Peter Leasure, John D. Burrow, Hunter M. Boehme, Gary Zhang
{"title":"The Effectiveness of the ABA’s Efforts to Increase Defendant Notice of Collateral Consequences: A Survey of South Carolina Defense Attorneys","authors":"Peter Leasure, John D. Burrow, Hunter M. Boehme, Gary Zhang","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2019.1654949","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recognizing the negative impacts of collateral consequences of conviction, the American Bar Association published advisory standards and other online compendium resources aimed at increasing defendant notice of such consequences before pleading guilty. However, no study has explored defense attorney awareness of these efforts or their perceived effectiveness. The current study fills this gap with a survey of South Carolina criminal defense lawyers. Results indicate that the majority of respondents felt that non-binding standards were ineffective, and most were unaware of an ABA standard aimed at increasing notice of collateral consequences. Further, a significant number of respondents were unaware of electronic sources that provided comprehensive lists of collateral consequences. These results indicate that non-binding standards may not be effective at changing attorney practices with regard to providing notice of collateral consequences. Jurisdictions may need to consider implementing binding standards and additional training meant to educate defense attorneys about the availability of electronic legal source material that provides comprehensive lists of collateral consequences.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":"102 1","pages":"302 - 318"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Justice System Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1654949","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Abstract Recognizing the negative impacts of collateral consequences of conviction, the American Bar Association published advisory standards and other online compendium resources aimed at increasing defendant notice of such consequences before pleading guilty. However, no study has explored defense attorney awareness of these efforts or their perceived effectiveness. The current study fills this gap with a survey of South Carolina criminal defense lawyers. Results indicate that the majority of respondents felt that non-binding standards were ineffective, and most were unaware of an ABA standard aimed at increasing notice of collateral consequences. Further, a significant number of respondents were unaware of electronic sources that provided comprehensive lists of collateral consequences. These results indicate that non-binding standards may not be effective at changing attorney practices with regard to providing notice of collateral consequences. Jurisdictions may need to consider implementing binding standards and additional training meant to educate defense attorneys about the availability of electronic legal source material that provides comprehensive lists of collateral consequences.
期刊介绍:
The Justice System Journal is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes original research articles on all aspects of law, courts, court administration, judicial behavior, and the impact of all of these on public and social policy. Open as to methodological approaches, The Justice System Journal aims to use the latest in advanced social science research and analysis to bridge the gap between practicing and academic law, courts and politics communities. The Justice System Journal invites submission of original articles and research notes that are likely to be of interest to scholars and practitioners in the field of law, courts, and judicial administration, broadly defined. Articles may draw on a variety of research approaches in the social sciences. The journal does not publish articles devoted to extended analysis of legal doctrine such as a law review might publish, although short manuscripts analyzing cases or legal issues are welcome and will be considered for the Legal Notes section. The Justice System Journal was created in 1974 by the Institute for Court Management and is published under the auspices of the National Center for State Courts. The Justice System Journal features peer-reviewed research articles as well as reviews of important books in law and courts, and analytical research notes on some of the leading cases from state and federal courts. The journal periodically produces special issues that provide analysis of fundamental and timely issues on law and courts from both national and international perspectives.