The Collateral Consequences of a Criminal Conviction
McCoy, Thomas R., Grant, Walter Matthews, LeCornu, John, Pickens, John Andrew, Rivkin, Dean Hill & Vinson, C. Roger
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by10
- 2016United States v. Nesbeth E.D.N.Y.
- 2000Jabari Mandela v. Donal Campbell Tenn. Ct. App.
- 1996Ray v. Stanton, App. No. 88-285-Ii, 1989 Wl 14135 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 24 Tenn. Ct. App.
- 1990In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Curran Wash.
- 1985In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Walgren Wash.
- 1983Tuten v. United States U.S.
- 1982Moorhead v. Government of the Virgin Islands V.I. Terr. Ct.
- 1981Commonwealth v. Jones Mass.
- 1978Bailey v. Baronian R.I.
- 1974Blackledge v. Perry U.S.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
As a general matter [civil disability law] has simply not been rationally designed to accommodate the varied interests of society and the individual convicted person. There has been little effort to evaluate the whole system of disabilities and disqualifications that has grown up. ...As a result, convicted persons are generally subjected to numerous disabilities and disqualifications which have little relation to the crime committed, the person committing it or,consequently, the protection of society. They are often harsh out of all proportion to the crime committed.