Search

This article contributes to the study of carceral citizenship in the United States by offering one of the first academic efforts to appraise the opinions of people with criminal records about "collateral consequences," the civil restrictions attached to convictions. In thirty-two extended interviews with people visiting a reentry-support organization in New York City, participants were asked what they thought the rules ought to be across multiple policy areas, and whether they would like to engage in each activity if the law permitted them to. Emphasizing themes of personal change, fairness, and the difficulty of living with a record, interviewees strongly rejected automatic, permanent restriction of gun rights, access to public housing, and the ability to work. Mindful of risks of harm, however, many endorsed focused limits, while arguing for universal access where they did not see threats to safety. Interviewees spoke often of personal transformation in criticizing permanent barriers. But consistent with research on the content of reentry narratives and with literature on responsibilization in the U.S. criminal-legal system, interviewees tended to frame the potential for change in a demanding way, as a possibility rather than a presumption, and a striking number volunteered comments about the primary role of individual responsibility in navigating life with a record. The results enhance theories of responsibilization in the carceral state, showing the prominence of specific ideas about personal transformation, the tension between belief in change and concern for community safety, and the importance of civic inclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]