1932

Abstract

This review analyzes criminal record stigma and surveillance through the concept of digital punishment: the collection and widespread dissemination of personally identifiable data by the American criminal legal system and subsequent private actors. The analysis is organized into three parts: a descriptive account of the technological, legal, and social factors that have created mass criminal record data; a theoretical framework for understanding digital criminal records through stigma and surveillance theories; and an argument that contemporary criminal records constitute digital punishment, with emphasis placed on how digital records are disordered, commodified, and biased. I close by raising policy-relevant questions about the widespread disclosure and uses of criminal legal system data for extralegal purposes.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-030920-092833
2022-01-13
2024-06-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/criminol/5/1/annurev-criminol-030920-092833.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-030920-092833&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Anthony D, Campos-Castillo C, Horne C. 2017. Toward a sociology of privacy. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 43:249–69
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baghai K. 2012. Privacy as a human right: a sociological theory. Sociology 46:5951–65
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barocas S, Selbst AD. 2016. Big data's disparate impact. Calif. Law Rev. 104:671–732
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beckett K, Sasson T. 2003. The Politics of Injustice: Crime and Punishment in America Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bell MC. 2017. Police reform and the dismantling of legal estrangement. Yale Law J 126:2054–150
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Benjamin R. 2019. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Blumstein A, Nakamura K. 2009. Redemption in the presence of widespread criminal background checks. Criminology 47:2327–59
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Borchetta JR. 2018. Curbing collateral punishment in the big data age: how lawyers and advocates can use criminal record sealing statutes to protect privacy and the presumption of innocence. Boston Univ. Law Rev. 98:915–51
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bowker GC, Star SL. 2000. Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brackett C. 2020. The rise and rise of the criminal record: power, order, and safety in the United States, 1848–1960 PhD Diss., Univ. Mass. Boston, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brame R, Bushway SD, Paternoster R, Turner MG. 2014. Demographic patterns of cumulative arrest prevalence by ages 18 and 23. Crime Delinquency 60:3471–86
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Brame R, Turner MG, Paternoster R, Bushway SD. 2012. Cumulative prevalence of arrest from ages 8 to 23 in a national sample. Pediatrics 129:121–27
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Brandeis L. 1913. What publicity can do. Harper's Weekly Dec. 20
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Brayne S. 2014. Surveillance and system avoidance: criminal justice contact and institutional attachment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 79:3367–91
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Brayne S. 2017. Big data surveillance: the case of policing. Am. Sociol. Rev. 82:5977–1008
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Brayne S. 2018. The criminal law and law enforcement implications of big data. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 14:293–308
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Brayne S, Christin A. 2020. Technologies of crime prediction: the reception of algorithms in policing and criminal courts. Soc. Probl. 68:3608–24
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Brobst JA. 2015. Reverse sunshine in the digital wild frontier: protecting individual privacy against public records requests for government databases. North. Ky. Law Rev. 42:191–286
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Burton AL, Cullen FT, Pickett JT, Burton VS Jr., Thielo AJ. 2021. Beyond the eternal criminal record: public support for expungement. Criminol. Public Policy 20:1123–51
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Bushway SD, Stoll MA, Weiman D 2007. Barriers to Reentry?: The Labor Market for Released Prisoners in Post-Industrial America New York: Russell Sage Found.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Chien C. 2020. America's paper prisons: the second chance gap. Mich. Law Rev. 119:3519–612
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Chiricos T, Barrick K, Bales W, Bontrager S. 2007. The labeling of convicted felons and its consequences for recidivism. Criminology 45:3547–81
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Christin A 2017. Algorithms in practice: comparing web journalism and criminal justice. Big Data Soc 2017:1–14
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Clair M. 2021. Criminalized subjectivity: Du Boisian sociology and visions for legal change. Du Bois Rev. Soc. Sci. Res. Race. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Clark R. 1970. Crime in America: Observations on its Nature, Causes, Prevention and Control New York: Simon & Schuster
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Collat. Conseq. Resour. Cent 2019. Updated report on 2018 fair chance and expungement reforms Rep., Collat. Conseq. Resour. Cent. Washington, DC: http://ccresourcecenter.org/2019/03/28/updated-report-on-2018-fair-chance-and-expungement-reforms/
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Conley A, Datta A, Nissenbaum H, Sharma D. 2011. Sustaining privacy and open justice in the transition to online court records: a multidisciplinary inquiry. Md. Law Rev. 71:772–847
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Conti-Cook CH. 2017. Open data policing. Georget. Law J. 106:1–23
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Corda A. 2016. More justice and less harm: reinventing access to criminal history records. Howard Law J 60:1–60
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Corda A, Lageson SE. 2020. Disordered punishment: workaround technologies of criminal records disclosure and the rise of a new penal entrepreneurialism. Br. J. Criminol. 60:2245–64
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Crain M. 2018. The limits of transparency: data brokers and commodification. New Media Soc 20:188–104
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Department of the Air Force v. Rose 425 U.S. 352 1976.
