateral consequences to promote successful
offender reentry. Current proposals to reduce collateral consequences of conviction typically
involve the participation of criminal justice practitioners. This study surveyed criminal justice
practitioners in Ohio to assess their perceptions of the percentage of offenders affected by
particular collateral consequences and the magnitude of the impact of these consequences. The
findings suggest that, although there is variability in perceptions across different categories of
restrictions, justice officials believe relatively few offenders are affected by collateral conse-
quences, and the perceived impact is relatively small. Efforts to eliminate collateral consequences
may not have their intended effect on offender reentry.
Keywords
collateral consequences, reentry, perceptions, survey, criminal justice practitioners
Introduction
With nearly 1.6 million offenders incarcerated in state and federal prisons in America, and more
than 600,000 offenders released each year (Carson & Golinelli, 2013), policy makers are con-
cerned about offenders’ experiences after completion of their court-imposed sentences. Nearly
two thirds of offenders will be rearrested within 3 years of their release from a correctional facility
(Langan & Levin, 2002). Successful offender reentry typically requires, among other things,
employment, housing, education, vocational training, drug treatment, and other social services
1 Department of Criminal Justice, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL, USA
2 George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA
3 School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Natalie W. Goulette, Department of Criminal Justice, University of West Florida, 11000 University Parkway, Bldg 85, Room
160, Pensacola, FL 32514, USA.
Email: ngoulette@uwf.edu

---

Goulette et al.
291
(Pinard, 2010), with the intent that these services be mobilized to support prisoner reintegration
into society (Travis & Petersilia, 2001).
The topic of collateral consequences has received increasing attention in recent years, as they
continue to impact a defendant long after his or her sentence has expired. Collateral consequences
are restrictions imposed by operation of state and federal law on offenders as the result of an arrest,
conviction, or imprisonment. Unlike the punishment imposed upon conviction, these additional res-
trictions are civil consequences of conviction, outside the realm of the criminal process (Johnson,
2002; Pinard, 2010), and are considered indirect consequences of criminal conviction (Pinard, 2006).
While interest in the impact of collateral consequences is increasing (Ewald & Smith, 2008),
especially surrounding the debate on advising criminal defendants of important collateral conse-
quences during the guilty plea process (Padilla v. Kentucky, 2010), most of the research surrounding
collateral consequences has focused on identifying, categorizing, and summarizing offender restric-
tions1 or interviewing offenders who are affected by a select number of these restrictions (Gabel &
Johnston, 1996; Tewksbury, 2005).
What Are Collateral Consequences?
Collateral consequences limit a number of offenders’ rights, including civil (Pinard, 2006; Travis &
Petersilia, 2001), parental (Dalley, 2000; Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001; Olivares, Burton, & Cullen,
1996), and spousal (Buckler & Travis, 2003; Burton, Cullen, & Travis, 1987). For example, in many
states, convicted felons are disenfranchised and prohibited from jury service, at least until they fully
complete their criminal sentences and may be permanently barred from holding public office (Burton
et al., 1987). Offenders’ parental and spousal rights are limited when imprisonment is used as grounds
for divorce or felony convictions are considered in child custody cases and can prevent or are used to
restrict individuals from becoming foster or adoptive parents (Buckler & Travis, 2003).
Restricting offenders’ eligibility for professional licenses or other types of employment, includ-
ing removal from civil service or disqualification from public employment, collateral consequences
limit, or even eliminate many employment opportunities (Freisthler & Godsey, 2005; Pager, 2003;
Tewksbury, 2005). Increasing use of background checks and requirements that ex-offenders disclose
criminal records further hampers ex-offenders in obtaining and maintaining employment. While
the ‘‘redemption’’ literature suggests that lifetime bans on employment may be unnecessary, find-
ing viable employment opportunities continue to be a substantial hurdle for many ex-offenders
(Blumstein & Nakamura, 2009; Bushway, Nieuwbeerta, & Blokland, 2011; Kurlychek, Brame, &
Bushway 2006, 2007; Soothill & Francis, 2009).
Finally, collateral consequences also affect privileges that many deem to be essential. Many
felons are restricted from having a driver’s license (Pinard, 2006) or possessing a firearm. Choosing
a residence (King, 2007) can be problematic due to sex offender registration laws (Levenson, 2008;
Tewksbury, 2005), and the likelihood of deportation upon felony conviction leads to dramatic
changes in residency for noncitizens (Molina, 2006; Ostroff, 2003; Vazquez, 2011).
Recent Developments
With growing concern that offenders are unprepared to effectively navigate the challenges posed by
collateral consequences (Pinard, 2006; Travis & Petersilia, 2001), especially so where the U.S.
Supreme Court has deemed at least one collateral consequence—deportation—to be ‘‘important’’
enough to implicate an offender’s constitutional rights (Padilla v. Kentucky, 2010, p. 364; see also
Rule 11(b)(1)(O) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure), there has been an increased effort to
inform the necessary criminal justice practitioners of the existence and likely impact of these
restrictions and barriers on the lives of offenders (King, 2007).2 The Court Security and Improvement

---

292
Criminal Justice Review 39(3)
Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-177, § 510, 121 Stat. 2534, 2008) mandated that the National Institute of
Justice commission a study that catalogued the collateral consequences imposed by law in every state
and federal jurisdiction. The American Bar Association has completed this study.3 Additionally, the
Second Chance Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-199, § 510, 121 Stat. 657, 2008) required each unit of gov-
ernment applying for corrections program funding to also include a plan to reanalyze existing hurdles
to offender reintegration within their jurisdiction.
Taking this interest in collateral consequences, and their presumed impact on the lives of
ex-offenders a step further, scholars are beginning to explore how collateral consequences are
viewed by criminal justice practitioners. The perceptions of judges, prosecutors, defense attor-
neys, and probation and parole officers are important. Not only must these practitioners advise
offenders of the direct consequences of criminal behavior, but they are responsible for informing
offenders of the important collateral consequences under Padilla. These practitioners work closely
with offenders as they move through the system and assist them in their successful reintegration
efforts. They are in the best position to speak to the impact of legal restrictions on offenders
(see Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1996; Ramsey & Frank, 2007). Moreover, examining practitioners’
perceptions may lead to insights about their decision-making processes, particularly the imple-
mentation of any future collateral consequences policy. If these practitioners do not perceive col-
lateral consequences to affect a large percentage of offenders, they may be less inclined to accept
reform efforts (Makarios, McCafferty, Steiner, & Travis, 2012).
There is limited knowledge of criminal justice practitioners’ views, or dealings with conse-
quences when interacting with convicted felony offenders, however. Ewald and Smith (2008)
began to fill this gap by surveying state court judges about the role of collateral consequences
in the American courtroom. In general, the authors concluded that nearly two thirds of surveyed
judges referenced the issue of collateral consequences at least sporadically during sentencing.
In some instances, the prosecutor, defense attorney, or defendants themselves made mention of
potential consequences while present in the courtroom (Ewald & Smith, 2008). What is unclear,
however, is whether the surveyed judges consider these restrictions to have a significant impact on
the lives of offenders. The purpose of this study is to assess and describe criminal justice practi-
tioners’ perceptions of the effects of restrictions and barriers imposed by Ohio law. To the authors’
knowledge, it is the first study of its kind to survey criminal justice professionals regarding the
impact of these collateral consequences.
Method
Surveys were mailed to 2,815 criminal justice practitioners (judges, prosecuting attorneys, defense
attorneys, and supervisory probation officers and parole officers) involved in the prosecution,
defense, adjudication, and/or...