Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:15 pm
Time: 12:15 pm
Results for bail
86 results foundAuthor: Wong, Katrina Title: Bail Me Out: NSW Young Offenders and Bail Summary: There is a significant gap in policy development with respect to the provision of appropriate assistance to young people on bail. There is no policy or residential service model funded by the Australian Government that supports young people's adherence to their bail conditions in a community setting. There is also significant inconsistency between the evidence base for diverting young people from the justice system and the practices of policing and monitoring this group of young people. The findings from this study identified significant areas of concern that warrant further research on which policy and practice in the juvenile justice system, could be based. Details: Marrickville, New South Wales, Australia: Youth Justice Coalition, 2009 Source: http://www.yjconline.net/BailMeOut.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.yjconline.net/BailMeOut.pdf Shelf Number: 116658 Keywords: BailDiversionJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Walsh, Nastassia Title: Baltimore Behind Bars: How to Reduce the Jail Population, Save Money and Improve Public Safety Summary: This report details Baltimore's complex system of city policing practices and court and bail processes that contribute to a high percentage of city residents being detained in jail, often unneccessarily. The report also finds that the courts are clogged with too many cases, which further contributes to people being held pre-trial for extended periods of time. The report details how more than half of the prople arrested in Baltimore are locked up in jail to await trial, with more than half of those in jail not being offered bail. The State of Maryland, which owns and operates the jail complex, is currently planning two new jail facilities in Baltimore at an estimated cost of $280 million. The report notes that while these facilities will be an improvement over aging facilities, they may needlessly increase the number of people incarcerated in the jails. Increasing the number of jail beds, and improving facilities, may create a disincentive to finding effective alternatives to pretrial detention, leading to more people in jail instead of less. The report recommends that by implementing effective solutions to reduce the number of people in the current jail, money could be re-directed towards services like education, employment support and treatment. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2010. 73p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119132 Keywords: BailJail OvercrowdingJailsPretrial Detention (Baltimore) |
Author: Fedders, Barbara Title: Do You Know Where the Children Are? A Report on Massachusetts Youth Unlawfully Held Without Bail Summary: In 2004, over four thousand Massachusetts children and youth between the ages of seven and seventeen spent time behind bars -- in some cases up to four days -- after their arrest and prior to their first court appearance. While the law requires that young people must be at least fourteen years old to be detained, more than five hundred children under fourteen were so held that year. This report calls for an end to this practice, and provides recommendations for addressing the problem without litigation. Details: Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, 2006. 13p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119114 Keywords: BailJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (Massachusetts ) |
Author: Bharadwaj, Priti Title: Liberty at the Cost of Innocence: A Report on Jail Adalats in India Summary: The most striking characteristic of the Indian prisons is its high under-trial population. India stands at number 14 in the list of 195 countries across the world with the highest number of pre-trial detainees. More than 65 per cent of the prison inmates in India are awaiting trial. The accused can be released on bail if they or a person known to them executes a bond that guarantees their presence at trial. In some cases, bail may be denied if there are cogent reasons to believe that the accused may tamper with evidence or commit other offences while on bail. However, all persons in detention must be tried within a reasonable time period to avoid unnecessary hardship on those who are innocent and yet imprisoned. Policy makers in India have recognised the magnitude of the problem of high percentage of under-trial population in prisons. The legislature and the judiciary have both stepped in to ensure that the bail regime is liberalised, but the practice remains far removed from the intent. Disposal of cases still takes a long time. In fact so much systemic dysfunction has piled up that there is a growing justification for adopting “short-cut” mechanisms – that also dilute the ‘due process rights’ – so that the system can be seen to be functioning. Fast track courts, plea-bargaining, jail adalats are some of the institutionalised examples of this. Others include proposed ideas to allow police to record confessions, reduce the burden of proof from ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to the ‘subjective satisfaction’ of the judge. Translated literally as prison court, jail adalats see judges holding courts in prisons to dispose off cases of “petty” offenders who are willing to admit guilt. Devised as a strategy to deal with overcrowding and high under-trial population, jail adalats have not been able to address the problem. In fact, many argue that they have themselves become a part of the problem. Jail adalats have received repeated and consistent endorsement from Chief Justices8 of the Supreme Court and the High Courts as well as high powered committees set up by the judiciary. This alone makes a study of the mechanism useful. But combined with both, the complete lack of documentation on the subject and inconsistent procedure and practices, the study is particularly relevant. This study was undertaken to examine how the process is carried out in different states. One of the primary aims of the study was to identify good practices of holding jail adalats and examine whether these could be adopted in other states. This was based on the assumption that even though jail adalats are not the best way to reduce the number of under-trial prisoners, they can be used in the interim period while broader systemic criminal justice reforms are underway. It was assumed that though short on technical procedure, these adalats are perhaps a just way to deal with “petty ” offenders who, if willing to admit guilt, can be released from the prisons after recording a conviction. However, having conducted the study, these assumptions have been reconsidered (as shown by the findings in the report). This report seeks to encourage a debate on the use of short-cut mechanisms in the criminal justice system like the jail adalats. It brings to the fore, the problems that these hastily thought out “solutions” give rise to. The target audience for this report includes the prison and judicial officers who arrange and hold these adalats; the political leaders who may be induced into thinking that these adalats should be given statutory recognition without any further debate; other state agencies like the human rights commissions which recommend their use; and the civil society. Details: New Delhi: Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, 2009. 83p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: India URL: Shelf Number: 119444 Keywords: BailCorrectionsJailsPretrial Detention (India) |
Author: VanNostrand, Marie Title: Alternatives to Pretrial Detention: Southern District of Iowa: A Case Study Summary: The pretrial detention rates for the Southern District of Iowa reached their highest levels between July 2006 and June 2007 with detention rates of 69.5% including immigration cases and 67.3% excluding immigration cases. The detention rates at that time were significantly above the national average of 61.7% and were the highest in the 8th Circuit which averaged 57.2% during the same period. It was the awareness of the increasing detention rates that led U.S. Pretrial Services in the Southern District of Iowa to commence a project with the goal of increasing the utilization of alternatives to detention when appropriate to increase pretrial release rates while assuring court appearance and community safety. The District partnered with Luminosity, Inc. to conduct an objective and research-based assessment of the project progress two years following implementation. This report contains (1) background information related to pretrial release and detention, pretrial services, the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program, and the concept of the EBP risk principle and (2) detailed findings of the assessment. The assessment revealed that the Southern District of Iowa was able to substantially increase the utilization of alternatives to detention resulting in a pretrial release rate increase of 15% while assuring court appearance and community safety. In fact, the increased pretrial release rate was accompanied by an increase in court appearance rate by 2.6% and decreases in both new alleged criminal activity rate (1.7% decrease) and revocations due to technical violations (2.8% decrease) for defendants released pending trial. Details: St. Petersburg, FL: Luminosity, 2010. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2018 at: https://www.pretrial.org/download/risk-assessment/Alternatives%20to%20Pretrial%20Detention%20Southern%20District%20of%20Iowa%20-%20VanNostrand%202010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: https://www.pretrial.org/download/risk-assessment/Alternatives%20to%20Pretrial%20Detention%20Southern%20District%20of%20Iowa%20-%20VanNostrand%202010.pdf Shelf Number: 119566 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationBailPretrial Detention (Iowa)Pretrial JusticePretrial ServicesRisk Assessment |
Author: Snowball, Lucy Title: Bail Presumptions and Risk of Bail Refusal: An Analysis of the NSW Bail Act Summary: This report examines the relationship between various statutory presumptions surrounding bail and the risk of bail refusal in New South Wales. A total 37,165 cases where defendants were either granted or refused bail by a Local Court were analysed to determine what impact the presumptions surrounding bail had on the risk of bail refusal. Controls included in the analysis were age; gender; Indigenous status of the defendant; number of concurrent offences; the number of prior criminal convictions; whether the offender had a previous conviction for a breach offence; the number of days between the date of first court appearance and the date of finalisation; whether the defendant had legal representation in the current case; and the plea in the current case at time of finalisation. After adjusting for the effects of other factors, the risk of bail refusal was found to be higher for those charged with offences where there was a presumption against bail or where bail should only be granted in ‘exceptional circumstances’. The risk of bail was also elevated for those with a larger number of prior convictions and/or concurrent offences. Three main anomalies were noted. Firstly, nearly half of those falling into the ‘exceptional circumstance’ category were on bail at their final court appearance. Secondly, factors such as prior criminal record, number of concurrent offences and delay in finalising a case, exert a much stronger influence on the risk of bail refusal than the presumptions surrounding bail. Thirdly, the bail refusal risk was higher for those charged with offences where there was no presumption for or against bail than for those charged with offences involving a presumption against bail. The report concludes that the NSW Bail Act may need some simplification and clarification. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2010. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Bureau Brief, Issue Paper No. 49; Accessed October 13, 2010 at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb49.pdf/$file/bb49.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb49.pdf/$file/bb49.pdf Shelf Number: 119945 Keywords: BailPretrial Release |
Author: Schnacke, Timothy R. Title: The History of Bail and Pretrial Release Summary: While the notion of bail has been traced to ancient Rome,2 the American understanding of bail is derived from 1,000-year-old English roots. A study of this “modern” history of bail reveals two fundamental themes. First, as noted in June Carbone’s comprehensive study of the topic, “[b]ail [originally] reflected the judicial officer’s prediction of trial outcome.” In fact, bail bond decisions are all about prediction, albeit today about the prediction of a defendant’s probability of making all court appearances and not committing any new crimes. The science of accurately predicting a defendant’s pretrial conduct, and misconduct, has only emerged over the past few decades, and it continues to improve. Second, the concept of using bail bonds as a means to avoid pretrial imprisonment historically arose from a series of cases alleging abuses in the pretrial release or detention decision-making process. These abuses were originally often linked to the inability to predict trial outcome, and later to the inability to adequately predict court appearance and the commission of new crimes. This, in turn, led to an over-reliance on judicial discretion to grant or deny a bail bond and the fixing of some money amount (or other condition of pretrial release) that presumably helped mitigate a defendant’s pretrial misconduct. Accordingly, the following history of bail suggests that as our ability to predict a defendant’s pretrial conduct becomes more accurate, our need for reforming how bail is administered will initially be great, and then should diminish over time. Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2010. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 29, 2010 at: http://www.pretrial.org/Docs/Documents/PJI-History_of_Bail.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/Docs/Documents/PJI-History_of_Bail.pdf Shelf Number: 120121 Keywords: BailPretrial Release |
Author: Fellner, Jamie Title: The Price of Freedom: Bail and Pretrial Detention of Low Income Nonfelony Defendants in New York City Summary: Thousands of defendants in New York City accused of minor crimes are held in pretrial detention each year solelybecause they cannot afford to pay even small amounts of bail. The Price of Freedom—based on scores of interviews with defendants, family members, judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, and a trove of new data—analyzes why this is happening and what can be done to ensure greater equity in the bail process. Previously unpublished data made available to Human Rights Watch by the NYC Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) shows that in 87 percent of cases of nonfelony defendants arrested in 2008 in which bail was set at $1,000 or less (the most recent year for which such data is available), the defendants were not able to post bail at arraignment. On average, such individuals spent some 16 days in pretrial detention. Almost three out of four such individuals were accused of nonviolent, non-weapons related crimes such as shoplifting, turnstile jumping, smoking marijuana in public, or trespassing. The Price of Freedom recommends that New York City develop a pretrial supervised release program to allow more nonfelony defendants to remain free while awaiting trial. This approach would honor the presumption of innocence but cost far less than housing, feeding, guarding, and providing medical care to inmates confined round the clock in jail. The report also calls for reforms requiring judges to more carefully tailor their bail decisions to defendants’ financial resources, including wider use of unsecured appearance bonds for those accused of misdemeanors. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2010. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 3, 2010 at: http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2010/12/02/price-freedom-0 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2010/12/02/price-freedom-0 Shelf Number: 120365 Keywords: BailMisdemeanorsPretrial Detention (New York City) |
Author: Gelbach, Jonah Title: Testing for Racial Discrimination in Bail Setting Using Nonparametric Estimation of a Parametric Model Summary: Black defendants are assigned systematically greater bail levels than whites accused of similar offenses and, partly as a result, have systematically lower probabilities of pre-trial release. We construct a simple model of optimal bail setting that allows us to measure how much of the bail difference is due to judicial bias against blacks, holding constant defendant heterogeneity that judges observe, regardless of whether we also observe it. We show how to use nonparametric methods to consistently estimate the model's key parameter by using the judge's first-order condition to form an auxiliary projection relationship involving defendants' conditional choice probabilities. While the behavioral model requires parametric assumptions, they have a substantial payoff: under these assumptions, we need not make any assumptions at all on the conditional distribution of heterogeneity observed by judges but not researchers. We implement the model using 2000 and 2002 data for five counties, from the State Courts Processing Statistics. While our point estimates are somewhat imprecise, they suggest that in several counties, judges value blacks' lost freedom from a typical pre-trial jail stay by thousands of dollars less than they value whites' lost freedom. Details: Berkeley, CA: Law and Economics Workshop, Berkeley Program in Law and Economics, University of California - Berkeley, 2010. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Law and Economics Workshop: Accessed February 2, 2011 at: http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/labor/lap11/gelbach-110218.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/labor/lap11/gelbach-110218.pdf Shelf Number: 120679 Keywords: BailDiscriminationPretrial Release |
Author: Denning-Cotter, Gabrielle Title: Bail Support in Australia Summary: In Australia the prison population has been increasing at a rate of 5% per year since 1984, and recent figures indicate that Indigenous people comprise 24% of the prison population in Australia (ABS, 2007). In 2007 the proportion of prisoners on remand was 22% of the entire prison population (ABS, 2007). Because of the increase in the numbers of people on remand, there has been an increased interest in bail support programs for Indigenous and non-Indigenous people as a viable alternative to remand. Bail support is defined as the provision of services, intervention or support, designed to assist a person to successfully complete their bail period. These programs may be undertaken on a voluntary basis or mandated as a condition of bail. These programs usually aim to: Reduce re-offending while on bail; Increase court appearance rate; and Provide magistrates and police with a viable alternative to remand or incarceration. In the first section, this paper examines Australian and international literature to present principles of best practice; in the second section current bail support programs in Australia are identified. Indigenous-specific support programs are also discussed. Details: Canberra: Indegenous Justice Clearinghouse, 2008. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Brief 2: Accessed February 16, 2011 at: http://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/briefs/brief002.pdf Year: 2008 Country: Australia URL: http://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/briefs/brief002.pdf Shelf Number: 12 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationBailIndigenous PeoplesPretrial Release |
Author: Ringland, Clare Title: The Decline in Unconditional Release Before Trial Summary: This paper examines whether the reduction in the percentage of cases where bail is dispensed with (unconditional release) is due to a change in the profile of cases coming before the criminal courts or a general increase in the threshold for dispensing with bail. A series of statistical (logistic regression) models of the likelihood of unconditional release were constructed to see whether the fall in the likelihood of unconditional release over time remained significant after adjusting for other factors associated with the likelihood of unconditional release. Separate models were constructed for three offences: assault, property crime and property damage. The report concludes that the reduction in matters where bail is dispensed with is not accounted for by a change in the profile of cases coming before the courts. Instead, this appears to reflect an increase in the threshold for dispensing with bail. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2010. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Bureau Brief, Issue Paper No. 55: Accessed February 22, 2011 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb55.pdf/$file/bb55.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb55.pdf/$file/bb55.pdf Shelf Number: 120852 Keywords: BailPretrial Release |
Author: Mamalian, Cynthia A. Title: State of the Science of Pretrial Risk Assessment Summary: The most important decision that is made with respect to a newly arrested defendant is whether to release that defendant into the community while awaiting trial; getting that decision right is critically important for both the defendant and the community at-large. In June 2010, the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) and the Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) convened a meeting of researchers and practitioners to discuss the current state of the science and practice of pretrial justice. This document summarizes the key points that came out of that discussion and what leaders in the field identified as signficant next steps in advancing the administration of pretrial justice, ensuring efficient and effective release and detention decisions for pretrial defendants, managing defendant risk through appropriate and specific conditions of release, and balancing the rights of defendants with community safety. This publication is designed for a wide-ranging audience of criminal justice stakeholders who have questions about pretrial risk assessment and its value to the pretrial justice process. The first section of this publication provides a brief review of the history and current state of pretrial justice. The second section looks at critical issues related to pretrial release, detention, and risk assessment. The third section discusses challenges to implementing evidence-based risk assessment and threats to reliable administration, including time constraints and practicality of the risk assessment instrument, money bail schedules, local capacity, subjective risk assessment, and court culture and judicial behavior. The fourth section of the document outlines methodological challenges associated with the prediction of risk. The final section provides recommendations for research and practice. We discuss high priority research activities, the potential for a universal risk assessment instrument, and the need for training and technical assistance. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Pretrial Justice Institute, 2011. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 22, 2011 at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/PJI_PretrialRiskAssessment.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/PJI_PretrialRiskAssessment.pdf Shelf Number: 121099 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Snowball, Lucy Title: Police Bail and Risk of Re-Offending Summary: This study sought to determine whether the police are remanding offenders with a low risk of re-offending. First a model of juvenile re-offending was developed based on offender characteristics available to the police at the time of the bail decision. This model was then used to predict the probability of re-offending for a sample of 23,667 juveniles, 29.1 per cent of whom had been remand by the police. The others had either been released on bail or unconditionally released. The probabilities were grouped into deciles and compared for the police remand and the non police remand groups. After determining the risk of reoffending for the sample of juvenile defendants, it was clear that on average those held on police remand had a high risk of re-offending. However the police are granting bail to a number of high risk offenders. The study found that there is no evidence that the police are remanding juveniles who are at a low risk of re-offending. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2011. 3p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Paper No. 57: Accessed May 5, 2011 at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb57.pdf/$file/bb57.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb57.pdf/$file/bb57.pdf Shelf Number: 121619 Keywords: BailJuvenile Offenders (Australia)RecidivismReoffending |
Author: VanNostrand, Marie Title: State of the Science of Pretrial Release and Recommendations and Supervision Summary: Earlier this year, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the Pretrial Justice Institute published the document, State of the Science of Pretrial Risk Assessment. That document focused on what the field knows about our ability to predict the likelihood of failure to appear in court or rearrest on new charges among pretrial defendant populations. It described the great strides that the field has made in assessing risks of pretrial misconduct, as well as the challenges that researchers face in validating pretrial risk assessment instruments, and guidance on how they can face those challenges. This document, State of the Science of Pretrial Release Recommendations and Supervision, has a different focus. It picks up where the first document left off. It asks the question: now that we know so much more about predicting risks of pretrial misconduct, how can we use that information to better assure that defendants are appropriately matched to conditions of pretrial release that are designed to minimize their identified risks? In most counties across the country, pretrial release recommendations are subjective. Even when pretrial services agency staff have access to the results of a validated pretrial risk assessment, if it exists in the county, there is often no objective and consistent guidance for making pretrial release recommendations. In addition, many pretrial services agencies require the same frequency and types of contacts for all defendants during pretrial supervision while some have identified their own levels of supervision with varying frequencies and types of contacts. In both cases there is no objective and consistent policy for providing differential pretrial supervision based on the risk of pretrial failure. The appropriate matching of defendant risks with conditions of pretrial release should take place in the framework of Legal and Evidence Based Practices (LEBP). These are interventions and practices that are consistent with the legal and constitutional rights afforded to accused persons awaiting trial and methods research have proven to be effective in reducing unnecessary detention while assuring court appearance and the safety of the community during the pretrial stage. A component of this larger LEBP initiative involves the development and implementation of research-based guidelines for use by pretrial services agencies that are (1) risk-based, (2) consistent with legal and evidence-based practices, and (3) provide guidance for pretrial release recommendations and differential pretrial supervision. This document begins with a discussion of the legal issues that are relevant to persons who have been accused, but not yet adjudicated, of a crime. It describes the possible legal implications of pretrial release practices, including the setting of specific conditions of pretrial release. Following that is a discussion of research results regarding pretrial release conditions and interventions. The final section presents existing guidelines for pretrial release recommendations and differential pretrial supervision. Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2011. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2011 at: http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/PJI%20State%20of%20the%20Science%20Pretrial%20Recommendations%20and%20Supervision%20%282011%29.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/PJI%20State%20of%20the%20Science%20Pretrial%20Recommendations%20and%20Supervision%20%282011%29.pdf Shelf Number: 122039 Keywords: BailPretrial Release (U.S.)Pretrial SupervisionRisk Assessment |