  33. Detroit Free Press Inc. v. US Department of Justice 73 F.3d 93 (6th Cir. 1996.
  34. Detroit Free Press Inc. v. US Department of Justice 829 F.3d 478 (6th Cir. 2016.
  35. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48:2147–60
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Eckhouse L, Lum K, Conti-Cook C, Ciccolini J. 2019. Layers of bias: a unified approach for understanding problems with risk assessment. Crim. Justice Behav. 46:2185–209
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Edelman LB, Talesh SA 2011. To comply or not to comply—that isn't the question: how organizations construct the meaning of compliance. Explaining Compliance: Business Responses to Regulation C Parker, VL Nielsen 103–22 Northamption, MA: Edward Elgar
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Edwards R. 1979. Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century New York: Basic Books
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Etzioni A. 2016. Reining in private agents. Minn. Law Rev. 101:279–331
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Eubanks V. 2018. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor New York: St. Martin's Press
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Fed. Trade Comm 2014. Data brokers: a call for transparency and accountability Rep., Fed. Trade Comm. Washington, DC: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/data-brokers-call-transparency-accountability-report-federal-trade-commission-may-2014/140527databrokerreport.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Feeley MM. 2002. Entrepreneurs of punishment: the legacy of privatization. Punishm. Soc 4:321–44
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Feeley MM. 2016. Entrepreneurs of punishment: how private contractors made and are remaking the modern criminal justice system—an account of convict transportation and electronic monitoring. Criminol. Crim. Justice Law Soc. 17:31–30
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Ferguson AG. 2017. The Rise of Big Data Policing New York: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  45. File PC. 2017. A history of practical obscurity: clarifying and contemplating the twentieth century roots of a digital age concept of privacy. Univ. Balt. J. Media Law Ethics 6:4–21
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Foucault M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison New York: Pantheon
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Galka M 2017. Who uses FOIA? An analysis of 229,000 requests to 85 government agencies. FOIA Mapper https://foiamapper.com/who-uses-foia/
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Garland D. 1991. Sociological perspectives on punishment. Crime Justice 14:115–65
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Garland D. 1997. Governmentality and the problem of crime: Foucault, criminology, sociology. Theor. Criminol. 1:2173–214
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Garland D. 2001. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Garland D. 2018. Theoretical advances and problems in the sociology of punishment. Punishm. Soc 20:18–33
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Gilman ME. 2012. The class differential in privacy law. Brooklyn Law Rev 77:41389–445
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Giordano PC, Cernkovich SA, Rudolph JL. 2002. Gender, crime, and desistance: toward a theory of cognitive transformation. Am. J. Sociol. 107:4990–1064
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Goffman A. 2014. On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American city Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Goffman E. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity New York: Simon Schuster
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Google 2017. Two years of Google.org grants for racial justice Press Release Novemb. 21. https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/google-org/two-years-supporting-racial-justice/
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Gray GC, Salole AT. 2006. The local culture of punishment: an ethnography of criminal justice worker discourse. Br. J. Criminol. 46:4661–79
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Gurusami S. 2019. The carceral web we weave: carceral citizens’ experiences of digital punishment and solidarity. Punishm. Soc. 21:4435–53
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Haber E. 2017. Digital expungement. Md. Law Rev. 77:337–84
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Haggerty KD, Ericson RV. 2006. The New Politics of Surveillance and Visibility Toronto: Univ. Tor. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Hannah-Moffat K. 2019. Algorithmic risk governance: big data analytics, race and information activism in criminal justice debates. Theor. Criminol. 23:4453–70
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Harris A, Smith T, Obara E. 2019. Justice “cost points” examination of privatization within public systems of justice. Criminol. Public Policy 18:2343–59
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Hu M. 2015. Big data blacklisting. Fla. Law Rev. 67:1735–809
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Hutchins C. 2018. Mugshot galleries might be a web-traffic magnet. Does that justify publishing them?. Columbia Journalism Review Oct. 24. https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/mugshots-ethics.php
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Jacobs JB. 2015. The Eternal Criminal Record Cambridge, MA: Harv. Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Jain E. 2015. Arrests as regulation. Stanf. Law Rev. 67:809–67
    [Google Scholar]
  67. James W. 1892. Textbook of Psychology London: Macmillan & Co
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Johnson RA, Rostain T 2020. Tool for surveillance or spotlight on inequality? Big data and the law. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 16:453–72
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Johnson T. 2020. Crisis and coercive pleas. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 110:1–22
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Jones ML. 2018. Ctrl + Z: The Right to be Forgotten New York: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Kaspero E, Canhasi D. 2018. Criminal record privacy & the structural risks inherent within commercial storehouses in the consumer data industry SSRN Work. Pap. 3130418
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Katz J. 1987. What makes crime news?. Media Cult. Soc. 9:147–75
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Kirk DS, Matsuda M. 2011. Legal cynicism, collective efficacy, and the ecology of arrest. Criminology 49:2443–72
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Kirk DS, Wakefield S. 2018. Collateral consequences of punishment: a critical review and path forward. Annu. Rev. Criminol. 1:171–94
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Kogan B, Loughery DL Jr 1970. Sealing and expungement of criminal records: the big lie. J. Crim. Law Criminol. Police Sci. 61:3378–92
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Kohler-Hausmann I. 2018. Misdemeanorland: Criminal Courts and Social Control in an Age of Broken Windows Policing Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Klosowski T. 2020. Facial recognition is everywhere. Here's what we can do about it. New York Times July 15. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/how-facial-recognition-works/
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Lageson SE. 2017. Crime data, the internet, and free speech: an evolving legal consciousness. Law Soc. Rev. 51:18–41
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Lageson SE. 2020. Digital Punishment: Privacy, Stigma and the Harms of Data-Driven Criminal Justice New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Lageson SE, Denver M, Pickett JT 2019. Privatizing criminal stigma: experience, intergroup contact, and public views about publicizing arrest records. Punishm. Soc. 21:3315–41
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Lageson SE, Maruna S 2018. Digital degradation: stigma management in the internet age. Punishm. Soc 20:1113–33
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Lageson SE, Webster E, Sandoval JR 2021. Digitizing and disclosing personal data: the proliferation of state criminal records on the internet. Law Soc. Inq 46:3635–65
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Laub JH, Sampson RJ. 1993. Turning points in the life course: why change matters to the study of crime. Criminology 31:3301–25
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Lee EK. 2018. Monetizing shame: mugshots, privacy, and the right to access. Rutgers Univ. Law Rev. 70:3557–645
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Lerman AE, Weaver V. 2014. Staying out of sight? Concentrated policing and local political action. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 651:1202–19
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Link BG, Phelan JC. 2001. Conceptualizing stigma. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:363–85
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Logan WA. 2009. Knowledge as Power: Criminal Registration and Community Notification Laws in America Stanford, CA: Stanf. Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Logan WA. 2018. Policing police access to criminal justice data. Iowa Law Rev 104:619–78
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Logan WA, Ferguson AG 2016. Policing criminal justice data. Minn. Law Rev. 101:541–616
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Logan WA, Prescott JJ 2021. Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Laws: An Empirical Evaluation Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Love MC. 2002. Starting over with a clean slate: in praise of a forgotten section of the model penal code. Fordham Urban Law J 30:101–36
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Luca DL. 2018. The digital scarlet letter: the effect of online criminal records on crime Work. Pap. 1118 Univ. Mo. Columbia, MO:
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Lynch M, Bertenthal A. 2016. The calculus of the record: criminal history in the making of US federal sentencing guidelines. Theor. Criminol. 20:2145–64
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Lyon D. 2007. Surveillance Studies: An Overview Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Lyons L. 2021. Amazon's Ring now reportedly partners with more than 2,000 US police and fire departments. The Verge January 31. https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/31/22258856/amazon-ring-partners-police-fire-security-privacy-cameras
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Maruna S. 2001. Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Matza D. 1969. Becoming Deviant New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. McElhattan D 2018.. “ $40 to make sure”: background check laws and the endogenous construction of criminal risk. After Imprisonment A Sarat 99–121 Bingley, UK: Emerald Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. McElhattan D. 2021. Punitive ambiguity: state-level criminal record data quality in the era of widespread background screening. Punishm. Soc. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474521989502
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  100. Myrick A. 2013. Facing your criminal record: expungement and the collateral problem of wrongfully represented self. Law Soc. Rev. 47:173–104
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 1978.
  102. Orlikowski WJ. 2000. Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organ. Sci. 11:4404–28
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Pager D. 2007. Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Paul v. Davis 424 U.S. 693 1976.
  105. Phelps MS. 2020. Mass probation from micro to macro: tracing the expansion and consequences of community supervision. Annu. Rev. Criminol. 3:261–79
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Plouffe D. 2019. How technology can build a more equitable justice system. Fast Company March 6. https://www.fastcompany.com/90315651/how-technology-can-help-build-a-more-equitable-justice-system
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Prescott JJ, Starr SB. 2020. Expungement of criminal convictions: an empirical study. Harv. Law Rev. 133:2460–555
    [Google Scholar]
  108. RAND Corp 2020. Comparison of criminal history information systems in the United States and other countries. Rep., RAND Corp. Santa Monica, CA: https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/criminal-history-information-systems.html
    [Google Scholar]
  109. RAND Corp 2021. Tool for ranking courts innovations needs. Rep., RAND Corp. Santa Monica, CA: https://www.rand.org/well-being/justice-policy/projects/priority-criminal-justice-needs/courts/interactive-tool.html
  110. Raphael S. 2021. The intended and unintended consequences of ban the box. Annu. Rev. Criminol. 4:191–207
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Rempel W. 1986. Dossier society: computers: Is privacy the loser?. Los Angeles Times July 29. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-07-29-mn-19580-story.html
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Remster B, Kramer R. 2018. Race, space, and surveillance: understanding the relationship between criminal justice contact and institutional involvement. Socius Sociol. Res. Dyn. World 4:1–16
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Reporters Comm. 489 U.S 769 1989.
