Archive for November 18th, 2016

Reflecting on the Role Judges Play in Dealing with Collateral Consequences

posted by Judge_Burke @ 15:30 PM
November 18, 2016

Up until the last decade, many judges and appellate courts gave little attention to collateral consequences. Indeed there are many appellate courts who ruled that failure to advise on the collateral consequence of deportation was no big deal (except, of course. to the deportable defendant). Since the decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), appellate courts and judges have given much more thought to collateral consequences, as illustrated by an essay written by Nora Demleitner.

Judicial Challenges to the Collateral Impact of Criminal Convictions:  Is True Change in the Offing? is the title of this notable new essay.  Here is the abstract:

Judicial opposition to disproportionate sentences and the long-term impact of criminal records is growing, at least in the Eastern District of New York.  With the proliferation and harshness of collateral consequences and the hurdles in overcoming a criminal record, judges have asked for greater proportionality and improved chances for past offenders to get a fresh start.  The combined impact of punitiveness and a criminal record is not only debilitating to the individual but also to their families and communities.  A criminal case against a noncitizen who will be subject to deportation and a decade-long ban on reentry and three different requests for expungement will demonstrate how three federal judges struggled with the long-term effects of the current sentencing and collateral consequences regime.  These cases exemplify both judicial creativity and judicial impotence, as the courts have to call upon the support of other actors within the executive and legislative branches for change, in these individual cases and systemically.

These judicial critics of the current approach argue within an emerging normative framework that is coming to dominate the societal discourse on punishment.  Increasingly some offenders are deemed “worthy” of receiving our assistance in reintegration.  They are generally nonviolent first offenders, those with an unblemished record save for the offense of conviction, those who have been gainfully employed or desperately want to work, and those who have cared for their children.  They present no danger to the community, and their continued punishment may negatively impact them, their surroundings, and ultimately the country.  On the other hand, those labeled violent or sex offenders or terrorists are being considered dangerous, unredeemable, and deserving of the harshness the criminal justice system has brought to bear on them.  The specific categorization of offenses, the definitions of terms, and the categorization of offenders remain fluid, contingent, and subject to constant revision.  Still, these judicial efforts expand on the incipient efforts at full reintegration of some of those with a criminal record. Whether their challenges will resonate with their colleagues and in other branches of government remains to be seen.

0  Comments