Author: Hedlund, Jennifer Title: Development and Validation of an Assessment for Pretrial Conditional Release Summary: The intent of pretrial decision making is to determine if an individual who is been arrested can be released back into the community prior to his or her court date without posing a risk of failing to appear for court, of committing a new offense or harming someone. The role of pretrial staff (bail commissioners and intake, assessment and referral [IAR] specialists) is to provide an independent assessment of the client’s risk and to recommend to the court whether the client should be considered for a financial bond or a non-financial form of release. A point scale currently provides pretrial staff with guidance in determining the level of risk posed by a client and thus what type of recommendation (financial bond or non-financial release) should be made. Pretrial staff also may add certain conditions to this recommendation, which are intended to minimize the risk posed by a client who may be released on a promise to appear or on a low bond. Until now there has been no tool to assist pretrial staff in determining the type of conditional release that best addresses a client’s needs. The main objectives of the current project were to develop and pilot a decision aid to guide conditional release recommendations, and to evaluate recent modifications to the risk assessment point scale. Details: Hartford, CT: Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut, 2005. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 21, 2011 at: http://www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/research/Dev_Val_Assess_PCR.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/research/Dev_Val_Assess_PCR.pdf Shelf Number: 122131 Keywords: BailConditional ReleasePretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: American Council of Chief Defenders Title: Policy Statement on Fair and Effective Pretrial Justice Practices Summary: Pretrial release practices throughout the country frequently result in the unjust, unnecessary, expensive, and prolonged detention of many individuals prior to trial. Our legal traditions urge us to reserve pretrial detention for only the most carefully limited circumstances, and all available evidence reflects the importance of doing so. Pretrial detention has harsh consequences, including the loss of jobs, homes, and family ties. Research has revealed that all other factors being equal, individuals who are detained prior to trial experience more severe ultimate outcomes. Just as importantly, the heavy reliance by many jurisdictions upon monetary bond as a pretrial release condition disproportionately affects the poor and minorities. Given our evidence-based ability to accurately identify risk, communities can lower their jail costs while ensuring that only those who pose significant risks of flight or danger are detained. This American Council of Chief Defenders Policy Statement calls for a new commitment by all criminal justice stakeholders to ensure fair and appropriate pretrial release decision-making, and outlines key action steps for each pretrial actor. In particular, this statement calls upon defenders to advance the following initiatives: Examine Pretrial Release Practices Within Their Own Jurisdictions to Identify Key Areas of Improvement. While jurisdictions may share common issues, each has its own unique set of practices and traditions. Where unnecessary or unjust pretrial detention is occurring, defenders ought to identify the particular practices leading to those outcomes. Identify and Implement National Standards and Best Practices. Several national organizations have developed national standards on pretrial practices, and these provide excellent guidelines for defenders in developing strategies to improve pretrial outcomes. Defenders should become familiar with these standards and strive to implement them in daily practice. Develop Collaborative Efforts Among All Criminal Justice Stakeholders to Improve Pretrial Practices. Improvements are only feasible where open dialogue is occurring between all pertinent criminal justice leaders. Defenders can lead the effort to develop a collaborative approach to rectifying identified detrimental pretrial practices. This effort ought to include local and state policy-makers, who determine how resources are allocated. Develop Effective Pretrial Litigation Strategies. Defenders ought to be equipped with effective and efficient litigation strategies, grounded in local practice and law, to challenge pretrial-release decisions that result in unnecessary detention. Details: Washington, DC: American Council of Chief Defenders, 2011. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed August 2, 2011 at: http://www.nlada.org/Defender/Defender_ACCD/ACCDpretrialrelease Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.nlada.org/Defender/Defender_ACCD/ACCDpretrialrelease Shelf Number: 122253 Keywords: BailPretrial Release (U.S.) |
Author: Hedlund, Jennifer Title: Development and Validation of an Assessment for Pretrial Conditional Release Summary: The intent of pretrial decision making is to determine if an individual who is been arrested can be released back into the community prior to his or her court date without posing a risk of failing to appear for court, of committing a new offense or harming someone. The role of pretrial staff (bail commissioners and intake, assessment and referral [IAR] specialists) is to provide an independent assessment of the client’s risk and to recommend to the court whether the client should be considered for a financial bond or a non-financial form of release. A point scale currently provides pretrial staff with guidance in determining the level of risk posed by a client and thus what type of recommendation (financial bond or non-financial release) should be made. Pretrial staff also may add certain conditions to this recommendation, which are intended to minimize the risk posed by a client who may be released on a promise to appear or on a low bond. Until now there has been no tool to assist pretrial staff in determining the type of conditional release that best addresses a client’s needs. The main objectives of the current project were to develop and pilot a decision aid to guide conditional release recommendations, and to evaluate recent modifications to the risk assessment point scale. Details: Hartford, CT: Judicial Branch, 2005. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 31, 2011 at: http://www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/research/Dev_Val_Assess_PCR.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/research/Dev_Val_Assess_PCR.pdf Shelf Number: 122131 Keywords: BailConditional ReleasePretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: American Bar Association. Criminal Justice Section Title: Dialogue On Strategies to Save States Money, Reform Criminal Justice & Keep the Public Safe Summary: The American Bar Association has chosen to focus on five key issues where states can implement changes that will promote public safety, reduce recidivism, and save money. These five issues cover a range of criminal justice topics, but the goal is the same: to create an effective, low-cost system that improves our current justice system. Below is a brief description of each policy. PRE-TRIAL RELEASE REFORM According to the United States Department of Justice, over 500,000 men and women sit in jail awaiting trial. Two-thirds of these people are low bail risk, meaning they have been deemed by a magistrate to pose no significant risk to themselves or the community, as well as representing a low risk of flight. Often, these inmates will sit in jail for over a year before standing trial. While these non-violent offenders are in jail, taxpayers provide them with food, clothing, healthcare, and security – last year alone the United States spent $9 billion on services for those who could not afford bail. With the development of better tools, methods, and technologies to supervise non-violent offenders, states will be able to save money on pretrial detention and reduce risk to the community. Those who pose the lowest risk can be identified, released before trial, and then appropriately monitored and supported so they do not become a risk. Under these narrow circumstances, not only do taxpayers save money, but the community is not put in danger. DECRIMINALIZATION OF MINOR OFFENSES State budgets have very limited resources. Because of these limits, police and prosecutors simply cannot bring justice to all culprits. By declassifying certain minor crimes, law enforcement and attorneys can focus on more serious offenders. A large portion of low-level cases in this country go unsolved – declassification would not only direct more resources toward the investigation of serious crimes, but it would also provide states with a steady stream of income in from applicable civil fines. EFFECTIVE REENTRY PROGRAMS Recidivists account for a significant portion of the United States’ prison populations – it is estimated that over half of former inmates are re-arrested and incarcerated within three years following release from prison. A key component to combating these high numbers is to more effectively choose those inmates who are prepared for release and to create programs that provide those released with useful counseling and vocational training. Without guidance, former inmates are often left without necessary support and job training and quickly return to a life of crime. With the costs of incarceration skyrocketing, states simply cannot afford to repeatedly house the same prisoners. At a reduced cost, states can implement programs that provide former inmates with the tools necessary to become successful, productive members of the community. INCREASED USE OF PAROLE & PROBATION Unnecessary inctiaornce irsa a tremendous expense to the taxpayer, and can do more harm than good with regards to an offender’s rehabilitation. Lengthy periods of incarceration should therefore be reserved for offenders who commit the most serious offenses and pose the greatest danger to the community. In contrast, alternatives to incarceration should be provided for those offenders who pose minimal risk to the community and appear likely to benefit from rehabilitation efforts outside a correctional institution. Recognizing that few convicted persons require lengthy incarceration and many require none, the ABA’s Criminal Justice Standards on Sentencing call for sentencing schemes that allow administrative parole boards to decide when individuals incarcerated under inadequately determinate sentences should be released. The Standards also include probation options for the courts, substantial “good time” credit for individuals sentenced to total confinement, and the assertion that violations of parole and probation for non-violent offenders should not automatically result in incarceration. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS Community corrections consists of any number of sanctions served by an offender within the community where that offender either (a) committed an offense, or (b) currently resides. The objectives of community corrections include punishing an offender in the least restrictive setting consistent with public safety and the gravity of the crime; providing offenders with education, training, and treatment to enable an individual to become a fully functional member of the community upon release from supervision; and making offenders accountable to the community for criminal behavior. Community corrections envisions a wide-range of locally implemented, non-incarcerative sanctions such as probation, day-reporting centers, community service, home confinement with or without electronic monitoring, drug and alcohol treatment, means-based fines, and restitution to both the victim and the community. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2011. 170p. Source: Interent Resource: Accessed November 1, 2011 at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/criminal_justice/dialogpacket.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/criminal_justice/dialogpacket.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 123205 Keywords: BailCommunity CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Policy (U.S.)Criminal Justice ReformDecriminalizationParolePretrial ReleasePrisoner ReentryProbation |
Author: Phillips, Mary T. Title: Commercial Bail Bonds in New York City: Characteristics and Implications - Final Report Summary: This report updates and expands upon a recent study of bail making by the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. (CJA), which found that bail bondsmen play a much larger role in New York City than they once did (Phillips 2010a, hereafter referred to as the “bailmaking report”). The research revealed that bonds accounted for 15% of all bail releases in the study sample, and 21% of cases with bail set at $1,000 or more. The bail-making report presented data showing that over 750 commercial bonds were posted in the four largest boroughs of the City for cases with an arrest from July through September 2005. (The term “commercial bond” is used here to refer to an insurance company bail bond, written by a commercial bond agent.) That number results in an annualized estimate of about 3,000 bonds per year in the City, although the actual total is undoubtedly higher than that. The majority of defendants in New York City are still released on recognizance (CJA 2010), and the majority of defendants who make bail do so by posting cash directly with the court. Still, the research showed that commercial bonds are by no means the rarity they once were. Analyses presented in the bail-making report utilized defendant and case-processing data from the CJA database, as well as form-of-bail data from the Office of Court Administration (OCA). The research examined the factors associated with making bail by cash versus bond, including the amount of bail set at arraignment, the courts’ use of cash alternatives, and time to release. Supplementary information collected by hand from cash bail receipts was presented pertaining to the sureties who posted cash bail for defendants, their relationship to the defendant, and geospatial relationships among the locations of the jail where the defendant was held, the bail-posting site, and the surety’s residence. Supplementary data describing characteristics of cash bail cases were presented citywide and for all four boroughs included in the research. Comparably detailed information about bonds was also collected by hand from court papers filed by bail bondsmen, but when the bail-making report was in preparation this supplemental information for bond cases had been collected only for Brooklyn and Manhattan. The results, revealing striking differences between the two boroughs, were presented in the full report (Phillips 2010a) and summarized in the corresponding Research Brief (Phillips 2010b) with a cautionary comment on the preliminary nature of the conclusions. We promised to enlarge the number of cases with supplementary bond data citywide and to round out the borough comparisons by adding supplementary data from the Bronx and Queens in a future update. This report provides that update with the presentation of supplementary bond data for all four of the largest boroughs and expands the analyses to consider the implications for bail setting suggested by the citywide data. Details: New York, NY: CJA New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc., 2011. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 29, 2012 at http://www.cjareports.org/reports/bonds2010final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjareports.org/reports/bonds2010final.pdf Shelf Number: 123878 Keywords: BailDefendantsNew York City |
Author: Austin, James Title: Florida Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument Summary: Evidence-‐based practices requires the use of validated criteria to assess the risks that pretrial defendants pose of being rearrested on new charges while their cases are pending and of failing to appear (FTA) in court. Florida Statute 903.046 (2) lists the criteria that judicial officers are to take into consideration in making pretrial release decisions. Those criteria include: the nature and circumstances of the offense; the weight of the evidence; the defendant’s family ties, length of time in the community; employment history; financial resources; mental conditions; prior criminal history; prior history of appearance in court; current status on pretrial release, probation, and parole; and the “nature and probability of danger which the defendant’s release poses to the community.” The statute does not provide any guidance on what weight to assign each of these criterion in assessing a defendant’s risk of danger to the community and non-‐ appearance in court. But research has clearly demonstrated that it is possible to sort defendants into categories that accurately reflect the risks they pose to the safety of the community and to appearance in court.2 During 2011, six Florida counties participated in a project to develop a multi-‐county pretrial risk assessment instrument. The six counties are: Alachua, Manatee, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pinellas, and Volusia. The purpose of the instrument is to support pretrial decision making as outlined in state statute. Details: Denver, CO: The JFA Institute, 2012? 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 10, 2012 at: http://www.pretrial.org/Setting%20Bail%20Documents/FL%20Pretrial%20Risk%20Assessment%20Report%20(2012).pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/Setting%20Bail%20Documents/FL%20Pretrial%20Risk%20Assessment%20Report%20(2012).pdf Shelf Number: 124918 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment (Florida) |
Author: Pretrial Justice Institute Title: The Colorado Pretrial Assessment Tool (CPAT) Summary: The Colorado Improving Supervised Pretrial Release (CISPR) project is an ongoing 12-county initiative1 to develop research-based policies and practices for the criminal justice professionals who have a role in pretrial decision-making and case processing. The first phase of the project involved the development of the Colorado Pretrial Assessment Tool (CPAT), an empirically validated pretrial risk assessment instrument for use in any Colorado jurisdiction. This report describes this phase of the project and presents the new tool. The second phase will include the development of research-based protocols that match defendants’ pretrial risk profiles to bond conditions and/or supervision techniques that are most likely to reduce that risk. Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2012. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 10, 2012 at: http://pretrial.org/Setting%20Bail%20Documents/CO%20Pretrial%20Assessment%20Tool%20Report%20(PJI%202012).pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://pretrial.org/Setting%20Bail%20Documents/CO%20Pretrial%20Assessment%20Tool%20Report%20(PJI%202012).pdf Shelf Number: 124919 Keywords: BailPretrial Release (Colorado)Risk Assessment |
Author: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, Pretrial Executives Network Title: Measuring What Matters: Outcome and Performance Measures for the Pretrial Services Field Summary: This monograph presents recommended outcome and performance measures and mission-critical data for pretrial service programs. It is hoped that these suggested measures will enable pretrial service agencies to gauge more accurately their programs’ effectiveness in meeting agency and justice system goals. The contributors to this monograph believe the recommended elements are definable and measurable for most pretrial service programs and are consistent with established national pretrial release standards and the mission and goals of individual pretrial programs. The monograph defines each measure and critical data element and identifies the data needed to track them. It also includes recommendations for programs to develop ambitious but reasonable target measures. Finally, the monograph’s appendix lists examples of outcome and performance measures from three nationally representative pretrial service programs. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2011. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2012 at: http://www.pretrial.org/PerformanceMeasuresDocuments/Measuring%20What%20Matters.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/PerformanceMeasuresDocuments/Measuring%20What%20Matters.pdf Shelf Number: 125666 Keywords: BailPretrial ReleasePretrial Services (U.S.) |
Author: Airs, Jennifer Title: Electronically Monitored Curfew as a Condition of Bail – Report of the Pilot Summary: The presumption of innocence is central to our criminal justice system and is reflected in the statutory right to bail enjoyed by unconvicted defendants. However, there is also a need to ensure i) that any criminal proceedings progress swiftly and without interference; and ii) that the public is protected from any danger posed by the defendant awaiting trial. These two factors need to be weighed in the balance by the police and the courts who determine whether a defendant is released or detained. The police must make this decision whenever they charge a suspect and if they decide to release him/her on bail they may attach conditions to ensure that the suspect does not present a bail risk. If they decide to detain the suspect they must bring him/her swiftly to court, usually within 24 hours. The court must then, and at each stage of proceedings thereafter, decide whether the defendant should be remanded on bail or in custody. As with the police, the court may decide to attach conditions to bail. This study looks at electronically monitored curfew (bail curfew) as an alternative to court remand in custody. It built on an earlier study in 1989 and 1990 (Mair and Nee 1990) where there were severe problems with equipment. The new pilot ran at two sites, Manchester and Norwich, between April 1998 and August 1999. A sample of 9,000 remand decisions (affecting 5,200 defendants) was collected from Manchester City and Norwich magistrates’ courts to provide a snapshot of remand in the courts at the heart of the study. Various characteristics of defendants receiving the main types of remand (in custody, conditional bail, and unconditional bail) were identified to provide a yardstick for bail curfew. These characteristics were used to measure the likeness/unlikeness of defendants granted bail curfew with other groups of defendants. We collected information from courts and the electronic monitoring contractors. We also interviewed many representatives of criminal justice agencies, 24 offenders and 31 members of their families. In all, 198 bail curfews were made on 173 individuals. Very few women were curfewed. Most men curfewed were aged between 17 and 35. Take-up was lower than planned: partly because the measure was not used by all magistrates and judges in the pilot areas, and partly because there were comparatively few defendants who could meet the residence requirements and be considered sufficiently trustworthy to be released from custody. New violation procedures were developed to ensure that early action was taken against defendants who broke or violated their curfew in some way (for example, by damaging the equipment or by being absent during the curfew period). Two-thirds of defendants violated their curfews: 95 had lesser violations recorded (these were typically a few minutes absence at the start of the curfew period) and these did not trigger breach action. Forty-two defendants had breach action taken against them: in all 24 were remanded in custody. We know that three defendants had serious violations recorded against them but were not reported for breach action and that a further seven were arrested by the police on suspicion of re-offending. A total of 11 defendants absconded. In all, 142 defendants completed their bail curfew – some after being breached and having their bail curfew continued. A number of problems arose during the period of the study, many of them because of lack of interagency communication. It is clear from some of the problems that have arisen that it has not been easy for criminal justice agencies to apply or administer this new measure. We also found inequalities in use by magistrates and judges: including variable application and use of the measure, and treatment of breach. The police were concerned that defendants, who would otherwise have been in custodial remand, were again within police jurisdiction. They were also concerned that they had no right of access to a defendant’s home when a curfew violation was reported. Other criminal justice agencies had concerns about the potential for domestic violence not being identified during the limited curfew assessment produced for the remand decision – we found no evidence of domestic violence although there were reports of aggression. Electronic monitoring contractors had concerns about retrieving equipment from defendants after the bail curfew ceased. The bail curfew was generally popular with defendants and their families (until they found themselves sentenced to custody and regretted losing the remission that custodial remand would have attracted). The role of women was found to be crucial to the successful operation of many of the bail curfews. It is clear from comments made during interviews that many women made personal sacrifices for the family as a unit and there would have been fewer successful bail curfews, particularly for young defendants, if women had not done so. There were reports of aggression and increased tension within families, although some reported improved relationships. There were some problems with the equipment although these were less severe than those of the first bail pilot. An alternative to custody? There was no consistent evidence that a bail curfew provided a true alternative to custodial remand. There were strong indications that it had been used in place of custodial remand for some defendants, but there were equally clear indications that bail curfew had been used as an additional bail condition for others. After weighing up the evidence we concluded that bail curfew had been used as a true alternative for over half those curfewed under the trial. Costs Costs of the new measure will depend on how widely it is used. Estimates based on the use made of it in Manchester and Norwich provided a base to calculate likely take-up in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. The calculations for bail curfews are based on a fixed price per curfew since curfew orders are currently charged at a fixed rate regardless of their length. We have compared the cost of bail curfew with the cost of remand in custody, taking into account the likelihood of a longer period on bail curfew than in custody, and the lack of remission for any sentence from bail curfew. Overall we estimate that savings to the prison population will be outweighed by the cost of adding electronically monitored bail to the list of conditions available to courts. Assuming that only half the estimated number of electronically monitored bail orders made were for defendants who would otherwise be remanded in custody (about 2,500 at magistrates’ courts and about 100 at the Crown Court), and the remaining 2,500 from magistrates’ courts and 100 at the Crown Court would otherwise have been granted conditional bail the cost of a national roll-out (to England and Wales) would be £1.53 million. We also estimate that if this measure were used only for defendants who would otherwise be remanded in custody, then the saving from a lower unsentenced prison population would outweigh the cost of bail curfew orders. These figures are volatile and do not included full costs of breach action because not all the information needed was available. Conclusions We concluded that: Low use of the measure might be due, at least in part, to a small target population because few defendants have the type of accommodation needed for the equipment, or because of the nature of the alleged offence, or because of the defendants’ previous record. Bail curfew had been used as a true alternative to custodial remand for at least half those curfewed although there was some evidence of net widening with bail curfew being used as an additional bail condition for some defendants. Bail curfew worked as an alternative to custodial remand. Although some defendants absconded, this was a lower proportion (6%) than recorded as absconding from conditional bail in available national and local statistics. National statistics show 12 per cent of bailed defendants abscond from magistrates’ court and nine per cent from Crown Court. Breach action was not correctly taken in all cases. This was partly due to poor differentiation between bail curfew and curfew as a sentence by the contractors. Good procedures were developed by all agencies for the trial but were found to fall short in some areas because of staff turnover, insufficient training, overlooked or forgotten procedures, and unforeseen circumstances. There are three options for bail curfew: to extend the pilot (which has now finished), to roll-out nationally, or to do nothing. Details: London: Home Office, 2000. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2012 at: http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/homisc/occ-bail.pdf Year: 2000 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/homisc/occ-bail.pdf Shelf Number: 125693 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration125693BailElectronic Monitoring (U.K.) |
Author: Aungst, Sharon, ed. Title: Pretrial Detention & Community Supervision: Best Practices and Resources for California Counties Summary: California Forward launched the Partnership for Community Excellence (Partnership) in December 2011 to assist counties to envision, design and implement their own strategies to effectively implement new responsibilities related to the adult criminal justice Realignment under Assembly Bill 109 and related legislation. The Partnership’s goal is to provide actionable information to local leaders and agencies so they can make smart decisions in building capacity, choosing evidence-based programs, and measuring and improving results. Realignment also creates an opportunity for counties to examine new governance models that will help them achieve better outcomes in other areas of local government. Good governance is centered on collaborative planning, using models and services shown to work, and measuring and improving results. Given the diversity of California, these good governance practices can be expected to result in different strategies. There is no “one right way,” yet government must be accountable to Californians for results. Adopting effective governance models will assist counties to improve transparency, accountability and results. Public leaders need accurate and up-to-date information in order to make good decisions and drive system change. Effective pretrial practices are important to the success of Realignment and improving public safety, given that 71 percent of jail beds currently are occupied by pretrial detainees. Making pretrial release decisions based on a detainee’s risk and needs, versus their ability to post bail, is key to improving public safety and offender outcomes. The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of best practices and practical information to assist county leaders in determining how pretrial programs could assist their local jurisdiction. The report includes the following: • Summary of national pretrial best practices; • Summary of five California counties’ experiences in effectively implementing pretrial programs; • Suggestions related to offender tracking and data collection and analysis; • Issues for consideration in implementing a pretrial program; and, • Resources including technical assistance available to counties. Details: Sacramento: Partnership for Community Excellence, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 11, 2012 at: http://caforward.3cdn.net/7a60c47c7329a4abd7_2am6iyh9s.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://caforward.3cdn.net/7a60c47c7329a4abd7_2am6iyh9s.pdf Shelf Number: 126675 Keywords: BailCommunity SupervisionPretrial Detention (California)Risk Assessment |
Author: Bechtel, Kristin Title: Dispelling the Myths: What Policy Makers Need to Know About Pretrial Research Summary: The for-profit bail bonding industry has relied upon several recent studies to make the claim that commercial surety bonds are the most effective type of pretrial release. This paper provides an overview of those studies and explains why they cannot be used for this purpose because they do not answer questions about the effectiveness of any one type of pretrial release over that of others. This paper also cautions policy makers when the for-profit bail bonding industry presents them with these studies, and concludes that researchers should engage in objective and methodologically sound research that informs cost-effective and evidence-based pretrial public policy. Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2012. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 12, 2012 at http://www.pretrial.org/Reports/PJI%20Reports/Dispelling%20the%20Myths%20%28November%202012%29.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/Reports/PJI%20Reports/Dispelling%20the%20Myths%20%28November%202012%29.pdf Shelf Number: 126919 Keywords: BailCommercial BondsCost-Benefit AnalysisCriminal Justice PolicyPretrial Release |
