Make a Submission
No. XLVII/2 (2025)
Articles

Collateral consequences of conviction – a hidden punishment?

PDF
  • Rita Haverkamp,
  • Johannes Kaspar
Rita Haverkamp
University of Tübingen
Bio
Johannes Kaspar
University of Augsburg
Bio

Published 2026-06-03

Keywords

  • ancillary ramifications,
  • collateral consequences,
  • hidden punishment,
  • media coverage,
  • penal purposes,
  • sentencing
    • ...More
    Less

Copyright (c) 2026 Rita Haverkamp, Johannes Kaspar

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

“Collateral consequences of conviction – a hidden punishment? Uboczne konsekwencje skazania – ukryta kara?” (2026) Archives of Criminology, (XLVII/2), pp. 47–64. doi:10.7420/AK2025.13.
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Traditionally, the focus of research lies on the process of sentencing and on criminal sanctions. However, these criminal sanctions are often accompanied with supplementary ramifications. These diverse ramifications are legal and social, intentional and unintentional, immediate and distant and temporary and lifelong. Especially in the United States, they are known among other terms as “collateral consequences” of a criminal conviction or criminal punishment. These collateral consequences may have serious negative effects for the convict. For example, a fine for tax evasion in the context of a trade can be followed by a trade ban. As trade bans are administrative acts, the criminal court does not usually take the impending trade ban into account in its sentencing decision. However, the trade ban might strike the convicted person much harder due to the loss of their livelihood. Collateral consequences concern a wide area of application extending beyond the well-known criminal sanctions. In doing so, they do not depend on a specific legal system and its dogmatic assumptions. In this article, the definition and nature of collateral consequences are introduced first. Afterwards, the focus turns to the wide spectrum of collateral consequences. Then, the criminal provisions and penal purposes of collateral consequences come to the fore with an emphasis on Germany. Even before a conviction, media coverage can lead to prejudgment: an example from Germany illustrates these negative side effects of criminal investigations, i.e. of potential convictions in future. Finally, it is important to raise awareness of the collateral consequences of a conviction and to establish (legal) mechanisms to regularly take them into account.

PDF

References

  1. Albrecht H.-J. (2023). ʻ§ 60 StGB Absehen von Strafeʼ [§ 60 of the German Criminal Code (StGB): Refraining from punishment]. In U. Kindhäuser, U. Neumann, H.-U. Paeffgen, and F. Saliger (eds.) Strafgesetzbuch. Nomos Kommentar [Criminal Code. Nomos Commentary]. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 1–16.
  2. American Bar Association [ABA] (n.d.). Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions: Judicial Bench Book. The National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions, Ojp.gov. Available online: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251583.pdf [16.01.2026].
  3. Bös M. (2010). Abgeschoben in die Marginalität. Eine empirische Untersuchung zur problematischen Eingliederung der wegen Straffälligkeit aus Deutschland abgeschobenen türkischen Staatsangehörigen in der türkischen Gesellschaft [Deported into marginality. An empirical study on the problematic integration of Turkish nationals deported from Germany due to criminal convictions into Turkish society], Openscience.ub.uni-mainz.de. Available online: https://openscience.ub.uni-mainz.de/bitstream/20.500.12030/2326/1/2570.pdf [16.01.26].
  4. Collinson J. (2020). ʻReconstructing the European Court of Human Rights’ article 8 jurisprudence in deportation cases: The family’s right and the public interest.ʼ Human Rights Law Review 20(2), pp. 333–360. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngaa015
  5. Corda A. (2023). ʻCollateral consequences and criminal justice reform: Successes and challenges.ʼ Crime and Justice 52, pp. 447–485. https://doi.org/10.1086/725720
  6. Corda A. and Kaspar J. (2022). ʻCollateral consequences of criminal conviction in the United States and Germany.ʼ In K. Ambos, A. Duff, J. Roberts, T. Weigend, and A. Heinze (eds.) Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 392–437. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009037136.011
  7. Corda A. and Lageson S.E. (2020). ʻDisordered punishment: Workaround technologies of criminal records disclosure and the rise of a new penal entrepreneurialism.ʼ British Journal of Criminology 60(2), pp. 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azz039
  8. Corda A., Rovira M., and Henley A. (2023). ʻCollateral consequences of criminal records from the other side of the pond: How exceptional is American penal exceptionalism?ʼ Criminology & Criminal Justice 23(4), pp. 528–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958231161437
  9. Cuesta J.L. de la (2021). ʻHidden and less visible consequences of conviction in the Spanish criminal justice system.ʼ In R. Haverkamp, M. Kilchling, J. Kinzig, D. Oberwittler, and G. Wössner (eds.) Unterwegs in Kriminologie und Strafrecht [Exploring the World of Crime and Criminology]. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp. 1095–1107.
  10. Demleitner N. (2018). ʻCollateral sanctions and American exceptionalism: A comparative perspective.ʼ In K.R. Reitz (ed.) American Exceptionalism in Crime and Punishment. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 487–526.
  11. European External Action Service (2022). Declaration on Honour on Exclusion Criteria and Selection Criteria, Eeas.europa.eu. Available online: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/2023/declaration-honour-2022-en.pdf [16.01.2026].
  12. Fitrakis E. (ed.) (2018). Invisible Punishment (European Dimension – Greek Perspective). Athens: National Printing House.
  13. Frankfurter Neue Presse (2019). Urteile in Frankfurt: Wohnungsbaugesellschaft ABG darf Dealern Wohnungen in der Platensiedlung kündigen [Court Decisions in Frankfurt: Housing Company ABG Allowed to Evict Dealers from Platen Estate Apartments], Fnp.de. Available online: https://www.fnp.de/frankfurt/drogenhandel-rechtfertigt-rauswurf-11748235.html [16.01.2026].
  14. Groß K.-H. and Kulhanek T. (2024). ʻ§ 60 StGB Absehen von Strafeʼ [§ 60 of the German Criminal Code (StGB): Refraining from punishment]. In V. Erb and J. Schäfer (eds.) Münchener Kommentar zum StGB, vol. 2 [Munich Commentary on the German Criminal Code]. München: C.H. Beck, p. 11.
  15. Haverkamp R. (2024). ʻKollateralfolgen einer strafrechtlichen Sanktionierungʼ [Collateral consequences of criminal sanctions]. In H. Brettel, T. Görgen, M. Rettenberger and S. Suhling (eds.) Kriminalität und ihre Kontrolle im Wandel. Festschrift für Axel Dessecker [Crime and its control in times of change. Festschrift for Axel Dessecker]. Wiesbaden: KrimZ, pp. 581–593.
  16. Haverkamp R. (2026). ʻCollateral consequences of criminal punishment.ʼ In K. Ambos (ed.) Chinese German Seminar on Criminal Law and Justice. Göttingen [in print].
  17. Haverkamp R. and Kaspar J. (2023). ʻJudicial discretion within a framework: Between determinate and indeterminate sentencing.ʼ In P. H. van Kempen, M. J. Krabbe, J. L. Guzmán Dalbora, and F. Molina Jerez (eds.) Legality and Other Requirements for Sentencing. An International and Comparative Perspective on Non-Arbitrary Punishment and Sentencing Discretion. The Hague: Eleven, pp. 117–136.
  18. Hirsch A. von (2007). ʻThe “desert” model for sentencing: Its influence, prospects, and alternatives.ʼ Social Research 74(2), pp. 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2007.0040
  19. Hoskins Z. (2019). Beyond Punishment? A Normative Account of the Collateral Consequences of Conviction. New York: Oxford University Press.
  20. Johnston N. (2023). Prisoners’ Voting Rights. House of Commons Library. Available online: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7461/CBP-7461.pdf [16.01.2026].
  21. Judgement of the Federal Court of Justice [Bundesgerichtshof – BGH] of July 20, 1999 (1999). Application no. 1 StR 668/98.
  22. Judgement of the Federal Court of Justice [Bundesgerichtshof – BGH] of July 20, 2005 (2005). Application no. 2 StR 168/05.
  23. Judgement of the Federal Court of Justice [Bundesgerichtshof – BGH] of April 16, 2008 (2008). Application no. 1 StR 83/08.
  24. Judgement of the Federal Court of Justice [Bundesgerichtshof – BGH] of November 4, 2021 (2021). Application no. 6 StR 12/20.
  25. Judgement of the Federal Court of Justice [Bundesgerichtshof – BGH] of March 8, 2022 (2022). Application no. 3 StR 398/21.
  26. Judgement of the LG Regensburg of July 4, 2019 (2019). Application no. 6 KLs 152 Js 16476/16 WS.
  27. Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of October 6, 2015 (2015). Delvigne v. Commune de Lesparre Médoc and Préfet de la Gironde [GC], application no. C-650/13.
  28. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of August 2, 2001 (2001). Boultif v. Switzerland, application no. 54273/00.
  29. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of October 18, 2006 (2006). Üner v. Netherlands, application no. 46410/99.
  30. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of October 6, 2005 (2005). Hirst v. United Kingdom (No. 2) [GC], application no. 74025/01.
  31. Judgment of the Federal Court of Justice [Bundesgerichtshof – BGH] of November 23, 1977 (1977). Application no. 3 StR 397/77.
  32. Kaiser J. (2016). ʻRevealing the hidden sentence: How to add legitimacy, purpose, and transparency to “collateral” punishment policy.ʼ Harvard Law & Policy Review 10, pp. 123–184.
  33. Kilchling M. (2021). ʻStrafen über Strafen. Strafrechtliche und nichtstrafrechtliche Zusatzsanktionen in Deutschlandʼ [Punishment upon punishment: Criminal and non-criminal additional sanctions in Germany]. In R. Haverkamp, M. Kilchling, J. Kinzig, D. Oberwittler, and G. Wössner (eds.) Unterwegs in Kriminologie und Strafrecht [Exploring the World of Crime and Criminology]. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp. 1075–1094.
  34. Kilchling M. (2025). ʻInvisible punishments.ʼ In S. Snacken, G. Cliquennois, I. Durnescu, D. Humblet, and E. Larrauri (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of European Penology. London–New York: Routledge, pp. 435–451.
  35. Knauer F. (2009). ʻBestrafung durch Medien? Zur strafmildernden Berücksichtigung von Medienberichterstattungʼ [Punishment by the Media? On the mitigating consideration of media coverage in sentencing]. Goltdammer’s Archiv, pp. 541–552.
  36. LaFollette H. (2005). ʻCollateral consequences of punishment: Civil penalties accompanying formal punishment.ʼ Journal of Applied Philosophy 22(3), pp. 241–261.
  37. Lubin J. (2020). ʻStrafzumessung und außerstrafrechtliche Folgen für Angehörige freier Berufeʼ [Sentencing and non-criminal consequences for members of liberal professions]. Neue Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsstrafrecht 9(5), pp. 178–182.
  38. Maier S. (2024). ʻ§ 46a StGB Täter-Opfer-Ausgleich und Schadenswiedergutmachungʼ [§ 46a of the German Criminal Code (StGB): Offender-victim mediation and compensation for damage]. In V. Erb and J. Schäfer (eds.) Münchener Kommentar zum StGB, vol. 2 [Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code]. München: C.H. Beck, p. 68.
  39. Mauer M. and Chesney-Lind M. (eds.) (2002). Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment. New York: New Press.
  40. Meijer S., Annison H., and O’Loughlin A. (2019). ʻIntroduction.ʼ In S. Meijer, H. Annison, and A. O’Loughlin (eds.) Fundamental Rights and Legal Consequences of Criminal Conviction. Oxford: Hart, pp. 1–23.
  41. Murray B.M. (2020). ʻAre collateral consequences deserved?ʼ Notre Dame Law Review 95(3), pp. 1031–1076.
  42. National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Conviction [NICCC] (n.d.), Csgjusticecenter.org. Available online: https://csgjusticecenter.org/publications/the-national-inventory-of-collateral-consequences-of-conviction/ [16.01.2026].
  43. Österdahl I. (2016). ʻBetween 250 years of free information and 20 years of EU and Internet.ʼ Etikk i praksis – Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics 10(1), pp. 31–33.
  44. Ripollés J.L. (2016). ʻCollateral sanctions for offenders and ex-offenders – contrasts between the United States of America and Nordic European countries.ʼ European Criminal Law Review 6(3), pp. 234–264.
  45. Stumpf J.P. (2006). ʻThe crimmigration crisis: Immigrants, crime, and sovereign power.ʼ American University Law Review 56(2), pp. 367–419.
  46. Teutsch O. (2019). Frankfurter Dealer rausgeschmissen [Frankfurt Dealer Evicted], Fr.de. Available online: https://www.fr.de/frankfurt/ginnheim-ort904319/frankfurter-dealer-rausgeschmissen-12956053.html [16.01.2026].
  47. Uggen C. and Stewart R. (2015). ʻPiling on: Collateral consequences and community supervision.ʼ Minnesota Law Review 99, pp. 1871–1910.
  48. Walburg C. (2016). ʻ“Crimmigration”: Die Ausweisung als Mittel der Migrations- und Kriminalitätskontrolleʼ [„Crimmigration“: Extradition as a means of migration and crime control]. Neue Kriminalpolitik 28(4), pp. 378–388.
  49. Werkmeister A. (2018). ʻMigrationspolitik mit den Mitteln des Strafrechts? – Grundfragen des “Crimmigration Law” am Beispiel der Strafbarkeit der unerlaubten Einreiseʼ [Migration policy through criminal law? – Fundamental questions of ‘crimmigration law’ using the example of the criminalization of unauthorized entry]. In H. Albrecht, E. Pohlreich, J. Geneuss, and A. Giraud (eds.) Strafrecht und Politik [Criminal law and politics]. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 187–208.