American Journal of Criminal Justice

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 724–744 | Cite as

Examining Criminal Justice Practitioners’ Views on Collateral Consequences Policy

  • Natalie GouletteEmail author
  • James Frank


With the recent emphasis on reentry and the reintegration of offenders back into society, both academics and policy makers have voiced concern over both the process of applying collateral consequences in a particular case and the expanding number of collateral restrictions, some of which are quite severe. Many of these restrictions create significant barriers to reintegration for offenders released from incarceration. While reforms have been proposed, there is a lack of research examining the perceptions of criminal justice actors about collateral consequences of conviction. As parties most familiar with the application of consequences in cases, and the burdens they place on involved parties, the present study surveyed practitioners in a large Midwestern state. The findings suggest that judges, defense attorneys, probation and parole supervisors, and prosecutors are troubled by the role of collateral consequences in offender reentry and are not opposed to repealing or reforming some of these policies. Further, there are significant differences between practitioner groups as to reforms that should be implemented within the state’s criminal justice system.


Collateral consequences Reentry Perceptions Survey Criminal justice practitioners 


  1. Applegate, B., Cullen, F., & Fisher, B. (1997). Public support for correctional treatment: The continuing appeal of the rehabilitative ideal. The Prison Journal, 77(3), 237–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aukerman, M. (2009, September 19). Collateral consequences of criminal convictions: A legal outline for Michigan. Retrieved from
  3. Bender, P. (2012). Exposing the hidden penalties of pleading guilty: A revision of the collateral consequences rule. George Mason Law Review, 19, 291–318.Google Scholar
  4. Blumstein, A., & Nakamura, K. (2009). Redemption in the presence of widespread criminal background checks. Criminology, 47, 327–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonica, A., Chilton, A. S., & Sen, M. (2015). The political ideologies of American lawyers. Journal of Legal Analysis, 8, 277–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckler, K. G., & Travis, L. F. (2003). Reanalyzing the prevalence and social context of collateral consequence statutes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 435–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burton, V. S., Cullen, F. T., & Travis, L. F. (1987). The collateral consequences of a felony conviction: A national study of state statutes. Federal Probation, 51, 52–60.Google Scholar
  8. Burton, V. S., Fisher, C. M., Jonson, C. L., & Cullen, F. T. (2014). Confronting the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction: A special challenge for social work with offenders. Journal of Forensic Social Work, 4, 80–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bushway, S. D., Nieuwbeerta, P., & Blockland, A. (2011). The predictive value of criminal background checks: Do age and criminal history affect time to redemption? Criminology, 49, 27–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carson, E. A., & Golinelli, D. (2013). Prisoners in 2012: Trends in admissions and releases, 1991–2012. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  11. Coppolo, G., Reinhart, C., & Nelson, J. (2005, April 5). Consequences of a felony conviction regarding employment. Retrieved from
  12. Court Security and Improvement Act of 2007. (Pub. L. 110-177, § 510, 121 stat. 2534 (2008).Google Scholar
  13. Dalley, L. P. (2000). Imprisoned mothers and their children: Their often conflicting legal rights. Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy, 22, 1–44.Google Scholar
  14. Dennard, H. L., & DiCarlo, P. C. (2009). Collateral consequences of arrests and convictions: Policy and law in Georgia. Retrieved from
  15. Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  16. Dodge, M., & Pogrebin, M. R. (2001). Collateral costs of imprisonment for women: Complications of reintegration. The Prison Journal, 81, 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunaway, G., & Cullen, F. (1991). Explaining crime ideology: An exploration of the parental socialization perspective. Crime and Delinquency, 37(4), 536–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eisen, L. B. (2012, August 20). Ohio takes step to roll back collateral consequences. Vera Institute of Justice. Retrieved from
  19. Ewald, A. C., & Smith, M. (2008). Collateral consequences of criminal conviction in American courts: A view from the bench. Justice System Journal, 29, 145–167.Google Scholar
  20. Frank, J., Travis, L. F., Reitler, A., Goulette, N., & Flesher, W. (2011). Collateral consequences of criminal conviction in Ohio. Research report submitted to the Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services.Google Scholar
  21. Freisthler, M., & Godsey, M. A. (2005). Going home to stay: A review of collateral consequences of conviction, post-incarceration employment, and recidivism in Ohio. Toledo Law Review, 36, 525–544.Google Scholar
  22. Gabel, K., & Johnston, D. (1996). Children of incarcerated parents. New York, NY: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  23. Goulette, N., Reitler, A., Flesher, W., Frank, J., & Travis, L. (2014). Criminal justice practitioners’ perceptions of collateral consequences of criminal conviction on offenders. Criminal Justice Review, 39(3), 290–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hagan, J., & Dinovitzer, R. (1999). Collateral consequences of imprisonment for children, communities and prisoners. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice, v. 26 (pp. 121–162). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Henry, J., & Jacobs, J. (2007). Ban the box to promote ex-offender employment. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(4), 755–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huff, C. R., Rattner, A., & Sagarin, E. (1996). Convicted but innocent: Wrongful conviction and public policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, R. M. A. (2002). Collateral consequences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, 32–33.Google Scholar
