Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2264471
 


 



Punitive Injunctions


Nirej Sekhon


Georgia State University College of Law

May 13, 2013

U. Penn. J. L. & Soc. Change, Forthcoming
Georgia State University College of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2013-16

Abstract:     
In theory, courts are only supposed to incarcerate an individual after having provided her with the host of procedural protections required by constitutional criminal procedure – appointed counsel and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to name just two. In practice however, individuals are routinely incarcerated for violating injunctions to which criminal procedure’s protections do not apply. At any given time, millions are subject to such injunctions and hundreds of thousands are in jail or prison for having violated one. Child support orders and probation orders are the most common examples of what this article terms “punitive injunctions.” Just last term, in Turner v. Rogers, the Supreme Court once again concluded that constitutional criminal procedure does not apply to the enforcement of such injunctions. This article argues that courts have inordinately used punitive injunctions against the poor and socially marginal. Punitive injunctions expand the pool of individuals who may be incarcerated and extend the time any particular individual is subject to custodial supervision. Contrary to official accounts, punitive injunctions do not meaningfully advance remedial or rehabilitative purposes. Rather, their widespread use demonstrates that the United States has unjustifiably taken a punitive course in managing poverty. Extending constitutional criminal procedure to the enforcement of punitive injunctions would be better than the status quo. But it would only be marginally better. For that reason, this article proposes farther-reaching reforms that would limit courts’ power to impose such injunctions in the first place.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 58

Keywords: criminal procedure, courts, injunctions, child support, probation, sentencing, incarceration, poverty

JEL Classification: K14, K19, K40, K00, K49, K10, K30, K39

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: June 19, 2013 ; Last revised: August 20, 2013

Suggested Citation

Sekhon, Nirej, Punitive Injunctions (May 13, 2013). U. Penn. J. L. & Soc. Change, Forthcoming; Georgia State University College of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2013-16. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2264471

Contact Information

Nirej Sekhon (Contact Author)
Georgia State University College of Law ( email )
P.O. Box 4037
Atlanta, GA 30302-4037
United States
404-413-9166 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 152
Downloads: 31

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.375 seconds