Loss of rights due to conviction for criminal offense

Last updated

Loss of rights due to criminal conviction refers to the practice in some countries of reducing the rights of individuals who have been convicted of a criminal offence. The restrictions are in addition to other penalties such as incarceration or fines. In addition to restrictions imposed directly upon conviction, there can also be collateral civil consequences resulting from a criminal conviction, but which are not imposed directly by the courts as a result of the conviction.

Contents

Canada

In Canada, criminal law is a federal matter, set out in the Criminal Code. Restrictions can be placed on certain activities following a conviction involving: (1) the use of weapons in the commission of a criminal offence; (2) driving a vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs; (3) electoral corruption.

Weapon prohibitions

When a person is convicted of an offence in which the person used a weapon, or threatened to use a weapon, the sentencing court has the power to prohibit the person from possessing a weapon for a certain period of time. In the case of certain offences, the prohibition on possession is mandatory. [1] In other cases, the court has discretion whether to impose a prohibition on possession. [2]

For first offences, the court can set the prohibition period as any time up to ten years. [1] [2] For subsequent offences, the convicted person is prohibited from possessing a weapon for life. [1] [2] However, even for first offences, the court can impose a lifetime prohibition if the convicted person used a weapon against the convicted person's intimate partner, the convicted person's children, or any person living with the convicted person. [2] As well, there is a lifetime prohibition on possessing prohibited firearms or weapons (such as fully automatic firearms), and restricted firearms (such as handguns). [1]

Driving prohibitions

The Criminal Code contains several offences related to driving a motor vehicle, including driving while impaired or with a blood alcohol count greater than eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood (".08"), [3] impaired or .08 driving causing bodily harm or death, [4] dangerous driving (including dangerous driving causing bodily harm or death), [5] and street racing. [6] A person convicted of one of these offences can be subject to a prohibition on driving a motor vehicle for a certain period of time.

For convictions for impaired driving or driving over .08, the court must impose a mandatory driving prohibition of at least one year and not more than three years for a first offence. The length of the mandatory driving prohibitions increase with second and subsequent offences. If the convicted person participates in an interlock program, the length of the prohibition may be reduced, but must be at least three months. Similar mandatory prohibition orders are imposed for offences involving a motor vehicle which cause bodily harm or death and for street racing. [7]

For offences other than impaired driving/.08 or street racing, or not involving bodily harm or death, the sentencing court has discretion to impose driving prohibitions. [7]

In addition to the driving prohibitions under the Criminal Code, there may be collateral civil consequences. For example, driver licences are issued under provincial law. All provinces will cancel the driver licence of a person convicted of certain driving offences under the Criminal Code.

Electoral corruption

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that all Canadian citizens have the right to vote in federal and provincial elections. [8] The Supreme Court of Canada has held that even if a Canadian citizen has committed a criminal offence and is incarcerated, they retain the constitutional right to vote. [9] In the 2015 federal election, more than 22,000 inmates in federal correctional institutes were eligible to vote. [10]

There is one exception to this general principle. The Supreme Court has held that if a person is convicted of corrupt electoral practices, they can be evicted from the legislature, barred from being nominated for election for a set period, and denied the right to vote for a set period. These restrictions are acceptable because they are a sanction aimed at the very offence committed by the individual, rather than being a general disenfranchisement. The restrictions are aimed at healing the corrupted electoral process, which itself is a constitutional value, and therefore can be justified for limited periods. [11]

United Kingdom

Within the United Kingdom, criminal law is primarily a matter of the four constituent countries. After a conviction, an offender can, in some cases, lose:

United States

In the United States, loss of rights due to criminal conviction can take several forms, including voting disenfranchisement, exclusion from jury duty, and loss of the right to possess firearms.

Disenfranchisement

Every state with the exception of Maine and Vermont prohibits felons from voting while in prison. [13] Nine other states disenfranchise felons for various lengths of time following the completion of their probation or parole. However, the severity of each state's disenfranchisement varies. 1 in 43 adults were disenfranchised as of 2006. [14] The issue of disenfranchisement gained awareness in 2000 after the "excruciatingly close" presidential election, wherein 2% of the voting-age population was prohibited from participating. [14] In that election, George W. Bush won Florida by 537 votes, however 31% of Black Floridians were denied the vote due to disenfranchisement. [15] Given that African American voters are typically Democratic voters, it was argued at the time that their exclusion "decisively" changed the outcome of the election.[ citation needed ]

In Reynolds v. Sims , the Court ruled that the right to vote is a "fundamental right," establishing a strict scrutiny test. Further, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees "equal protection of the laws" to all persons. However, Section 2 of this Amendment allows states to remove voting privileges from anyone who has participated in "rebellion or other crime." [14] A 1972 Supreme Court ruling found that this article applied to disenfranchisement of ex-felons. The Civic Participation and Rehabilitation Act, allowing for ex-felons to vote, has been introduced at the beginning of every legislative session since 1994, but has never made it to the floor of Congress.

Only one state, Kentucky continues to impose a lifelong denial of the right to vote to all citizens with a felony record, in the absence of a restoration of civil rights by the Governor or, where allowed, state legislature. [13] Until 2018, Florida also denied the right to vote to all felons; this changed upon the passing of the Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative. [16]

Felon jury exclusion

The lifetime exclusion of felons from jury service is the majority rule in the United States, used in 31 states and in federal courts. The result is that over 6% of the adult population is excluded, including about 30% of black men. [17] Felon jury exclusion is less visible than felony disenfranchisement, and few socio-legal scholars have challenged the statutes that withhold a convicted felon's opportunity to sit on a jury. [18] While constitutional challenges to felon jury exclusion almost always originate from interested litigants, some scholars contend that "it is the interests of the excluded felons that are most directly implicated."

Yet attacks on these blanket prohibitions levied by excluded felon jurors have failed consistently. The United States Supreme Court does not recognize the right to sit on a jury as fundamental. [19] It has been pointed out that, although lawmakers assert that felon jury exclusion measures protect the integrity of the adjudicative process, as felons "lack the requisite probity" to serve on a jury and are "inherently biased," many of the states subscribing to this practice allow felons to practice law. [20] But that is a double standard only if it is presumed that those who judge the arguments of both sides in a case are allowed to be as biased as those arguing for each side.

Loss of right to possess firearms

Since 1968, [21] felons are regarded by the federal government, and most US states, as being "prohibited persons" under US law (18 U.S. Code § 922(g)). It is a class C felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison under this subsection "to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce." This has been litigated before the Supreme Court. However, the Court upheld the regulation. [ citation needed ]

See also

Related Research Articles

A felony is traditionally considered a crime of high seriousness, whereas a misdemeanor is regarded as less serious. The term "felony" originated from English common law to describe an offense that resulted in the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods, to which additional punishments including capital punishment could be added; other crimes were called misdemeanors. Following conviction of a felony in a court of law, a person may be described as a felon or a convicted felon.

Summary offence Petty crime tried without a jury

A summary offence or petty offence is a violation in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment.

Disfranchisement, also called disenfranchisement, or voter disqualification is the restriction of suffrage of a person or group of people, or a practice that has the effect of preventing a person exercising the right to vote. Disfranchisement can also refer to the revocation of power or control of a particular individual, community or being to the natural amenity they have; that is to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, of some privilege or inherent immunity. Disfranchisement may be accomplished explicitly by law or implicitly through requirements applied in a discriminatory fashion, through intimidation, or by placing unreasonable requirements on voters for registration or voting.

The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, often called the "Lautenberg Amendment", is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996, which bans access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. The act is often referred to as "the Lautenberg Amendment" after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg. Lautenberg proposed the amendment after a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, involving underenforcement of domestic violence laws brought under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. President Bill Clinton signed the law as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1997.

An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.

<i>Criminal Code</i> (Canada) Comprehensive criminal law of Canada

The Criminal Code is a law that codifies most criminal offences and procedures in Canada. Its official long title is An Act respecting the criminal law, and it is sometimes abbreviated as Cr.C. in legal reports. Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867 establishes the sole jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada over criminal law.

Civil death is the loss of all or almost all civil rights by a person due to a conviction for a felony or due to an act by the government of a country that results in the loss of civil rights. It is usually inflicted on persons convicted of crimes against the state or adults determined by a court to be legally incompetent because of mental disability.

Criminal law of Canada

The criminal law of Canada is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. The power to enact criminal law is derived from section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Most criminal laws have been codified in the Criminal Code, as well as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Youth Criminal Justice Act and several other peripheral statutes.

Collateral consequences of criminal conviction are the additional civil state penalties, mandated by statute, that attach to a criminal conviction. They are not part of the direct consequences of criminal conviction, such as prison, fines, or probation. They are the further civil actions by the state that are triggered as a consequence of the conviction.

In the common law legal system, an expungement proceeding is a type of lawsuit in which a first time offender of a prior criminal conviction seeks that the records of that earlier process be sealed or destroyed, making the records nonexistent or unavailable to the general public. If successful, the records are said to be "expunged". Black's Law Dictionary defines "expungement of record" as the "Process by which record of criminal conviction is destroyed or sealed from the state or Federal repository." While expungement deals with an underlying criminal record, it is a civil action in which the subject is the petitioner or plaintiff asking a court to declare that the records be expunged.

In the United States, access to guns is controlled by law under a number of federal statutes. These laws regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by state agencies and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Impaired driving is the term used in Canada to describe the criminal offence of operating, having care or the control of a motor vehicle while the person's ability to operate the motor vehicle is impaired by alcohol or a drug. Impaired driving is punishable under multiple offences in the Criminal Code, with greater penalties depending on the harm caused by the impaired driving. It can also result in various types of driver's licence suspensions.

Bail in Canada refers to the release of a person charged with a criminal offence prior to being tried in court or sentenced. The Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. That right is implemented by the Criminal Code, which provides several ways for a person to be released prior to a court appearance. A person may be released by a peace officer or by the courts. A release by the courts is officially known as a judicial interim release. There are also a number of ways to compel a person's appearance in court without the need for an arrest and release.

Criminal sentencing in Canada Overview of criminal sentencing in Canada

Canadian criminal law is governed by the Criminal Code, which includes the principles and powers in relation to criminal sentencing in Canada.

Employment discrimination against persons with criminal records in the United States has been illegal since enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers retain the right to lawfully consider an applicant's or employee's criminal conviction(s) for employment purposes e.g., hiring, retention, promotion, benefits, and delegated duties.

Gun laws in Texas Texas gun law

Gun laws in Texas regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Texas.

Drug–impaired driving Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an impairing substance

Drug–impaired driving, in the context of its legal definition, is the act of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an impairing substance. DUID, or Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, is prohibited in many countries. Several American states and European countries now have "per se" DUID laws that presume a driver is impaired if they are found to have any detectable quantity of controlled substances in their body while operating an automobile and that the driver has no doctor's prescription for the substance. This is similar to the "per se" DUI/DWI laws that presume a driver is impaired when their blood alcohol content is above a certain level. There is some controversy with "per se" DUID laws in that a driver with any detectable quantity of controlled substances may not in fact be impaired and the detectable quantity in blood or sweat may be only the remnants of drug use in days or weeks past. It is against road traffic safety.

Felony disenfranchisement in the United States Prohibiting criminals from voting in elections in the United States

Felony disenfranchisement in the United States is the suspension or withdrawal of voting rights due to the conviction of a criminal offense. The actual class of crimes that results in disenfranchisement vary between jurisdictions, but most commonly classed as felonies, or may be based on a certain period of incarceration or other penalty. In some jurisdictions disfranchisement is permanent, while in others suffrage is restored after a person has served a sentence, or completed parole or probation. Felony disenfranchisement is one among the collateral consequences of criminal conviction and the loss of rights due to conviction for criminal offense. In 2016, 6.1 million individuals were disenfranchised on account of a conviction, 2.47% of voting-age citizens. As of October 2020, it was estimated that 5.1 million voting-age US citizens were disenfranchised for the 2020 presidential election on account of a felony conviction, 1 in 44 citizens. As suffrage rights are generally bestowed by state law, state felony disenfranchisement laws also apply to elections to federal offices.

Rights restoration is the process of restoring voting rights to people with prior felony convictions who lost their voting rights under felony disenfranchisement. It may also refer to additional civil rights that are taken away upon conviction, such as holding public office and serving on a jury.

Felony disenfranchisement in Florida is currently a contentious political issue in Florida. Though the general principle of felony disenfranchisement is not in dispute, the disenfranchisement of people who had been convicted of a felony and have served their sentence — that includes prison, bail and parole — but continue being barred from voting if they have outstanding fines, fees or restitution obligations is in contention. Prior to January 8, 2019, when Amendment 4 came into effect, people convicted of a felony effectively lost their right to vote for life, as it could only be restored by the governor as an act of clemency, which rarely occurred. Florida was one of four states with a lifetime ban, the others being Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 109.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 110.
  3. ↑ Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 253.
  4. ↑ Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 255.
  5. ↑ Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 249.
  6. ↑ Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c c-46, s 249.2
  7. 1 2 Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 259.
  8. ↑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 3.
  9. ↑ Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), [2002] 3 SCR 519, 2002 SCC 68.
  10. ↑ CBC News, August 25, 2015: "More than 22,000 federal inmates eligible to vote."
  11. ↑ Harvey v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 2 SCR 876.
  12. ↑ Immigration Rules Part 9: Grounds for Refusal.
  13. 1 2 "Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States" (PDF). The Sentencing Project. September 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-11-27. Retrieved 2011-02-21.
  14. 1 2 3 Hull, Elizabeth (2009). The Disenfranchisement of Ex-Felons. Temple University Press. p. 83. ISBN   978-1439904411.
  15. ↑ "Florida's legacy of voter disenfranchisement - World Socialist Web Site". www.wsws.org. Retrieved 2015-12-13.
  16. ↑ "Initiative Information". Florida Division of Elections. Retrieved September 26, 2018.
  17. ↑ Kalt, Brian C. (October 2003), The Exclusion of Felons from Jury Service, vol. 53, American University Law Review, SSRN   420840
  18. ↑ Binnall, James Michael (March 20, 2010), "A jury of none: an essay on the last acceptable form of civic banishment", Dialectical Anthropology, 34 (4): 533–538, doi: 10.1007/s10624-010-9162-1 , ISSN   0304-4092, S2CID   144716363
  19. ↑ Binnall James M. (Fall 2009), Sixteen Million Angry Men, Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law
  20. ↑ Binnall, James (May 25, 2009), The Lawyer and the Juror: Critically Examining the Rationales for Felon Jury Exclusion
  21. ↑ https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  22. ↑ Greenhouse, Linda (July 29, 2010). "Voting Behind Bars". The New York Times.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.