Search

Recent efforts to dismantle felon disenfranchisement regimes have the potential to substantially expand electoral eligibility among people with criminal records; however, even among those with criminal legal histories who are eligible to vote, voting rates are often extremely low. Analyzing interview, focus group, and text message conversations among a multi-state sample around the November 2022 election, we identify and describe how administrative barriers to voting—including a lack of understanding about the voting process, confusion about legal eligibility, and perceived risks of rearrest of voting while ineligible—pose an access to justice issue among system-impacted people. These barriers are amplified by government mistrust, specifically the perception that barriers are intentionally constructed to suppress voting, and they are potentially mitigated by outreach by community organizations that are viewed as credible. The findings emphasize that legislative reforms repealing disenfranchisement laws must be accompanied by on-the-ground efforts to address administrative burdens to broaden access to the franchise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on the shadow carceral state identifies new species of criminal-civil and civil-criminal legal hybrids embedded in state law. We bring into conversation disparate literatures on growing family complexity, monetary sanctions, justiciable problems, and child support enforcement to examine how contemporary American families experience a system of double and triple jeopardy—the compounding risks of exposure to both criminal and civil debts at the nexus of a legal hybrid, wherein monetary sanctions (criminal) and child support orders (civil) become co-constitutive (double jeopardy), thereby amplifying the risk that a parent will also experience (civil) child support arrearage (triple jeopardy). Using data from seven sources to construct a unique dataset, we evaluate the spatial and racial risk of double and triple jeopardy, as well as the state-level factors that explain them. Our analysis provides a valid description of, and critically establishes the sociolegal precarity wherein, currently incarcerated parents observe and experience their risks of double and triple jeopardy in the child support system via its orders, collections, and enforcement powers. We find that there are, indeed, racial and spatial disparities in the risk of double and triple jeopardy, and that specific state-level factors increment and decrement those risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article titled "Rap Rhyme, Prison Time: How Prosecutors Use Rap Evidence in Gang Cases" explores the use of rap lyrics and videos as evidence in criminal trials, particularly those involving gangs. The authors argue that this practice can lead to discrimination and misinterpretation of rap as evidence of criminal behavior. They call for a more nuanced approach that considers the history and conventions of rap music. The article also discusses the prevalence of this practice in California and the potential for stereotypes and prejudice to impact who is labeled as a gang member. It highlights the use of gang injunctions and criminal gang enhancements in California, which can violate constitutional rights. The article provides examples of cases where rap evidence was introduced and discusses the consequences, including severe sentences and First Amendment concerns. It emphasizes the need to recognize rap as an art form and to understand its complex relationship with gangs. The article also explores the motivations and linguistic practices of rap music, as well as the commercialization of violent themes in rap. It concludes by recommending a more careful and limited use of rap-related evidence in court, the inclusion of rap music experts as witnesses, and the recognition of rap as a legitimate art form. [Extracted from the article]