Author: Pretrial Justice Institute Title: Using Technology to Enhance Pretrial Services: Current Applications and Future Possibilities Summary: The first pretrial services programs came into existence 50 years ago. The technological tools available to pretrial services staff of that period, and for many years thereafter, were a pen or pencil, paper and index cards, a land-line telephone, and a typewriter. With these tools, pretrial services staff performed their tasks of interviewing defendants, verifying information, checking criminal records, preparing reports for the court, supervising conditions of release imposed by the court, and reminding defendants of upcoming court dates. Today, the pace of technological change is transforming the way pretrial services work is done. And that pace is accelerating at an exponential rate. Computing power has been doubling every 18 months, telecommunications capacity every 34 months, and electronic information storage capacity every 40 months. One author has calculated that, when measured against the 20th Century’s rate of progress, we will experience an astonishing 20,000 years of progress in technological growth in the 21st Century. To what extent are pretrial services programs making use of current technologies? How might the avalanche of technological developments projected to come our way in the next couple of decades aid the work of these programs? This document seeks to explore those questions. It begins with a review of technology to manage information and track program performance. The second section addresses each of the functions of pretrial services programs (e.g., interviewing defendants, verification, and record checks) and describes how technologies can be used to help programs in performing these functions. The third section explores factors that affect the implementation of new technologies, including the maturity of the technology at the time of implementation, the level of staff training required to use the technology, any philosophical issues that should be addressed prior to implementation, and costs. The fourth section discusses how technology affects the diffusion of knowledge about effective pretrial practices. Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2012. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed December 1, 2012 at: http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/PJI%20USING%20TECHNOLOGY%20TO%20ENHANCE%20PRETRIAL%20SERVICES%20(2012).pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/PJI%20USING%20TECHNOLOGY%20TO%20ENHANCE%20PRETRIAL%20SERVICES%20(2012).pdf Shelf Number: 127042 Keywords: BailPretrial ReleasePretrial Services (U.S.)Technology |
Author: Krahl, David E. Title: An Analysis of the Financial Impact of Surety Bonding on Aggregate and Average Detention Costs and Cost Savings in the State of Florida for 2008 by a Single Florida Insurance Company: A Follow-Up Study to Earlier Research Summary: In the twenty-first century world and in light of a sub-optimally performing economy, counties and local governments are attempting to find cost-effective and financially pragmatic ways to contain costs. The edict of "doing more with less" has been the perpetual mantra of local and county government officials when seeking to provide government services without increasing the size or the costs of the bureaucratic infrastructure. This has been particularly true when it comes to the issue of jail overcrowding, and the question of how to reduce the costs of jail operations. Today's jails are filled with defendants who are awaiting trial, those who are awaiting sentencing or who are actually serving sentences, those who are awaiting transportation to state prison facilities, illegal immigrants who have been apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and those who are detained to civil commitment orders. One pragmatic and workable solution to the problem of jail overcrowding and that oftentimes is routinely ignored by government officials is the use of surety bonding as a way to effectuate the pretrial release of those defendants who are awaiting trial. To say the least, the use of surety bonding has a rich tradition in the United States. One of the distinct advantages of surety bonding is that it functions as cost-effective mechanism to provide for the pretrial release of defendants at an absolute zero-cost to taxpayers. Because the surety bonding industry operates in the private sector, surety bonding is a strategy that does not increase either the size of the government's bureaucracy or the expense of its operation. Government-funded pretrial release programs are unable to make either of these claims; nor can they substantiate the cost-efficiency of their performance through the use of empirical data. This research is a follow-up study to one conducted last year which documents the cost-savings associated with surety bonding as a pretrial release mechanism for one surety bonding company in the state of Florida. This study also discusses the implications of these findings relative to the operation of the process of pretrial release. It also calls for more extensive research to further address the problems posed by government-sponsored pretrial release programs in terms of burgeoning costs to taxpayers and increasing the size of government infrastructure. Details: Tampa, Florida: Department of Criminology, University of Tampa, 2009. 65p. Source: Library Resource: Accessible at Don M. Gottfredson Library of Criminal Justice. Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 127260 Keywords: BailBail BondsmenCorrectional OperationsCorrections (Florida)Costs of Criminal Justice (Florida)Jail OvercrowdingPretrial Release |
Author: Trude, Adeline Title: The Liberty Deficit: Long-term detention & bail decision-making A study of immigration bail hearings in the First Tier Tribunal Summary: Over 5 months in 2011-12 and with the assistance of pro bono counsel and trained observers from The Law School at City University , BID carried out observations and detailed analysis of 80 immigration bail hearings. In half of these cases the applicant's case was prepared by BID as their legal representative, and they had the benefit of pro bono counsel. The other cases were brought by detainees preparing their application and representing themselves. The research sought to examine whether the immigration bail system serves the needs of the long term detainees who form the majority of BID’s clients. We take ‘long-term’ in this report to mean continuous administrative detention of a period of 6 months or more, in line with the guidance to First Tier judges on bail (2012) which states: “The senior courts have been reluctant to specify a period of time after which the length of detention will be deemed excessive and as a result that bail should be granted. Each case turns on its own facts and must be decided in light of its particular circumstances. However, it is generally accepted that detention for three months would be considered a substantial period of time and six months a long period. Imperative considerations of public safety may be necessary to justify detention in excess of six months” (HMCTS, 2012: para 19) Our research suggests that the First Tier Tribunal Immigration & Asylum Chamber is not equipped to deal with matters of criminal risk and release, which have come increasingly to the fore since the foreign national prisoner scandal and the introduction of ‘automatic’ deportation. There is an overwhelming failure on the part of the UK Border Agency to substantiate assertions made before the Tribunal in relation to the risk of re-offending, serious harm, or absconding, matched by a failure of the Tribunal to seek this evidence from the Border Agency. The amount of time made available by the Tribunals Service for barristers to take instructions, for the hearings themselves, and for comprehensive interpretation has not responded to the increasing number of detainees with complex and lengthy immigration histories. We believe that the First Tier Tribunal IAC is not using its powers sufficiently to ensure that detention does not become unnecessarily prolonged; for example to adjourn with directions to parties to avoid the need for a further bail application. Details: London: Bail for Immigration Detainees, 2012. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2013 at: http://www.biduk.org/817/news/new-bid-research-report-on-bail-decision-making-and-longterm-detention-the-liberty-deficit-longterm-detention-and-bail-decisionmaking.html Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.biduk.org/817/news/new-bid-research-report-on-bail-decision-making-and-longterm-detention-the-liberty-deficit-longterm-detention-and-bail-decisionmaking.html Shelf Number: 128491 Keywords: BailIllegal Immigrants (U.K.)Immigrant DetentionImmigration |
Author: Oakley, Sharon Title: Working Against the Clock : Inadequacy and injustice in the fast track system. Based on research by Bail for Immigration Detainees at Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre in March 2006 Summary: Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) is an independent charity that aims to improve access to bail for all immigration detainees, to ensure that detention is subject to regular, independent, automatic review, and to end arbitrary detention in the United Kingdom. BID opposes the increasing use of detention in the UK. Where detention is to be used, BID calls for changes to bring the UK into line with human rights standards so that individuals are protected from arbitrary and prolonged detention by effective and accessible legal safeguards. Appeals for help from immigration detainees provided the primary incentive for this research. In the months preceding this study, BID was contacted by hundreds of men and women detained at Harmondsworth and Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs) while their cases were ‘fast-tracked’ under the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Fast Track Procedure) Rules 2005. An increasing number of these immigration detainees were appealing to BID for help and complaining about the inadequacies and injustices of the fast track system. Working against the clock is a unique research project commissioned by BID and carried out largely by volunteers. It is the first piece of research to present a focused analysis of the fast track system at Harmondsworth IRC, based upon court observation and interviews with detainees and legal representatives. The Government carried out an evaluation of the pilot phase of the fast track procedure at Harmondsworth IRC in September 2003. The results of the evaluation were not made available to the public, but BID was able to obtain a copy of the evaluation by filing a Freedom of Information (FOI) disclosure request. Unfortunately, a significant amount of the report was blacked out, rendering the contents of the report obscure and its findings largely unfathomable.1 Working against the clock presents an analysis of the fast track system, using a small sample of cases to illustrate a range of issues, whilst providing a forum for the voices of immigration detainees and their legal representatives. The findings set out in this report present deplorable inadequacies and injustices in the fast track process. The concluding recommendations to the Immigration Service, Legal Services Commission, Immigration Judges, legal representatives, the public and detainees represent a powerful call for radical changes to this system. Details: London: Bail for Immigration Detainees, 2006. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2013 at: www.biduk.org Year: 2006 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 128496 Keywords: BailIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention (U.K.)Immigration |
Author: Cutler, Sarah Title: “Refusal Factory”: Women’s experiences of the Detained Fast Track asylum process at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre Summary: This report by BID is a very welcome piece of research giving testimony to the experiences of many hundreds of women who are subject to the Home Office Super Fast Tracking procedure. Many of these women’s voices would otherwise go unheard, silenced in this country as they have often been in their own countries. The UK has committed to a “fair, fast and firm” asylum policy, however the detention and fast tracking of women has serious implications for the equity of the asylum process.As shown in the report many women are denied access to quality legal representation from within detention centres. Women are frequently denied access to appropriate health care. Medical and psychological consequences of grave human rights violations often remain undetected and many women fear to disclose histories of sexual assault and rape from within detention. All of the above impact upon the judiciousness of the asylum process. As such the quality of initial decision making will inevitably be influenced, as indeed will the ability of decision makers to make a judicious decision in the absence of a full and carefully prepared account of events. Amnesty International has already identified serious problems with the quality of initial decision making (Amnesty International, 2004) and there is a wealth of research pointing towards delayed disclosures in the aftermath of sexual violence (Henry, N.M. 2005 Disclosure, sexual violence and international jurisprudence.University of Melbourne). The dangers of the DFT system highlighted in this report are in line with The Helen Bamber Foundation’s own experience of working with women who have been through the DFT.Many of the women with whom we are currently working, following arduous legal wrangles to release them from the DFT process, are survivors of horrific human rights violations, including rape, torture, sex trafficking, gender specific violence, genocide and war related violence.Their experiences of the DFT have often been experienced as a continuation of abuses already endured in the form of a denial of respect for their humanity. In our experience, disclosure is inhibited by the detention environment, access to essential healthcare services is patchy and women’s health complaints frequently go undiagnosed. In particular, symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder often remain undetected and women’s mental health frequently deteriorates in the detention environment. Women seeking asylum have endured multiple bereavements and separations. Within detention any relationships established are likely to be severed, either by deportation or release. As such, women who remain for long periods in detention find it very difficult to form and maintain relationships for fear that any sense of camaraderie will abruptly come to an end. Furthermore the deprivation of liberty of innocent people runs against the fundamental principle of our rule of law. The UK has a responsibility to protect survivors of torture and we call upon the government to take this responsibility seriously. Effective border control should not detract from this responsibility. This report should make essential reading for government policy makers, Home Office decision makers,members of the judiciary and the voting public. Details: London: Bail for Immigration Detainees, 2007. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2013 at: Year: 2007 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 128497 Keywords: BailIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention (U.K.)Immigration |
Author: Council for Court Excellence. D.C. Misdemeanor Arrest & Pretrial Release Project Title: Clarifying the Post-Arrest Process in the District of Columbia: Report, Recommendations and Proposed Legislation. Summary: Post-arrest release is an often overlooked, yet important, facet of the DC criminal justice system. In 2012 alone there were almost 17,000 persons arrested that availed themselves of the array of post-arrest release options. The evolution of the District’s post-arrest release process has been largely rooted in custom and practice with the unintended result being confusion by the public and, at times, even criminal justice practitioners – attorneys and police officers alike – as to how the system works, which crimes are eligible for which types of release, and how current and prior criminal history and other factors may affect post-arrest release options. The CCE report recommends that: The Council for the District of Columbia should consider adoption of proposed legislation to update and clarify the post-arrest process and related criteria; and The Metropolitan Police Department should adopt the proposed “plain English” description of post-arrest options and conditions on MPD's Notice to Arrested Persons, with translations into other languages as necessary. It is worth noting that DC is one of the few jurisdictions in the country that has a post-arrest release process that embodies the principle that arrested persons, so long as they do not pose a danger to the community or a flight risk, should be released from custody on their own recognizance. The post-arrest process is largely based on the least restrictive options available to arrested persons, rather than being based on the amount of money they are able to post. The report is, for the most part, based on the consensus of the DC Misdemeanor Arrest and Pretrial Release Project Subcommittee - a diverse committee of those who are involved in the post-arrest process in DC. CCE thanks the Subcommittee for its efforts and excellent work! The Subcommittee is chaired by Clifford Keenan, a Board Director of the Council for Court Excellence, and includes CCE Board Directors Cary Feldman, Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell LLP; Mark Flanagan, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP; Richard Gilbert, Law Offices of Richard K. Gilbert; Michael Hays, Dow Lohnes PLLC; and Earl Silbert, DLA Piper. Representatives of DC criminal justice agencies on the Subcommittee are: Daniel Cipullo, Tenisha Jiggetts and Kiger Sigh, the DC Superior Court; Patricia Riley and Renata Cooper, United States Attorney’s Office for DC; Laura Hankins, the DC Public Defender Service; Kelly O’Meara, the DC Metropolitan Police Department; and David Rosenthal DC Office of the Attorney General. Details: District of Columbia, US: Council for Court Excellence, 2013. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2013 at: http://www.courtexcellence.org/uploads/publications/CCE_Post_Arrest_Report_and_Legislative_ProposalFINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtexcellence.org/uploads/publications/CCE_Post_Arrest_Report_and_Legislative_ProposalFINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 128877 Keywords: BailPost-Arrest Release (District of Columbia, U.S.)Pretrial Release |
Author: Hickert, Audrey O. Title: Pretrial Release Risk Study, Validation, & Scoring: Final Report Summary: The objective of this study was to validate the PRI being piloted by Salt Lake County to determine which items are significantly related to pretrial risk (as measured by FTA and recidivism). The study measures construct validity, whether the tool measures the concept it was intended to measure, new arrests during the pretrial period and failures to appear (FTA), and identifies cut-points for low, medium, and high risk offenders. These findings will be used to create a tool that will be used at the Salt Lake County jail to help inform release decisions. Details: Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2013. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2013 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/PretrialRisk_UpdatedFinalReport_v052013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/PretrialRisk_UpdatedFinalReport_v052013.pdf Shelf Number: 129526 Keywords: BailJail InmatesPretrial Release (Utah)Risk Assessment |
Author: Jones, Michael R. Title: Unsecured Bonds: The As Effective and Most Efficient Pretrial Release Option Summary: For the first time ever, a study compares pretrial release outcomes by money bond type, controlling for the statistical risk level of defendants released pretrial. PJI compared unsecured bonds (no money upfront, but a promise to pay the full amount if one fails to appear) with secured bonds (whether cash or surety, one must pay upfront in order to be released) in 1,919 cases in Colorado. Some key findings include: - Unsecured bonds are as effective at achieving public safety as secured bonds. - Unsecured bonds are as effective at achieving court appearance as secured bonds. - Higher dollar amounts of secured bonds are associated with more pretrial jail bed use but not increased court appearance rates. - Unsecured bonds use far fewer jail beds than do secured bonds because more releasable defendants leave jail (94% unsecured versus 61% secured), and leave sooner. - Unsecured bonds are as effective as secured bonds at preventing defendants who fail to appear in court from remaining at-large on a warrant. Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2013. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2013 at: Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Unsecured%20Bonds,%20The%20As%20Effective%20and%20Most%20Efficient%20Pretrial%20Release%20Option%20-%20Jones%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 131403 Keywords: BailPretrial ReleaseSecured Bonds |
Author: Lowenkamp, Christopher T. Title: Investigating the Impact of Pretrial Detention on Sentencing Outcomes Summary: In the criminal justice system, the time between arrest and case disposition is known as the pretrial stage. Each time a person is arrested and accused of a crime, a decision must be made as to whether the accused person, known as the defendant, will be detained in jail awaiting trial or will be released back into the community. But pretrial detention is not simply an either-or proposition; many defendants are held for a number of days before being released at some point before their trial. The release-and-detention decision takes into account a number of different concerns, including protecting the community, the need for defendants to appear in court, and upholding the legal and constitutional rights afforded to accused persons awaiting trial. It carries enormous consequences not only for the defendant but also for the safety of the community. Little is known about the impact of pretrial detention on sentencing outcomes. The limited research indicates that pretrial detention is related to the type and length of sentence received. While little is known about the impact of pretrial detention on felony sentence length, even less is known about the impact on the sentencing of misdemeanants. Data on 153,407 defendants booked into a jail in Kentucky between July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010, were used to answer one broad research objective: Investigate the relationship between pretrial detention and sentencing. Depending on the associated research question, subsamples of cases were drawn from this larger dataset of 153,407 defendants. Multivariate models were generated that controlled for relevant factors including risk level, supervision status, offense type, offense level, time at risk in the community, demographics, and other factors. Two critical findings related to the impact of pretrial detention were revealed. 1. Pretrial Detention and Sentence to Jail and Prison - Defendants who are detained for the entire pretrial period are much more likely to be sentenced to jail and prison. Low-risk defendants who are detained for the entire pretrial period are 5.41 times more likely to be sentenced to jail and 3.76 times more likely to be sentenced to prison when compared to low-risk defendants who are released at some point before trial or case disposition. Moderate and high-risk defendants who are detained for the entire pretrial period are approximately 3 times more likely to be incarcerated than similar defendants who are released at some point. 2. Pretrial Detention and Length of Sentence to Jail and Prison - Defendants who are detained for the entire pretrial period receive longer jail and prison sentences. While the effects for all risk levels are substantial and significant, the largest effects are seen for low-risk defendants. Details: Houston, TX: Laura and John Arnold Foundation, 2013. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2013 at: http://arnoldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/pdf/LJAF_Report_state-sentencing_FNL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://arnoldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/pdf/LJAF_Report_state-sentencing_FNL.pdf Shelf Number: 131700 Keywords: BailPretrial Detention (Kentucky)Sentencing |
Author: New Jersey Commission of Investigation Title: Inside Out: Questionable and Abusive Practices in New Jersey's Bail-Bond Industry Summary: Bail is a central element of the criminal justice system. Enshrined as a constitutional right, it is intended to strike a balance between shielding criminal defendants from excessive pretrial detention while simultaneously holding them accountable to attend required court proceedings. The accused may gain release by posting cash and/or property directly with the court or by paying a percentage of the total bail for a surety bond through a licensed commercial bail-bond agency. Much is at stake in maintaining the integrity of a properly functioning bail process, including public safety, the credibility of law enforcement and judicial institutions and the appropriate administration of justice. Against that backdrop, the State Commission of Investigation examined the bail-bond system in New Jersey and found it highly prone to subversion by unscrupulous and improper practices that make a mockery of the public trust. Operating in the shadows of poor government oversight, the system is dominated by an amalgam of private entrepreneurs who profit from the process but are subject to weak controls easily manipulated or ignored with little or no consequence. The Commission found instances in which bail-bond agencies are operated by unlicensed individuals, some with extensive criminal records. These include former agents who forfeited bail licenses or registrations for engaging in illegal or improper activity but returned to the business using various subterfuges. In some cases, these unlicensed agents have been operating in the industry for years, continuing to engage in the same abuses that led to their expulsion in the first place. The investigation also revealed that bail agents, seeking an edge on their competitors, often make arrangements that have the practical effect of circumventing and undercutting court-imposed bail set by judges. Out of view of the court, some agents routinely cut deals that enable clients to get out of jail for the cash equivalent of as little as 1 percent or less of the total bail - a down payment substantially below the standard bond "premium" of 10 percent. The remaining premium balance is then owed by installment over time with no effective guarantee that it will ever be paid. This means that a criminal defendant held on $50,000 bail for a serious offense can gain immediate release for as little as a few hundred dollars, far less than the standard premium of $5,000. Beyond subverting judicial intent - and doing so with no transparency - these arrangements put dangerous offenders back on the street for minimal cash and make it nearly impossible for prosecutors to verify the true source of the bail funds. Perhaps most disturbing is that bail agencies have come to rely heavily on accused criminals in the form of county jail inmates to drum up business and gain customers - a practice that, strikingly, is not a crime here as in other states. Indeed, the Commission found that in New Jersey it is quite common - and has been for years in some instances - for bail-bond agents to recruit prisoners as freelance subcontractors acting at their behest and to offer cash and other incentives to those who steer new clients to them. These arrangements, sometimes initiated via flyers mailed directly to inmates, are maintained through the jail telephone system with agents openly striking deals with those who agree to serve as "runners" behind bars. This occurs even though it is a regulatory violation for non-licensed individuals to solicit bail and despite the fact that both parties to such conversations are on notice that their phone traffic may be monitored and recorded by jail authorities. Commission investigators reviewed scores of such recordings obtained from 14 county jails - more than half of all county correctional facilities in the State - and found clear evidence of this practice virtually across the entire sample spectrum. This investigation, in part, was an outgrowth of the Commission's examination of the impact on New Jersey's state prison system of the burgeoning population of inmates linked to organized criminal street gangs. The findings in that matter included widespread evidence that gang-affiliated and other inmates have found ways to exploit various state prison operating systems, including the prison phone system, in order to communicate and deal with criminal cohorts on the outside. In one such ploy, known as a "three-way call," an inmate places a call to one individual, who then surreptitiously forwards the call or otherwise connects the inmate to one or more other parties whose phone numbers and identities remain hidden. The county jail system is vulnerable to similar abuse because three-way calls are a key element of the rewards package offered by bail agents to inmates who do their bidding. Exacerbating these questionable and improper business practices and outright abuses is a diminished and archaic government regulatory apparatus that treats New Jersey's bail system like a bureaucratic afterthought. Even though bail is an inextricable component of the criminal justice system, regulation of bail-bond agencies, agent licensing and other aspects of the business is housed within the state Department of Banking and Insurance (DOBI). This is so because elements of the insurance industry underwrite the risk and financial exposure assumed by bail agents when they issue bonds, thus accepting responsibility for the full amount of bail if a client absconds. Oversight of bail, however, has long been a lower-tier priority at DOBI, and few resources are devoted to it. Apart from lax oversight, there is little in the way of effective deterrence against unscrupulous activity because the laws and regulations that govern the bail-bond process are weak, and violations carry minimal penalties. Furthermore, the Commission found instances in which fines imposed by DOBI against violators went uncollected. The Commission also found that New Jersey's counties collectively are failing every year to capture tens of millions of dollars in forfeited bails they are legally entitled and empowered to recover after defendants fail to appear for required judicial proceedings. Despite guidelines issued by the Office of the Attorney General a decade ago to tighten procedures and improve the recovery rate, bail forfeitures typically are negotiated and settled for pennies on the dollar. In 2004 and, again, in 2007, the Office of the State Auditor noted persistent inconsistency in the use and application of these forfeiture guidelines, resulting in significant and widespread recovery-rate disparities among the various counties. Such disparities prevail to this day. Details: Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Commission of Investigation, 2014. 82p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2014 at: http://www.nj.gov/sci/pdf/BailReportSmall.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.nj.gov/sci/pdf/BailReportSmall.pdf Shelf Number: 132596 Keywords: BailPretrial Detention |
Author: Maryland. Commission to Reform Maryland's Pretrial System Title: Commission to Reform Maryland's Pretrial System: Final Report Summary: The Governor's Commission to Reform Maryland's Pretrial System ("the Commission") was established by Executive Order on May 27, 2014 to gather experts and interested parties, with the goal of developing recommendations to ensure that Maryland operates the best possible statewide pretrial system. The Commission was preceded by the Task Force to Study the Laws and Policies Relating to Representation of Indigent Criminal Defendants by the Public Defender. The work of the Commission was also informed by legislative deliberations during the 2014 Session of the Maryland General Assembly. On July 1, 2014, the State of Maryland began to implement a Court of Appeals decision that requires state-furnished counsel for indigent defendants at initial appearances before a District Court Commissioner. The Commission studied characteristics of the current pretrial system, including outcomes associated with the provision of counsel at the initial appearance phase. The Commission met five times and also formed three subcommittees related to Managing Public Safety through Risk-Based Decision Making, Pretrial System Improvement, and Individual Rights and Collateral Consequences. These three subcommittees held five additional meetings. The Commission ultimately voted to approve the following 14 recommendations: - Recommendation One: Create a uniform pretrial services agency which mandates a process that will ensure continuity and consistency across all 24 jurisdictions. Pretrial services will be responsible for gathering criminal records, administering a statewide risk assessment tool and other relevant information that will be beneficial in determining the initial appearance and to avoid the redundancy of various agencies pulling the same information. Pretrial services will also be responsible for supervision of those released under pretrial supervision and provide referrals for treatment, counseling and other services, particularly for those individuals with limited means, to address the underlying needs that may have caused the criminal behavior. - Recommendation Two: Provide adequate funding and/or personnel to implement a validated risk assessment tool modeled after best practices to pilot in jurisdictions to be utilized by the Court Commissioners after the data has been analyzed. - Recommendation Three: The Judiciary should evaluate the current pretrial system to determine whether it has the capacity to implement best practices in pretrial justice. This evaluation should consider the re-purposing of District Court Commissioners from their current duties to conducting risk assessments on defendants and supervising defendants pretrial. - Recommendation Four: The use of secured, financial conditions of pretrial release (cash, property, or surety bond) that require a low-risk defendant to pay some amount of money in order to obtain release, while permitting high-risk defendants with the resources to pay their bonds to leave jail unsupervised, be completely eliminated. - Recommendation Five: Cash bail, and its associated impact, should be monitored by the Maryland Insurance Administration to determine if changes need to be developed and implemented including a comparison between secured and unsecured bond. - Recommendation Six: The Commission recommends that under no circumstances should we institutionalize the Judicial Branch of Government as the line manager of what amounts to the Lawyer-Referral Service Program for Attorneys to represent indigent criminally accused in their First Appearance before a Commissioner. The Office of the Public Defender was created by statute to represent indigent criminally accused. It is an Executive Branch Agency of State Government and should have that responsibility from the initial appearance through appeals. - Recommendation Seven: The Commission recommends earlier and enhanced prosecutorial screening, particularly of citizens' complaints, by way of Maryland rule, prior to the issuance of a summons or warrant, except for domestically related crimes. - Recommendation Eight: Maximize and expand the use of the criminal citation process by law enforcement. - Recommendation Nine: Create a system so that only one entity in the pretrial process has to pull and summarize the arrestee's record, consistent with and in accordance with state and federal law and the independent needs of the system in order to operate efficiently. - Recommendation Ten: Provide state funding to create a shared jail management system, possibly through the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services' Offender Case Management System (OCMS), to allow for data collection on the pretrial population statewide. - Recommendation Eleven: It is recommended that funding be provided for court and public safety-designated facilities to be outfitted with audio/visual equipment to optimize court hearing efficiencies. - Recommendation Twelve: That whatever pretrial system is contemplated, the critical principle of prompt presentment no later than 24 hours of arrest remain. - Recommendation Thirteen: Data are needed in order to effectively determine impact of process and procedures on various demographics (race, gender, non-English speaking, and indigence defined as eligibility for representation by the Office of the Public Defender or appointed attorney). Additionally, timeliness factors such as rates of waiver to arrests and time between arrest and presentment, by jurisdiction, should be compared and measured. - Recommendation Fourteen: A Commission to Study the Maryland Criminal Justice System shall be created. The purpose of the Commission shall be to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of state and local criminal justice systems by providing a centralized and impartial forum for statewide policy development and planning with a focus on evidence-based decision making. The primary duty of the Commission shall be to develop and maintain a state criminal justice policy and comprehensive, long-range plan for a coordinated and cost-effective state criminal justice system that encompasses public safety, defendant and offender accountability, crime reduction and prevention, and defendant and offender treatment and rehabilitation. Details: Baltimore: The Commission, 2014. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2015 at: http://www.goccp.maryland.gov/pretrial/documents/2014-pretrial-commission-final-report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.goccp.maryland.gov/pretrial/documents/2014-pretrial-commission-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 134944 Keywords: BailCriminal Justice PolicyPretrial Detention (Maryland)Pretrial ReleasePretrial ServicesRisk Assessment |
Author: Trapp, Don Title: Pretrial Analysis for Middlesex County, Massachusetts Technical Assistance Report and Addendum Summary: This report summarizes the primary findings and recommendations from a pretrial analysis for Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Peter Koutoujian, Sheriff of Middlesex County acted on behalf of multiple justice system stakeholders in the county to request technical assistance to receive an analysis of the pretrial jail population, trend analysis and related practices. The purpose of which is to examine the possible causes of increasing numbers of pretrial defendants remaining in custody, leading to overcrowding and subsequent jail cap releases. The assistance will also include discussions with all system stakeholders so as to incorporate input and information about these issues, and will facilitate the development of clear, measurable, and attainable objectives regarding the ongoing management of this population. Details: Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, Community Corrections Division, 2014. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 15, 2015 at: http://www.middlesexsheriff.org/Press%20Releases/May15/NIC%20-%20MSO%20Pretrial%20Analysis.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.middlesexsheriff.org/Press%20Releases/May15/NIC%20-%20MSO%20Pretrial%20Analysis.pdf Shelf Number: 136040 Keywords: BailPretrial Detention |
Author: Weatherburn, Don Title: The impact of the NSW Bail Act (2013) on trends in bail and remand in New South Wales Summary: Aim: To consider trends in bail and remand prior to and immediately following the implementation of the Bail Act (2013) on 20 May 2014 and the 'show cause' amendments on 28 January 2015. Method: Descriptive analysis of trends in police use of Bail CANs, police bail refusal, court bail refusal and the remand population. Results: The NSW Bail Act (2013) and the 'show cause' amendments subsequently made to it have not increased the police or court bail refusal rate above the level that prevailed in the two years prior to the introduction of the Act. This is despite the bail refusal rate for persons charged with 'show cause' offences being very high. It is not known whether the 'show cause' amendments have increased the likelihood of bail refusal for offences to which they apply or whether persons charged with these offences were always highly likely to be refused bail. The level of agreement between police and courts in relation to bail refusal has increased. Following the introduction of the NSW Bail Act 2013, there was a sharp transient fall in the percentage of defendants refused bail by police and courts. The police bail refusal rate is now around two percentage points lower than it was in 2012 and 2013. The court bail refusal rate has returned to the level that prevailed in 2012 and 2013. The remand population is much higher now than it was prior to the introduction of the NSW Bail Act (2013). The bail reforms at this stage appear to have made little if any contribution to this increase. Instead, it would appear to be due to two factors: (a) a sharp increase in January 2015 in the number of bail breaches that resulted in bail refusal (not the proportion) and (b) an increase in the total number of people with court proceedings commenced against them between December 2014 and March 2015. Conclusion: The NSW Bail Act (2013) (as amended) does not appear at this stage to have increased the percentage of persons refused bail or the size of the remand population. Further monitoring and analysis will be necessary to confirm this. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Research and Crime Statistics, 2015. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Paper No. 106: Accessed August 19, 2015 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/BB/Report_2015_Bail_and_Remand_bb106.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/BB/Report_2015_Bail_and_Remand_bb106.pdf Shelf Number: 136453 Keywords: BailPretrial JusticePretrial ReleaseRemand |
Author: Western Australia. Office of the Auditor General Title: Management of Adults on Bail Summary: This report assessed the effectiveness of the administration and management of adults on bail. It focused on whether bail management results in benefits being maximised and risks to the community minimised. Bail maintains the presumption of innocence by allowing persons arrested and charged with an offence to stay in the community and continue with their lives while they wait for their Court hearing. Bail also reduces the pressure and cost on the State prison system. A 2005 'Observational Study of Bail Decision Making' by Edith Cowan University commented that bail can allow a defendant to: - keep their job, home and stay in contact with people who can support them - reintegrate back into the community once released from prison - be protected from the negative impacts of remand which can influence them to commit more serious offences. The granting of bail is made on the understanding that the defendant will appear at their Court hearing. Bail conditions can be imposed to give greater assurance that the defendant will return to Court or to address concerns about the safety of the community whilst the defendant is on bail. In Western Australia, any arrested person has the right to have bail considered. The bail process starts upon arrest (Figure 1 on page 6). Following an arrest, Police decide whether to release the defendant on bail while they wait for their Court hearing. If denied bail, the defendant stays in Police custody until the initial Court hearing, usually within 24 hours. Regardless of whether they are released on bail or held in custody, the defendant must appear at the initial Court hearing. The Magistrate or Judge then makes a decision on whether to release the defendant on bail while they wait for their next Court hearing and the need for any bail conditions. In 2014, nearly 81 000 bail decisions were made by the Western Australia Police (Police) and the Courts of which just over 43 000 people were granted bail (15 630 by the Police). Around 38 000 people were denied bail because of a significant risk that they might not attend Court or because of a high safety risk to the community. Some bail conditions must be confirmed or met before a defendant will be released. For example, providing the address for where they will be living whilst on bail and provision of a surety. A surety is a person who agrees in writing to pay a specific amount of money if the accused fails to appear in Court. Some defendants find it difficult to meet these bail release conditions. The Department of Corrective Services (Corrective Services) employs a small number of Bail Coordinators to help defendants meet their bail conditions. Surety approval officers then assess if the surety conditions are met. If the bail conditions are not met, then the defendant is held in remand until their next Court hearing. Bail conditions can be protective or non-protective. Protective conditions can prohibit the defendant from contacting a specific person or approaching them at places where they work or live. Non-protective conditions, such as drug analysis, providing an address or surety aim to ensure that defendants are more likely to return to Court and less likely to reoffend. An important component of the bail process is the monitoring and enforcing of bail conditions. Police and Corrective Services are responsible for monitoring most bail conditions. Multiple bail periods for defendants and simultaneous court orders makes managing and enforcing bail a complex process. The Department of the Attorney General (DotAG) is responsible for the administration of the Bail Act 1982 (the Bail Act) and the collection of forfeited sureties and personal bail. In 2013, DotAG developed a software program called the Bail Module as a way of electronically recording all bail decisions and for sharing this information across all three agencies. DotAG is currently reviewing the Act. Details: Perth: Western Australia Auditor General, 2015. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Report 10: Accessed August 26, 2015 at: https://audit.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/report2015_10-Bail.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: https://audit.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/report2015_10-Bail.pdf Shelf Number: 136594 Keywords: BailPretrial Release |
Author: Jones, Alexander Title: Exploring the Potential for Pretrial Innovation in Massachusetts Summary: Reducing the number of inmates awaiting trial in jail through data-informed decision-making is one of the most promising innovations that Justice Reinvestment presents. Housing, feeding, and providing security for detainees is expensive, and there are also large collateral consequences. The defendant will likely lose their job, their housing, and perhaps even their children if a jail stay is required. While incarcerated awaiting trial, few detainees receive services they may urgently need to address underlying problems. Recognizing that resources can be better spent elsewhere, a number of states are moving aggressively to keep low-risk defendants out of jail. States in the lead on adopting new pretrial procedures have been able to reduce their jail populations because they were holding a large number of defendants who did not present a danger or flight risk; these detainees were simply too poor to afford bail. In addition to lowering jail populations, improvements to the pretrial process have the potential to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in incarceration. Research has shown that pretrial detention is harmful to mounting a defense, and that more low-income and minority defendants are forced to await trial in jail because they cannot post the money required for their release. While data limitations make it difficult to determine how many low-risk defendants are awaiting trial in Massachusetts jails, the growth of the state's pretrial population at a time when arrest rates are falling is an indicator that the pretrial process may be operating inefficiently. Between 2008 and 2013, the number of arrests in Massachusetts fell by 10 percent; in contrast, the state's pretrial jail population rose by nearly 13 percent. The disparity is even larger when contrasted with the drop in the number of defendants sentenced annually to serve terms in state prisons and county Houses of Correction, which has fallen by 22 percent since 2008. This policy brief provides a short primer on the pretrial process in Massachusetts, highlights critical issues that suggest there are opportunities to improve the system, and offers an action plan for pretrial innovation in Massachusetts. Details: Boston: Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://massinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/bail.brief_.3.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://massinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/bail.brief_.3.pdf Shelf Number: 136925 Keywords: BailJailsJustice ReinvestmentPretrial DetentionRisk Assessment |
Author: Utah Judicial Council. Pretrial Release Committee Title: Report to the Utah Judicial Council on Pretrial Release and Supervision Practices Summary: In fall 2014, the Judicial Council chose pretrial release practices and alternatives as its 2015 study item. A committee was formed and was charged with conducting a thorough assessment of existing pretrial release practices used in Utah's courts and determining if there are alternatives that should be considered. Specifically, the committee was asked to: (i) determine what constitutes "best practices" in the field of pretrial release; (ii) conduct an inventory of current practices and assess both their effectiveness and the extent to which they are consistent with best practices in this field; (iii) determine how best to improve the information needed by judges when making a release decision, including evaluating evidence-based assessment tools and instruments; (iv) review the statutory history of release and bail legislation; and, (v) evaluate pretrial release alternatives in terms of public protection, the integrity of the court process, the ability to guard against punishment prior to conviction, and cost implications or savings potential. The Council asked the committee to complete its work and report its findings at the November 2015 Council meeting. The Committee met monthly from March through October and heard from local and national experts on pretrial release issues. These included presentations from, among others, Professor Shima Baradaran of the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah, Rob Butters of the Utah Criminal Justice Center at the University of Utah, David Litvak and Pat Kimball from Salt Lake County Pretrial Services, national experts Timothy Schnacke, Executive Director of the Center on Legal and Evidence-Based Practices, and Michael R. Jones, Director of Implementation at the Pretrial Justice Institute, as well as committee members Brett Barrett, Deputy Insurance Commissioner at the Utah Department of Insurance, Judge James Brady of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Judge Brendan McCullagh of the West Valley City Justice Court, Brent Johnson, General Counsel for the Utah State Courts, and Gary Walton, owner of Beehive Bail Bonds. In addition to gathering data from court databases, the committee surveyed district and justice court judges and compiled data from county jails. The committee divided its work into three parts and formed subcommittees to address the following: (i) legal frameworks as they currently exist both nationally and locally and possible changes to local frameworks; (ii) monetary bail or financial conditions to pretrial release; and (iii) non-financial conditions to pretrial release. These subcommittees met between committee meetings to gather information and prepare recommendations. As part of this process, the committee conferred with representatives from Arizona and Colorado concerning pretrial reform efforts underway in those states, and with the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (Arnold Foundation), a non-profit foundation that has funded research and developed tools to improve pretrial release systems. Committee members also spent many hours researching their assigned topics and reviewing the substantial literature in this area. Although this report is intended to be comprehensive, due to the volume of research done, only a fraction of the information members gathered and considered is included in this report. Many of the materials cited in this report have been compiled in an electronic database, which will be made available upon request. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah State Courts, 2015. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2015 at: https://www.utcourts.gov/resources/reports/docs/Pretrial%20Release%20and%20Supervision%20Practices%20Final%20Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.utcourts.gov/resources/reports/docs/Pretrial%20Release%20and%20Supervision%20Practices%20Final%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 137355 Keywords: BailOffender SupervisionPretrial Release |
Author: Maine. Intergovernmental Pretrial Justice Reform Task Force Title: Report of the Intergovernmental Pretrial Justice Reform Task Force Summary: The intergovernmental task force was established to study and update, innovate and improve the criminal justice systems and procedures affecting pretrial incarceration and restrictions in Maine. Specifically, the Task Force was charged with presenting proposals for improvements to the leaders of the three branches of government in time to allow actions on the proposals during the Second Regular Session of the 127th Maine Legislature. Details: Bangor: Maine Courts, 2015. 127p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2016 at: http://www.courts.maine.gov/reports_pubs/reports/pdf/PTJRTF_report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.maine.gov/reports_pubs/reports/pdf/PTJRTF_report.pdf Shelf Number: 137661 Keywords: BailCriminal Justice Reform Pretrial Detention |
Author: Pierce-Danford, Kristy Title: Creating an Effective Pretrial Program: A Toolkit for Practitioners Summary: These are times of significant change for county jails and justice systems. Public Safety Realignment, the 2011 law that shifted management of people convicted of certain nonviolent, non-serious, non-sex offenses from state prisons and parole to county jails and probation, has had a major impact. More individuals are being sentenced to county jail instead of state prison, including people who violate conditions of their parole. Some county jails face limited capacity or strained resources. Combined with ongoing county budget challenges, more than ever, local leaders need effective strategies to safely manage their justice populations and reduce costs at the same time. On average, more than 60 percent of those in local jails in California are awaiting trial. They are being detained "pretrial" while their case goes through criminal proceedings. There are models of pretrial diversion and supervision programs that can effectively manage these individuals in a community setting. Reducing the number of pretrial detainees in jails or the length of their stay can conserve considerable resources and allow the jail to meet other public safety needs. In a post-Realignment California, assessing pretrial program options is both an opportunity and a necessity. Fortunately, pretrial program models have evolved considerably in recent decades, and there is evidence to show that they can be more successful than the money bail system at ensuring public safety and court appearance. There are many evidence-based options available to communities seeking to implement or strengthen pretrial programs. There is not one "correct" model for pretrial programs, and they can be successfully administered through the courts, probation departments, sheriff departments, county administration, independent agencies or any combination of these. Many counties are now exploring such programs, asking critical questions about whom among those awaiting trial needs to be in jail and who can be managed successfully in the community. This toolkit offers guidance to county officials on how to develop and operate these programs at the local level, building upon available literature on effective pretrial policies and practices. Specifically, officials will find: - Key information about the legal framework and national standards for pretrial programs; - How to implement a pretrial risk assessment; - Pretrial diversion and supervision advice; - How to assess your current system; and - Recommendations on using data to measure and enhance pretrial programs. Details: Oakland, CA: Californians for Safety and Justice, 2013. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 23, 2016 at: http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/211/9f/a/223/CSJ_pretrial_toolkit.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/211/9f/a/223/CSJ_pretrial_toolkit.pdf Shelf Number: 137944 Keywords: BailJailsPretrial DetentionPretrial DiversionPretrial InterventionsPretrial ReleasePretrial SupervisionRisk Assessment |
Author: Bechtel, Kristin Title: A Meta-Analytic Review of Pretrial Research: Risk Assessment, Bond Type, and Interventions Summary: This study makes an attempt to aggregate, via meta-analysis, what we currently know about pretrial decision making and jurisdictions' responses to the pretrial population. This meta-analysis began with an exhaustive search for pretrial research which may have revealed the most prominent finding - that being a distinct lack of research that utilizes any amount of methodological rigor. We identified a large number of studies that met our most general criteria (i.e., research about pretrial decision making) but mainly dealt with legal and/or philosophical issues regarding pretrial detention and due process. Studies that utilized empirical data and strong methodological designs were distinctly lacking. Of the studies that could be included, effect sizes were generated that may show some promise for court notification programs, pretrial supervision practices, and the potential effect of restrictive bond schedules. However, strong conclusions cannot be made as the quality of the pretrial research, overall, is weak at best. The findings of this study hold several policy implications for the field of pretrial research and practice. First, future research studies in the field of pretrial need to focus on methodological quality and rigor. Second, it appears that some conditions of release may be related to a defendant's likelihood of failure to appear. Third, it appears that none of the conditions of release reviewed in this study are related to a defendant's likelihood of re-arrest while on pretrial release. Finally, it is recommended that the field of pretrial develop a sound research agenda and execute that plan with rigor, transparency, and an approach that favors the continued cumulation of knowledge. Details: Unpublished Paper, 2016. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2741635 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2741635 Shelf Number: 134249 Keywords: BailDecision-MakingPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Council of Economic Advisors Title: Fines, Fees, and Bail: Payments in the Criminal Justice System That Disproportionately Impact the Poor Summary: Much of public discussion about the need for criminal justice system reform has focused on the dramatic growth in the size of the incarcerated population, as the number of Americans behind bars is now approximately 2.2 million. At the same time, concerns are growing about the expanding use of monetary penalties, which disproportionately impact poor defendants and offenders. Crime imposes real costs on society in terms of both the harm done to victims and in resources that must be allocated to policing, prosecution and incarceration. Increases in criminal justice spending have put a strain on local criminal justice budgets and led to the broader use of fine penalties and itemized criminal justice fees in an effort to support budgets. However, this practice places large burdens on poor offenders who are unable to pay criminal justice debts and, because many offenders assigned monetary penalties fall into this category, has largely been ineffective in raising revenues. Similarly, the growing use of fixed bail bonds as a condition for pretrial release has contributed to growth in jail populations, and often results in localities detaining the poorest rather than the most dangerous defendants. In this brief, we examine three common types of monetary payments in the criminal justice system: - Fines are monetary punishments for infractions, misdemeanors or felonies. Fines are intended to deter crime, punish offenders, and compensate victims for losses. - Fees are itemized payments for court activities, supervision, or incarceration charged to defendants determined guilty of infractions, misdemeanors or felonies. Fee collections are intended to support operational costs in the criminal justice system and may also be used to compensate victims for losses. Fees may also have a punitive and deterrent purpose, but are not designed to cater to specific offense categories. - Bail is a bond payment for a defendant's release from jail prior to court proceedings, and the majority of a bail payment is returned to a defendant after case disposition. Bail payments are intended to incentivize defendants to appear at court and, in some cases, to reduce the criminal risk of returning a defendant to the community. Details: Washington, DC: Council of Economic Advisors, 2015. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Brief: Accessed April 5, 2016 at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/1215_cea_fine_fee_bail_issue_brief.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/1215_cea_fine_fee_bail_issue_brief.pdf Shelf Number: 138562 Keywords: BailBail BondCourt FeesFinesPretrial Detention |
