NCJ Number
72246
Date Published
1976
Length
278 pages
Annotation
Considering appellate case law precedent from 1868 through 1974, this study examined civil disabilities, the loss of rights, and privileges imposed on ex-offenders in the U.S. Specifically, cases analyzed were those in which the imposition of civil disabilities was alleged to raise a Federal constitutional question.
Abstract
Even if ex-offenders are successful in completing restoration procedures provided by the various jurisdictions, they may never again possess full rights of civil and political citizenship. Study results show that they may be excluded from licensed occupations and professions and from public or labor union offices, and may be denied the right to vote. In addition, they may not possess firearms if convicted of felonies and may be disqualified as jurors. Other civil disabilities include loss of property, marital and domestic rights, and the right to serve in a fiduciary capacity, to enlist in the military, or to make a contract or be a witness. While evidence of litigation in these and other areas was found in the course of investigation, most of it was adjudicated in the trial courts. Thus Federal constitutional questions raised by these issues remain unlitigated and unresolved at the higher level of appellate authority, leaving the legal status of these areas very much in doubt. Their legal rights are considered in relation to three jurisdictional areas, the individual State government, the Federal Government, and the extraterritorial jurisdiction, the authority assumed by States over individuals convicted in other jurisdictions. The study found that, in these three areas of authority, neither the Federal nor the State governments have moved to clarify the rights of the convicted offender. Moreover, the high rate of denial of relief, together with the sparsity of appellate litigation, has allowed the Federal and State governments to go virtually unchecked in imposing disabilities, with few judicial guidelines or limits to the assertion of authority. Federal courts have been less inclined to intervene than the State judiciary. However, the courts and the legislatures must take the responsibility to balance the major objective of protection of society and rehabilitation of offenders. One part of that responsibility is deciding how much ex-offenders will be protected by constitutional guarantees. Tabular data, a chronological list of cases and data, an alphabetized list of case citations and grounds of litigation, and a summary of model penal statues are appended. The selected bibliography cites State constitutions and statutory codes, 2 legal digests, 3 legal encyclopedias, 12 report systems, 31 books, and over 150 periodicals, pamphlets, dissertations, and reports.