Corporate Collateral Consequences Should Apply to Individuals
I just read a compelling article by Shaila Dewan in the New York Times called The Collateral Victims of Criminal Justice, which ponders why the Department of Justice’s long-standing policy to consider the collateral consequences of pursuing a corporation criminally isn’t more of a consideration in the prosecution of individuals. She argues that the rational basis of considering the economic effects of corporate prosecutions on the individuals working in the corporation and on our society as a whole should be applied to the prosecution of individuals because the consequences to individuals, even those charged with low level offenses, affects our communities, society as a whole, and our economic health. In addition to her persuasive argument, it is a point of fundamental fairness when you consider that corporate entities are enjoying more understanding than the individuals going through our system.
The article includes some statistics which, like many of the recent statistics about prisoners and accused persons, are shocking. “Between 1991 and 2007, the percentage of children with mothers in prison more than doubled, according to federal data – and that does not count the many more mothers who spent time in jail. It doesn’t take statistics to grasp how damaging separation can be, but even so, the data shows these children have more depression, aggression, delinquency, absenteeism, asthma and migraines. As adults, their earnings are reduced and their chances of homelessness are higher.”
Law professor Jenny Roberts of the American University Law School has studied the consequences of misdemeanor charges and correctly pointed out that “[p]rosecutors are attuned to collateral consequences in prosecuting a corporation because of the unfair economic consequences that it can have on third parties. It’s not exactly the same for individuals — but remember that an individual is part of a family, a community, a society and a country.”
Roberts spoke in June before the Pennsylvania legislature and spoke about the effects of allowing low level misdemeanors to remain on an individual’s record and the effect of that on the greater economy, state by state. She told the legislature that “[w]hen we think about who’s going to be able to get jobs and who’s going to be able to work, I think we better think about that in light of the competition we’re going to have in a global economy, and every state needs to think about it in light of what’s going on across the border.”
Finally, Patricia Warth, an advocate for indigent defense in New York, recounted the numerous times that she has heard stories of parents being unable to even volunteer for their own children’s activities because of convictions that they received many years ago. She told the reporter “[w]e’re just beginning to acknowledge the extent to which we’re not just punishing individuals, we’re punishing entire communities,” and “[s]ometimes we become so harsh that we’re punishing ourselves.”