Is Criminal Justice Education Ready for Reentry?

Swanson, Cheryl; Rohrer, Glen; Crow, Matthew S.

doi:10.1080/10511250903496463

Cited by 11 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In terms of individual consequences, research shows LFOs are associated with the direct curtailment of rights and liberties such as the issuing of arrest warrants and incarceration due to failure to pay (Harris, 2016; Harris et al., 2010; Smercina et al., 2022; U.S. Department of Justice, 2015), barriers to reentry (Bannon et al., 2010; Harper et al., 2021; Link, 2019; Link & Roman, 2017; Martin et al., 2017), higher likelihood of recidivism (Harris et al., 2010; Ortiz & Jackey, 2019; Piquero & Jennings, 2017), 11 negative community supervision and probation outcomes (Iratzoqui & Metcalfe, 2017; Link et al., 2020; Ruhland et al., 2020), suspension of a driver's license (Garrett, 2022; Garrett et al., 2020), and disenfranchisement (Colgan, 2019; Fredericksen & Lassiter, 2016; Meredith & Morse, 2017; Sebastian et al., 2020). Legal financial obligations are also linked to financial instability (Mello, 2018) and can lead to wage garnishment, liens, and interceptions of tax refunds (Bannon et al., 2010; Pager et al., 2022) pushing people further into poverty and debt. Such debt can cause housing instability, and loss of education and employment (Cadigan & Kirk, 2020; Harris, 2016; Pattillo et al., 2022; Pattillo & Kirk, 2020).…”

Section: Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies also show that a person's charge may influence the types and amounts of LFOs they must pay. To name a few examples, additional sex offender or drug testing fees often accrue for those accused or convicted of specific charges, leading to additional debt and related consequences (Bannon et al, 2010;Makin et al, 2018;O'Neil & Strellman, 2020;Pleggenkuhle, 2018;Ruback & Bergstrom, 2006). Race increases the consequences for people of color charged with these types of offenses; as show, Black people charged with sex offenses may face more severe consequences related to LFOs due to stigma and existing financial instability.…”

Section: Consequences For Peoplementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Legal financial obligations in the United States: A review of recent research

LaScala‐Gruenewald

Paik

2023

Sociology Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the United States, legal financial obligations (LFOs) include many types of monetary sanctions. For example, fines are tied to specific offenses and imposed at conviction and fees charge people for the "use" of courts, prisons, and other public services. With the rise of mass incarceration, millions of people across the U.S. owe billions of dollars in LFOs. Yet despite the widespread use of monetary sanctions, it was not until the last decade that research began to uncover the vast system of LFOs embedded throughout U.S. laws and understand their far-reaching socioeconomic consequences. This paper reviews recent research on LFOs across three areas:(1) the political development of LFOs, (2) their implementation and enforcement, and (3) the consequences of LFOs on people, broader social networks, and the functioning of public institutions. We conclude with recommendations for future research that explores the hidden processes connecting these three areas and accounts for the fractured nature of the U.S. government.

show abstract

Section: Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Consequences For Peoplementioning

confidence: 99%

Legal financial obligations in the United States: A review of recent research

LaScala‐Gruenewald

Paik

2023

Sociology Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Issues with unemployment (Jenkins, 2004;Klein, Rukus, & Zambrana, 2012;Levenson, Zgoba, & Tewksbury, 2007;Tewksbury, 2004Tewksbury, , 2005Zevitz & Farkas, 2000), residency restrictions (Levenson & Cotter, 2005;Levenson et al, 2007;Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2003;Tewksbury & Zgoba, 2010;Zanbergen & Hart, 2006), and stigmatization (Burchfield & Mingus, 2008;Zevitz & Farkas, 2000) are frequent discussion topics regarding the registry's substantive impact. The majority of incarcerated offenders will return to their communities at some point (Tewksbury & Connor, 2012), at a rate of almost 650,000 offenders annually (Swanson, Rohrer, & Crow, 2010). For most offenders, the process of reentry is a daunting one.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Registration, Residency Restrictions, and Community Notification: A Social Capital Perspective on the Isolation of Registered Sex Offenders in Our Communities

Tolson

Klein

2015

Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article highlights the importance of social capital for registered sex offenders who are reintegrating back into their communities. Although not always identified among community corrections, the sex offender registry creates a punitive atmosphere that diminishes the amount of available social capital for all involved-community members, sex offenders, and the government. Lost social capital contributes to recidivism, reentry problems, and mental health issues among registered sex offenders. We argue that deterrent and protective features of the sex offender registry are overemphasized and the goal of reintegration has been undermined. The loss of social capital exacerbates (1) the minimization of trust, (2) low expectations of rehabilitation and reentry, (3) limited contact and information from role models, (4) increased access to criminal capital, (5) formal sanctioning power of the registry, and (6) loss of sanctioning power from family and communities. Through this in-depth analysis, we argue that the current state of the registry system harms the social capital of all involved when a sex offense occurs -not just the offender-and we assess directions for future practices, as well as policy implications.

show abstract

“…The resultant boom in monetary sanctions has had severe consequences for the people fined and their families. Monetary sanctions are intensely regressive and can easily compound, trapping people in cycles of debt (Harris, Evans, and Beckett 2010;Bannon, Nagrecha, and Diller 2010;Ordower, Sandoval, and Warren 2017). One Washington state resident owed $72,000 in legal debt thirteen years after her assault conviction, struggling to make the minimum payments with her construction apprentice salary (Harris 2016, 55).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Legal debts put the already poor under financial strain, threatening their jobs, housing, health, education, and family bonds (Paik and Packard 2019;Salas and Ciolfi 2017;Pattillo et al 2022;Harris and Smith 2022). Some states revoke driver's licenses or reincarcerate people who fail to pay their fines and fees (Evans 2014;Bannon, Nagrecha, and Diller 2010). Monetary sanctions also make future criminal justice involvement more likely (Shannon et al 2020;Piquero and Jennings 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%