Author: Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts Title: Pretrial Reform in Kentucky Summary: Kentucky Pretrial Services was created in 1976 as part of the Bail Bond Reform Act when commercial bail bonding for profit was abolished. Pretrial Services is a statewide agency housed under Kentucky's Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), the operations arm for Kentucky's judicial branch, also known as the Court of Justice. Kentucky courts are a unified, four-tiered system consisting of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Court and District Court. District Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and handles misdemeanors, violations, traffic offenses, city and county ordinances, felony probable cause hearings, juvenile matters, and a variety of civil cases. Circuit Court is a court of general jurisdiction and hears felony and capital offenses, appeals from District Court, and various other civil matters. The Supreme Court is the state court of last resort and the final interpreter of Kentucky law. Court unification means that all courts operate under the same administrative rule, while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as the administrative head of the entire court system. Pretrial Services has 294 employees divided into forty-nine (49) local program districts, including a Central Office, which includes the Chief Operating Officer, the Manager, eight (8) Regional Supervisors, a Project Specialist and support staff. Local programs consist of a Program Supervisor and frontline Pretrial Officers. Louisville, Lexington and the Northern Kentucky district also employ an Urban Supervisor. Many rural districts cover multiple counties, and thereby multiple courts, and sometimes, multiple jails. Pretrial Services operates in all 120 Kentucky counties and provides services seven days a week and 24 hours a day. Per court rule, pretrial officers are mandated to conduct an interview and investigation of all persons arrested on bailable offenses within 24 hours of his or her arrest, although many jurisdictions strive to provide their services within 12 hours of the defendant's initial incarceration. The interviews and investigations are voluntary and confidential, and are conducted in person at the local, incarcerating jail. As a part of the interview and investigation process, officers also screen defendants for alcohol, drug abuse, and mental health issues. Pretrial officers then verify the information provided by the defendant during the interview, conduct a thorough criminal history check and utilize a validated risk assessment that measures flight risk and anticipated criminal conduct. This information is used to make appropriate recommendations to the court regarding pretrial release. The risk assessment classifies defendants as low, moderate or high risk. Pretrial officers present the findings and make recommendations for release to their local district or circuit court judge - or in some rural areas, a specially appointed Trial Commissioner - who make the actual release decision. Details: Frankfort, KY: Administrative Office of the Courts, 2013. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 7, 2016 at: http://www.apainc.org/wp-content/uploads/Pretrial-Reform-in-Kentucky-Implementation-Guide-Final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.apainc.org/wp-content/uploads/Pretrial-Reform-in-Kentucky-Implementation-Guide-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 138600 Keywords: BailPretrial ReleasePretrial ServicesPretrial Supervision |
Author: Solomon, Freda F. Title: Community Supervision as a Money Bail Alternative: The Impact of CJA's Manhattan Supervised Release Program On Legal Outcomes and Pretrial Misconduct Summary: The New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA), Inc., is a non-profit organization, working under a contract with the City of New York to provide pretrial services to defendants prosecuted in the City's Criminal Court system. The Agency's primary mission is to reduce unnecessary pretrial detention in New York City. As part of that mission, CJA has advocated for community supervision as an alternative to money bail for defendants posing a medium risk of failure to appear (FTA) if released on unsupervised personal recognizance. CJA created a pilot program after extensive consultation with, and the support of, the New York City Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator (since renamed the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice). The program was designed to offer judges at Criminal Court arraignment the option of supervised release as a bail alternative in selected non-violent felony cases with a high likelihood of having bail set. In August 2009, CJA introduced its first Supervised Release (SR) program in the Queens Criminal Court. Based on the success of that program, the City contracted with CJA to develop a similar three-year demonstration project in the New York County (Manhattan) Criminal Court, which was implemented in April 2013. Owing to the success of the CJA programs the City, through the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice, developed a proposal to introduce a more expansive program of pretrial release under supervision citywide. In March 2016, CJA's program was replaced in Manhattan by this new City initiative. CJA's Manhattan Supervised Release (MSR) program, like its Queens counterpart, offered judges a pretrial community-based supervision program as an alternative to setting bail at the Criminal Court arraignment in cases arraigned on selected non-violent felony charges. In Manhattan, these have been felony charges involving drug, property, or fraud/theft crimes, plus a comparatively small number of other types of non-Violent Felony Offense (VFO) crimes (e.g., D-felony robbery). Cases involving domestic violence, or where the defendant was scheduled for a hospital arraignment, were excluded even if charge eligible. Beyond the charge criteria, the program had additional restrictions used to screen potentially eligible cases and defendants that could be actively pursued by program staff. These included a review of adult criminal conviction histories, factors affecting risk of pretrial failure to appear (FTA) based on criteria used in CJA's release recommendation system, and supplemental criminal history information. Program court staff also was required to collect and verify community ties information necessary to maintain contact with defendants if released to the program. This has been an essential program component for ensuring that clients released under supervision in lieu of bail and pretrial detention would appear at all regularly scheduled court dates and comply with program requirements. In this research study we analyze case processing and court outcomes, and investigate the pretrial misconduct - failure to appear and in-program re-arrests - of MSR clients. We also examine the jail displacement effect of community supervision as an alternative to money bail and pretrial detention. In order to assess the potential impact of the MSR program on these activities, we create for comparison purposes a data set of felony cases arraigned in the downtown Manhattan Criminal Court during the first twenty-one months of the MSR program (April 2013 - December 2014) in which defendants appeared to be eligible for MSR, to the extent that could be determined, but were not screened by MSR court staff. Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 18, 2016 at: http://www.nycja.org/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nycja.org/ Shelf Number: 139073 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationBailCommunity SupervisionPretrial ReleaseSupervised Release |
Author: Rabuy, Bernadette Title: Detaining the Poor: How money bail perpetuates an endless cycle of poverty and jail time Summary: In addition to the 1.6 million people incarcerated in federal and state prisons, there are 646,000 people locked up in more than 3,000 local jails throughout the U.S. Seventy percent of these people in local jails are being held pretrial - meaning they have not yet been convicted of a crime and are legally presumed innocent. One reason that the unconvicted population in the U.S. is so large is because our country largely has a system of money bail, in which the constitutional principle of innocent until proven guilty only really applies to the well off. With money bail, a defendant is required to pay a certain amount of money as a pledged guarantee he will attend future court hearings.4 If he is unable to come up with the money either personally5 or through a commercial bail bondsman,6 he can be incarcerated from his arrest until his case is resolved or dismissed in court. Details: Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, 2016. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 10, 2016 at: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/DetainingThePoor.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/DetainingThePoor.pdf Shelf Number: 139359 Keywords: BailPovertyPretrial Detention |
Author: Fennell, Nathan Title: Risk, Not Resources. Improving the Pretrial Release Process in Texas Summary: Texas' resource-based bail system keeps low-risk individuals unnecessarily detained before trial and allows risky defendants to buy their freedom with limited oversight. This practice undermines public safety, disproportionately harms low-income defendants, and costs counties millions of dollars every year. By adopting pretrial reform in line with national standards, Texas can reduce its jail population while making communities safer. Details: Austin: Lyndon B. Johnson school of Public Affairs, 2016. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed July 19, 2016 at: http://lbj.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/file/Risk,%20Not%20Resources-%20Improving%20the%20Pretrial%20Release%20Process%20in%20Texas--FINAL.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://lbj.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/file/Risk,%20Not%20Resources-%20Improving%20the%20Pretrial%20Release%20Process%20in%20Texas--FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 139666 Keywords: BailPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Heaton, Paul Title: The Downstream Consequences of Misdemeanor Pretrial Detention Summary: In misdemeanor cases, pretrial detention poses a particular problem because it may induce otherwise innocent defendants to plead guilty in order to exit jail, potentially creating widespread error in case adjudication. While practitioners have long recognized this possibility, empirical evidence on the downstream impacts of pretrial detention on misdemeanor defendants and their cases remains limited. This Article uses detailed data on hundreds of thousands of misdemeanor cases resolved in Harris County, Texas - the third largest county in the U.S. - to measure the effects of pretrial detention on case outcomes and future crime. We find that detained defendants are 25% more likely than similarly situated releases to plead guilty, 43% more likely to be sentenced to jail, and receive jail sentences that are more than twice as long on average. Furthermore, those detained pretrial are more likely to commit future crime, suggesting that detention may have a criminogenic effect. These differences persist even after fully controlling for the initial bail amount as well as detailed offense, demographic, and criminal history characteristics. Use of more limited sets of controls, as in prior research, overstates the adverse impacts of detention. A quasi-experimental analysis based upon case timing confirms that these differences likely reflect the casual effect of detention. These results raise important constitutional questions, and suggest that Harris County could save millions of dollars a year, increase public safety, and reduce wrongful convictions with better pretrial release policy. Details: Philadelphia: Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice, 2016. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 22, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2809840 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2809840 Shelf Number: 139791 Keywords: BailGuilty PleasPretrial DetentionRecidivismWrongful Convictions |
Author: Danner, Mona J.E. Title: Risk-Based Pretrial Release Recommendation and Supervision Guidelines: Exploring the Effect on Officer Recommendations, Judicial Decision-Making, and Pretrial Outcome Summary: The Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI), known nationally as the "Virginia Model," was the first research-based statewide pretrial risk assessment in the country. The VPRAI examines eight risk factors that are weighted to create a risk score, and defendants are assigned to one of five risk levels ranging from low to high that represent the likelihood of pretrial failure. Although Pretrial Services staff consider the results of the VPRAI, there was previously no guidance for making pretrial release recommendations to the court or determining appropriate levels of pretrial supervision until the development of the Praxis. The Praxis is a decision grid that uses the VPRAI risk level and the charge category to determine the appropriate release type and level of supervision. Further, recent research indicates that the administration of evidence-based supervision techniques to pretrial defendants is associated with reductions in failure to appear and re-arrest. The Strategies for Effective Pretrial Supervision (STEPS) program was developed to shift the focus of typical staff/defendant interaction from conditions compliance to criminogenic needs and eliciting prosocial behavior. The current research project tested the use of both the Praxis release recommendation and supervision guidelines, and the STEPS evidence-based supervision techniques in an agency random assignment study. The research examined the effect of the Praxis on pretrial officer release recommendations, judicial release decisions, and pretrial supervision practices, and the effect of the Praxis and STEPS supervision techniques on pretrial outcomes" (p. 1). Seven research questions are organized into three research objectives: what the underlying assumptions of the Praxis are in relation to VPRAI and charge category; the impact of Praxis on pretrial officer release recommendations, judicial released decision, and differential pretrial supervision practices; and the influence of Praxis and evidence-based supervision techniques on pretrial outcomes (court appearance, public safety, and compliance with release conditions). Details: St Petersburg, FL: Luminosity, 2015. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2016 at: http://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Risk%20Based%20Pretrial%20Release%20Rec%20&%20Superv%20Guidelines%20-%20Danner,%20VanNostrand,%20&%20Spruance%202015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Risk%20Based%20Pretrial%20Release%20Rec%20&%20Superv%20Guidelines%20-%20Danner,%20VanNostrand,%20&%20Spruance%202015.pdf Shelf Number: 139855 Keywords: BailJudicial Decision-MakingPretrial ReleaseRisk-Assessment |
Author: Mayson, Sandra G. Title: Dangerous Defendants Summary: Bail reform is underway - but it is proceeding on shaky ground. The reform model, which deploys actuarial risk assessment to identify "high-risk" defendants, assumes that the state has the prerogative to detain or control dangerous defendants. This assumption is not new. But it is anomalous. In general, we do not permit the state to restrain sane, responsible adults solely to stop them from committing hypothetical future crimes, even those who are high-risk. The reform movement's focus on danger thus crystallizes a fundamental question about pretrial policy: What justifies the state in restraining defendants for dangerousness before trial if we would prohibit the same restraint for equally dangerous members of the public? Although there is an extensive literature on preventive detention, neither the Supreme Court nor prior scholarship has focused on this comparative question. This Article endeavors to answer it. It makes the first effort to articulate and evaluate potential justifications for subjecting defendants to restraint that we would forbid for non-defendants who pose an equal risk. The Article explores doctrinal, deontological and instrumentalist justifications, but ultimately rejects them. It contends that pretrial restraint for dangerousness can only be justified at the risk threshold where we would authorize equivalent restraint of a member of the population at large. Communities, policymakers and courts should therefore determine what they believe this threshold to be, then ensure that pretrial risk assessment and management are tailored to it. Details: Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, School of Law, 2016. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 16-30 : Accessed August 30, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2826600 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2826600 Shelf Number: 140086 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Dobbie, Will Title: The Effects of Pre-Trial Detention on Conviction, Future Crime, and Employment: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Judges Summary: Over 20 percent of prison and jail inmates in the United States are currently awaiting trial, but little is known about the impact of pre-trial detention on defendants. This paper uses the detention tendencies of quasi-randomly assigned bail judges to estimate the causal effects of pre-trial detention on subsequent defendant outcomes. Using data from administrative court and tax records, we find that being detained before trial significantly increases the probability of a conviction, primarily through an increase in guilty pleas. Pre-trial detention has no detectable effect on future crime, but decreases pre-trial crime and failures to appear in court. We also find suggestive evidence that pre-trial detention decreases formal sector employment and the receipt of employment- and tax-related government benefits. We argue that these results are consistent with (i) pre-trial detention weakening defendants' bargaining position during plea negotiations, and (ii) a criminal conviction lowering defendants' prospects in the formal labor market. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2016. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper 22511: Accessed August 30, 2016 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22511.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22511.pdf Shelf Number: 140093 Keywords: BailEx-Offender Employment Pretrial Detention |
Author: Thorburn, Hamish Title: A follow-up on the impact of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) on trends in bail Summary: Aim: To examine the effect of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) and subsequent 'show-cause' amendments on trends in the number and proportion of defendants being refused bail. Method: Descriptive analysis of the number of defendants, proportion of all defendants and proportion of 'bail eligible' defendants refused bail each month in all NSW courts between February 2011 and May 2016. Kendall's tau is used to test for significance in trends in the pre- and post-intervention periods (i.e. before and after the Bail Act reforms). Results: The number of defendants refused bail showed a significant increasing trend of 2.95 defendants per month (p < .01) for the pre-intervention period of February 2011 to May 2014, and a mean number of defendants of 1,042.57. The mean number of defendants rose to 1,264.19 defendants for the post-intervention period of January 2015 to May 2016. No significant trend was found for the post-intervention period (p =.06). The rise in mean post- intervention was higher than what would have been expected due to the increasing trend pre-intervention. The proportion of all defendants being refused bail showed no significant trend either pre- or post-intervention (p =.06 pre-intervention and p =.23 post-intervention). There was a slight difference in mean proportion between the two periods (.098 pre-intervention vs .108 post-intervention). However, it seems likely that this slight difference can be attributed to the very slight (although statistically insignificant) trend pre-intervention. Taking both periods together, there appears to be a very slight but significant increasing trend (p < .01) across the whole period, with a mean rise of .0002 per month. The proportion of 'bail eligible' defendants also showed a significant increasing trend pre-intervention by .001 per month (p <.01). However, the post-intervention proportion showed no significant trend (p = .84). The mean proportion per month increased from .276 to .326 between the pre- and post-intervention periods. Again, the increase in mean proportion between the two periods is higher than what would have been expected given the pre-intervention trend. Conclusion: The Bail Act 2013 (NSW) and subsequent amendments appeared to have an effect on the number and proportion of bail eligible defendants refused bail. However, they appear to have had little to no effect on the proportion of all defendants refused bail. This suggests that defendants who had previously been released on bail are now having bail dispensed with or bail refused. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2016. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue paper no. 116: Accessed September 27, 2016 at: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/bocsar_theimpactofthenswbailact2013ontrendsinbail_sep_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/bocsar_theimpactofthenswbailact2013ontrendsinbail_sep_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 146116 Keywords: BailPretrial JusticePretrial ReleaseRemand |
Author: College of Policing (U.K.) Title: Bail report. Pre-charge bail -- an exploratory study Summary: The College of Policing today released its study into pre-charge bail which looked at the reasons behind the length of bail required by police. It comes after the Government proposed legislation to limit bail, authorised by inspectors, to 28 days. The new legislation also recommends bail which is extended beyond 28 days should be authorised by a superintendent and cases where bail is extended for three months or more be agreed at magistrates' court. Police use pre-charge bail as a way for officers to question a suspect and then allow the individual to return to their normal routine while further investigations are carried out. The law also allows officers to attach conditions to bail which can protect complainants or witnesses, preserve evidence and mitigate the risk of further criminality. The legislation introduces the requirement for bail to be used only when it is necessary and proportionate - so many cases where bail is currently imposed will no longer meet the required standards and those suspects would be released unconditionally. The professional body for the police worked with nine forces over six months to gather evidence involving more than 17,000 cases. It found; The average length of time individuals spent on pre-charge bail, including extensions, was 53 days 41 per cent of all cases involving violence and sexual offences were bailed for more than 28 days Forensic analysis was one of the key drivers of long periods of pre-charge bail. The study found 60 per cent of cases involving suspects who were bailed for more than 90 days involved some form of forensic analysis Phone downloads was the most frequent type of forensic analysis given as a reason for bail Other reasons that were cited for longer periods of bail were the file being with the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision on charging and the need to obtain a professional witness statement, for example, from a medical practitioner. The study found the implications for imposing a 28 day limit could create some difficulties for officers and staff including; A significant proportion of cases that are likely to require conditions, such as violent and sex offences, are currently bailed for more than 28 days The majority of rape cases are currently bailed for more than 28 days A high proportion of cases where computer interrogation was cited as the reason for bail were sexual offences, with an average bail length of 84 days, which may be difficult to reduce A high proportion of cases where phone downloads were cited as the reason for bail were drug offences, for which the average number of days bailed was 71. Details: Ryton-on-Dunsmore, UK: College of Policing, 2016. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 7, 2016 at: http://www.college.police.uk/News/College-news/Pages/Pre-charge-bail-report.aspx Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.college.police.uk/News/College-news/Pages/Pre-charge-bail-report.aspx Shelf Number: 149202 Keywords: Alternatives to DetentionBailPolice Decision Making |
Author: Harvard Law School. Criminal Justice Policy Program Title: Moving Beyond Money: A Primer on Bail Reform Summary: Bail reform presents a historic challenge – and also an opportunity. Bail is historically a tool meant to allow courts to minimize the intrusion on a defendant's liberty while helping to assure appearance at trial. It is one mechanism available to administer the pretrial process. Yet in courtrooms around the country, judges use the blunt instrument of secured money bail to ensure that certain defendants are detained prior to their trial. Money bail prevents many indigent defendants from leaving jail while their cases are pending. In many jurisdictions, this has led to an indefensible state of affairs: too many people jailed unnecessarily, with their economic status often defining pretrial outcomes. Money bail is often imposed arbitrarily and can result in unjustified inequalities. When pretrial detention depends on whether someone can afford to pay a cash bond, two otherwise similar pretrial defendants will face vastly different outcomes based merely on their wealth. These disparities can have spiraling consequences since even short periods of pretrial detention can upend a person’s employment, housing, or child custody. Being jailed pretrial can also undercut a defendant’s ability to mount an effective defense. As these outcomes accumulate in individual cases, improper use of money bail can accelerate unnecessarily high rates of incarceration and deepen disparities based on wealth and race throughout the criminal justice system. Detaining unconvicted defendants because they lack the wealth to afford a cash bond also violates the Constitution. A recent wave of advocacy has created national momentum for fundamentally rethinking how pretrial decision-making operates. Litigation across the country has resulted in the bail systems of several jurisdictions being declared unconstitutional, destabilizing well-established practices and focusing the attention of policymakers on the problems resulting from money bail. Increasing media attention to the unjust consequences of money bail has intensified scrutiny of existing practice. All of this builds on sustained attention from experts and advocacy groups who have long called for fundamental reform of cash bail.3 As policymakers across the political spectrum seek to end the era of mass incarceration,4 reforming pretrial administration has emerged as a critical way to slow down the flow of people into the criminal justice system. This primer on bail reform seeks to guide policymakers and advocates in identifying reforms and tailoring those reforms to their jurisdiction. In this introductory section, it outlines the basic legal architecture of pretrial decision-making, including constitutional principles that structure how bail may operate. Section II describes some of the critical safeguards that should be in place in jurisdictions that maintain a role for money bail. Where money bail is part of a jurisdiction’s pretrial system, it must be incorporated into a framework that seeks to minimize pretrial detention, ensures that people are not detained because they are too poor to afford a cash bond amount, allows for individualized pretrial determinations, and effectively regulates the commercial bail bond industry. Section III addresses the legal and policy considerations relevant to eliminating the use of money bail. It describes leading reform strategies, highlights competing policy considerations implicated by these strategies, and elaborates constitutional principles that should guide policy reform. It focuses on a set of reforms that many advocates have advanced as a way to move to a “riskbased” system of pretrial decision-making. In particular, it focuses on three aspects of such a system: the expanded use of pretrial services agencies and the tools those agencies employ to supervise pretrial defendants in the community; actuarial risk assessment instruments, which provide judges with a quantitative model for forecasting the risk that particular defendants will fail to appear for trial or will commit a serious crime during the pretrial period; and the limited use of preventive detention. This primer does not prescribe a one-size-fits-all package of pretrial reforms. Indeed, some of the potential reforms raise knotty legal and policy questions. Answering those questions will require jurisdictions to assess local circumstances and needs and make fundamental judgments among competing policy values in order to craft appropriate policies. While this primer does not propose a uniform model of bail reform, it can guide advocates and policymakers through the considerations that should structure a reform strategy. It aims to help translate growing momentum for bail reform into on-the ground change by providing policymakers and advocates with guidance on what alternatives are available and how they might be implemented. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law School, 2016. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2016 at: http://cjpp.law.harvard.edu/assets/FINAL-Primer-on-Bail-Reform.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://cjpp.law.harvard.edu/assets/FINAL-Primer-on-Bail-Reform.pdf Shelf Number: 147310 Keywords: BailCriminal Justice ReformPretrial Detention |
Author: Tiry, Emily Title: Road Map to Pretrial Reforms: Profile Analysis of New Hampshire's Pretrial Defendant Population Summary: This report details an effort in New Hampshire to adopt evidence-based policy and practice for pretrial release decision-making. Many states have introduced changes to improve pretrial release decision-making in recent decades. As the first step toward implementing pretrial reforms in New Hampshire, the current study examines the characteristics of the pretrial defendant population, identifies data gaps and limitations, and presents a road map for developing a validated pretrial risk assessment tool. The population analysis findings suggest that the pretrial defendant population in New Hampshire is largely demographically homogenous across counties, but counties vary in their charging, bail-setting, and data collection practices. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2016. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: http://www.urban.org/research/publication/road-map-pretrial-reforms/view/full_report Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/research/publication/road-map-pretrial-reforms/view/full_report Shelf Number: 144886 Keywords: BailCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska Title: Unequal Justice: Bail and modern day debtors' prisons in Nebraska Summary: Over 30 years ago in Bearden v. Georgia, the United States Supreme Court issued a seminal ruling that to imprison someone because of their poverty and inability to pay a fine or restitution would be fundamentally unfair and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet today, courts across the United States and Nebraska routinely imprison people because of their inability to pay. This practice has been termed a "modern-day debtors' prison." This practice happens at various points in the criminal justice system. First, it can happen to people who are awaiting trial. Individuals are forced to sit in jail while their case proceeds because a bail amount has been set beyond their ability to pay while those with financial resources regain their freedom to go to work, school and be with their families while awaiting trial. Second, some people who have been adjudicated and found guilty end up in jail even though they were not sentenced to jail time because they are unable to pay a fine and are imprisoned instead to “"it it out." The end result of these systems: a maze with dead-ends at every turn for low-income people. In this report, the ACLU of Nebraska presents the results of its investigation into Nebraska's modern-day "debtors' prisons" and bail practices. The report shows how, day after day, low-income Nebraskans are imprisoned because they lack the ability to pay bail or pay fines and fees. These practices are illegal, create hardships for those who already struggle, and are not a wise use of public resources. Debtors' prisons result in an often fruitless effort to extract payments from people who may be experiencing homelessness, are unemployed, or lack the ability to pay. The ACLU of Nebraska investigated the imposition of bail as well as the imposition of court fees and fines. Our survey focused on the four largest counties (Douglas, Lancaster, Sarpy and Hall), using open records requests, court record review, and interviews with people involved in the system with additional in-court observations in Douglas, Lancaster and Sarpy Counties. Details: Lincoln, NE: ACLU of Nebraska, 2016. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 21, 2016 at: https://www.aclunebraska.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/unequal_justice_2016_12_13.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclunebraska.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/unequal_justice_2016_12_13.pdf Shelf Number: 147324 Keywords: BailCriminal FinesCriminal Justice DebtFinancial SanctionsPoverty |
Author: Henrichson, Christian Title: The Costs and Consequences of Bail, Fines and Fees in New Orleans Summary: The justice system in New Orleans, like most others, is partly supported by "user-funded revenue," meaning the money it collects from individuals charged with a crime. This practice has long been common in the United States, but an emerging body of research has begun to uncover the perverse incentives it creates for justice agencies and the depth of its impact on individuals. This report is an in-depth study of the costs and consequences of user-funded revenues in New Orleans, a city where the effects of this practice are likely to be particularly acute because of a poverty rate that is nearly twice the national average and a jail incarceration rate that is among the highest in the nation. Although there are steep challenges in New Orleans, there are also factors that bode well for reform. The jail population, while still nearly twice the national average, has been declining and is now the lowest it's been in decades. Furthermore, there are a number of new jail population reduction efforts— under the leadership of the mayor and city council—and a federal consent decree has led to an increased focus on improving conditions inside the jail. Data is often a prerequisite for reform. So to uncover the costs and consequences of the user-funded justice system in New Orleans, Vera researchers examined agency financial reports and justice-agency administrative records to measure (1) annual justice system expenses and user-pay revenue (namely financial bail and conviction fines and fees), (2) how much justice agencies and bond agents benefit from these revenues, (3) the financial impact of bail for defendants, (4) the financial impact of conviction fines and fees for defendants, and (5) the consequences of a user-funded system, including the human cost of jail and the disparate impact on black communities. Through analysis of 2015 financial reports and administrative court records, Vera found that: • Law enforcement, judicial, and corrections agency expenses totaled $265 million. • User-funded revenues totaled $11.5 million and comprised bond fees ($1.7 million), conviction fines and fees ($2.8 million), traffic court fines and fees ($5 million), and “other” sources that include asset seizures and drug testing fees ($1.9 million). • User-funded costs paid to commercial bond agents totaled $4.7 million for non-refundable bond premiums. • User-funded revenues comprise a sizable share of the budget for four agencies: traffic court (99 percent), municipal court (18 percent), criminal district court (32 percent), and Orleans Public Defenders (41 percent). • The cost of posting a surety bond averaged—inclusive of bond fees—$2,408 in criminal district court and $451 in municipal court. • 1,275 individuals, in criminal district court, spent an average of 114 pretrial days in jail because they could not pay their bail; 1,153 individuals, in municipal court, spent an average of 29 pretrial days in jail because they could not pay their bail. • More than 8,000 people were assessed conviction fines and fees totaling $3.8 million. o In criminal district court, 2,156 individuals were assessed a total of $2.4 million in fines and fees; o In municipal court, 6,175 individuals were assessed a total of $1.4 million. • Conviction fines and fees per individual averaged $1,125 in criminal district court and $228 in municipal court. • In 2015, municipal court issued 3,014 warrants for failing to pay (or failing to appear for payment) and criminal district court issued 990 warrants. Over those 12 months, 536 people were arrested on such warrants, all but 88 of them stemming from municipal court cases. (This includes people who were sentenced well before 2015 but were arrested in that year.) • The transfer of wealth that results from bail, fines and fees falls disproportionately on black communities: $5.4 million of the $6.4 million (84 percent) for bail premiums and fees and $2.7 million of the $3.8 million (69 percent) for conviction fines and fees were assessed to black defendants. • Once assessed fines and fees, black defendants were issued an arrest warrant in relation to unpaid fines and fees at higher rates than white defendants for both misdemeanor cases (43 percent versus 29 percent) and felony cases (18 percent versus 14 percent). Vera’s surveys and interviews with individuals previously involved in the New Orleans criminal justice system reveal that many relied on a number of people—including partners, parents, and children— to raise the money to pay the costs associated with justice system contact. And many still have trouble paying all their costs. This suggests that, for most respondents, raising the money for bail, fines and fees was a hardship that they either could not overcome, or one for which they had to rely on the resources of their community to meet. The total range of potential criminal justice costs goes far beyond those Vera analyzed through administrative records. So it is little surprise that more than half of survey respondents reported they and their family spent over $4,500 on costs associated with their most recent court case – including bail, fines, fees, transportation to court, attorney fees, and money put into their jail commissary account, among other expenses. The majority of people we surveyed reported that these costs had a major or moderate negative impact on their family's financial stability. Interviews with court-involved individuals and justice system stakeholders underscored the financially detrimental impact of user-funded costs on families, the stress of ongoing financial obligations to the justice system, the role of these criminal justice costs in exacerbating justice involvement, and the ways in which these costs damage perceptions of fairness and trust. The greatest cost, however, may be the human cost of jail (such as the risk of harm in jail and the deprivation of liberty) for those unable to bail, fines and fees, which Vera estimates to be substantially greater than the cost of jail to taxpayers. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2017. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 25, 2017 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans/legacy_downloads/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans-technical-report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans/legacy_downloads/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans-technical-report Shelf Number: 140663 Keywords: BailCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal FinesCriminal Justice DebtCriminal Justice SystemsFinancial SanctionsJails |
Author: Laisne, Mathilde Title: Past Due: Examining the Costs and Consequences of Charging for Justice in New Orleans Summary: Every year, government agencies in New Orleans collect millions of dollars in the form of bail, fines and fees from people involved in the criminal justice system and, by extension, from their families. Millions more are transferred from the pockets and bank accounts of residents to for-profit bail bond agents. These costs have become the subject of considerable public attention. Some view them as a necessary way to offset the expense of operating the criminal justice system. But because many "users" of the system have very low incomes or none at all, there is growing concern that charging for justice amounts to a criminalization of poverty, especially when people who can't pay become further entangled in the justice system. Take bail, for example: In theory, bail aims to ensure that people charged with crimes actually face justice in court, and high bail is intended to keep potentially dangerous defendants behind bars while their cases are pending. But here in New Orleans, as in many systems across the country, bail amounts are not calibrated to reflect a person’s ability to pay. As a result, poor families scrape together bail from money that they need to live on. And those who can't raise the money sit in jail not because they’re a risk of flight or a danger to the public, but simply because they can’t pay. Similarly, a host of fees for the use of the courts and other justice system resources, along with fines imposed as part of a person’s sentence if convicted, are levied in amounts that many poor and low-income people can't easily afford or afford at all. As part of a study to better understand the cost and consequences of bail, fines and fees for individuals in New Orleans, researchers at Vera interviewed people who have faced these costs. Two of their stories are illustrative. When Veronica was arrested and detained, her mother risked losing her house to raise the $2,500 to purchase a bail bond and pay associated government fees. It’s money she’ll never get back, but it was the only way to get her daughter out of jail after she had already spent 10 days behind bars. Keith, who is 61, still struggles to pay off thousands of dollars in court costs and restitution as a result of writing a bad check in 2014. He is making monthly payments that at times have deprived his family of basic necessities, including running water, and have strained his marriage almost to the breaking point. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2017. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 25, 2017 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans/legacy_downloads/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans/legacy_downloads/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans.pdf Shelf Number: 145425 Keywords: Bail Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Fines Criminal Justice Debt Criminal Justice SystemsFinancial Sanctions |
Author: Maryland. Office of the Public Defender Title: The High Cost of Bail: How Maryland's Reliance on Money Bail Jails the Poor and Costs the Community Millions Summary: In Maryland, District Court commissioners and judges routinely require defendants to post bail in order to be released before trial. In practice, this system jails the poor and allows the rich to go free. Multiple studies, in Maryland and across the United States, have demonstrated that the key factor in the incarceration of people awaiting trial is not the risk they pose to society, or their risk of failing to appear in court, but simply whether they have enough money to pay bail. Even more, studies show that the widespread use of "secured bail" which requires payment or security, such as a property title, posted directly to the court, or posting of corporate bond to obtain release - causes new crime, coerces convictions, and has little or no impact on defendants' return to court. Relying on these studies and legal analysis, the United States Department of Justice, former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, and the American Bar Association, among others, have all concluded that a pretrial detention system that jails people because they are too poor to pay bail is irrational and unconstitutional. Details: Baltimore: Maryland Office of the Public Defender, 2016. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2017 at: http://www.opd.state.md.us/Portals/0/Downloads/High%20Cost%20of%20Bail.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.opd.state.md.us/Portals/0/Downloads/High%20Cost%20of%20Bail.pdf Shelf Number: 150554 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: Open Society Foundations Title: Improving Pretrial Justice: The Roles of Lawyers and Paralegals Summary: On any given day, some three million people are held in pretrial detention around the world. Countless millions are unnecessarily arrested and detained by law enforcement agencies annually. Those in pretrial detention are often held in conditions and subject to treatment that is far worse than that experienced by sentenced prisoners. Pretrial detainees—who have not been tried or found guilty—can languish behind bars for years. Some detainees may literally be lost in the system. Early intervention by lawyers and paralegals can have a positive impact on pretrial justice in general and pretrial detention in particular. Examples from across the globe show that early intervention schemes can reduce the use of pretrial detention, improve the performance of criminal justice personnel, lead to more rational and effective decision-making, and increase accountability and respect for the rule of law. Lawyers and paralegals have a central role to play in advising, assisting, and representing individuals at the pretrial stage of the criminal process. Ensuring legal assistance is available at the earliest possible time allows for the most effective use of resources, as cases are dealt with at the front end of the criminal justice system. Helping to ensure that appropriate decisions regarding pretrial detention and release are made early on can reduce the use of pretrial detention. This does not just benefit the individual suspect: there are wider benefits for the administration of justice and the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system as a whole. Early intervention can play a key role in educating the public about their rights, and improving transparency, accountability, and confidence in the criminal justice system. International law requires the provision of state funding for legal advice and representation where this is in the interests of justice and the suspect or defendant does not have sufficient means to pay for it. Legal assistance at the early stages of the criminal process is not only an important right for individuals but, when effectively implemented, also produces significant benefits for criminal justice systems and for social integration: it can save money and resources, reduce the use of pretrial detention, encourage diversion from formal criminal justice processes, reduce torture and corruption, improve the functioning of the criminal justice system, and increase transparency and foster confidence in the rule of law. Fortunately, there are replicable models—from developed and developing countries alike—of effective early intervention schemes involving lawyers and paralegals. Recommendations for governments: • Make available sufficient resources to comply with international and national obligations for the provision of legal advice and assistance at the early stages of the criminal process, in particular for those who do not have sufficient means to pay for it. • Develop structures and mechanisms to make the right to legal advice and assistance practical and effective. In particular, establish a legal aid institution that is independent of government and responsible for making the right to legal advice and assistance practical and effective—particularly at the early stages of the criminal process. • Review and update existing laws and procedures concerning: the right to legal advice and assistance at the early stages of the criminal process; access by lawyers and paralegals to police stations, police interviews, and pretrial detention and prison facilities; the recording of police interviews of suspects and witnesses; representation by paralegals where appropriate; the circumstances in which a defendant should be entitled to pretrial release; maximum periods of detention in police custody and pretrial detention; the maximum length of criminal proceedings and maximum number of adjournments; diversion from formal criminal proceedings; and mechanisms for enforcing them. • Ensure that reliable statistical information is routinely collected on critical aspects of the criminal justice system, including: the number of and reasons for arrests, the numbers of people charged and the nature of the charges, the numbers of people in pretrial detention, the length of detention, and the number of people receiving legal advice and representation. Recommendations for legal aid management organizations, NGOs, and professional legal bodies: • Seek to ensure that governments implement the recommendations set out above. • Identify existing mechanisms and resources for providing legal advice and assistance to suspects and defendants, especially at the early stages of the criminal process, including at police stations. Work with existing stakeholders, including bar associations, NGOs, the judiciary, and other criminal justice personnel, to identify the interventions that are most needed and how they may best be provided. • Map existing and potential sources of funding for the provision of legal advice and assistance and seek to match them with schemes designed to have the greatest impact on pretrial detention and pretrial justice generally. • Recognize the range of functions that can be performed through lawyer and paralegal schemes, including: advice, assistance, and representation to individuals; education and training for suspects, defendants, prisoners, communities, and criminal justice personnel; reform of systems, processes, and criminal justice policies. Consider which functions are likely to be the most effective given the local context. • Consider establishing pilot schemes to test the most appropriate structures and mechanisms for providing legal advice and assistance, with a view to evaluating the costs and demonstrating the financial and other benefits. • Document and disseminate promising practices and information about the financial and other benefits of early intervention by lawyers and paralegals. Details: New York: Open Society Foundations, 2012. 109p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2017 at: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/16820/1/improving-pretrial-justice-20120416.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/16820/1/improving-pretrial-justice-20120416.pdf Shelf Number: 144945 Keywords: BailLegal AidPretrial DetentionPretrial InterventionPretrial ReleasePublic Defenders |
Author: Utah. Legislative Auditor General Title: A Performance Audit of Utah's Monetary Bail System Summary: This audit reviews the effectiveness of the two types of monetary bail commonly offered in Utah's district courts: cash bail and surety bond. Cash bail involves a payment to the courts that is refunded to the defendant if not convicted, or if convicted, could be forfeited and applied to court-related fees. Surety bond involves a non-refundable premium, typically 10 percent of the full bail amount, paid to a commercial surety (a.k.a. bail bond agency). Since the primary objectives of bail are to assure court appearance and community safety, this audit compares the effectiveness of the two monetary bail types in assuring court appearances. Court appearance data also led us to review evidence-based pretrial release practices that enhance community safety as well as the surety bond forfeiture process. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Office of the Legislative Auditor General, 2017. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 2017-01: Accessed February 21, 2017 at: https://university.pretrial.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=ce65ff35-ba9c-77fb-8922-b9417faecd6e Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://university.pretrial.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=ce65ff35-ba9c-77fb-8922-b9417faecd6e Shelf Number: 147376 Keywords: BailBail BondsPretrial Release |
Author: Willis, Matthew Title: Bail Support: A review of the literature Summary: This report presents the results of a literature review on bail support programs and services, commissioned by the Australian Capital Territory Justice and Community Safety Directorate as part of their Justice Reform Strategy. The literature review was conducted through a wide range of resources on criminological and other social services databases accessed through the services of Australian Institute of Criminology's JV Barry Library and through examination of government agency websites and generally available Internet resources. The literature search found information on a range of different support programs, including evaluations and reviews of some of those programs. Each Australian state and territory has at least one program or service available to support people on bail, either directly to allow the courts to grant bail or to provide treatment and other services during a defendant's time on bail. In some instances different types of programs have been merged, but overall bail support programs share substantial commonalities across Australia. They nonetheless vary in the range of services available, the extent and duration of those services, the degree to which services are provided directly by government agencies or provided through referral by non-government agencies. There are differences between Australian jurisdictions in the eligibility requirements for defendants to participate in the program, with some requiring that defendants have entered a guilty plea while this is not a consideration for others. In addition to the programs offered throughout Australia, the literature review included bail support and supervision responses in New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom. The program and service responses in those nations are generally similar to those in Australia, representing broadly comparable criminal justice systems and processes, and broadly comparable needs of offenders and defendants. The literature review also examined practices in a number of European countries, including Scandinavian countries. This aspect of the review showed that these countries take quite different approaches from Australia in the way they determine and effect the release or incarceration of accused persons. In Scandinavian countries bail is very rarely used. From the examination of bail support practices, and the evaluations and reviews that have been undertaken of various programs and services, a set of best practice principles for the implementation and operation of bail support programs was identified. These principles will apply both to programs targeting adults, and those targeting children and young people. However, there will be some differences in application of the principles, reflecting differences in legal considerations, responsibilities and needs between adult and youth clients. Best practice principles suggest that bail support programs should: be voluntary, ensuring that the client has at least some degree of motivation and willingness to engage with treatment and make changes to their life be timely and individualised, being available immediately upon bail being granted and able to respond to the accused person's immediate needs, even before they have left the court be holistic in nature, addressing the full range of the individual's criminogenic needs utilise collaborative arrangements and interagency approaches involving other government and non-government service providers adopt a strong and consistently applied program philosophy that manifests program-wide and at the level of individual case managers emphasise prioritise support before supervision, with treatment and responding to an individual's criminogenic needs being privileged over monitoring and supervision be localised and able to make use of local community resources and knowledge have a court-based staffing presence and establish good working relationships with court officers and service providers. Working relationships with court officials and the judiciary are important for establishing credibility and instilling judicial confidence be based on sound guidelines and processes that assist them to interface with the structured processes of the courts and the requirements of court orders while maintaining program integrity. The implementation of bail support programs also poses a number of challenges. Perhaps the foremost is the availability of suitable, affordable housing. This is critical to defendants being granted bail and being able to complete a bail program. Housing is also critical to longer term successful outcomes in terms of employment and maintaining a stable pro-social lifestyle. Housing availability is a challenge across all Australian jurisdictions and will remain an issue for bail support service providers. The establishment of bail hostels, as widely used in the UK, may present a way of increasing housing availability, although hostels raise a range of issues and have had little success in Australia. The availability and accessibility of treatment programs and other services is integral to the provision of bail support. Limited treatment places, particularly outside metropolitan areas, are a barrier to clients being able to successfully complete bail programs Despite these challenges, experience in Australia and overseas shows that government agencies are able to deliver effective bail support services to a wide range of people coming before the courts. Bail support services have been demonstrated to contribute to reduced remand populations, reduced reoffending among participants and improved sentencing and long term outcomes for accused persons and for the criminal justice system. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2015. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 6, 2017 at: http://cdn.justice.act.gov.au/resources/uploads/JACS/PDF/Bail_support_literature_review_v02_1.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://cdn.justice.act.gov.au/resources/uploads/JACS/PDF/Bail_support_literature_review_v02_1.pdf Shelf Number: 141350 Keywords: BailPretrial JusticeRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Schnacke, Timothy R. Title: "Model" Bail Laws: Re-Drawing the Line Between Pretrial Release and Detention Summary: This paper is designed to help persons craft and justify language articulating who should be released and who should be eligible for detention in a purposeful in-or-out pretrial system through a study of the history of bail, the fundamental legal principles, the pretrial research, and the national standards on pretrial release and detention. It does so, in Part I, by providing the answers to a series of questions that every jurisdiction should be asking before embarking on the task of re-drawing the line between pretrial release and detention. These questions, based on the fundamentals of bail, range from elementary (i.e., "What is bail?") to somewhat complicated (i.e., "How has America traditionally defined 'flight' and how did it struggle with both unintentional and intentional detention for noncapital defendants?") to very practical (i.e., "Can we use the results of actuarial pretrial risk assessment instruments when determining our detention eligibility net?"). In Part II, the paper begins to answer the question, "If we change, to what do we change?" It then introduces three analyses that should be used to assess any proposed model for re-drawing the line between release and detention. In Part III, the paper proposes a "model" process - this author's attempt at purposefully re-drawing the line between release and detention - based on the history, the law, the pretrial research, and the national standards on release and detention, and then, in Part IV, the paper holds the proposed model up to the three analyses. In Part V, the paper operationalizes the concepts from the proposed model into sample templates designed to illustrate how a jurisdiction might phrase certain crucial elements contained in the model. And finally, once this re-drawing of the line between release and detention is done, Part VI of the paper articulates notions that should be a part of any state bail legal scheme in order to make the model provision work. The proposed model can be accepted or rejected by American jurisdictions. Nevertheless, any different model should be subjected to either the same or a more rigorous justification process as is provided in this paper. This paper is likely useful to all persons seeking answers to questions surrounding pretrial justice today. But it should be especially useful to those persons who are taking pen to paper to re-write their laws to determine whom to release and whom to potentially detain pretrial - essentially, to redraw the line between purposeful release and detention. Details: Golden, CO: Center for Legal and Evidence-Based Practices, 2017. 206p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2017 at: http://www.clebp.org/images/04-18-2017_Model_Bail_Laws_CLEPB_.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.clebp.org/images/04-18-2017_Model_Bail_Laws_CLEPB_.pdf Shelf Number: 145149 Keywords: BailBail ReformPretrial DetentionRisk Assessment |
Author: Coghlan, Paul Title: Bail Review: Second advice to the Victorian Government Summary: My first advice was directed largely to legislative reform in accordance with the Terms of Reference. This advice deals with broader systemic issues that arise directly out of the consideration of the operation of the bail system, including Terms of Reference 4 to 7. It also addresses issues that I indicated in my first advice I would deal with. At the moment, the greatest individual difficulty in the operation of bail and remand matters in the Magistrates' Court is the failure to produce accused at court, either in person or by audio visual link. The simple cause of this situation is that there are not enough custodial places available in Victoria. One of the difficulties which arises is that prisoners are serving sentences in police cells, including in the Custody Centre at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court. The position will be eased somewhat when the new prison at Ravenhall comes into operation towards the end of 2017. However, the issue is unlikely to be completely resolved, particularly as any reforms to the Bail Act 1977 (Bail Act) arising from this Review are likely to increase the number of prisoners on remand. If prisoners are not produced, then their cases are often put off. Costs may be directly incurred and the need to return to court on multiple occasions can be inefficient and costly. If the case had been able to proceed, bail might have been granted or the matter resolved. It has been well understood for many years that much is to be gained in the criminal justice system by early resolution. As I discuss in this advice, a very large number of warrants are issued in the Magistrates' Court each year (about 60,000 in 2016). These warrants are for the arrest of accused who do not answer bail and for those who do not answer summons when the Court is unable to deal with the matter or takes the view that it is inappropriate to do so. It is likely that the predominant majority of those arrested on warrant are either re-bailed or bailed, particularly when the offending is at the lower end of seriousness and would not result in a custodial term. I recommend that a new process be developed for dealing with these less serious offences. The successful operation of this process will depend on amending the law to allow some indictable offences to be dealt with in the absence of the accused. That is not possible now because an indictable offence can only be dealt with by a magistrate in the presence of the accused and with their consent. As noted above, a large number of warrants are also issued for accused who fail to answer a summons. A reasonably high percentage of these are for indictable offences at the lower end of the range. Such offences could properly be dealt with in the absence of the accused. The changes I recommend should reduce the number of people on bail and therefore less warrants may issue as a result of failure to answer bail. Allowing some indictable offences to be dealt with in the absence of the accused should also reduce the number of warrants for cases in which a summons was issued. If less warrants are issued, then less court time and police time will be taken to deal with those warrants, and less custodial places will be required. That should have some positive effect on the numbers in police cells. I have looked at the operation of the Court Integrated Services Program (CISP). Even a moderate increase of about 200-300 extra CISP places would take significant pressure away from the remand system. I make a number of recommendations about CISP. When considering the question of out of hours remand, I discovered that because of the very large numbers involved, there are delays in dealing with cases in the Magistrates' Court in usual hours. The Court sitting hours end at 4pm, but some magistrates have been sitting until 7.30pm to try and deal with their lists. The disadvantages of this are obvious. The trial of the Night Court has been limited because of the available resources, including the lack of prosecutors or legal aid lawyers. There is a strong argument to say that a Bail & Remand Court should ordinarily sit from about 9am to 10pm, and I make a recommendation of how this could be done. The Court could deal with many bail applications during these hours (and also finalise some matters) particularly with an increased use of audio visual links. If that leaves only the period from 10pm to 9am the next morning, it would be possible to give police officers the power to remand adults for that period, and to preserve the bail justice system for children and vulnerable people (who should have immediate access to a bail justice). I received submissions from the Office of Public Prosecutions (Victoria) and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about appeals to the Supreme Court. There are two aspects to this. The first relates to staying a decision of magistrates or judges to grant bail, and the second relates to the test to be applied. Consultation on these issues will be required, particularly in relation to the appeal test. I make recommendations on the information which should be provided to any bail decision maker. Finally, the Bail Act does need to be rewritten. It is not a task within my Terms of Reference, but I discuss some aspects that could be reviewed or improved if a rewrite is conducted. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Government, 2017. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2017 at: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/coghlan-report-2.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/coghlan-report-2.pdf Shelf Number: 145388 Keywords: BailCriminal Justice ReformPretrial Release |
Author: Halloran, Nick Title: The NSW Prison Population Simulation Model: A policy analysis tool Summary: Aim: To describe a simulation model of the NSW prison system and demonstrate its utility as a tool for examining the effects of changes to the criminal justice system that influence the number of prisoners in custody Method: The model consists of four states (bail, remand, custody and parole) and a set of parameters governing flows into and out of those states as well as lengths of stay in each state. Data for the model were sourced from police, court and correctional databases. Results: The prison system is extremely sensitive to changes in the percentage of persons refused bail. A one percentage point change in the percentage of persons refused bail by a court increases the remand population by 7.66 per cent, the sentenced prisoner population by 6.03 per cent and the parole population by 6.15 per cent. Conclusion: It is feasible to build a simple model of the prison system which is easy to maintain but nonetheless useful in analysing the likely consequences of changes in arrest, bail and sentencing policy. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2017. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice Number 203; Accessed May 10, 2017 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2017-NSW-Prison-Population-Simulation-Model-CJB203.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2017-NSW-Prison-Population-Simulation-Model-CJB203.pdf Shelf Number: 145396 Keywords: BailCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice SystemsInmatesParolePrison Population |
Author: Arnold, David Title: Racial Bias in Bail Decisions Summary: This paper develops a new test for identifying racial bias in the context of bail decisions - a high-stakes setting with large disparities between white and black defendants. We motivate our analysis using Becker's (1957) model of racial bias, which predicts that rates of pre-trial misconduct will be identical for marginal white and marginal black defendants if bail judges are racially unbiased. In contrast, marginal white defendants will have a higher probability of misconduct than marginal black defendants if bail judges are racially biased against blacks. To test the model, we develop a new estimator that uses the release tendencies of quasi-randomly assigned bail judges to identify the relevant race-specific misconduct rates. Estimates from Miami and Philadelphia show that bail judges are racially biased against black defendants, with substantially more racial bias among both inexperienced and part-time judges. We also find that both black and white judges are biased against black defendants. We argue that these results are consistent with bail judges making racially biased prediction errors, rather than being racially prejudiced per se. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper No. 23421: Accessed May 22, 2017 at: https://www.princeton.edu/~wdobbie/files/racialbias.pdf; http://www.nber.org/papers/w23421 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.princeton.edu/~wdobbie/files/racialbias.pdf Shelf Number: 145664 Keywords: BailJudicial Decision-MakingPretrial ReleaseRacial BiasRacial DiscriminationRisk Prediction |
Author: White, Elise Title: Navigating the Bail Payment System in New York City: Findings and Recommendations Summary: The use of money bail places a significant burden on indigent defendants and their families. When defendants cannot afford bail, research indicates that pretrial detention leads to a range of potentially deleterious outcomes, including an increased likelihood of a criminal conviction (and resulting collateral consequences); jail or prison sentences; and recidivism following release. Even for those who can afford bail, the often confusing and perplexing process of how to pay it adds another level of inconvenience for family members and friends-not to mention the prospect of delays and an increase in the time that defendants spend in pretrial detention. In New York City, bail can be paid at the courthouse following arraignment; at any subsequent court appearance, during visits with attorneys at court; at the Rikers Island jail complex; or at detention centers in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Manhattan. Each of these facilities has its own policies and procedures that are often challenging to navigate, especially during a chaotic and difficult time for defendants' families and friends. In 2014, of the 48,816 disposed criminal cases in New York City in which bail of more than $1.00 was set at arraignment, in only 13.9% (6,798) were family or friends able to successfully navigate the bail payment system at the courts immediately following arraignment. In an additional 12.5% of cases (6,082), family or friends were able to pay bail sometime between the defendant's post-arraignment detention and their second court appearance. In other words, of the 12,880 cases involving family or friends who were capable of posting bail early in case processing (by the second court appearance), close to half (47.3%) of those defendants' family and friends were unable to post bail immediately after arraignment, prior to the defendants' removal from the courthouse. Ultimately, prior to eventual case disposition, bail was posted in 33,847 cases disposed in 2014, demonstrating that a large volume of individuals experiences the bail payment system each year. With funding from the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice (MOCJ), researchers at the Center for Court Innovation examined the current bail payment process both within the courts and at Department of Correction facilities, which include the Rikers Island jail complex and other borough-based detention centers. This report provides the findings, including a set of bail payment system maps and a set of recommendations that might lead to better outcomes. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2014 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Bail%20Payment%20in%20NYC.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Bail%20Payment%20in%20NYC.pdf Shelf Number: 146096 Keywords: BailCriminal DefendantsPretrial Detention |
Author: Amatya, Pranita Title: Bail Reform in California Summary: On December 5, 2016, Assemblymember Rob Bonta, partnering with California State Senator Bob Hertzberg, introduced the California Money Bail Reform Act of 2017, which aims to reform the current commercial surety bail system. Our project will assist our client in evaluating policy alternatives to the commercial surety bail system. In California, defendants who are assigned bail may contract with a bail bonds agency and pay a ten percent nonrefundable fee to be released from jail custody. This system is referred to as commercial surety bail. Because this system uses a financial condition in order to release defendants from jail, a majority of defendants incarcerated pretrial are incarcerated only because they cannot afford bail. According to the Executive Director of Equal Justice Under Law, Phil Telfeyan, "The problem we see with money bail is that it puts a price tag on freedom. Those who are rich get to pay their way out and those who aren't get to languish in jail." This system, which prioritizes a financial condition over a defendant's potential risk to be rearrested or to fail to appear at court, does not ensure public safety. Beginning in the 1960s, a nationwide bail reform trend began took root, resulting in many states either abolishing or reforming this system. In an attempt to investigate how bail reform efforts would impact the state of California, we conducted policy analysis to compare the commercial surety bail system in California to an alternative system. The alternative system we compare to commercial surety bail involves several important elements. The first element is risk assessment tools, which are predictive algorithms that assess the risk of a defendant failing to appear for a court date and of being rearrested. The second is non-bail release methods, which can include release on one's own recognizance, supervised release, and unsecured bonds. We conducted this analysis in two stages. First, we compared the screening process used in commercial surety bail to the screening process used with non-bail release. Under the commercial surety bail system, judges use bail schedules to screen defendants and assign bail amounts. Under non-bail release, judges use risk assessment tools to screen defendants and inform their release decisions. We analyzed how the bail schedule compares to risk assessment tools on two criteria: predictive accuracy and race neutrality. We found that risk assessment tools scored higher on both criteria. Based on this analysis, we recommend the adoption of a risk assessment tool to inform judicial decision-making. The second stage of our analysis compares the commercial surety bail release method to non-bail release methods based on five criteria: effectiveness, economic bias, fiscal impact, social cost, and political feasibility. We employed a variety of methods in our analysis. We operationalized predictive accuracy, race neutrality, economic bias, and effectiveness by undertaking an intensive literature review. We used high-level cost calculations and estimations to analyze fiscal impact and social cost. Finally, we conducted interviews to operationalize political feasibility. We found that non-bail release methods scored higher than commercial surety bail on four out of the five criteria (all except for political feasibility). Therefore, based on this analysis, we recommend that non-bail release replaces the commercial surety bail system Details: Los Angeles: UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, 2017. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2017 at: https://university.pretrial.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=835f283a-e9fc-9c56-28bb-073a9bcb1dbf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://university.pretrial.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=835f283a-e9fc-9c56-28bb-073a9bcb1dbf Shelf Number: 146497 Keywords: BailBail ReformPretrial DetentionPretrial JusticePretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Denman, Kristine Title: Pretrial Detention and Case Processing Measures: A Study of Nine New Mexico Counties Summary: The New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center completed a study of pretrial case processing measures and pretrial detention within nine New Mexico counties. This study addresses multiple objectives. First, this study was intended to explore the feasibility of developing case processing performance measures that are more robust than those currently used. Second, this study is intended to understand the extent of pretrial detention and the factors associated with pretrial detention. Third, we assess the degree to which pretrial detention decisions appear to be accurate. Finally, we explored whether pretrial detention influences case processing and outcomes. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center, 2017. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2017 at: http://isr.unm.edu/reports/2017/pretrial-detention-and-case-processing-measures--a-study-of-nine-new-mexico-counties-.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://isr.unm.edu/reports/2017/pretrial-detention-and-case-processing-measures--a-study-of-nine-new-mexico-counties-.pdf Shelf Number: 147348 Keywords: BailCase ProcessingJailsPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Needs Assessment |
Author: Leslie, Emily Title: The Unintended Impact of Pretrial Detention on Case Outcomes: Evidence from NYC Arraignments Summary: In the United States, over 400,000 individuals are in jail each day waiting for their criminal cases to be resolved. The majority of these individuals are detained pretrial due to the inability to post low levels of bail (less than $3,000). We estimate the impact of being detained pretrial on the likelihood of an individual being convicted or pleading guilty, and their sentence length, using data on nearly a million misdemeanor and felony cases in New York City from 2009 to 2013. Causal e↵ects are identified using variation across arraignment judges in their propensities to detain defendants. We find that being detained increases the probability of conviction by over seven percentage points by causing individuals to plead guilty more often. Because pretrial detention is driven by failure to post bail, these adverse effect disproportionately hurt low-income individuals. Details: Chicago: University of Chicago, 2016. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 19, 2017 at: http://home.uchicago.edu/~npope/pretrial_paper.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://home.uchicago.edu/~npope/pretrial_paper.pdf Shelf Number: 147409 Keywords: BailGuilty PleasIndigent DefendantsPretrial DetentionPretrial Justice |
Author: Rahman, Insha Title: Against the Odds: Experimenting with Alternative Forms of Bail in New York City's Criminal Courts Summary: Statistics show that money bail is unaffordable and out of reach for many New Yorkers. Even though the median bail amount on felony cases in New York City is $5,000 0 and even lower - at $1,000, on misdemeanor cases - over 7,000 people are detained pretrial at Rikers Island and other New York City jails on any given day because they cannot make bail. Under New York law, the use of bail doesn't have to be this burdensome. In setting bail, judges have nine forms to choose from, including "alternative" forms such as partially secured or unsecured bonds, that require little to no upfront payment to secure a person's pretrial release. The traditional practice in the courts, however, is to ignore these options and impose only the two most onerous forms of bail to make: cash bail and insurance company bail bond. The Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) launched a three-month experiment in New York City arraignment courts to examine what would happen if alternative forms of bail were used more often. In what kinds of cases might judges be willing to set these forms of bail? In what amounts? What impact would these alternatives have on a person's ability to make bail? What other pretrial outcomes might be expected? Drawing from a cohort of 99 cases in which an unsecured or partially secured bond was set, these cases were tracked over a nine- to 12-month period to document bail-making, court appearance, pretrial re-arrest, and final case disposition. Interviews were conducted with judges, defenders, and court staff to better understand the results and develop recommendations for improving the use of bail in New York City. The results were promising. Sixty-eight percent of the cohort made bail, and an additional 5 percent were released on recognizance. The use of alternative forms of bail in the cohort was not limited to low-level offenses or certain types of offenses. Approximately 54 percent of cases had a top charge of a felony, and the cohort - felonies and misdemeanors - spanned the gamut from drug possession, larceny, and robbery, to assault, criminal contempt, and weapons possession. Those released had a combined court appearance rate of 88 percent and a rate of pretrial re-arrest for new felony offenses of 8 percent. When released pretrial, the majority of cases resolved in a disposition less serious than the initial top charge at arraignment, with fully one-third ending in dismissal and another 19 percent ending in a noncriminal conviction. Ninety-nine cases out of the thousands where bail is set is a miniscule number in the larger scheme of New York City's bail system, yet this experiment illustrates the possibility of meaningful culture change. The recommendations in this report offer strategies to increase and ease the use of alternative forms of bail: - stakeholders should be educated about them; - the associated paperwork and procedures to set these forms of bail should be simplified; - they should be set routinely as an option in addition to traditional forms of bail; and - when bail is set, it should be done with an individualized inquiry into a person's ability to pay. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2017. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 10, 2017 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/against-the-odds-bail-reform-new-york-city-criminal-courts/legacy_downloads/Against_the_Odds_Bail_report_FINAL3.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/against-the-odds-bail-reform-new-york-city-criminal-courts/legacy_downloads/Against_the_Odds_Bail_report_FINAL3.pdf Shelf Number: 147639 Keywords: BailBail ReformCriminal CourtsPretrial DetentionPretrial Justice |
Author: Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) Title: The State of Pretrial Justice in America Summary: The past five years have witnessed a remarkable growth in support for reforming our nation's pretrial justice system (the portion of criminal justice practice that begins with a person's first contact with law enforcement and ends once any resulting charges are resolved, usually through a plea, a trial, or dismissal). This unprecedented interest emerges from a growing awareness that existing pretrial operations lead to unnecessary detention of poor and working class people - disproportionately people of color - while those with money are able to go free with little or no supervision, regardless of any danger they may present. Current pretrial justice practice is, in short, unfair, unsafe, a waste of public resources, and a significant contributor the nation's widely recognized problem of mass incarceration. There is, of course, no single pretrial justice system in the United States. The structure of criminal justice in this country allows for significant variation from state to state, and even from county to county. This decentralization has its benefits. But it presents challenges to those who would seek systemic improvements. The Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) developed this report card to minimize those challenges. Its foundational premise is that American pretrial practice - in any state or jurisdiction - should be able to maximize liberty among people who are entitled to the presumption of innocence, while also protecting public safety and ensuring effective court operations. This is, after all, an aspiration traced to our founding fathers and beyond, which former Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist eloquently summarized when he wrote, "In our society, liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception." The analysis presented here finds, however, that the state of pretrial justice in America falls far short of Chief Justice Rehnquist's vision. Too many people in the pretrial phase are locked up for days, weeks, and even months, when, according to both law and research, they should be released. Details: Rockville, MD: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2017. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 9, 2017 at: http://media.cleveland.com/plain_dealer_metro/other/State%20of%20Pretrial%20in%20America%20DRAFT-NOT%20FOR%20DISTRIBUTION%20(002)%20(1).pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://media.cleveland.com/plain_dealer_metro/other/State%20of%20Pretrial%20in%20America%20DRAFT-NOT%20FOR%20DISTRIBUTION%20(002)%20(1).pdf Shelf Number: 148100 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial JusticeRacial Disparities |
Author: California. Courts. Judicial Branch Title: Pretrial Detention Reform: Recommendations to the Chief Justice Summary: The Chief Justice established the Pretrial Detention Reform Workgroup on October 28, 2016, to provide recommendations on how courts may better identify ways to make release decisions that will treat people fairly, protect the public, and ensure court appearances. In establishing the Workgroup, the Chief Justice recognized the central role of the courts. The Chief Justice provided the following guiding principles for the Pretrial Detention Reform Workgroup: Pretrial custody should not occur solely because a defendant cannot afford bail. Public safety is a fundamental consideration in pretrial detention decisions. Defendants should be released from pretrial custody as early as possible based on an assessment of the risk to public safety and the risk for failing to appear in court. Mitigating the impacts of implicit bias on pretrial release decision-making should be considered. Reform recommendations should consider court and justice system partner resources. Nonfinancial release alternatives should be available. Consistent and feasible practices for making pretrial release, detention, and supervision decisions should be established. During the course of its yearlong study, the Workgroup examined the complex issues involved in the current pretrial release and detention system. Members reviewed a wide variety of research and policy materials and heard presentations from state and national experts, justice system partner representatives, the commercial bail industry, state and local regulators, victim and civil rights advocacy organizations, California counties that have experience with pretrial services programs, and jurisdictions outside California that have undertaken pretrial reform efforts. At the conclusion of this process, the Workgroup determined that California's current pretrial release and detention system unnecessarily compromises victim and public safety because it bases a person's liberty on financial resources rather than the likelihood of future criminal behavior and exacerbates socioeconomic disparities and racial bias. Details: Sacramento: Judicial Council of California, 2017. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 20, 2018 at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/PDRReport-20171023.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/PDRReport-20171023.pdf Shelf Number: 149188 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial JusticePretrial ReleasePretrial ServicesRacial DisparitiesRisk Assessment |
Author: Gibbs, Penelope Title: Presumed innocent but behind bars - is remand overused in England and Wales? Summary: Pre-trial detention is problematic world-wide. On any one day, about three million people languish in prison without having been tried or sentenced. In England and Wales the proportion of the adult prison population there on pre-trial remand sits at 7%, which, when put in the context of a high total prison population compared with the rest of Europe, is a significant, highly problematic figure. In 2017, of those who were remanded in custody pending trial or sentence in magistrates' courts, 58% did not go on to be sentenced to prison - that amounts to over 13,000 people in one year alone - and more than one-quarter of people remanded in custody in the Crown Court did not receive a custodial sentence. Over-use of pre-trial detention is not only expensive for tax-payers, but defendants and their families often suffer serious adverse consequences with the accused receiving no compensation even if they are acquitted - as a quarter of those remanded in custody in magistrates' courts are. It is also damaging in corroding the fundamental criminal justice principles of the presumption of innocence and the right to fair trial. The pre-trial detention rate in England and Wales has been remarkably consistent for decades, and the causes of inappropriate use of pre-trial detention have remained largely the same, worsening in some respects. Despite the fact that the law is largely (although not completely) satisfactory and compliant with international standards, the way in which it is implemented in practice results in many defendants being remanded in custody when other alternatives are, or should be, available. Grounds for withholding bail rely upon the strength of evidence and likely sentence if the accused is convicted, yet the information supplied to the accused and the court by the police and prosecution, and the time devoted to consideration of that information, is normally wholly insufficient. More information about the evidence is potentially available at subsequent bail hearings, but by that time the die is cast, and the burden is effectively shifted from the prosecution to the accused. Alongside this, bail information schemes, designed to provide courts with important information to assist their decisionmaking, have disappeared from many courts. This report by Transform Justice provides important further evidence of deficiencies in the processes by which decisions to remand defendants in custody are made. Unfortunately, much of what it uncovers is not new. Perhaps comforted by the headline statistic of a 11% remand (pre trial and pre sentence) prison population, there is a degree of complacency. Whilst a number of the defence lawyers in the research that Tom Smith and I conducted made sensible proposals for reform, the magistrates, judges and prosecutors that we interviewed tended to believe that the system is as good as it can be. This is accompanied by a political lethargy which has failed to seriously address prison over-population. This report provides evidence of the need for change in a well-reasoned and accessible form. The question that remains is whether there is the political appetite to make that change happen. Details: London: Transform Justice, 2018. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2018 at: http://www.transformjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/TJ_March2018report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.transformjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/TJ_March2018report.pdf Shelf Number: 149547 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial Justice |
Author: Maryland. Office of the Public Defender Title: Bail Reviewed: Report of the Court Observation Project Summary: Whether someone accused of a crime is detained pending trial is among the most critical factors in the outcome of the case and the person's well-being. Pretrial detention impacts the ability to work, care for one's family, and maintain housing - regardless of what ultimately happens in the case. The pretrial status of an accused can also impact the ultimate result in their case. Most criminal cases do not go to trial, and what pleas are offered by the prosecutor and accepted by the defendant are heavily weighted by whether the person is currently in jail. The need to get out of jail and return home is a powerful incentive to accept a plea, regardless of the fairness of the offer and sometimes even the person's culpability. Despite the incredible importance of this phase of the proceedings, the general public knows very little about the pretrial process. Unlike criminal trials, pretrial hearings are rarely covered by the media, portrayed in entertainment, or taught in schools. The Pretrial Court Observation Project was designed to educate community members about the pretrial process, while helping gather important data at the critical time of the recent implementation of a Maryland Court Rule change. This report documents the observations and findings of sixty-four volunteers who observed bail review hearings in Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Frederick County, Howard County and Montgomery County. While their observations show clear progress, particularly with the decreased use of money bail, they also identified areas of concern, including the overuse of holding people without bail. The concerns that were identified have identifiable solutions. Among those were the need for a validated assessment tool and the availability of a sufficient range of pretrial services which are needed to ensure pretrial determinations are consistent, fair, and minimize the extent to which presumptively innocent individuals are jailed. The recommendations in this report come from the Community Court Watch observers and are based on their assessments of what is needed to make pretrial a more fair process: - Recommendation 1: Provide judges with resources that encourage release while helping to ensure defendants return to court. - Recommendation 2: Provide judges with tools that measure risk. - Recommendation 3: Educate judges, commissioners and the community. - Recommendation 4: Accused individuals should be present for their bail review hearing. Details: Baltimore: Office of the Public Defender, 2018. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2018 at: http://www.opd.state.md.us/Portals/0/Downloads/articles/Bail%20Reviewed.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.opd.state.md.us/Portals/0/Downloads/articles/Bail%20Reviewed.pdf Shelf Number: 149711 Keywords: BailPretrial JusticePretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: New York Civil Liberties Union Title: Presumed Innocent for a Price: The Impact of Cash Bail Across Eight New York Counties Summary: Across New York State tens of thousands of New Yorkers are held in city and county jails, not because they have been convicted of a crime, but because they cannot afford to pay for their release while awaiting trial. The harms of unaffordable cash bail are unequivocal: people lose their jobs, homes and families while detained. People also forfeit their rights to trial when pleading guilty in exchange for release. Yet little has been known about how many people across the state have been locked up because they did not have the means to pay bail, about the charges they faced or how long they were kept in jail. To better understand the impact of bail practices in New York, in 2015 the New York Civil Liberties Union sent Freedom of Information Law requests to a sample of eight small, medium and large counties across the state asking for five years of data. The information we received offers a stark glimpse into what New Yorkers have had to endure. IN JUST EIGHT OF THE STATE'S 62 COUNTIES ALONE, WE FOUND THAT BETWEEN 2010 AND 2014: - more than 90,000 New Yorkers spent a day or longer in custody on bail; - more than 45,000 were held for a week or longer; - black pretrial detainees were twice as likely as white pretrial detainees to spend at least one night in custody on bail; - more than 35,000 New Yorkers spent at least one night in custody on a bail of $1,000 or less, and more than 21,000 on $500 or less; - 60 percent of people held on bail had only a misdemeanor or violation as their most serious charge; - more than 5,000 New Yorkers were held on bail charged only with violations; and - petit larceny and misdemeanor criminal possession of a controlled substance were the most common charges, and the most serious charges against a fifth of all pretrial detainees. Details: New York: NYCLU, 2018. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2018 at: https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/bailreport_20180313_final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/bailreport_20180313_final.pdf Shelf Number: 149712 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial JusticePretrial Release |
Author: Clark, John Title: Enhancing Pretrial Justice in Cuyahoga County: Results From a Jail Population Analysis and Judicial Feedback Summary: To assist in its ongoing examination of the bail system in Cuyahoga County, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, in coordination with the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, asked the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) to review elements of the Cuyahoga County pretrial justice system. PJI examined case filing trend data, analyzed data from a snapshot of persons released on a particular date from four facilities-the Cuyahoga County Jail plus three municipal jails-and solicited feedback from the Court of Common Pleas and municipal court benches regarding needed enhancements to the bail system. This report presents the findings from that effort. Here is a summary of the major findings and recommendations. Trend Data - Despite significant declines in the number of reported violent and property crimes in Cuyahoga County, and even larger declines in the number of criminal cases filed in both the municipal courts and the Court of Common Pleas, there has not been a commensurate reduction in the number of jail bookings or average daily populations. - The Cuyahoga County Jail has been operating, on average, at over 100% capacity in four out of the past five years. Jail Population Analysis - There were significant differences in the demographic characteristics, particularly regarding race, of those released from the three municipal jails on the date of the snapshot, June 1, 2017, compared to those released from the Cuyahoga County Jail. - Twenty-five percent of the felony pretrial population in the Cuyahoga County Jail sample remained detained throughout the pretrial period, with an average length of stay in pretrial detention of 104 days. Of the 75% who were released, whether by financial or non-financial means, the average length of stay was 17 days. - Thirty-eight percent of the Cuyahoga County jail population that was released on personal bond spent more than one week in pretrial detention before that release. - Twenty-eight percent of those with a bond of $5,000 or less never posted it and remained detained throughout the pretrial period. - There was a correlation between seriousness of charge and bond type and bond amounts in the Cuyahoga County Jail sample. Those charged with Felony 1 and 2 offenses were much more likely to get a secured money bond than those charged with Felony 4 and 5 offenses, and, of those receiving a secured bond, much more likely to receive a higher bond. Judicial Feedback PJI invited all Municipal and Common Pleas judges to participate in a voluntary questionnaire consisting of nine questions to identify areas of potential judicial education, stakeholder engagement, and process improvements. Here is a summary of the results: - Thirty-three judges completed the questionnaire. - Over 75% of the judges felt informed about the strengths and weaknesses of the bail system in their jurisdiction, and about ways that it might be improved. - 82% of the judges felt there is value in the Criminal Justice Committee examining the pretrial process in Cuyahoga County and its municipalities. - 79% felt it is important to provide judicial-specific education to understand possible ways to improve the bail system in the areas of actuarial risk assessment (87%) and research-informed risk management strategies (87%). - 13% felt uncertainty about the use of actuarial risk assessment tools with some concern that they may cause additional issues. - 84% of the respondents were "somewhat familiar with" to "not familiar with at all" the use of supervision matrices, while only 15% of the judges were "very familiar with" the uses of supervision matrices. Recommendations 1. Conduct a training on the fundamentals of pretrial justice for the judges of the Court of Common Pleas and of the municipal courts. 2. Conduct a one-to-two day summit of the judiciary in Cuyahoga County to identify a clear vision statement pertaining to pretrial practices within the county. 3. Pilot test 2-4 projects in both the Municipal and Common Pleas Court introducing research and evidenced-based practices in pretrial improvements. 4. Actively and consistently communicate the plans, progress, and outcomes of the pilot sites to the entire judiciary, as well as other key stakeholders, such as prosecutors, defenders, law enforcement, victim advocates, and the community at large. 5. Based on the results of the pilot sites, plan and implement an expansion of new practices system-wide. Details: Rockville, MD: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2017. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2018 at: http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cuyahoga-County-Jail-Population-Analysis-Report-PJI-2017_final.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cuyahoga-County-Jail-Population-Analysis-Report-PJI-2017_final.pdf Shelf Number: 149840 Keywords: BailJail InmatesJailsJudgesPretrial DetentionPretrial JusticeRisk Assessment |
Author: Luminosity, Inc. Title: Pretrial Case Processing in Maine : A Study of System Efficiency & Effectiveness Summary: The Corrections Alternatives Advisory Committee (CAAC) was created by the Maine Legislature in the spring of 2005 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the state's corrections system and to better manage costs. The objectives of the committee were to increase systemwide efficiencies, enhance state and county coordination, and effectively manage defendants/offenders risk and needs. A portion of the committee's responsibility was to examine the local criminal justice system which is considered the "front end" of the larger criminal justice system. An examination of the "front end" of the system, specifically the pretrial stage (including arrest through case disposition) and how cases are processed in the system was the focus of this study. This in-depth study included an examination of the critical stages of pretrial case processing in all 16 counties in Maine, as well as the policies and practices of the key participants involved. The assessment was completed by conducting extensive research, onsite visits, interviews with nearly 250 key stakeholders, and observations of the critical stages of pretrial case processing. The results of the study led to findings and recommendations for improvements related to system efficiencies, system effectiveness, and risk management of pretrial defendants. Great care was taken to ensure that the recommendations were consistent with maintaining judicial system integrity, protecting the presumption of innocence, and ensuring the highest level of protection to our communities. The report begins with an overview of Maine's pretrial case processing system, including the identification of seven critical stages and eight key system participants. Details: St. Petersburg, FL: Luminosity, 2006. 162p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2018 at: http://digitalmaine.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=doc_docs Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://digitalmaine.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=doc_docs Shelf Number: 149868 Keywords: BailCase ProcessingPretrial DetentionPretrial JusticePretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Clark, John Title: Upgrading North Carolina's Bail System: A Balances Approach to Pretrial Justice Using Legal and Evidence-Based Practices Summary: This report focuses on helping North Carolina officials work toward a balanced approach to achieving the three goals of the pretrial release decision-making process: to provide reasonable assurance of the safety of the community; to provide reasonable assurance of appearance in court; and to maximize pretrial release. It does so by focusing on legal and evidence-based practices-ones that fully comport with the law and that are driven by research. The use of such practices has been fully endorsed by all the key justice system stakeholder groups, including: the Conference of Chief Justices; the Conference of State Court Administrators; the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the National Sheriffs' Association; the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; the National Legal Aid and Defenders Association; the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; the National Association of Counties; and the American Bar Association. And the use of such practices has been shown to produce excellent results. Except for very promising work being done in Mecklenburg County, legal and evidence-based pretrial justice practices are not in place in North Carolina. Magistrates and judges in the state place significant emphasis on an antiquated tool-bond guidelines-which several federal courts around the country have recently called unconstitutional. Courts also rely heavily on a release option-the secured bond-that was established in the 19th Century to address a problem that was unique to that time; the ability of a criminal defendant to flee into the vast wilderness of America's growing frontier and simply disappear, never to face prosecution. And only 40 of the state's 100 counties are served by pretrial services programs that can provide supervision of defendants released by the court with conditions of pretrial release. Many of these programs have very limited supervision capacity. The model for legal and evidence-based pretrial release practices in North Carolina includes the use of an empirically-derived pretrial risk assessment tool, the development of a decision matrix that would help magistrates and judges make pretrial release decisions, the implementation of risk management strategies aimed at matching risk levels with the most appropriate level of support or supervision, the expanded use of citation releases by law enforcement, the very early involvement of the prosecutor and defense, and the initiation of automatic bond reviews for in-custody misdemeanor defendants. Implementing such a model of legal and evidence-based practices in North Carolina would be greatly facilitated by changes in the state's laws. Current North Carolina law does not expressly provide for a right to actual pretrial release-it is crafted only in terms of setting or not setting conditions-nor does it articulate a procedure for preventive detention of high risk defendants. A right merely to have conditions set, coupled with the statutory provisions discussing those conditions as well as no decent process for risk-based detention, naturally moves North Carolina magistrates and judges toward using secured money conditions to address risk for both court appearance and public safety, and toward attempting to use unattainable money conditions to detain defendants posing extremely high pretrial risk. In addition, although the statute speaks of pretrial risk, it makes determinations of who is entitled to having release conditions set based primarily on charge as a proxy for risk, and subtly points judicial officials toward using the money condition to address risk. The better practice would be to set forth a right to release for all except extremely high-risk defendants (or defendants who are not as risky but who also face extremely serious charges, or both), provide for a lawful and transparent detention provision based on risk to allow pretrial detention with no conditions, and then create mechanisms so that persons released pretrial are released immediately. Details: Gaithersburg, MD: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2016. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2018 at: https://nccalj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Upgrading-NCs-Bail-System-PJI-2016-003.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://nccalj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Upgrading-NCs-Bail-System-PJI-2016-003.pdf Shelf Number: 150052 Keywords: BailEvidence-Based PracticesPretrial JusticePretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Resnik, Judith Title: Who Pays? Fines, Fees, Bail, and the Cost of Courts Summary: In the last decades, growing numbers of people have sought to use courts, government budgets have declined, new technologies have emerged, arrest and detention rates have risen, and arguments have been leveled that private resolutions are preferable to public adjudication. Lawsuits challenge the legality of fee structures, money bail, and the imposition of fines. States have chartered task forces to propose changes, and new research has identified the effects of the current system on low-income communities and on people of color. The costs imposed through fees, surcharges, fines, and bail affect the ability of plaintiffs and defendants to seek justice and to be treated justly. This volume, prepared for the 21st Annual Arthur Liman Center Colloquium, explores the mechanisms for financing court systems and the economic challenges faced by judiciaries and by litigants. We address how constitutional democracies can meet their obligations to make justice accessible to disputants and to make fair treatment visible to the public. Our goals are to understand the dimensions of the problems, the inter-relationships among civil, criminal, and administrative processes, and the opportunities for generating the political will to bring about reform. Details: New Haven, CT: Yale University, Law School, 2018. 222p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3165674 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3165674 Shelf Number: 150105 Keywords: BailCourt FeesCriminal Justice DebtDue ProcessFeesFinancial SanctionsFines |
Author: Reichert, Jessica Title: An Examination of Illinois and National Pretrial practices, Detention, and Reform Efforts Summary: Pretrial practices encompass pretrial diversion efforts, pretrial services, bail decisions, and pretrial detention in jails, including the use of risk assessments for decision making. The purpose of pretrial practices is to increase public safety and ensure court appearances while protecting individual rights. However, many jurisdictions across the country are questioning the use of jail and bail, the monetary condition of release, due to its overuse, inequities, and negative consequences on defendants and public safety. Use of Pretrial Detention in County Jails People charged with felonies or specific types of misdemeanor crimes must appear before a bond court judge to determine the conditions of their liberty prior to the disposition of their criminal case. Judges typically base decisions on public safety considerations and the individual's likelihood of appearing for subsequent court hearings. Individuals may be held in jail without pretrial release depending on seriousness of the charges against them, potential penalties if convicted and whether the individual poses a real and present threat. Figure 1 depicts the typical flow of people after arrest to pretrial detention or release in the country. It is estimated that of 100 individuals who have bail bond hearing, 34 are detained pretrial due to inability to pay cash bail. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2018. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2018 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Pretrial_Article_060718.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Pretrial_Article_060718.pdf Shelf Number: 150758 Keywords: BailPretrial Detention Pretrial Justice Pretrial Release Risk Assessment |
Author: Sloan, Carly Will Title: The Effect of Risk Assessment Scores on Judicial Behavior and Defendant Outcomes Summary: The use of risk assessment scores as a means of decreasing pretrial detention for low-risk, primarily poor defendants is increasing rapidly across the United States. Despite this, there is little evidence on how risk assessment scores alter criminal outcomes. Using administrative data from a large county in Texas, we estimate the effect of a risk assessment score policy on judge bond decisions, defendant pretrial detention, and pretrial recidivism. We identify effects by exploiting a large, sudden policy change using a regression discontinuity design. This approach effectively compares defendants booked just before and after the policy change. Results show that adopting a risk assessment score leads to increased release on non-financial bond and decreased pretrial detention. These results appear to be driven by poor defendants. We also find risk assessment scores did not increase violent pretrial recidivism, however there is some suggestive evidence of small increases in non-violent pretrial recidivism. Details: Bonn, Germany: Institute of Labor Economics, 2018. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 18, 2018 at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp11948.html Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://ftp.iza.org/dp11948.pdf Shelf Number: 154069 Keywords: BailBondDefendantsJudicial DiscretionNon-Financial BondPretrial DetentionRecidivismRisk AssessmentTexas |
Author: Redcross, Cindy Title: Evaluation of Pretrial Justice System Reforms That Use the Public Safety Assessment Effects in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Summary: Arnold Ventures' Public Safety Assessment (PSA) is a pretrial risk assessment tool that uses nine factors from a defendant's history to produce two risk scores: one representing the likelihood of a new crime being committed and another representing the likelihood of a failure to appear for future court hearings. The PSA also notes if there is an elevated risk of a violent crime. The PSA is designed to provide additional information to judges and others making release decisions - decisions about whether a defendant will be released while waiting for a case to be resolved, and if so, under what conditions. The score is used in conjunction with a jurisdiction-specific decision-making framework that uses the defendant's PSA risk score in combination with local statutes and policies to produce a recommendation for release conditions. The goal of the PSA is to make the restrictions on a defendant's release conditions better align with that defendant's assessed risk of committing new crimes or failing to appear. Over 40 jurisdictions across the country have implemented the PSA. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina was one of the first; it began using the PSA in 2014, switching from another risk assessment. This study presents the effects of the PSA and related policy changes in Mecklenburg County. The first report in the series describes the effects of the overall policy reforms on important outcomes. A supplemental second report describes the role of risk-based decision making in the outcomes and describes the effects of the PSA on racial disparities in outcomes and among different subgroups. Overall, the findings are notable from a public-safety perspective: Mecklenburg County released more defendants and did not see an increase in missed court appointments or new criminal charges while defendants were waiting for their cases to be resolved. The PSA policy changes were associated with less use of financial bail and a higher rate of defendants being released on a written promise or unsecured bond. The proportion of defendants detained in jail was lower than it would have been in the absence of the policy changes. There was an improved alignment between defendant risk and the restrictiveness of release conditions. Fewer cases resulted in guilty pleas and convictions than would have been the case in the absence of the reforms. Because more defendants were released while their cases were pending, they may have had less incentive to plead guilty in order to get out of jail. Even though the PSA policy changes increased the percentage of defendants who were released pending trial - and even though a higher proportion of defendants were facing felony charges in the period after the PSA was implemented - there was no evidence that the PSA policy changes affected the percentages of defendants who made all of their court appearances or who were charged with new crimes while waiting for their cases to be resolved. Most of the changes in pretrial release conditions occurred at a step in the pretrial case process before the PSA report is completed. Thus, having access to the information in the PSA could have had at most only a small effect on the way judges set release conditions. There was no evidence of racial disparity in the setting of release conditions and the PSA had no effect on racial disparities within the system. Black defendants were more likely than other racial groups to be assessed by the PSA as being high-risk, though. Details: New York: MDRC Center for Criminal Justice Research, 2019. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Report 1 of 2: Accessed March 29, 2019 at: https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/PSA_Mecklenburg_Brief1.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/PSA_Mecklenburg_Brief1.pdf Shelf Number: 155229 Keywords: BailPretrial JusticePretrial ReleasePublic SafetyRacial DisparitiesRisk Assessment |
Author: Mayson, Sandra G. Title: Misdemeanors by the Numbers Summary: Recent scholarship has underlined the importance of criminal misdemeanor law enforcement, including the impact of public-order policing on communities of color, the collateral consequences of misdemeanor arrest or conviction, and the use of misdemeanor prosecution to raise municipal revenue. But despite the fact that misdemeanors represent more than three-quarters of all criminal cases filed annually in the United States, our knowledge of misdemeanor case processing is based mostly on anecdote and extremely localized research. This Article represents the most substantial empirical analysis of misdemeanor case processing to date. Using multiple court-record datasets, covering several million cases across eight diverse jurisdictions, we present a detailed documentation of misdemeanor case processing from the date of filing through adjudication and sentencing. The resulting portrait reveals a system that disproportionately impacts poor people and people of color. Between 2011 and 2016, each jurisdiction studied relied on monetary bail, which resulted in high rates of pretrial detention even at relatively low amounts, and imposed court costs upon conviction. There were substantial racial disparities in case-filing rates across locales and offense categories. The data also, however, highlight profound jurisdictional heterogeneity in how misdemeanors are defined and prosecuted. The variation suggests that misdemeanor adjudication systems may have fundamentally different characters, and serve different functions, from place to place. It thus presents a major challenge to efforts to describe and theorize the contemporary landscape of misdemeanor justice. At the most fundamental level, the variation calls into question the coherence of the very concept of a misdemeanor, or of misdemeanor criminal justice. As appreciation for the significance of low-level law enforcement builds, we urge scholars and policymakers to attend carefully to the complexity of this sub-felony world. Details: Athens, GA: University of Georgia, School of Law, 2019. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: University of Georgia School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2019-14: Accessed May 16, 2019 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3374571 Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3374571 Shelf Number: 155879 Keywords: BailCase Processing Collateral Consequences Criminal Law Minority Groups Misdemeanors Pretrial Detention Public-Order Policing Racial Disparities |