« State judge in Pennsylvania finds lifetime sex offender registration for juve offenders unconstitutional | Main | You be the federal judge: should everyone claiming to be a Whitey Bulger victim get to speak at sentencing? »

November 8, 2013

"Informal Collateral Consequences"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new piece available via SSRN by Wayne Logan. Here is the abstract:

This essay fills an important gap in the national discussion now taking place with regard to collateral consequences, the broad array of non-penal disabilities attaching to criminal convictions. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, efforts are now underway to inventory collateral consequences imposed by state, local, and federal law.  Only when the full gamut of such consequences is known, law reformers urge, can criminal defendants understand the actual impact of their decision to plead guilty.

The increased concern over collateral consequences, while surely welcome and important, has however been lacking in a key respect: it has ignored the many adverse social, medical and economic consequences of conviction, experienced by individuals independent of formal operation of law.  This essay augments the consciousness-raising effort now under way and makes the case that informal, and not just formal collateral consequences of conviction, should figure in post-Padilla policy efforts to achieve a fairer and more transparent criminal justice system.

November 8, 2013 at 07:45 AM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Informal Collateral Consequences":


Fortunately, the Department of Health and Human Services has shown leadership in this area by not requiring the persons hired to process Obamacare applications to pass background checks, so that convicted felons can have access to the most personal of information on millions of Americans. Let us have three cheers for banning the box!

Posted by: Kent Scheidegger | Nov 8, 2013 12:59:23 PM

The ABA counted 50,000 collateral consequences of a criminal conviction. If the defense attorney has not gone over each, as by handing over a CD listing all th them, he has provided inadequete counsel. Inadequate counsel, if declared in an appellate decision is lawer malpractice per se. The defendant should sue the defense attorney for the damages direct and collateral of the plea deal. suchj litigatio owuld help the defense bar stop doing the work of the prosecutor, and start to actually advocats or defendants.

The local defense association could help the public and itself by rpoving a speaker for high school assembly, once a year. They would say stuff like, once in police custody there is nothing you can say to help your self get out of it. So when it comes to tell the story, shut the Eff up. The police are not our friend. They can lie, "Your friend has told us everyhting, there is only one wy to save yourself now." Or, "We are intrested in your side of the story," when there is no other side. People should watch, the First Forty Eight Hours.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Nov 8, 2013 6:24:19 PM

When you are the defendant , it can be The Solar System v. You ‼

Which encompasses all the power and $$$$ the government chooses to use.

Posted by: Just Plain Jim (Just Another Guy) | Nov 8, 2013 8:25:32 PM

Jim: Heck, no. No matter what your finances, you do not owe $17 trillion to the REd Chinese Army. You aare in better shape than the clowns now in government.

They are all bullies. Even if you are small, punch them in the nose, and kick them in the ribs, they run.

Start with e-discovery of all prosecutor computers, home and work. That is justified by their improper motive. That is anything to do with an involuntary feature of the defendant, the color of skin, the age, the sex, the state of health. Play every card. I suggest doing the same with the buffoon on the bench. However, even among the small number of lawyers who understand me, and who are willing to butt up against their profession, none will go after a judge. You will hae to do it pro se. The buffoon on the bench is barely human, if you drive him to suicide by relentless personal attack, go for it. You are destroying treasonous vermin. Not even human. Discovery is justified by the barest of relevance. Take advantage of it.

There is recourse against the feminist pig prosecutor. It is all inside the trial, and through the judge. No defense lawyer is doing it, but I believe it is the standard of due professional care, and a minimum of zealous representation.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Nov 8, 2013 10:14:14 PM

@Kent Scheidegger
In UK people complained inmates were hired for cold-calling homeowner to sell them insurence, potentially accessing to infos about their secuity system or the valuables contained in their houses.

Such restrictions about felons have a evident motive.

Posted by: visitor | Nov 9, 2013 2:47:55 PM

Kent Scheidegger, you're still miffed that Obama won re-election and that tens of millions of poor folks will have access to health care. Get over it.

Posted by: anon1 | Nov 10, 2013 11:55:18 AM

anon1 stated: "Kent Scheidegger, you're still miffed that Obama won re-election and that tens of millions of poor folks will have access to health care."

Typical. Does not understand economics enough to realize that "health insurance" is quite different than "health care."

Please tell us how Medicaid gives so many people "health care" in communities where virtually no doctors accept it.

Please tell us how much "health care" Soetorcare recipients will be getting when the large specialty hospitals (e.g. Cleveland Clinic) are not taking Soetorocare plans. Many have already signaled their intention not to take them.

Please tell us how much "health care" the 15 million individuals will get who were already dropped from their existing plans because of Soetorocare and cannot even get on the website to sign up for more expensive insurance with higher deductibles and co-pays.

Please tell us how much "health care" the TENS of MILLIONS who will be dropped from their existing employer plans because of Soetorocare and will have to get more expensive insurance with higher deductibles and co-pays.

In fact, it is widely believed that far more people have already lost their insurance than have signed up. Great job!!!!

Please tell us how much "health care" people will be getting when only 3 and 10 doctors are currently planning to even ACCEPT Soetorocare.

You stated: "Get over it."

I always love this one. Debate is over as the "law of the land" unless it is the 2nd Amendment, a state abortion bill, a trial of of a sex offender who gets 200 years in prison, a Governor limiting the extortion a public sector union can inflict, etc. Then, you scrap the "get over it" and "fight for the people."

Funny how that works...

Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Nov 11, 2013 2:51:40 PM

My comment was quite obviously about "ban the box," not Obamacare, for anyone who bothers to read it and make a good faith effort to understand it.

Posted by: Kent Scheidegger | Nov 11, 2013 3:29:41 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB