Exceptional Punishments No one should be made to give up their rights in exchange for being spared from prison.

By Kate Weisburd 

The same scene unfolds in criminal courtrooms across the country every day. After someone has been found guilty by a jury or pled guilty, a judge imposes a sentence. The judge sometimes sentences them to prison, but often the judge sends them to a halfway house, treatment program, or other form of court supervision outside of prison.

As punishments, these non-prison sentences involve a litany of rules and restrictions that strip people of basic constitutional rights. Over the years, I have collected and analyzed hundreds of public records containing the rules governing people on various forms of court supervision. People under criminal court supervision are frequently required to provide DNA samples to law enforcement, use devices that measure drug and alcohol use, or wear GPS and microphone-equipped ankle monitors that record and track their precise location 24/7, sometimes for months or years at a time. Restrictions on where people can live, with whom they can live, whom they may marry, and how they may parent are also common, as are limitations on travel, work, and religious life. As part of non-prison punishments, courts commonly order people to participate in religious drug treatment programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), and successful completion of these programs might require individuals to sign self-incriminating “acceptance of responsibility” statements.

My experience defending young people in California’s juvenile delinquency courts allowed me to see firsthand how non-prison punishments were not really alternatives to incarceration, but alternative forms of incarceration, or prison by another name.

Yet can the deprivation of basic constitutional rights—such as the rights to marry, parent, worship, and protest—really be imposed as direct punishment for a crime in lieu of prison? Is there a punishment “exception” to the Constitution? As I claim in a forthcoming article in the California Law Review, the answer must be no: there is no legal justification for rights-violating punishments to escape traditional constitutional scrutiny.

 

Because non-prison punishments are often justified as decarceral in spirit, the illegality of how they strip away basic rights has often been overlooked. This oversight is hardly surprising. Prison, after all, involves significant limitations on privacy, movement, and basic autonomy. If a judge can sentence someone to life in prison, how can a judge not also have the power to strip someone of the right to marry, or speak, as direct punishment? Courts have too often ignored this question, but its answer is not as obvious as it might seem.

To be sure, the deprivation of rights has always been a mainstay of criminal punishment, yet advances in surveillance technology, along with the influence of private “community corrections” entrepreneurs, has created an ever-more expansive and invasive web of rights-restricting non-prison punishments. While reform-minded pundits on both the left and the right often justify these punishments as a route toward ending mass incarceration, these punishments instead risk reinforcing what scholars Amanda Alexander and Reuben Jonathan Miller call “carceral citizenship,” a status that legitimates the legal exclusion of historically subordinated groups and reinforces social–legal hierarchies based on race, class, disability, and gender.

 

There is no legally sound justification for exempting rights-restricting punishments from traditional forms of constitutional scrutiny—both within prison and outside. A criminal conviction does not give the state carte blanche to deprive people of rights so long as those deprivations do not run afoul of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. As the Supreme Court declared in 1973, there is “no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisons of this country.” There is also no such curtain between the Constitution and other forms of punishment. Despite this strong categorical language and robust—albeit often inadequate—body of law governing prison conditions, non-prison punishment continues to extinguish rights and escape constitutional scrutiny. Why?

Either implicitly or explicitly, judges, prosecutors, and reformers defend non-prison punishments along similar lines: These non-prison punishments may be another form of incarceration, but they are still better than prison. Yet, as I argue, better-than-prison is a low threshold and is neither legally nor logically sound. Just because a criminal sanction is better than prison does not make it constitutional.

There are two obvious objections to my position that non-prison punishments illegally strip people of rights. The first is that prison is worse but perfectly legal. Courts, scholars, and policymakers often evaluate rights-stripping punishments through the lens of prison: If rights are restricted in prison, anything less restrictive outside of prison must be legal. Yet it does not follow that anything less restrictive than prison is per se constitutional. As the Ohio Supreme Court explained, simply because the state “might have incarcerated a defendant does not, in itself, justify” the imposition of any restriction that would have also applied in prison. And, indeed, given the lack of specific laws permitting a loss of rights—laws that do exist with respect to prison—erasing rights as part of non-prison punishments appears to be illegal.

The second objection to my argument pertains to decarceration: But for non-prison punishments, people would remain in prison. It is tempting to assume that, were it not for non-prison punishments, even more people would be incarcerated. Yet in a world without non-prison punishments, there is no convincing evidence that the same people would otherwise be incarcerated. Some may, but many would not. Conversely, some non-carceral punishments, such as parole and federal supervised release, are never substitutes for incarceration but are imposed in addition to, not in lieu of, incarceration. It is rarely a one-to-one exchange between one day in prison and one day subjected to non-carceral punishment.

More fundamentally, the fact that some non-prison punishments are experienced as less harsh than prison does not justify punishments that violate constitutional rights. As Michelle Alexander explains in the context of electronic ankle monitoring, “digital prisons are to mass incarceration what Jim Crow was to slavery.” She elaborates that if an enslaved person had been presented with a choice between continued slavery or living under Jim Crow, they would have certainly picked Jim Crow—but that choice does not justify Jim Crow. By the same token, simply because non-prison punishment is less harsh than prison does not justify punishments that otherwise violate the Constitution.

 

The growing bipartisan interest in alternatives to incarceration—and the perceived benevolence of non-prison punishments—makes it imperative that we reckon with the unconstitutionality of rights-stripping punishments.

All punishment, including imprisonment, is state action and this means that rights-stripping punishments should be subject to traditional constitutional scrutiny. Restrictions on speech should be subject to traditional First Amendment scrutiny, restrictions on movement should be subject to Fourth Amendment review and Due Process protections, and so forth. Prison sentences are also not exempt. A prison sentence, after all, is also Fourth Amendment seizure (people in prison are clearly “seized”) and should trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny. It may be that a seizure that occurs in prison is “reasonable” under Fourth Amendment law, but not because the Fourth Amendment does not apply to people in prison. In fact, it does.

Of course, there is reason to doubt that this constitutional argument will convince all judges—and that, even if it convinced some, it would be upheld by the Supreme Court, given the Court’s present composition. Yet there is still value in challenging the premise that some people are protected by the Constitution while others—in particular, people convicted of crimes—are excluded.

Challenging rights-violating punishments also forces a much-needed recalibration of the appropriate baseline for evaluating punishment that occurs outside of prison. The better-than-prison justification assumes that prison is always the alternative, but this is a false binary and an incorrect baseline. When contemplating alternatives to incarceration, the baseline should be freedom from all forms of carceral control and surveillance. The ideal presumption should be that if someone is not in prison, they should be free.

To be sure, as others have cautioned, carceral logic and punitiveness are embedded in many public institutions that operate adjacent to, but technically outside of, the criminal system (such as subsidized housing, schools, family law, welfare responses, and hospitals). But the reality that carceral logic extends well beyond prison walls is all the more reason to treat all state action the same for purposes of constitutional rights. All state action, such as punishment, civil sanctions, welfare policies, and regulations, should be subject to the same level of constitutional scrutiny. As we reckon with the future of the carceral state, including the potential for true decarceration, the illegality and illegitimacy of rights-violating punishments cannot be ignored.

 

This essay was adapted by the author from a forthcoming article in California Law Review.

 

Kate Weisburd

Kate Weisburd is an associate professor of law at George Washington University School of Law, where her research focuses on surveillance of people in the criminal legal system.

Source

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

3 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Excellent article, thank you for sharing this. The argument that what amounts to “geographical incarceration” is still “better than prison”, is tantamount to the argument “being alive is better than being dead.” It’s more or less a non sequitur. Prison is so much more than a building with fences around it. Prison is a state of being. It is a deprivation of certain privilages that others enjoy or take for granted, or an imposition of harsh and onerous ristrictions or conditions that others aren’t subjected to…wherever they may reside or dwell. Being on the registry, (to me, at least), feels just like being imprisoned.

Last edited 7 months ago by nameless

This writer makes some excellent points, but unfortunately the entire argument is based on a false foundation….”The Constitution Guarantees rights”. This is obviously an erroneous assumption that, alas invalidates the entire argument.

The only thing the Document of Infinite Possibilities we call the Constitution guarantees is that you may enjoy all Recommend Privileges until they are suspended or revoked by the Unquestionable Council of the Wise, we refer to as The Supreme Court.

Good thing membership in the Unquestionable Council of the Wise is done through a completely legitimate process which in no way allows the State, whose legislation the Council will be reviewing, to corruptly rig the interpretations of the Documents of Infinite Possibilities as divined by the Unquestionable Council of the Wise, by appointing members they are pretty darn certain will always agree with them. That would be inarguably corrupt!

Those who are being judged cannot legitimately appoint their own judges. Especially when they are allowed to appoint judges based exclusively on their assessment of how favorably the judges will look upon them.

If this is legitimate, I want my conviction to be erased and a new trial to be convened with Lucky presiding. Yes, I feel that it is completely legitimate to leave my fate in her…. paws. I assure you that neither the fact that she is a dog, nor that she has been dead for over 40 years, will in any way interfere with my beloved childhood companion’s ability to reliably and consistently deliver what America calls “Justice” in my case, or any other case.

As far as correctly interpreting the Constitution….there are no wrong interpretations….it’s not possible, It always means whatever you say it means. It’s impossible to ever come to an incorrect interpretation…maybe an unpopular one, but never a wrong one. The possible correct interpretations are truly infinite….the wrong interpretations, nil!

Remember…
All interpretations of the Documents of Infinite Possibilities as divined by the Unquestionable Council of the Wise are Unquestionable State Truths until replaced by a contradicting Unquestionable State Truth as divined by a superior or subsequent Unquestionable Council of the Wise. Thus “Woof” is a perfectly valid interpretation for any and all sections….so long as “Woof” is supported by a majority of the Council!

Creating a Supreme Court that is entirely comprised of dead dogs my family owned throughout the years is acting in a Capricious manner you say? Let’s ask the Supreme Unquestionable Council of the Wise….”Arf….Grrrrrrrr”

I’m afraid the Unquestionable State Truth, as divined by The Supreme Unquestionable Council of the Wise disagrees with your assessment. I also believe they are recommending you leave now, or one or more of them may bite you…in the name of Justice.

All in perfect accordance with the requirements as specified within the National Document of Infinite Possibilities.

This goes back to what I said the other day where the US Constitution (USC) has holes in it and where a reply was the legal system has holes in it WRT the USC, not the USC itself, which I agree with after considerations of the reply.

The premise here is one I agree with that this country has gone passed the point of being reasonable when it comes to punishment (civil or criminal, intentionally legislated or not) all in the name of votes and power. The continual piling of punishment onto the people via the legal system (justice is subjective as I say and always will be) and taking away the authority of the judicial system to mete it out as they feel is best is wrong. This consolidation of power and ways to administer it is very dangerous in this country and one that has this nation pointed away from what the founding fathers desired initially when they told King George to pound sand and being pointed to regimes we are supposed to be against.

I am off paper, done my time. However, no matter what, the registry keeps me confined in custody by the actions of others, not me, who feel they need to mete out their brand of justice towards me even though I don’t know them, they don’t know me, and they have no reason to do it other than society and legislative power makes it acceptable to do so.

I hope @ACSOL posts the entire doc when it is finally released to the masses for reading. It should be good if this primer is any indication, IMO.