  114. Republic of the Philippines v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 949 F.2d 653 (3d Cir. 1991.
  115. Res. Mark 2018. Employment screening service market to 2025—global analysis & forecasts by services (background screening, verification, medical testing & electronic auditing); & application (financial services, government agencies, transportation, industrial) Rep., Res. Mark. Dublin, Irel: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/nf5vfq/5_46_billion?w=4
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Restivo E, Lanier MM 2015. Measuring the contextual effects and mitigating factors of labeling theory. Justice Q 32:1116–41
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Rios VM. 2011. Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys New York: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Roberts A. 2019. Arrests as guilt. Ala. Law Rev. 70:987–1030
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Rosenthal A, NaPier E, Warth P, Weissman M 2015. Boxed out: criminal history screening and college application attrition Rep., Cent. Community Altern. Brooklyn, NY: https://www.communityalternatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/boxed-out.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Sampson RJ, Laub JH. 2003. Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed to age 70. Criminology 41:3555–92
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Sandoval JR, Lageson SE. 2021. Patchwork disclosure: divergent public access and personal privacy across criminal record disclosure policy in the United States Work. Pap., Univ. Calif. Irvine:
    [Google Scholar]
  122. SEARCH Group 1985. Data quality of criminal history records Bur. Justice Stat. Rep., US Dep. Justice Washington, DC: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/dqchr.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  123. SEARCH Group 2005. Report of the National Task Force on Privacy, Technology and Criminal Justice Information Rep. NCJ 187669, US Dep. Justice Washington, DC: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/rntfptcj.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Sentencing Proj 2014. Americans with criminal records Rep., Sentencing Proj. Washington, DC: https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Americans-with-Criminal-Records-Poverty-and-Opportunity-Profile.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Sewell AA, Jefferson KA. 2016. Collateral damage: the health effects of invasive police encounters in New York City. J. Urban Health 93:142–67
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Shannon SK, Uggen C, Schnittker J, Thompson M, Wakefield S, Massoglia M 2017. The growth, scope, and spatial distribution of people with felony records in the United States, 1948–2010. Demography 54:51795–818
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Sherman L. 2014. Experiments in criminal sanctions: labeling, defiance and restorative justice. Adv. Criminol. Theory 18:149–76
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Simon J. 2007. Governing through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Sklansky DA. 2018. The problems with prosecutors. Annu. Rev. Criminol. 1:451–69
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Slobogin C 2017. Policing, databases, and surveillance. Reforming Criminal Justice: A Report of the Academy for Justice on Bridging the Gap Between Scholarship and Reform E Luna 209–32 Phoenix, AZ: Acad. Justice
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Solove DJ. 2001. Access and aggregation: public records, privacy and the Constitution. Minn. Law Rev. 86:1137–209
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Solove DJ. 2004. The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age 1 New York: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Stevenson M. 2018. Assessing risk assessment in action. Minn. Law Rev. 103:303–84
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Stuart F. 2016. Down, Out, and Under Arrest: Policing and Everyday Life in Skid Row Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Taha v. County of Bucks 862 F.3d 292 (3d Cir 2017.
  136. Thomas CW, Bishop DM. 1984. The effect of formal and informal sanctions on delinquency: longitudinal comparison of labeling and deterrence theories. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 75:41222–45
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Uggen C, Stewart R. 2014. Piling on: collateral consequences and community supervision. Minn. Law Rev. 99:1871–912
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Uggen C, Vuolo M, Lageson S, Ruhland E, Whitham HK 2014. The edge of stigma: an experimental audit of the effects of low-level criminal records on employment. Criminology 52:4627–54
    [Google Scholar]
  139. United States v. Jones 565 U.S. 400 2012.
  140. Urban Inst 2017. Criminal background checks: impact on employment and recidivism Rep., Urban Inst. Washington, DC: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/88621/2001174_criminal_background_checks_impact_on_employment_and_recidivism_1.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  141. US Dep. Justice 1979. Privacy and security of criminal history information: privacy and the media Bur. Justice Stat. Rep., US Dep. Justice Washington DC: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/pschipm.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  142. US Dep. Justice 2001. Public attitudes toward uses of criminal history: a privacy, technology, and criminal justice information Bur. Justice Stat. Rep., US Dep. Justice Washington, DC: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pauchi.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  143. US Dep. Justice 2006. The Attorney General's report on criminal history background checks Rep., US Dep. Justice Washington, DC: https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/ag_bgchecks_report.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  144. US Dep. Justice 2014. Survey of state criminal history information systems, 2012 Bur. Justice Stat. Rep. NCJ 244563, US Dep. Justice Washington, DC: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/244563.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Ward DA, Tittle CR. 1993. Deterrence or labeling: the effects of informal sanctions. Deviant Behav 14:143–64
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Westchester Rockland Newspapers v. Leggett 48 N.Y.2d 430 1979.
  147. Western B. 2006. Punishment and Inequality in America New York: Russell Sage Found.
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Zuboff S. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power New York: Hachette
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-030920-092833
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-030920-092833
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error