CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisCriminal Justice and PenologyCrime Patterns and Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Symbiotic Harm of a Criminal Record

Open access
Adams, Ericka B., Chen, Elsa Y., Lageson, Sarah E.·2026·Criminal Justice and Behavior
DOI 10.1177/00938548251379861
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Having a criminal record significantly alters a person’s life chances, decreasing their opportunities for employment, housing, student loans, voting, public benefits, and more. The collateral consequences of criminal convictions, or the civil restrictions that follow criminal convictions, are well documented. However, because individuals are connected to families and communities, it is impossible to isolate the effects of punishment to only the persons holding criminal records. Instead, the effects of criminal records might be best understood as a set of symbiotic harms, marked by relational and interdependent effects. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 59 expungement-eligible persons and 69 community representatives, this paper explores the symbiotic harms of lower-level criminal records and explores the potential for automated criminal record clearance to enhance the lived experiences of record holders and their networks.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/00938548251379861

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Carey C. A. (2004). No second chance: People with criminal records denied access to public housing. University of Toledo Law Review, 36, 545–594.
  2. Hirschi T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.
  3. Horn A. E. (2019). Wrongful collateral consequences. The George Washington Law Review, 87(2), 315–372.
  4. Lageson S. E. Carolina C. R. Chen E. Adams E. (2026). Online recruitment of interview participants with criminal records: Methodological challenges and opportunities. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology 15(1) 129–164. https://www.crimrxiv.com/pub/0b3zkqgg/release/1
  5. Lake J. (2020, April 15). Criminal records create cycles of multigenerational poverty. Center for American Progress.
  6. Lofland J., Lofland L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: Guide to qualitative observation and analysis (3rd ed.). Waveland Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 2

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Adams, E. B., Chen, E. Y., & Lageson, S. E.
Affiliations
  • San Jose State University (US)
  • Santa Clara University (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
Corresponding author
Adams, Ericka B.
ORCID
Venue
Criminal Justice and Behavior
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2025-10-20
Volume
53
Issue
3
Pages
403-422
ISSN
  • 0093-8548 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3594
DOI
10.1177/00938548251379861
OpenAlex
W4415372216
Cited by
2
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 2
FWCI
1.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Criminal Justice and Behavior (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • CrimRxiv (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • San Jose State University Scholar Works (San Jose State University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
Keywords
criminal records, collateral consequences, expungement, employment discrimination, housing discrimination, voting rights, public benefit, social networks, community representatives, low-level offenses

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review