Life Sentences and Minor Offenses: Benchmarking, Recalibration, and the Culture of Collateral Consequence Reform

Abstract

The collateral consequences of justice involvement have become the subject of much reform activity in recent years. Drawing from a sample of 284 news articles, the present study uses content analysis methods to identify and examine the dominant frames that characterize collateral consequences in public discourse as a problematic feature of criminal justice policy and practice. The analysis finds that reform discourse draws primarily on a formal penal benchmark of gross disproportionality, which highlights the extreme disconnect between minor direct punishments for low-level offenses and the long-term collateral barriers that a person faces because of their criminal record. Gross disproportionality corresponds to a vision of reform that seeks to recalibrate collateral consequences according to the structure of direct punishment, an approach that may render collateral consequences more formally penal as a result of the reform process itself.