Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-ndqjc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-21T16:29:02.298Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction in the United States and Germany

from Part III - Criminal Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

Kai Ambos
Judge Kosovo Specialist Chambers, The Hague
Antony Duff
University of Stirling
Alexander Heinze
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Julian Roberts
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend
University of Cologne (Emeritus)
Get access


In addition to traditional criminal sanctions, a criminal conviction can trigger a wide variety of supplementary ramifications, further burdening individuals found guilty of a criminal offence. These have become known, especially in the United States, as ‘collateral consequences’ of conviction. The label is used, in particular, to refer to those civil sanctions and disabilities – that is, not formally designated as criminal punishment – activated by a criminal conviction, but not forming part of the direct consequences of it. Examples of collateral consequences include disenfranchisement, denial of government benefits, deportation, licensing or employment restrictions in a variety of occupations, and, for certain sexual offences, registration on a sex offender registry.

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Agan, A. and Starr, S. B., ‘The Effect of Criminal Records on Access to Employment’, American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 107 (2017), 560–4.Google Scholar
American Law Institute, Model Penal Code: Sentencing (Approved Final Draft), Philadelphia, PA, American Law Institute (2017).Google Scholar
Ancel, M., ‘The Collection of European Penal Codes and the Study of Comparative Law’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 106 (1958), 329–84.Google Scholar
Ashworth, A., Sentencing and Criminal Justice, 6th edn, Cambridge University Press (2015).Google Scholar
Barkow, R. E., Prisoners of Politics: Breaking the Cycle of Mass Incarceration, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press (2019).Google Scholar
Beckett, K. and Murakawa, N., ‘Mapping the Shadow Carceral State: Toward an Institutionally Capacious Approach to Punishment’, Theoretical Criminology, 16 (2012), 221–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, C., ‘Penal Disenfranchisement’, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 10 (2016), 411–25.Google Scholar
Bennett, C., ‘Invisible Punishment Is Wrong – But Why? The Normative Basis of Criticism of Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction’, Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 56 (2017), 480–99.Google Scholar
Blackstone, W., Commentaries on the Laws of England, Oxford: Clarendon Press (1769), Vol. 4.Google Scholar
Blumstein, A. and Nakamura, K., ‘Redemption in the Presence of Widespread Criminal Background Checks’, Criminology, 47 (2009), 327–59.Google Scholar
Boone M. and Kurtovic E. ‘Collateral Consequences and the Principle of Proportional Punishment’, in de Jong, F. (ed.), Overarching Views of Crime and Deviancy: Rethinking the Legacy of the Utrecht School, The Hague, Eleven International Publishing (2015), 401–18.Google Scholar
Chin, G. J., ‘Race, the War on Drugs and the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction’, Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 6 (2002), 253–75.Google Scholar
Chin, G. J., ‘The New Civil Death: Rethinking Punishment in the Era of Mass Conviction’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 160 (2012), 1789–833.Google Scholar
Chin, G. J., ‘Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction’, in Parry, J. T. and Song Richardson, L. (eds.), The Constitution and the Future of Criminal Justice in America, New York, Cambridge University Press (2013), 205–21.Google Scholar
Chin, G. J., ‘Collateral Consequences’, in Luna, E. (ed.), Reforming Criminal Justice: A Report by the Academy for Justice, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice (2017), Vol. 4, 371–95.Google Scholar
Corda, A., ‘More Justice and Less Harm: Reinventing Access to Criminal History Records’, Howard Law Journal, 60 (2016), 160.Google Scholar
Corda, A., ‘Beyond Totem and Taboo: Toward a Narrowing of American Criminal Record Exceptionalism’, Federal Sentencing Reporter, 30 (2018), 241–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corda, A., ‘The Collateral Consequence Conundrum: Comparative Genealogy, Current Trends, and Future Scenarios’, Studies in Law, Politics and Society, 77 (2018), 6997.Google Scholar
Corda, A. and Lageson, S. E., ‘Disordered Punishment Workaround Technologies of Criminal Records Disclosure and the Rise of a New Penal Entrepreneurialism’, British Journal of Criminology, 60 (2020), 245–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damaška, M. R., ‘Adverse Legal Consequences of Conviction and Their Removal: A Comparative Study’, Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 59 (1968), 347–60.Google Scholar
Damaška, M. R., ‘Adverse Legal Consequences of Conviction and Their Removal: A Comparative Study (Part 2)’, Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 59 (1968), 542–68.Google Scholar
Demleitner, N. V., ‘Preventing Internal Exile: The Need for Restrictions on Collateral Sentencing Consequences’, Stanford Law and Policy Review, 11 (1999), 153–71.Google Scholar
Demleitner, N. V., ‘“Collateral Damage”: No Re-Entry for Drug Offenders’, Villanova Law Review, 47 (2002), 1027–54.Google Scholar
Demleitner, N. V., ‘Smart Public Policy: Replacing Imprisonment with Targeted Nonprison Sentences and Collateral Sanctions’, Stanford Law Review, 58 (2005), 339–60.Google Scholar
Demleitner, N. V., ‘Types of Punishment’, in Dubber, M. D. and Hörnle, T. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law, New York, Oxford University Press (2014), 941–63.Google Scholar
Demleitner, N. V., ‘Collateral Sanctions and American Exceptionalism: A Comparative Perspective’, in Reitz, K. R. (ed.), American Exceptionalism in Crime and Punishment, New York, Oxford University Press (2018), 487525.Google Scholar
Dessecker, A., ‘Die Kollateralfolgen von Strafen’, in Boers, K. and Schaerff, M. (eds.), Kriminologische Welt in Bewegung, Mönchengladbach, Forum Verlag Godesberg (2018), 476–86.Google Scholar
Duff, R. A. and Hoskins, Z., ‘Legal Punishment’, in Zalta E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2017), available at Scholar
Ewald, A. C., ‘Collateral Consequences and the Perils of Categorical Ambiguity’, in Sarat, A., Lawrence, D. and Merrill Umphrey, M. (eds.), Law as Punishment/ Law as Regulation, Stanford University Press (2011), 77123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewald, A. C., ‘Barbers, Caregivers, and the “Disciplinary Subject”: Occupational Licensure for People with Criminal Justice Backgrounds in the United States’, Fordham Urban Law Journal, 46 (2019), 719844.Google Scholar
Ewald, A. C. and Smith, M., ‘Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions in American Courts: The View from the State Bench’, Justice System Journal, 29 (2008), 145–65.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J., ‘The Expressive Function of Punishment’, Monist, 49 (1965), 397423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fields, G. and Emshwiller, J. R., ‘As Arrest Records Rise, Americans Find Consequences Can Last a Lifetime’, The Wall Street Journal, 18 August 2014, available at Scholar
Frase, R. S., ‘Theories of Proportionality and Desert’, in Petersilia, J. and Reitz, K. R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections, New York, Oxford University Press (2012), 131–49.Google Scholar
Fröhling, M., Der moderne Pranger, Marburg, Tectum (2014).Google Scholar
Garland, D., ‘Penal Power in America: Forms, Functions and Foundations’, Journal of the British Academy, 5 (2017), 135.Google Scholar
Hammel, M., ‘Arbeitslosigkeit’, in Cornel, H., Kawamura-Reindl, G. and Sonnen, B.-R. (eds.), Handbuch der Resozialisierung, 4th edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2018), 467–78.Google Scholar
Henley, A., ‘Mind the Gap: Sentencing, Rehabilitation and Civic Purgatory’, Probation Journal, 65 (2018), 285301.Google Scholar
Höffler, K. and Kaspar, J., ‘Warum das Abstandsgebot die Probleme der Sicherungsverwahrung nicht lösen kann’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 124 (2012), 87131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höffler, K. and Kaspar, J., ‘Plädoyer für die Abschaffung der lebenslangen Freiheitsstrafe’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht, 162 (2015), 453–62.Google Scholar
Hoskins, Z., Beyond Punishment? A Normative Account of the Collateral Legal Consequences of Conviction, New York, Oxford University Press (2019).Google Scholar
Husak, D., ‘The Price of Criminal Law Skepticism: Ten Functions of the Criminal Law’, New Criminal Law Review, 23 (2020), 2759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, J. B., The Eternal Criminal Record, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press (2015).Google Scholar
Jain, E., ‘Capitalizing on Criminal Justice’, Duke Law Journal, 67 (2018), 1381–431.Google Scholar
Kaiser, J., ‘Revealing the Hidden Sentence: How to Add Legitimacy, Purpose, and Transparency to “Collateral” Punishment Policy’, Harvard Law & Policy Review, 10 (2016), 123–84.Google Scholar
Kaiser, J., ‘We Know It When We See It: The Tenuous Line Between “Direct Punishment” and “Collateral Consequences”’, Howard Law Journal, 59 (2016), 341–72.Google Scholar
Kaspar, J., Grundrechtsschutz und Verhältnismäßigkeit im Präventionsstrafrecht, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2014).Google Scholar
Kaspar, J., ‘Die Zukunft der Zweispurigkeit nach den Urteilen von Bundesverfassungsgericht und EGMR’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 127 (2015) 654–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaspar, J., ‘Präventiver Freiheitsentzug versus Freiheitsstrafe – sind die straftheoretischen Prämissen der “Zweispurigkeit” noch zeitgemäß?’, in Höffler, K. (ed.), Brauchen wir eine Reform der freiheitsentziehenden Sanktionen?, Universitätsverlag Göttingen (2015), 97106.Google Scholar
Kaspar, J., ‘Die “Unschädlichmachung der Unverbesserlichen”. Die v. Liszt-Schule und der Umgang mit gefährlichen Gewohnheitsverbrechern’, in Koch, A. and Löhnig, M. (eds.), Die Schule Franz von Liszts, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2016), 119–33.Google Scholar
Kaufman, N., Kaiser, J. and Rumpf, C., ‘Beyond Punishment: The Penal State’s Interventionist, Covert, and Negligent Modalities of Control’, Law & Social Inquiry, 43 (2018), 468–95.Google Scholar
Kirk, D. and Wakefield, S., ‘Collateral Consequences of Punishment: A Critical Review and Path Forward’, Annual Review of Criminology, 1 (2018), 171–94.Google Scholar
Kleinfeld, J., ‘Two Cultures of Punishment’, Stanford Law Review, 68 (2016), 9331036.Google Scholar
LaFollette, H., ‘Collateral Consequences of Punishment: Civil Penalties Accompanying Formal Punishment’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 22 (2005), 241–61.Google Scholar
Levin, B., ‘Criminal Employment Law’, Cardozo Law Review, 39 (2018), 2265–325.Google Scholar
Logan, W. A., Knowledge as Power: Criminal Registration and Community Notification Laws in America, Stanford University Press (2009).Google Scholar
Logan, W. A., ‘Informal Collateral Consequences’, Washington Law Review, 88 (2013), 1103–17.Google Scholar
Logan, W. A., ‘Challenging the Punitiveness of “New-Generation” SORN Laws’, New Criminal Law Review, 21 (2018), 426–57.Google Scholar
Love, M. C., ‘Starting Over with a Clean Slate: In Praise of a Forgotten Section of the Model Penal Code’, Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30 (2003), 1705–41.Google Scholar
Love, M. C., ‘Collateral Consequences after Padilla v. Kentucky: From Punishment to Regulation’, Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 31 (2011), 87127.Google Scholar
Love, M. C., Roberts, J. and Logan, W. A., Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions: Law, Policy and Practice, 3rd edn, St. Paul, MN, Thomas Reuters (2018).Google Scholar
Love, M. C. and Schlussel, D., ‘The Many Roads to Reintegration: A 50-State Report on Laws Restoring Rights and Opportunities after Arrest or Conviction’, Washington, DC, Collateral Consequences Resource Center (2020), available at Scholar
Maugeri, A. M., ‘Concept of Criminal Matter in the European Courts’ Case Law’, European Criminal Law Review, 9 (2019), 439.Google Scholar
Mayson, S. G., ‘Collateral Consequences and the Preventive State’, Notre Dame Law Review, 91 (2015), 301–61,Google Scholar
Meek, A. P., ‘Street Vendors, Taxicabs, and Exclusion Zones: The Impact of Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions at the Local Level’, Ohio State Law Journal, 75 (2014), 156.Google Scholar
Meier, B.-D., Strafrechtliche Sanktionen, 5th edn, Berlin, Springer (2019).Google Scholar
Meijer, S., ‘Proportionality as a Constraint on the Legal Consequences of Conviction’, in Meijer, S., Annison, H. and O’Loughlin, A. (eds.), Fundamental Rights and Legal Consequences of Criminal Conviction, Oxford, Hart (2019), 87105.Google Scholar
Meijer, S., Annison, H. and O’Loughlin, A., Fundamental Rights and Legal Consequences of Criminal Conviction, Oxford, Hart (2019).Google Scholar
Morgenstern, C., ‘Judicial Rehabilitation in Germany – The Use of Criminal Records and the Removal of Recorded Convictions’, European Journal of Probation, 3 (2011), 2035.Google Scholar
Morgenstern, C., ‘Der ewige Makel – Straftheorie, Grundrechte und das Strafregister’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 131 (2019), 625–65.Google Scholar
Morgenstern, C., ‘The Stain of Conviction’, in Meijer, S., Annison, H. and O’Loughlin, A. (eds.), Fundamental Rights and Legal Consequences of Criminal Conviction, Oxford, Hart (2019), 6586.Google Scholar
Murray, B. M., ‘Are Collateral Consequences Deserved?’, Notre Dame Law Review, 95 (2020), 1031–76.Google Scholar
Murray, B. M., ‘Retributivist Reform of Collateral Consequences’, Connecticut Law Review, 52 (2020), 863916.Google Scholar
Nelles, U., ‘Statusfolgen als “Nebenfolgen” einer Straftat (§ 45)’, Juristenzeitung, 46 (1991) 1724.Google Scholar
Note, ‘Civil Death Statutes: Medieval Fiction in a Modern World’, Harvard Law Review, 50 (1937), 968–77.Google Scholar
Pager, D., Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration, University of Chicago Press (2007).Google Scholar
Parigger, M., ‘Urteilsfolgen neben der Strafe’, Strafverteidiger Forum, 12 (2011), 447–58.Google Scholar
Petersilia, J., When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry, New York, Oxford University Press (2003).Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, J., ‘Die unbeschränkte Auskunft aus dem Bundeszentralregister und dem Führungszeugnis’, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 20 (2000) 402–7.Google Scholar
Pinard, M., ‘Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions: Confronting Issues of Race and Dignity’, New York University Law Review, 85 (2010), 457534.Google Scholar
Pinard, M. and Thompson, A. C., ‘Offender Reentry and the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions: An Introduction’, NYU Review of Law and Social Change, 30 (2006), 585620.Google Scholar
Pinedo, V. J., ‘Let’s Keep It Civil: An Evaluation of Civil Disabilities, a Call for Reform, and Recommendations to Reduce Recidivism’, Cornell Law Review, 102 (2017), 513–45.Google Scholar
Radice, J., ‘The Reintegrative State’, Emory Law Journal, 66 (2017), 1315–90.Google Scholar
Rhode, D. L., ‘Virtue and the Law: The Good Moral Character Requirement in Occupational Licensing, Bar Regulation, and Immigration Proceedings’, Law & Social Inquiry, 43 (2018), 1027–58.Google Scholar
Ristroph, A., ‘Proportionality as a Principle of Limited Government’, Duke Law Journal, 55 (2005), 263331.Google Scholar
Ristroph, A., ‘Criminal Law as Public Ordering’, University of Toronto Law Journal, 70 (2020), 6483.Google Scholar
Roberts, J., ‘Informed Misdemeanor Sentencing’, Hofstra Law Review, 46 (2017), 171213.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. and Harrendorf, S., ‘Criminal History Enhancements at Sentencing’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. and Weigend, T. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 261303.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H. and Sarahne, M., ‘The Opposite of Punishment: Imagining a Path to Public Redemption’, Rutgers University Law Review, 73 (2020), 132.Google Scholar
Röth, T., ‘Nebenfolgen strafrechtlicher Verurteilung’, Strafverteidiger Forum, 13 (2012), 354–62.Google Scholar
Rubin, A. T. and Phelps, M. S., ‘Fracturing the Penal State: State Actors and the Role of Conflict in Penal Change’, Theoretical Criminology, 21 (2017), 422–40.Google Scholar
Saunders, H. D., ‘Civil Death – A New Look at an Ancient Doctrine’, William & Mary Law Review, 11 (1970), 988–90.Google Scholar
Schäfer, G., Sander, G. M. and van Gemmeren, G., Praxis der Strafzumessung, 6th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar
Shanahan, C. F., ‘Significant Entanglements: A Framework for the Civil Consequences of Criminal Convictions’, American Criminal Law Review, 49 (2012), 1387–436.Google Scholar
Shannon, S., Uggen, C., Schnittker, J., Thompson, M., Wakefield, S. and Massoglia, M., ‘The Growth, Scope, and Spatial Distribution of People with Felony Records in the United States, 1948–2010’, Demography, 54 (2017), 1795–818.Google Scholar
Sobota, S., Die Nebenfolge im System strafrechtlicher Sanktionen, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2015).Google Scholar
Sobota, S., ‘Die Nebenfolge: Eigenständige Rechtsfolge oder Auffangbecken des Sanktionenrechts?’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 12 (2017), 248–56.Google Scholar
Sonnen, B.-R., ‘Rechtsfolgen nach dem Registerrecht’, in Cornel, H., Kawamura-Reindl, G. and Sonnen, B.-R. (eds.), Handbuch der Resozialisierung, 4th edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2018), 514–26.Google Scholar
Stäcker, T., Die Franz von Liszt-Schule und ihre Auswirkungen auf die deutsche Strafrechtsentwicklung, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2012).Google Scholar
Stein, K., ‘Wer die Wahl hat … : Der Grundsatz der Allgemeinheit der Wahl und der Ausschluss vom Wahlrecht wegen strafgerichtlicher Verurteilung’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht, 151 (2004), 22–3.Google Scholar
Stevenson, M. T. and Mayson, S. G., ‘Misdemeanors by the Numbers’, Boston College Law Review, 61 (2020), 9711044.Google Scholar
Stewart, R. and Uggen, C., ‘Criminal Records and College Admissions: A Modified Experimental Audit’, Criminology, 58 (2020), 156–88.Google Scholar
Streng, F., ‘Mittelbare Strafwirkungen und Strafzumessungen – Zur Bedeutung disziplinarrechtlicher Folgen einer Verurteilung für die Bejahung minder schwerer Fälle’, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 8 (1988), 485–7.Google Scholar
Ströbel, L., Persönlichkeitsschutz von Straftätern im Internet, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2016).Google Scholar
Thacher, D., ‘The Rise of Criminal Background Screening in Rental Housing’, Law & Social Inquiry, 33 (2008), 530.Google Scholar
Tober T., Das Bundesverfassungsgericht und der US Supreme Court zur Sicherungsverwahrung gefährlicher, strafrechtlich verantwortlicher Straftäter, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2019).Google Scholar
Tonry, M., Sentencing Fragments: Penal Reform in America 1975–2025, New York, Oxford University Press (2016).Google Scholar
Travis, J., ‘Invisible Punishment: An Instrument of Social Exclusion’, in Mauer, M. and Chesney-Lind, M. (eds.), Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, New York, New Press (2002), 1536.Google Scholar
Uggen, C. and Manza, J., Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy, New York, Oxford University Press (2006).Google Scholar
Uggen, C. and Stewart, R., ‘Piling On: Collateral Consequences and Community Supervision’, Minnesota Law Review, 99 (2015), 1871–910.Google Scholar
Veith, H.-M., ‘Das Bundeszentralregister: eine Einführung’, Bewährungshilfe, 47 (1999), 111–33.Google Scholar
Vogel, B., ‘The Core Legal Concepts and Principles Defining Criminal Law in Germany’, in Dyson, M. and Vogel, B. (eds.), The Limits of Criminal Law: Anglo-German Concepts and Principles, Cambridge, Intersentia (2018), 3970.Google Scholar
von Hirsch, A. and Wasik, M., ‘Civil Disqualifications Attending Conviction: A Suggested Conceptual Framework’, Cambridge Law Journal, 56 (1997), 599626.Google Scholar
Weinrich, C., Statusmindernde Nebenfolgen als Ehrenstrafen im Sanktionensystem des StGB, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2009).Google Scholar
Zedner, L., ‘Penal Subversions: When Is a Punishment Not Punishment, Who Decides and on What Grounds?’, Theoretical Criminology, 20 (2016), 320.Google Scholar
Zedner, L. and Ashworth, A., ‘The Rise and Restraint of the Preventive State’, Annual Review of Criminology, 2 (2019), 429–50.Google Scholar
Zimring, F. E., The Insidious Momentum of American Mass Incarceration, New York, Oxford University Press (2020).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats