Search

This study examines the intergenerational consequences of court-imposed monetary sanctions for parents and children. Research on punishment and families has generally focused on imprisonment, yet monetary sanctions are far more commonly imposed. We extend research on intergenerational financial exchanges to conceptualize payment of monetary sanctions as stigmatized transfers, analyzing 70 semi-structured interviews with debtholders in Minnesota. Adult children reported perceiving anger and financial strain from family members who provide assistance. Those with minor children expressed hopelessness, stress, and financial strain, as they prioritized basic needs over meeting their outstanding financial obligations. We conclude by discussing the implications of these intergenerational impacts for research, law, and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes the implementation of a domestic violence law in Minnesota that, in 2006, made the violation of a Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order a felony-level offense. Since this legal change, the rate of conviction for Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order felonies skyrocketed with stark racial disparities among Black and Native American residents, relative to Whites. Analysis of case files reveals that Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order convictions result from a range of behaviors, from seemingly mutual contact between the defendant and protected party to serious physical violence. We argue that the Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order law facilitates pragmatic punitiveness for legal actors. It is easier for prosecutors to demonstrate contact occurred than to prove domestic assault. Yet, the penalty for a Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order is as severe as the penalties for other domestic abuse-related crimes in Minnesota. Thus, the Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order law enables prosecutors to respond forcefully to domestic violence while avoiding additional burdens on their time and resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Child support arrears and criminal monetary sanctions are two forms of state-imposed debt that have gained increasing attention for their role in perpetuating inequality. Although past research recognizes that both groups of debtors tend to be socioeconomically disadvantaged and are disproportionately members of marginalized racial groups, the overlap between these populations has not been examined. Our study uses administrative data to link individuals from both groups, providing the first description and comparison of three populations of debtors—those with only criminal legal debt, those with only child support debt, and those with both types of debt—highlighting disparities and the compounding nature of both types of debt. We then draw on 30 in-depth semistructured interviews with individuals subject to state surveillance from both forms of debt, emphasizing three key themes that emerged: debt as carceral vulnerability, the relative salience of each type of debt, and perceptions of fairness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]