NCJ Number
222488
Date Published
December 2007
Length
32 pages
Annotation
This report discusses the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction in Alaska in the areas of impaired access to ordinary rights and benefits associated with citizenship or residency, impaired economic opportunity specifically in the area of employment, and increased severity of sanctions with subsequent criminal proceedings, and those State statutes and regulations impacting an offender’s civic and economic reintegration.
Abstract
The indirect but significant consequences of a felony or misdemeanor conviction are receiving increasing attention from policymakers, ethicists, and the bar. A comprehensive list of those provisions of Alaska law that automatically affect or have the potential to affect adversely an offender’s ability to enjoy the ordinary benefits of American citizenship include, but are not limited to voting jury service, loss of parental rights, housing assistance, service in public office, sex offense registration, grounds for divorce, and past conviction as evidence to prove similar conduct in later proceeding. In addition, a criminal conviction carries with it a significant limitation on the kinds of employment subsequently available to the offender such as small business loans, accountants, attorneys, bankers or financial institutions, child placement agencies, EMT/EMT instructors, fishing licenses of permits, lobbyists, home healthcare workers, and physicians. Setting aside issues of constitutional or statutory rights, the growing web of civil disabilities triggered by a criminal conviction raises fundamental questions about what makes sense as a matter of public policy. Alaska’s Constitution spells out the policies underlying administration of the criminal justice system. However, there is an inherent tension between the community’s interest in public safety and the criminal defendant’s interest in full restoration of civic rights. Legislators and regulatory agencies seeking to adjust this tension must strike a difficult balance between those measures that truly advance public safety, those that are merely punitive or reflect “community condemnation,” and those that unduly impede the defendant’s reformation. As the number of statutory and regulatory measures negatively affecting offender reentry continues to grow, the bar has begun examining its role in shaping a more just and humane system. Tables and bibliography