Combating misinformation in the ex-felon population
| Date | 01 March 2016 |
| Author | David S. McCahon |
| Published date | 01 March 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550515620690 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Probation Journal
Combating
2016, Vol. 63(1) 9–22
ª The Author(s) 2015
misinformation in the
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0264550515620690
ex-felon population:
prb.sagepub.com
The role probation and
parole agencies can
play to facilitate civic
reintegration in the
United States
David S. McCahon
University of California Riverside, USA
Abstract
In-depth interviews conducted with recently released ex-felony offenders and months
of participant observation, revealed that felon disenfranchisement laws and other
exclusionary practices, cause ex-felons to wrongly believe they are without rights and
benefits they retain in most US states, including the right to vote. Ex-felony offenders
interviewed unknowingly exaggerated rights restrictions they faced post-conviction
and often demonstrated that they were unable to decipher myth from truth, regard-
ing their remaining rights. To mitigate misperceptions held by ex-felons, that alienate
them from civil society, probation and parole agencies can facilitate civic reintegration
through civic re-education.
Keywords
civic engagement, felon, felon disenfranchisement, felon rehabilitation, felon voting,
offender rights, probation, parole
Corresponding Author:
David S. McCahon, Research Fellow at the Presley Center for Crime and Justice Studies, University of
California Riverside Political Science, 900 University Avenue, Riverside, California 92521, USA.
Email: dmcca003@ucr.edu
10
Probation Journal 63(1)
Introduction
As compared to European nations, the United States (US) maintains restrictive
criminal offender disenfranchisement laws. The practice of banning criminal
offenders from voting while incarcerated is not limited to the US; however, the
practice of barring ex-felony offenders from voting post-incarceration is a practice
unique to the US. To further illustrate this policy contrast, while the European Court
of Human Rights has ruled that a blanket ban on voting from prison violates the
European Convention on Human Rights (Hirst v. United Kingdom No.2 2005) all
but two US states maintain a complete ban on felon voting from prison and most US
states ban ex-felons from voting even after they have been released from jail or
prison. The US is exceptional in that it maintains both the highest incarceration rate
(Walmsley, 2014) and the largest population of individuals disenfranchised in the
world (Uggen et al., 2012).
US state constitutions upon ratification contained provisions excluding the right of
suffrage from those who committed ‘infamous crimes’. Since the US Supreme Court
ruled in Green v. US (1958) an ‘infamous crime’ has been defined as any crime that
results in a sentence of one year or more. The Green ruling lead US states to
recognize all felony offenses as ‘infamous crimes’. Although felon disenfranchise-
ment laws exist in most US states, many have been modified to allow ex-felons to
regain the right to vote after they have completed all aspects of their criminal sen-
tence, including parole and probation. Forty-eight states prohibit offenders who are
incarcerated from voting, 31 states prohibit voting for parolees and probationers,
seven states maintain disenfranchisement laws for ex-felons after incarceration but
allow ex-felons to apply for restoration of voting rights, and four deny ex-felons from
voting even after they have completed all aspects of their sentence (The Sentencing
Project, 2014).
Though felon disenfranchisement laws have existed for centuries, offender
exclusion legislation passed by Congress has further stigmatized ex-felons in the US
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(PRWORA), signed by President Clinton, bans drug felons from receiving welfare
benefits, including food stamps, though states are able to opt out of this requirement.
Beyond being excluded from voting and receiving welfare benefits, state and fed-
eral laws also exclude ex-felons from owning a gun, possessing ammunition, ser-
ving on juries, and serving in the US military (Boucai, 2007; Kalt, 2003). These
exclusionary laws, like felon disenfranchisement laws, send a strong message to
ex-felons that they are excluded from society and no longer maintain the rights and
benefits of citizenship.
Although some ex-felons in the US are prohibited from voting due to felon dis-
enfranchisement laws, millions of other ex-felons remain eligible to vote but fail to do
so (Burch 2007, 2011; Haselswerdt, 2009; Hjalmarsson and Lopez, 2010;
Weaver and Lerman, 2010). Scholarship has highlighted negative interactions with
law enforcement agents (Weaver and Lerman, 2010), and detrimental effects of
incarceration as factors negatively impacting ex-offender political participation
(Lerman, 2013). The pressure to conform, and the minimization of individuality that
McCahon
11
occurs in prison may explain why imprisonment tends to create apathetic non-
voters, as opposed to active citizens that choose to exercise their political voice
(Behan, 2014).
An alternative explanation, yet to be explored, is that misinformation held by
ex-felony offenders also negatively impacts civic engagement post-incarceration. In
this article, I pose the fol owing research questions: how do ex-felony offenders in the
US interpret their right to vote after completing their sentences? And, what role does
misinformation play in ex-felon civic reintegration? After conducting months of par-
ticipant observation and semi-structured interviews with recently released ex-felony
offenders, I argue that misinformation stemming from a history of felon exclusion in
the US causes many ex-felons to fail to participate in civic activities such as voting. I
additionally argue that parole and probation agencies are uniquely positioned to
dispel common myths held by ex-felons about felon exclusion laws. I suggest that by
providing accurate, accessible information to ex-felons regarding their civil rights,
parole and probation officials can help facilitate the social reintegration process.
Collateral consequences
When a defendant is accused of a crime and found guilty by a judge or jury, the
defendant is issued a sentence as punishment for the crime. The sentence may take
various forms but always involves some form of punishment, which may vary from a
small fine to imprisonment. These types of punishments are a direct consequence of
violating criminal law. Punishment for felony offenders in the U.S, however, does
not cease after they have served their sentence. Felony offenders then suffer from
collateral consequences. Collateral consequences are not criminal punishments,
rather they are civil punishments that ex-felony offenders face after they serve their
criminal sentence (Pinard, 2006).
Upon entering a plea, defendants are often unaware of the collateral conse-
quences that accompany a felony conviction. Alexander (2012) has found that
overworked public defenders rarely inform defendants of collateral consequences
they may encounter post-conviction. Further, judges are not required to inform
defendants of post-conviction collateral consequences; judges are only required to
inform defendants of the direct consequences they face as a result of violating the
criminal law (Chin, 2012). Inmates interviewed as part of this research project
indicated that they learned about collateral consequences while they were incar-
cerated from acquaintances that provided them with inaccurate information. Other
scholarship has indicated probation and parole officers as common sources of
misinformation for ex-offenders seeking an understanding of their post-conviction
rights (Allen, 2011; Ewald, 2005).
Contact with the criminal justice system, civic engagement
and crime
Research by social scientists has showed that when ex-felons are released from
custody and retain their voting rights, they rarely exercise them. This even holds true
12
Probation Journal 63(1)
for ex-felons that prior to their conviction consistently voted (Burch 2007, 2011;
Haselswerdt, 2009). Haselswerdt (2009) observed rates of registration and voter
turnout in both general and closed primary elections for a cohort of 660 ex-felons
released from parole in Erie County New York in 2004. Haselswerdt observed
that while prior to their conviction approximately 36 per cent of this cohort was
registered to vote, post conviction only 13 per cent had reregistered to vote in either
2004 or 2005 and only 5 per cent of this cohort voted in either election. After
matching data on millions of convicted offenders to voter registration records and
turnout, Burch (2007, 2011) found that...
To continue reading
Request your trial