1932

Abstract

Employers would prefer not to hire people who will engage in criminal behavior for which the employer incurs costs. In the United States, employers are allowed to use publicly available conviction information to try to predict which candidates are at higher or lower risk of criminal activity. This open-records approach stands in stark contrast to closed-records systems in Europe, where only the government has access to this information and only the government can make determinations about potential employee risk. In this review, we find that () US employers’ use of conviction information is not clearly aligned with the risk of future criminal behavior or employer costs, and () using such information leads to hiring errors that pose costs to society. Perversely, we find that many of these problems come from government statutes around negligent-hiring lawsuits rather than from inherent preferences on the part of employers. We suggest research that would improve the use of conviction history to predict future criminal risk, and we discuss a hybrid policy for the United States in which the government, not employers, makes the final determination about employee risk. We argue that this approach may result in both better risk predictions and better alignment between employer and societal goals, creating advantages for employers, candidates, and society.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-021622
2021-01-13
2024-05-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/criminol/4/1/annurev-criminol-061020-021622.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-021622&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Akerlof GA. 1970. The market for “lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 84:488–500
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alper M, Durose M, Markman J 2019. 2018 update on prisoner recidivism: a 9-year follow-up period (2005–2014) Bur. Justice Stat. Rep. NCJ 250975, Dep. Justice Washington, DC: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Am. Bar Assoc. (ABA). 2004. Collateral Sanctions and Discretionary Disqualification of Convicted Persons Washington, DC: ABA
  4. Armstrong TA. 2008. Are trends in specialization across arrests explained by changes in specialization occurring with age. Justice Q 25:201–22
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Belair R. 1988. Public access to criminal history record information Bur. Justice Stat. Rep. NCJ 111458, Dep. Justice Washington, DC: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pachri.pdf
  6. Berk R. 2011. Asymmetric loss functions for forecasting in criminal justice settings. J. Quant. Criminol. 27:107–23
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bersani BE, Doherty E. 2018. Desistance from offending in the twenty-first century. Annu. Rev. Criminol. 1:311–34
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Blumstein A, Nakamura K. 2009. Redemption in the presence of widespread criminal background checks. Criminology 47:327–59
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brame R. 2017. Static risk factors and recidivism. Handbook of Risk and Need Assessment—Theory and Practice F Taxman 67–99 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brame R, Mulvey EP, Schubert C, Piquero A 2018. Criminal recidivism in a sample of serious adolescent offenders. J. Quant. Criminol. 34:167–87
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bulk Transp. 2005. Background checks. Bulk Transporter https://www.bulktransporter.com/archive/article/21648287/background-checks
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bushway SD. 2011. Estimating empirical Blackstone ratios in two settings: murder cases and hiring. Albany Law Rev 74:1087–104
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bushway SD. 2020. What if people decide to desist? Implications for policy. Rethinking Reentry B Orrell 140–62 Washington, DC: Am. Enterp. Inst.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bushway SD, Apel R. 2012. A signaling perspective on employment-based reentry programming: training completion as a desistance signal. J. Criminol. Public Policy 11:21–50
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bushway SD, Briggs S, Taxman F, Thanner M, Van Brakle M 2007. Private providers of criminal history records: Do you get what you pay for?. Barriers to Reentry: The Labor Market for Released Prisoners in Post-Industrial America SD Bushway, M Stoll, D Weiman 174–200 New York: Russell Sage Found.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bushway SD, Nieuwbeerta P, Blokland A 2011. The predictive value of criminal background checks: Do age and criminal history affect time to redemption. Criminology 49:27–60
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bushway SD, Siwach G. 2016. Adoption of risk tools to the employment context. Handbook on Risk and Need Assessment: Theory and Practice, Vol. 1 F Taxman 292–311 Abingdon, UK: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bushway S, Smith J. 2007. Sentencing using statistical treatment rules: what we don't know can hurt us. J. Quant. Criminol. 23:4377–87
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Clark L. 2004. A civil rights task: removing barriers to employment of ex-convicts. Univ. San Franc. Law Rev. 38:196–97
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Collins B, Donovan SA. 2018. The work opportunity tax credit Rep. R43729, Congr. Res. Serv. Washington, DC:
  21. Conf. State Court Adm. 2000. Concept Paper on Access to Court Records Arlington, VA: Gov. Relat. Off.
  22. Connor T, White K. 2013. The consideration of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions: a critique of the EEOC guidance. Seton Hall Law Rev 43:971–1005
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Corda A. 2016. More justice and less harm: reinventing access to criminal history records. Howard Law J 60:1–60
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Corda A, Lageson S. 2020. Disordered punishment: workaround technologies of criminal records disclosure and the rise of a new penal entrepreneurialism. Br. J. Criminol. 60:245–64
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Denver M. 2017. Evaluating the impact of “old” criminal conviction decision guidelines on subsequent employment and arrest outcomes. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 54:379–408
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Denver M, Ewald A. 2018. Credentialing decisions and criminal records: a narrative approach. Criminology 56:4715–49
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Denver M, Pickett J, Bushway SD 2018. Criminal records and employment: a survey of experiences and attitudes in the United States. Justice Q 35:584–613
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Denver M, Siwach G, Bushway SD 2017. A new look at the employment and recidivism relationship through the lens of a criminal background check. Criminology 55:174–204
    [Google Scholar]
  29. DeWitt S, Bushway SD, Siwach G, Kurlychek M 2017. Redeemed compared to whom? Comparing the distributional properties of arrest risk across populations and provisional employees with and without a criminal record. Criminol. Public Policy 16:963–97
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Eggleston E, Laub J, Samson RJ 2004. Methodological sensitivities to latent class analysis of long-term criminal trajectories. J. Quant. Criminol. 20:1–26
    [Google Scholar]
  31. El v. SEPTA 479 F.3d 232 2007.)
  32. English K. 2018. Conflicting approaches to addressing ex-offender unemployment: the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and Ban the Box. Indiana Law J 93:513–32
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Farrington DP, Tarling R. 1985. Prediction in Criminology Albany, NY: SUNY Press
  34. Fed. Bond. Progr. 2016. About the FBP. Federal Bonding Program https://bonds4jobs.com/about-us
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Garcia A. 2013. The Kobayashi Maru of ex-offender employment: rewriting the rules and thinking outside current ban the box legislation. Temple Law Rev 85:921–50
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Gendreau P, Little T, Goggin C 1996. A meta‐analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: what works. ! Criminology 34:575–608
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Giroux M, Coburn P, Harley E, Connolly D, Bernstein D 2016. Hindsight bias and the law. Z. Psychol. 224:190–203
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Goggins B, DeBacco D. 2018. Survey of state criminal history information systems, 2016: a criminal justice information policy report SEARCH Rep. NCJ 251516, Dep. Justice Washington, DC: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/251516.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Gottfredson DM. 1987. Prediction and classification in criminal justice decision making. Crime Justice 9:1–20
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T. 1990. A General Theory of Crime Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  41. Gottfredson SD, Moriarty LJ. 2006. Statistical risk assessment: old problems and new applications. Crime Delinquency 52:178–200
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Harley E. 2007. Hindsight bias in legal decision making. Soc. Cogn. 25:48–63
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Harrell E. 2011. Workplace violence 1993–2009 Bur. Justice Stat. Rep. NCJ 233231, Dep. Justice Washington, DC: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/wv09.pdf
  44. Harris P, Keller M. 2005. Ex-offenders need not apply: the criminal background check in hiring decisions. J. Contemp. Crim. Justice 21:6–30
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Hershbein B, Boddy D, Kearney M 2015. Nearly 30 percent of workers in the U.S. need a license to perform their job: It is time to examine occupational licensing practices Rep., Brookings Inst Washington, DC: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2015/01/27/nearly-30-percent-of-workers-in-the-u-s-need-a-license-to-perform-their-job-it-is-time-to-examine-occupational-licensing-practices/
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Hickox SA. 2011. Employer liability for negligent hiring for ex-offenders. St. Louis Univ. Law J. 5:1001–46
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Hinton D. 2002. Criminal Records Book Tempe, AZ: Facts Demand Press
  48. Hollinger RC, Clark JP. 1983. Theft by Employees New York: Lexington Books
  49. Hollinger RC, Davis JL. 2006. Employee theft and staff dishonesty. The Handbook of Security M Gill Camden, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 1st ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Holzer H. 1996. What Employers Want: Job Prospects for Less-Educated Workers New York: Russell Sage Found.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Holzer H, Raphael S, Stoll M 2004. Will employers hire ex-offenders? Employer preferences, background checks and their determinants. Imprisoning America: The Social Effects of Mass Incarceration M Patillo-McCoy, D Weiman, B Western 205–46 New York: Russell Sage Found.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Hunt P, Smart R, Jonsson L, Tsang F 2018. Breaking Down Barriers: Experiments into Policies That Might Incentivize Employers to Hire Ex-Offenders Santa Monica, CA: RAND
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Jacobs JB. 2015. The Eternal Criminal Record Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  54. Kamin K, Rachlinksi JJ. 1995. Ex post not equal ex ante: determining liability in hindsight. Law Hum. Behav. 19:89–104
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Kirk DS, Wakefield S. 2018. Collateral consequences of punishment: a critical review and path forward. Annu. Rev. Criminol. 1:171–94
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Kurlychek M, Brame R, Bushway SD 2006. Scarlet letters and recidivism: Does an old criminal record predict future offending. Criminol. Public Policy 3:64–83
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Kurlychek M, Brame R, Bushway SD 2007. Enduring risk? Old criminal records and predictions of future criminal involvement. Crime Delinquency 53:64–83
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Kurlychek M, Bushway SD, Brame R 2012. Long-term crime desistance and recidivism patterns: evidence from the Essex County convicted felon study. Criminology 50:71–104
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Kurlychek M, Bushway S, Denver M 2019. Defensible decisions: balancing employer and prospective employee rights in an era of criminal background checks. Equal. Divers. Incl. 38:529–46
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Kurtovic E, Rovira M. 2017. Contrast between Spain and the Netherlands in the hidden obstacles to reentry into the labor market due to a criminal record. Eur. J. Criminol. 14:505–21
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Lageson SE. 2016. Digital punishment's tangled web. Contexts 15:122–27
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Lageson SE. 2017. Crime data, the internet, and free speech: an evolving legal consciousness. Law Soc. Rev. 51:18–41
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Lageson SE. 2020a. Digital Punishment: Privacy, Stigma and the Harms of Data-Driven Criminal Justice London: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Lageson SE. 2020b. Multi-level analysis of accuracy and error in digital criminal record data: final research report Natl. Inst. Justice Rep., Dep. Justice Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Lageson SE, Maruna S. 2018. Digital degradation: stigma management in the internet age. Punishm. Soc. 20:1113–33
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Langan P, Levin D. 2002. Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994 Bur. Justice Stat. Rep. NCJ 193427, Dep. Justice Washington, DC: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf
  67. Larrauri E. 2014. Legal protections against criminal background checks in Europe. Punishm. Soc. 16:50–73
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Laub JH, Sampson R. 2003. Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age 70 Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  69. LeBel T, Burnett R, Maruna S, Bushway SD 2008. The ‘chicken and egg’ of subjective and social factors in desistance from crime. Eur. J. Criminol. 5:131–59
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Logan WA, Ferguson AG. 2016. Policing criminal justice data. Minn. Law Rev. 145:541541–616
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Loucks N, Lyner O, Sullivan T 1998. The employment of people with criminal records in the European Union. Eur. J. Crim. Policy Res. 6:195–210
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Love M, Roberts J, Klingele C 2013. Collateral consequences of criminal convictions: law, policy and practice WCL Res. Pap. 2014-48, Am. Univ Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Lundberg SJ, Startz R. 1983. Private discrimination and social intervention in competitive labor market. Am. Econ. Rev. 73:340–47
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Lundquist JH, Pager D, Strader E 2018. Does a criminal past predict worker performance? Evidence from one of America's largest employers. Soc. Forces 96:1039–68
    [Google Scholar]
  75. MacDonald JM, Haviland A, Ramchand R, Morral AR, Piquero AR 2014. Linking specialization and seriousness in criminal careers. Adv. Life Course Res. 20:43–55
    [Google Scholar]
  76. MacLeod J, Grove PG, Farrington DP 2012. Explaining Criminal Careers: Implications for Justice Policy London: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Malcolm J. 2017. Collateral consequences: protecting public safety or encouraging recidivism. Testimony before the U.S. Commission Civil Rights. May 19, 2017. Heritage Foundation https://www.heritage.org/testimony/collateral-consequences-protecting-public-safety-or-encouraging-recidivism
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Malcolm J, Seibler JM. 2017. Collateral Consequences: Protecting Public Safety or Encouraging Recidivism? Washington, DC: Heritage Found.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Martin T, Huffman A, Koons-Witt B, Brame R 2020. Hiring people with criminal records in South Carolina: examining businesses’ hiring practices and views on incentives. Crim. Justice Policy Rev. 31:532–54
    [Google Scholar]
  80. McCann W, Kowalski M, Hemmens C, Stohr MK 2018. An analysis of certificates of rehabilitation in the United States. Correct. Policy Pract. Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2018.1559002
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  81. McCray LE, Oye KA, Petersen A 2010. Planned adaptation in risk regulation: an initial survey of US environmental, health, and safety regulation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 77:951–59
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Megargee EI. 1984. A new classification system for criminal offenders. Crim. Justice Behav. 11:349–76
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Minor D, Persico N, Weiss D 2018. Criminal background and job performance. IZA J. Labor Policy 7:8
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Montoya R. 2019. Carfax or AutoCheck: Which vehicle history report is best for you? We compare the major and smaller players. Edmunds https://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/which-vehicle-history-report-is-right-for-you.html
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Natl. Assoc. Adv. Color. People. (NAACP). 2016. The successful reentry project: working towards justice, dignity and redemption Rep., NAACP Baltimore MD: https://www.naacp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Reentry%20Toolkit.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Natl. Assoc. Crim. Def. Lawyers. (NACDL). 2014. America's failure to forgive or forget in the war on crime: a roadmap to restore rights and status after arrest of conviction Rep., NACDL Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Natl. Retail Fed. 2018. National retail security survey 2018 Rep., Natl. Retail Fed Washington, DC:
  88. Nelson A. 2019. Broken records redux: how errors by criminal background check companies continue to harm consumers seeking jobs and housing Rep., Natl. Consum. Law Cent Boston: https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/criminal-justice/report-broken-records-redux.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Neth. Enterp. Agency. 2020. Certificate of good conduct for individuals (VOGnp). Netherlands Enterprise Agency https://business.gov.nl/regulation/vog/
    [Google Scholar]
  90. N. C. Consum. Counc. 2020. How accurate are CARFAX vehicle history reports and the various types of data they contain. North Carolina Consumers Council https://www.ncconsumer.org/news-articles-eg/should-carfax-reports-always-be-trusted.html
  91. Ones DS, Viswesvaran C. 2003. Personality and counterproductive behaviors. Misbehavior And Dysfunctional Attitudes In Organizations A Sagie, S Stashevsky, M Koslowsky 211–49 Camden, UK: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Pager D, Quillian L. 2005. Walking the talk? What employers say versus what they do. Am. Sociol. Rev. 70:355–80
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Paternoster R, Bushway SD. 2009. Desistance and the feared self: toward an identity theory of criminal desistance. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 99:1103–56
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Paul v. Davis 424 US 693 1976.)
  95. Petersilia J. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Prescott JJ, Starr SB. 2020. Expungement of criminal convictions: an empirical study. Harv. Law Rev. 133:82460–555
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Raphael S. 2021. The intended and unintended consequences of Ban the Box. Annu. Rev. Criminol. 4:191207
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Raphael S, Weiman DF. 2007. The impact of local labor market conditions on the likelihood that parolees are returned to custody. Barriers to Reentry? The Labor Market for Released Prisoners in Post-Industrial America D Weiman, S Raphael, S Bushway 304–32 New York: Russell Sage Found.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Rich LA. 2016. A federal certificate of rehabilitation program: providing federal ex-offenders more opportunity for successful reentry. Ala. Civ. Rights Civ. Lib. Law Rev. 7:249–310
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Roberts BD, Harms PD, Caspi A, Moffitt TE 2007. Predicting the counterproductive employee in a child-to-adult prospective study. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:1427–36
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Rodriguez M, Emsellem M. 2011. 65 million need not apply: the case for reforming criminal background checks for employment Rep., Natl. Employ. Law Proj New York: https://www.nelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/65_Million_Need_Not_Apply.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Roese NJ, Vohs KD. 2012. Hindsight bias. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7:411–26
    [Google Scholar]
  103. SEARCH. 2006. State criminal history record information availability survey Rep., SEARCH Sacramento, CA: https://www.search.org/files/pdf/Availability_Survey_031407.pdf
  104. SEARCH. 1988. Standards for the security and privacy of criminal history record information, third edition Tech. Rep. 13 (Revis.), SEARCH Sacramento, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  105. SEARCH. 1993. Use and management of criminal history record information: a comprehensive report Bur. Justice Stat. Rep., Dep. Justice Washington, DC: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/CCHUSE.PDF
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Shepard SP. 2011. Negligent hiring liability: a look at how it affects employers and the rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-offenders. Appalach. J. Law 10:145–82
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Silverman G. 2004. Rise of the machines: justice information systems and the question of public access to court records over the internet. Wash. Law Rev. 79:175–222
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Siwach G. 2018. Unemployment shocks for individuals on the margin: exploring recidivism effects. Labour Econ 52:231–44
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Siwach G, Bushway SD, Kurlychek M 2017. Legal mandates in criminal background checks: an evaluation of disparate impact in New York State. SSRN Work. Pap. #2986384
  110. Soc. Hum. Resour. Manag. (SHRM). 2012. Background checking: the use of criminal background checks in hiring decisions Rep., SHRM Alexandria, VA: https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-and-surveys/pages/criminalbackgroundcheck.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Soc. Hum. Resour. Manag. (SHRM). 2018. Workers with criminal records Rep., SHRM Alexandria, VA: https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-and-surveys/pages/second-chances.aspx
  112. Soothill K, Francis B. 2009. When do ex-offenders become like non-offenders. Howard J. Crim. Justice 48:373–87
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Stoll M, Bushway S. 2008. The effect of criminal background checks on hiring ex-offenders. Criminol. Public Policy 7:371–404
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Sudbeck L. 2006. Placing court records online: balancing judicial accountability with public trust and confidence: an analysis of state court electronic access policies. S. D. Law Rev. 57:81–121
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Sullivan CJ, McGloin JM, Caudy M, Ray J 2009. Detecting specialization in offending: comparing analytic approaches. J. Quant. Criminol. 25:419–41
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Swanson D, Barg S, Tyler S, Venema H, Tomar S et al. 2010. Seven tools for creating adaptive policies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 77:924–39
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Thomas T, Hebenton B. 2013. Dilemmas and consequences of prior criminal record: a criminological perspective from England and Wales. Crim. Justice Stud. 26:228–42
    [Google Scholar]
  118. US Comm. Civ. Rights. 2019. Collateral consequences: the crossroads of punishment, redemption and the effects on communities Rep., US Comm. Civ. Rights Washington, DC: https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2019/06-13-Collateral-Consequences.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  119. US Equal Employ. Oppor. Comm. (EEOC). 2012. Enforcement guidance on the consideration of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Rep., EEOC Washington, DC: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm
  120. US Off. Atty. Gen. 2006. The attorney general's report on criminal history background checks Rep., Dep. Justice Washington, DC: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ag_bgchecks_report.pdf
  121. Vooren M, Haelermans C, Groot W, van den Brink HM 2019. The effectiveness of active labor market policies: a meta‐analysis. J. Econ. Surv. 33:125–49
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Weimer DL, Vining AR. 2017. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Weiss N. 2012. Combating inaccuracies in criminal background checks by giving meaning to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Brooklyn Law Rev 78:271–304
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Winn P. 2004. Online court records: balancing judicial accountability and privacy in an age of electronic information. Wash. Law Rev. 79:307–30
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Wintemute GJ, Drake CM, Beaumont JJ, Wright MA, Parham CA 1998. Prior misdemeanor convictions as a risk factor for later violent and firearm-related criminal activity among authorized purchasers of handguns. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 280:2083–87
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Wright MA, Wintemute GJ. 2010. Felonious or violent criminal activity that prohibits gun ownership among prior purchasers of handguns: incidence and risk factors. J. Trauma 69:948–55
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-021622
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