Regional Differences in the Collateral Consequences of a Felony Conviction

The present study sought to determine if there are statistically significant regional differences in the number of restricted rights for a felony conviction. Significant differences were found, with the East South Central region restricting two to three times more rights than other regions. Nonsignificant rank-order correlations were found between the number of restricted rights and regional crime/prisoner rates per 100,000 population. A significant rank-order correlation was found, however, for the mean number of restricted rights and the percent voting for the 1988 Republican presidential candidate.     

Becoming “Copwise”: Policing,Culture, and the Collateral Consequences of Street‐Level Criminalization

Over the last four decades, the United States has witnessed a historic expansion of its criminal justice system. This article examines how street‐level criminalization transforms the cultural contexts of poor urban communities. Drawing on five years of fieldwork in Los Angeles’ Skid Row–the site of one of the most aggressive zero‐tolerance policing campaigns to date–the study finds that residents develop and deploy a particular cultural frame–“cop wisdom”–by which they render seemingly‐random police activity more legible, predictable, and manipulable. Armed with this interpretive schema, “copwise” residents engage in new forms of self‐presentation in public, movement through the daily round, and informal social control in order to deflect police scrutiny and forestall street stops. While these techniques allow residents to reduce unwanted police contact, this often comes at the expense of individual and collective well‐being by precluding social interaction, exacerbating stigma, and contributing to animosity in public space.     

Sex Offender Residential Mobility and Relegation: The Collateral Consequences Continue

Prior research (see American Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2), 177–192, 2006a) examined the residential locations and mobility of registered sex offenders and showed a common movement into increasingly socially disorganized neighborhoods after 5 years of registration. The present study examines whether or not this downward spiral continues for these sex offenders 10 years later. We examined 212 registrants from the original study and found that since their original arrest 38 % of the registrants have moved into a more socially disorganized neighborhood than their previous address. The only variable found to influence the likelihood of move to a more socially disorganized neighborhood is race, with minority sex offenders most affected. The findings suggest that the collateral consequences of sex offender policies have long-term deleterious effects on housing for sex offenders.     

定罪概念及原则的刑事一体化思考

从刑事一体化的视角将定罪作为动态的司法活动来考察 ,定罪是指国家专门机关依法定程序与证据 ,根据刑法 ,确定犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的行为是否符合刑法规定的犯罪构成的活动。定罪的主体是国家专门机关 ;定罪的对象是犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的行为 ;定罪的根据包括事实根据及法律根据 ;定罪的内容与目标是确定犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的行为是否符合刑法规定的犯罪构成 ;定罪既是司法人员的主观认识过程 ,又充满了法律价值的权衡与选择。定罪的原则包括程序法原则与实体法原则两大组成部分 ,定罪的程序法原则为程序法定原则、证据裁判原则、无罪推定原则 ;定罪的实体法原则包括罪之法定原则、主客观相统一原则、必要性原则。     

Collateral Damage: An Analysis of the Achievements and Unintended Consequences of Batterer Intervention Programs and Discourse

This paper reviews and critiques two prevailing program models for batterer intervention in order to highlight both their valuable achievements and attendant costs and consequences. We analyze these batterer intervention program models at 3 levels. First, we describe the historical development and basic program components of the intervention models. Second, we trace differences in the models to their grounding in different psychological assumptions and theories about behavior change, masculinity, and violence. Third, differences between the models are mapped onto contrasting approaches to the regulation of human deviance in the criminal justice and mental health systems. Based on this analysis, we conclude that further attention to structural and contextual factors, such as class, race, economic stress, and substance abuse in explanations of domestic violence is needed, together with alternative approaches to collaboration between victim advocates and batterer intervention providers.     

Theories of Criminalization

In this article, I comment on Simester and von Hirsch’s theory of criminalization and discuss general principles of criminalization. After some brief comments on punishment theories and the role of moral wrongdoing, I examine main lines of contemporary criminalization theories which tend to focus on the issues of harm, offense, paternalism and side-constraints. One of the points of disagreement with Simester and von Hirsch concerns the role of the harm principle. I rely on a straightforward normative concept of “rights of others,” not in the sense of rights granted in positive law but in the sense of rights which are to be justified in political philosophy. With a rights-centered rather than a harm-centered approach, a prima facie reason for criminalization is the violation of others’ rights. It is unnecessary to develop a separate category of “offense to others,” and paternalistic interventions can be criticized straightforwardly because rights can be waived.     

犯罪化基准论纲

犯罪化包括刑事立法上的犯罪化和刑事司法上的犯罪化。立法上的犯罪化是解决前实定法上的实质犯罪的犯罪化问题,司法上的犯罪化是实现实定法上的形式犯罪的犯罪化问题。立法上的犯罪化基准其根据是行为具有应受刑罚处罚程度的社会危害性,其原则是刑法的谦抑原则和合理性原则;司法上的犯罪化基准其根据是刑事违法性和社会危害性,其原则是刑法的谦抑原则和合法性原则。     

诉讼欺诈的犯罪化

目前对诉讼欺诈的刑法规制出现法律上的非犯罪化与事实上的犯罪化并存之状况,不利于司法实践。诉讼欺诈犯罪化有其合理性、正当性,诉讼欺诈应适度犯罪化。     

金融欺诈的犯罪化限度及路径

金融欺诈的犯罪化限度及路径问题事关金融刑法的正义性。金融欺诈犯罪化的限度问题与金融欺诈的不可避免性、经济有益性、被害人过错和社会缺陷、犯罪追诉成本等因素密切相关,而金融欺诈犯罪化的路径应当坚持“先民后行再刑”之路。     

司法上的犯罪化与非犯罪化

研究司法上的犯罪化与非犯罪化,具有重要的现实意义。刑法的真实含义是在社会生活事实中不断发现的,司法上的犯罪化,并不必然违反罪刑法定原则;我国司法机关应当在遵循刑法第3条后段的前提下,积极地实行司法上的犯罪化;刑法第3条前段不是关于罪刑法定原则的规定,而是基于我国刑法分则条文的特点,为了限制司法机关的出罪权、控制司法上的非犯罪化所作的规定;我国司法上的非犯罪化的空间很小,因而不能盲目模仿西方国家的刑事司法策略与做法。     

Dreams Deterred: The Collateral Consequences of Localized Immigration Policies on Undocumented Latinos in Colorado

Recent years have seen a broadening of the scope of immigration enforcement. As a result, immigrants free of criminal convictions, once considered low priorities for enforcement, are increasingly subject to arrest, detention, and removal. At the same time, federal immigration authorities have sought the cooperation of states and localities in the enforcement of immigration laws. While there has been growing scholarly attention paid to the ways in which legal geographies can account for variation in local immigration policies, the long‐term effects of these policies on immigrants themselves are often overlooked. In this article, we use the case of Colorado, one of the first states to pass a “show‐me‐your‐papers” law in 2006, and data from two qualitative studies to highlight the collateral consequences of enhanced immigration enforcement on immigrants’ economic opportunities, emotional health and well‐being, and academic trajectories. We situate our analysis within the crimmigration literature and discuss the implications of our findings in light of the current political climate.     

犯罪化范围的法理分析与展开

在犯罪化的合法性范围问题上,出现理论争议主要是由于对刑法所设立的禁止性义务来源的认识不同,其争论焦点在于刑法是否或应在多大程度上强制推行某种意义上的社会共同体道德。法律道德主义与法律自由主义在理论的实际应用上因其不确定性而往往难以统摄形形色色的社会现象。效益评价理论会因其伦理根基的不足而无法对自身理论进行有效的修正。实际上,犯罪化的范围是由刑法的价值本位决定的,应是界于个人本位与社会本位之间的一种动态定位,因而犯罪化的合法性范围的实然确定是立法者在协调社会本位与个人本位的基础上,依据某一阶段刑事政策的需要而对越轨行为做出的动态反应。     

Criminalization,Legitimacy, and Welfare

A standard view about criminal law distinguishes between two kinds of offenses, “mala in se” and “mala prohibita.” This view also corresponds to a distinction between two bases for criminalization: certain acts should be criminalized because they are moral wrongs; other acts may be criminalized for the sake of promoting overall welfare. This paper aims to show two things: first, that allowing for criminalization for the sake of promoting welfare renders the category of wrongfulness crimes largely redundant. Second, and more importantly, accepting welfare as a legitimate ground for criminalization implies a certain view about legitimate state action, which makes criminalization for wrongfulness more difficult to justify. If I am right, the view that keeps the two categories of criminalization as largely separate is untenable. I conclude with some remarks about the advantages of welfare (and not wrongfulness) as the basis for criminalization.     

Before the Law: Criminalization,Accusation and Justice

This review essay critically engages three socio-legal books directed to the changing bases of criminalization; namely, Lacey (In search of criminal responsibility: ideas, interests, and institutions, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017); Farmer (Making the modern criminal law: criminalization and civil order, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016); and Norrie, Justice and the slaughter bench: essays on law’s broken dialectic, Routledge, New York, 2016). The texts explore how modern (largely English) institutions of criminal law proscribe, assign responsibility and appear through contradictory socio-political ‘constellations’. They variously reference criminal law’s expanding punitiveness as it: embraces revived character-based ways of attributing responsibility via ideas of risk; drifts away from a social function of creating civil order; and, works through a ‘broken dialectic’ that fails to recognize its ethico-political auspices. The ensuing ‘overcriminalization’ is referenced variously, but this review questions a tendency to work off legal lexicons, with consequent limitations placed on the scope of social analysis. Referring to Roman and Cape colonial forms of criminalization, this review highlights processes of accusation that call subjects to account as criminals, thereby signalling an initiating socio-political layer upon which unequal forms of overcriminalization rest.     

犯罪化与非犯罪化论纲

在人以为本的社会系统中,刑法作为社会的调控手段,其政策定位必须与社会政策保持应有的良好的衔接;刑法的触角不宜伸得太长,其出入罪机制及其向度必须以和谐社会的建构为基本标志、判断标准和生存规则。虽然和谐社会的建构最终需要从源头上协调各种冲突,刑法调控只是其中的一个环节。但是,深入研究犯罪化与非犯罪化问题,对于有效协调刑法与社会的关系,仍然具有重要意义。