  28. Jones, B. L. (2007). Dealing with collateral consequences of convictions in Minnesota. 2007. Retrieved from ummary_0286-33206106_ITM.
  29. King, R. S. (2007). Changing direction? State sentencing reforms 2004-2006. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 19, 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kingele, C., & Reitz, K. (2017). Collateral consequences of conviction – Part 1 Sentencing guidelines. The ALI Adviser, -criminal-conviction-part.
  31. Kurlychek, M. C., Brame, R., & Bushway, S. D. (2006). Scarlet letters and recidivism: Does an old criminal record predict future offending? Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 483–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kurlychek, M. C., Brame, R., & Bushway, S. D. (2007). Enduring risk? Old criminal records and predictions of future criminal involvement. Crime and Delinquency, 53, 64–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. (Report No. NCJ 193427).Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  34. Levy, S. D. (2008). The collateral consequences of seeking order through disorder: New York’s narcotics eviction program. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 43, 539–580.Google Scholar
  35. Love, M. C. (2006). Relief from the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction: A state-by-state resource guide. William S. Hein.Google Scholar
  36. Love, M. C. (2009). Alternatives to conviction: Deferred adjudication as a way of avoiding collateral consequences. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 22, 6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Love, M. C. (2010). Collateral consequences after Padilla v. Kentucky: From punishment to regulation, St. Louis University Public Law Review, 31, 87–128.Google Scholar
  38. Love, M. C. (2015). Managing collateral consequences in the sentencing process: The revised sentencing articles of the model penal code. Wisconsin Law Review, 247–287.Google Scholar
  39. Malcolm, J., & Seibler, J. M. (2017). Collateral consequences: Protecting public safety or encouraging recidivism. The Heritage Foundation, Scholar
  40. McKnight, D. (2008, January 31). Criminal law and civil death: The collateral consequences in Alabama. Retrieved from
  41. Mills, L. (2005, June 14). Collateral sanctions: Florida's laws and policies impacting employment opportunities of ex-offenders. Retrieved from
  42. Mitchell, D. S. (2015) Notice(ing) ex-offenders: A case study of the manifest injustice of passively violating a "felon-in-possession" statute. Wisconsin Law Review, 289-319.Google Scholar
  43. Mossoney, K. R., & Roecker, C. A. (2005). Ohio collateral consequences project: Executive summary. Toledo Law Review, 36, 611–754.Google Scholar
  44. Ohio Rev. Code § 109.572. (2017). Available at
  45. Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.11. (2017). Available at
  46. Ohio Rev. Code § 2961.01. (2017). Available at
  47. Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.01. (2017). Available at
  48. Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.051. (2017). Available at
  49. Olivares, K. M., Burton, V. S., & Cullen, F. T. (1996). The collateral consequences of a felony conviction: A national study of state legal codes 10 years later. Federal Probation, 60, 10–17.Google Scholar
  50. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356. (2010).Google Scholar
  51. Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 937–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Periman, D. (2007). The hidden impact of a criminal conviction: A brief overview of collateral consequences in Alaska Alaska Justice. Forum, 24, 6–12.Google Scholar
  53. Perkins, O. (2012, October 13). Collateral sanctions reform law will make it easier for job seekers with felony records to get hired. The Plain Dealer. Retrieved from
  54. Pinard, M. (2006). An integrated perspective on the collateral consequences of criminal convictions and reentry issues faced by formerly incarcerated individuals. Boston University Law Review, 86, 623–690.Google Scholar
  55. Pinard, M. (2010). Reflections and perspectives on reentry and collateral consequences. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100, 1213–1224.Google Scholar
  56. Ramsey, R. J., & Frank, J. (2007). Wrongful conviction: Perceptions of criminal justice professionals regarding the frequency of wrongful conviction and the extent of system errors. Crime and Delinquency, 53, 436–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roberts, J. (2009). Ignorance is effectively bliss: Collateral consequences, silence, and misinformation in the guilty-plea process. Iowa Law Review, 95, 119.Google Scholar
  58. Samaha, J. (2010). Criminal law (10th ed.) Cengage.Google Scholar
  59. Sampson, R., & Laub. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Second Chance Act of 2007. (Pub. L. 110-199, § 510, 121 Stat. 657 (2008).Google Scholar
  61. Siegel, M., Pahn, M., Xuan, Z., Ross, C., Galea, S., Kalesan, B., Fleegler, E., & Goss, K. (2017). Firearm-related laws in all 50 US states, 1991-2016. AJPH Research, 107(7), 1122-1129.Google Scholar
  62. Smyth, M. (2004, October 31). The consequences of criminal proceedings in New York state: A guide for criminal defense attorneys and other advocates for persons with criminal records. New York, NY: The Bronx Defenders Retrieved from
  63. Soothill, K., & Francis, B. (2009). When do ex-offenders become like non-offenders? Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 48, 373–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J., & Kramer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36, 763–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey research and societal change. Annual Review. Psychology, 55, 775–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Travis, J., & Petersilia, J. (2001). Reentry reconsidered: A new look at an old question. Crime and Delinquency, 47, 291–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  69. U. S. Census Bureau. (2010). 2010 Census of Population. Retrieved from Scholar
  70. Wold, S. (1987). Principal components analysis. Chemometics and intelligent laboratory systems, 2, 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminology & Criminal JusticeUniversity of West FloridaPensacolaUSA
  2. 2.University of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations