The Crazy-Quilt of Collateral Consequences: Innovations and Challenges in Data Collection, Coding, and Accessibility

The project described herein may be of interest to socio-legal scholars and researchers for at least three reasons: it responds to a critical justice policy need that has previously received limited attention (a Supreme Court decision issued during the project’s first year has changed that), it presents evolving methodological challenges in data collection and coding, and it seeks to deliver a final product relevant and accessible to distinct groups of varying sophistication: policymakers, prosecutors, and pro se defendants, among others. The following paper describes a work very much in progress. The penultimate product - a comprehensive database of collateral consequences to support informed decision-making by judges, attorneys, policymakers and individuals - addresses many unmet needs. For individuals facing criminal charges and their attorneys, this resource will contain information necessary to understand the full effects of a trial or plea outcome. For judges and prosecutors considering appropriate sanctions, this resource will hold information on the civil penalties attached to a conviction by trial or plea. For justice policymakers at state and federal levels, this resource will be the first exhaustive compilation of collateral consequences across these jurisdictions. In light of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), defense counsel are required to advise clients whether a plea carries a risk of deportation - and such a risk often manifests as a collateral, not direct, consequence of conviction. The collection and organization of the relevant data has proven a rich experience for the research team, requiring innovative methods and re-consideration of important design issues. The ultimate product - a publicly available website through which any of the above groups can search the database or sort the data within - represents an effort to bring the compiled data to life most effectively. The design of an accessible, functional legal resource is no mean feat, especially in light of the one-to-many relationships within the data: a single consequence may be triggered by multiple offenses, and single offense may trigger multiple consequences. Further, a single statute or rule may detail multiple consequences. Website visitors are anticipated to bring a range of interests, including the ability to search by charge/offense (“What consequences are triggered by a conviction on this charge?”), by consequence (“Which offenses might limit my ability to practice in my profession?”), by class of consequences (“Which offenses will curtail my civic participation?”), by duration of consequence (“For how long is this consequence in effect?”), or by processes for relieving consequences (“How can this consequence be lifted?”). This paper (like the project, very much in progress as of this date) will present the initial methodology as well as refinements undertaken over the course of the project. Issues as fundamental as the unit of analysis and the accessibility/functionality of the final program have required attention, and socio-legal researchers may gain important insights about data collection and coding, as well as public accessibility of results, through this review. I seek to share and discuss methodological issues as disparate as data coding and the policy environment, as well as challenges in creating a legal-information resource accessible and responsive to an array of user groups.