{"title":"Rethinking the Use of Criminal Records","authors":"S. Russell","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2021.1948763","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Beyond Punishment provides a thought-provoking analysis of the negative legal consequences of criminal convictions that fall outside formal sentences imposed on individuals for their offenses. In many instances, these collateral legal consequences (“CLCs,” as Hoskins calls them for short) may have a longer and more damaging impact on a person than the sentence imposed in court. Yet questions regarding the moral justifiability of such provisions have received little attention from scholars. Hoskins’ book tackles this important topic—exploring the circumstances under which CLCs can be justified, as well as some of the practical implications that stem from the proliferation of CLCs in our society. Hoskins’ insights will be engaging to philosophers and legal scholars, and he offers critical guidance to policy makers and reform advocates. CLCs are restrictions or exclusions that federal, state, or local governments impose on individuals based on their criminal convictions. Examples include restrictions on voting, occupational licenses, public housing, and public assistance. CLCs are distinct from the many informal ways in which criminal convictions impede advancement in society—for example, discrimination by private employers, landlords, or educational institutions based on an applicant’s criminal record. Hoskins begins by considering whether CLCs should be treated as civil measures (as is the traditional approach) or as forms of punishment for the offense of conviction. The punishment/civil distinction matters to Hoskins, as his test for whether the measure is justified depends on its proper classification. Hoskins rejects an all-or-nothing view. Instead, he asserts that CLCs should be viewed as part of punishment in those instances when “they are intended to be burdensome and to communicate condemnation of the offender’s wrongdoing” (51). To be Sarah French Russell is Professor of Law, School of Law, Quinnipiac University School of Law, North Haven, USA. Email: sarah.russell@quinnipiac.edu Criminal Justice Ethics, 2021 Vol. 40, No. 2, 145–151, https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2021.1948763","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":"40 1","pages":"145 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/0731129X.2021.1948763","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminal Justice Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2021.1948763","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Beyond Punishment provides a thought-provoking analysis of the negative legal consequences of criminal convictions that fall outside formal sentences imposed on individuals for their offenses. In many instances, these collateral legal consequences (“CLCs,” as Hoskins calls them for short) may have a longer and more damaging impact on a person than the sentence imposed in court. Yet questions regarding the moral justifiability of such provisions have received little attention from scholars. Hoskins’ book tackles this important topic—exploring the circumstances under which CLCs can be justified, as well as some of the practical implications that stem from the proliferation of CLCs in our society. Hoskins’ insights will be engaging to philosophers and legal scholars, and he offers critical guidance to policy makers and reform advocates. CLCs are restrictions or exclusions that federal, state, or local governments impose on individuals based on their criminal convictions. Examples include restrictions on voting, occupational licenses, public housing, and public assistance. CLCs are distinct from the many informal ways in which criminal convictions impede advancement in society—for example, discrimination by private employers, landlords, or educational institutions based on an applicant’s criminal record. Hoskins begins by considering whether CLCs should be treated as civil measures (as is the traditional approach) or as forms of punishment for the offense of conviction. The punishment/civil distinction matters to Hoskins, as his test for whether the measure is justified depends on its proper classification. Hoskins rejects an all-or-nothing view. Instead, he asserts that CLCs should be viewed as part of punishment in those instances when “they are intended to be burdensome and to communicate condemnation of the offender’s wrongdoing” (51). To be Sarah French Russell is Professor of Law, School of Law, Quinnipiac University School of Law, North Haven, USA. Email: sarah.russell@quinnipiac.edu Criminal Justice Ethics, 2021 Vol. 40, No. 2, 145–151, https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2021.1948763
《超越惩罚》对刑事定罪的负面法律后果进行了发人深省的分析,这些刑事定罪超出了对个人犯罪的正式判决。在许多情况下,这些附带的法律后果(霍斯金斯简称为“CLCs”)对一个人的影响可能比法庭上的判决更长、更具破坏性。然而,有关这些规定的道德正当性的问题却很少受到学者们的关注。霍斯金斯的书探讨了这个重要的话题,探讨了在何种情况下,社区服务是合理的,以及社区服务在我们社会中的扩散所产生的一些实际影响。霍斯金斯的见解将吸引哲学家和法律学者,他为政策制定者和改革倡导者提供了重要的指导。CLCs是联邦、州或地方政府根据个人的刑事定罪对其施加的限制或排除。例子包括对投票、职业执照、公共住房和公共援助的限制。刑事诉讼不同于许多刑事定罪阻碍社会进步的非正式方式——例如,私人雇主、房东或教育机构基于申请人犯罪记录的歧视。霍斯金斯首先考虑的是,刑事诉讼是否应被视为民事措施(就像传统的做法一样),还是作为对定罪罪的惩罚形式。惩罚/民事区分对霍斯金斯很重要,因为他对措施是否合理的检验取决于其适当的分类。霍斯金斯反对孤注一掷的观点。相反,他断言,在“其目的是加重负担并表达对犯罪者不法行为的谴责”的情况下,刑事诉讼应被视为惩罚的一部分(51)。Sarah French Russell是美国昆尼皮亚克大学法学院的法学教授。电子邮件:sarah.russell@quinnipiac.edu刑事司法伦理,2021年第40卷第2期,145-151,https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2021.1948763