Collateral Consequences Of Recidivism

It has become conventional today to dismiss the good in criminals. Collateral consequences are the result of this common ideal, intended to further punish criminals after prison. The American Bar Association’s National Inventory of Collateral Consequences catalogs over one thousand collateral consequences of conviction in Washington state alone, ranging from felon disenfranchisement to ineligibility for medical care and food stamps. The consequences of conviction set ex-criminals up for failure, and eventual recidivism. Although considered to ensure community safety, collateral consequences should not be imposed on ex-felons due to their detrimental effects on individuals and society and inability to recognize rehabilitation.
The elimination
According to Rubin, “efforts to help people make a successful transition back into mainstream society both reduce recidivism and equip former prisoners to be effective parts of the work force” (Rubin). Rubin asserts that helping ex-prisoners reenter society reduces recidivism rates and makes ex-convicts assets in the work force. With support from the public, ex-criminals can gain access to basic necessities as they transition back into society, eliminating the need to commit crime to obtain these essentials. Getting rid of collateral consequences and instead helping ex-convicts reenter society has the ability to both eliminate the need to recidivate and make communities safer. In his memoir, Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption, author Bryan Stevenson explains “we have created a new caste system that forces thousands of people into homelessness, bans them from living with their families and in their communities, and renders them virtually unemployable” (Stevenson 16). In short, collateral consequences cause immense hindrances on ex-convicts. The instability of homelessness that ex-felons are forced into drastically increases the likelihood of recidivism due to lack of access to food and shelter. Hence, to eradicate collateral consequences is to diminish re-offense and promote self-sufficiency in
Eisha Jain, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, in Prosecuting Collateral Consequences, writes “collateral consequences are closely related to the underlying crime and respond to a pressing and specific public safety concern” (Jain 1207). Jain emphasizes that collateral consequences fit the crime they are applied to and exist to ensure public safety. Admittedly, a number of collateral consequences can be necessary for public safety, including forbiddance of possession of a firearm and restrictions on where a sex offender can live, yet Jain’s assertion that all collateral consequences meet societal safety needs does not fit the facts. Proponents of collateral consequences exaggerate when they claim that these consequences are not detrimental to reentering criminals. The majority of collateral consequences are unnecessary and trigger failure in ex-convicts. As a result, recidivism floods communities with crime, making them less safe. Contrarily, J. McGregor Smyth, Jr., founder and attorney for the Bronx Defenders’ Civil Action Practice, explains, “intended to improve ‘public safety,’ these punishments ultimately trap individuals in the revolving door of incarceration and poverty…these barriers actually contribute to recidivism and undermine the struggle for self-sufficiency” (Smyth 1). That is,