A First Step, a Second Chance: Public Support for Restoring Rights of Individuals with Prior Convictions

• Author: Brittany Keegan,Robyn McDougle,Christina Mancini
• Published date: 01 December 2021
• Date: 01 December 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20969948
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20969948

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2021, Vol. 65(16) 1736 –1755

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20969948

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

A First Step, a Second

Chance: Public Support for

Restoring Rights of Individuals

with Prior Convictions

Christina Mancini1, Robyn McDougle1,

and Brittany Keegan1

Abstract

Recent federal and state-level justice reforms have centered on “legal reintegration”

(e.g., permitting expungement for a greater range of crimes and rights restoration).

While scholarship has tapped public opinion of this approach, much of it predates

recent reentry efforts. We see an opportunity to extend this literature by focusing

on a contemporary sample (N = 374) of residents living in Virginia, a state that

recently considered such reforms. Results suggest most of the public supports

expungement reform, but less than 40% support rights restoration generally, with

approval levels dependent on specific type of restoration. Divides are explained by

socio-demographic factors, particularly political ideology and race, as well as crime-

related views. Implications are discussed.

Keywords

reentry, enfranchisment, invisible punishment, public perceptions, collateral

consequences, stigma

Introduction

Over the last decade, efforts to reintegrate those returning to communities after

serving time in prison have occurred under both a Democratic and a Republican

presidency. The Second Chance Act, signed into law under the Obama administra-

tion in 2007 and the Formerly Incarcerated Reenter Society Transformed Safely

1Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Christina Mancini, L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth

University, 1003 West Franklin Street, Richmond, VA 23284, USA.

Email: cnmancini@vcu.edu

969948IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X20969948International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyMancini et al.

research-article2020

Mancini et al. 1737

Transitioning Every Person (FIRST STEP) Act advocated by President Trump both

emphasize the restoration of legal rights to those previously incarcerated (U.S.

Bureau of Prisons, 2020). Some states have embraced this federal shift, restoring

previously denied rights of individuals through the enactment of “ban the box” laws

and other reforms (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2019).

Advocates of this approach argue that restoration generates improved economic

conditions in communities by equipping individuals with employment opportunities

(Western & Sirois, 2019). The application of evermore “invisible” sanctions (Travis,

2005, p. 64) is particularly detrimental for individuals returning to minority and under-

served communities (Western & Sirois, 2019). Importantly, because racial and ethnic

minorities, particularly Blacks, have been and continue to be disproportionately

affected by mass incarceration and “over-policing” (Percival, 2009; Wildeman &

Wang, 2017), the push to reintegrate individuals may assist with efforts to reduce

racial bias in justice system processing.

To be sure, these new reforms do not negate the existence of punitive measures.

Additionally, they may not achieve presumed goals, particularly when restoration

reforms ignore the detrimental effects of “intersectional oppression”—namely, racial

prejudice and discrimination—experienced by groups who have disproportionate con-

tact with the justice system, such as Black males (Williams et al., 2019, p. 452). However,

the recent momentum toward reentry does signal greater optimism, at least legislatively,

toward the possibility that reintegrative measures can exist alongside punitive justice.

The public can directly influence restoration legislation (Wong, 2019). In 2018, a

majority of Floridians backed a law that would enfranchise those with felony records,

effectively restoring voting rights to 1.4 million people (Robles, 2018). With an

increasing focus on reentry at the federal and state-level, it is important to understand

public views toward “legal reintegration” such as enfranchisement and broader resto-

ration efforts.

While such actions have garnered favor, divergences in public opinion exist. Prior

research shows divides across political orientation and race (Pinaire et al., 2003).

Views about criminal justice processing and other public safety perceptions may also

influence attitudes (Dawson-Edwards & Higgins, 2013). It is notable however, that

much of this extant scholarship predates recent federal legislation.

For these reasons, the current study examines three interrelated questions drawing

on data from a recent statewide poll (N = 374) of residents living in Virginia, in which

the General Assembly has considered such legislation. First, do most Virginians favor

legislation that would encourage legal reintegration—expungement, automatic resto-

ration of rights, enfranchisement, and firearm rights? Second, what social and demo-

graphic factors predict approval for each reintegrative effort? Third, what effect do

public safety concerns have on approval for each initiative?

Reintegration and Reentry

The transition to the community post-incarceration is difficult, with ex-offenders

reporting challenges finding employment, navigating relationships, and coping with