An official website of the United States government
Legal theorists have argued that incarceration and alternative sanctions are incommensurable – that is, beyond some crime severity threshold, replacing incarceration with alternative sanctions can never yield a sentence that people will view as appropriate (Kahan, 1996). To test whether laypeople hold this view, we elicited lay judgments about appropriate sentences for four common types of federal crimes in two different conditions: One in which participants could impose only a term of imprisonment and another in which they could impose imprisonment along with alternative sanctions. Laypeople imposed significantly less imprisonment in the latter condition and significant quantities of alternative, non-carceral sanctions. Consistent with the view that imprisonment is commensurable with other sanctions, and particularly with restraint-based sanctions, laypeople substituted supervised release almost one-for-one for imprisonment. In addition, they increased imprisonment and supervised release at similar rates as crime severity increased. Next, using individual-level sentencing data from similar cases in the federal courts, we found that judges’ sentencing decisions showed similar relationships between crime severity and both imprisonment and supervised release. However, laypeople imposed dramatically larger fines and more hours of community service than did federal judges, and laypeople tied the use of these alternative sanctions more directly to crime severity. These findings suggest that federal judges do not view fines and community service as commensurable with incarceration. As a result, current criminal sentencing practices deviate from community views by placing excessive emphasis on incarceration and paying insufficient attention to alternative sanctions.
more »
« less
The Price of Poverty: Policy Implications of the Unequal Effects of Monetary Sanctions on the Poor
Over the last several decades, with the rise of mass incarceration in the United States and its steep costs, governments at the federal, state, and local levels have dramatically ramped up monetary punishment. Monetary sanctions are now the most common type of criminal penalty in the United States. The growth of fines, fees, and other legal financial obligations (LFOs), and the ensuing legal debt, reflect a shifting of the system’s costs onto its primarily low-income and indigent subjects. This study provides an exploration of previously underexamined ways in which monetary sanctions impose distinct burdens on the poor. Interviews with 121 defendants in Texas and New York, along with courtroom observations, demonstrate that criminal legal debt is particularly challenging for people with low incomes in three meaningful ways. First, systems set up to handle indigency claims do not adequately address the needs or complex individual circumstances of those who simply do not have the ability to pay. Oftentimes, alternatives are unavailable or statutorily prohibited. Second, the lack of alternatives to payment lead to compromising situations, which then compel indigent defendants to make difficult choices about how to allocate scant resources. Finally, being encumbered with fines and fees and participating in alternatives like community service comes with taxing time requirements that can prove uniquely challenging for those who are poor. These three findings lead us to propose a series of policy recommendations revolving around three key themes: (a) enhancement of indigency procedures, (b) equity in monetary sanctions, and (c) alleviating burdens by improving accessibility.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1904406
- PAR ID:
- 10253283
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice
- Volume:
- 37
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 1043-9862
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 45 to 65
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This article draws on a case study of how Massachusetts treatment courts responded to the COVID-19 pandemic to address two intersecting theoretical and policy questions: (1) How do actors who work within criminal legal organizations use the law to solve complex social and political problems? (2) How do organizations working within multiple, fragmented organizational fields respond to an exogenous shock? The findings draw on interviews with eighty-four treatment court judges and practitioners and build from neo-institutional approaches to the study of courts to show that legal actors and organizations pursue pragmatic approaches, strategically adapting to their external environments through buffering, which is protective, and innovation, which is transformative. Each strategy reflects the courts’ autonomy or dependence on other organizations in the criminal legal and social service fields. The findings also provide insight into the social process of legitimation as personnel aligned beliefs with adaptation strategies, shifting understandings of surveillance practices and the utility of sanctions to meet overall court goals.more » « less
-
As the United States has shifted to “a system of pleas,” the role of defense attorneys has swung from trial litigator to plea negotiator. To further investigate how this shift has impacted defense attorneys, we surveyed a nationwide sample (N = 134) to assess the duration and frequency of client meetings, information clients frequently lack and misconceptions they espouse concerning the plea and trial process, and how attorneys convey advice to accept or reject plea offers to clients. The results indicated that defense attorneys spend a significant amount of time meeting with clients (an average of 5.7 meetings for an average of 44.9 minutes). They also cited substantial deficits in criminal defendants’ knowledge of the legal system, as well as many misconceptions regarding legal procedures. Attorneys provided a diversity of responses regarding the most important advice they offer their clients with many mentioning facts related to the case resolution process (56.0%), the direct and collateral consequences associated with a criminal conviction (29.4%), the role of the defense attorney (32.1%), and the importance of the right to silence (24.8%). Further, over half of the attorneys surveyed indicated a general hesitance (54.0%) and others an outright refusal (15.0%) to provide an explicit plea recommendation to their clients. In sum, these findings provide valuable insight into the challenges faced by defense attorneys who must be adviser, negotiator, and apparently, educator. Further, many appear to draw a sharp line between counseling their clients and moving them to a decision.more » « less
-
Abstract We propose a theory of indebted demand, capturing the idea that large debt burdens lower aggregate demand, and thus the natural rate of interest. At the core of the theory is the simple yet underappreciated observation that borrowers and savers differ in their marginal propensities to save out of permanent income. Embedding this insight in a two-agent perpetual-youth model, we find that recent trends in income inequality and financial deregulation lead to indebted household demand, pushing down the natural rate of interest. Moreover, popular expansionary policies—such as accommodative monetary policy—generate a debt-financed short-run boom at the expense of indebted demand in the future. When demand is sufficiently indebted, the economy gets stuck in a debt-driven liquidity trap, or debt trap. Escaping a debt trap requires consideration of less conventional macroeconomic policies, such as those focused on redistribution or those reducing the structural sources of high inequality.more » « less
-
Recent efforts to dismantle felon disenfranchisement regimes have the potential to substantially expand electoral eligibility among people with criminal records; however, even among those with criminal legal histories who are eligible to vote, voting rates are often extremely low. Analyzing interview, focus group, and text message conversations among a multi-state sample around the November 2022 election, we identify and describe how administrative barriers to voting—including a lack of understanding about the voting process, confusion about legal eligibility, and perceived risks of rearrest of voting while ineligible—pose an access to justice issue among system-impacted people. These barriers are amplified by government mistrust, specifically the perception that barriers are intentionally constructed to suppress voting, and they are potentially mitigated by outreach by community organizations that are viewed as credible. The findings emphasize that legislative reforms repealing disenfranchisement laws must be accompanied by on-the-ground efforts to address administrative burdens to broaden access to the franchise.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986220971395
