Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:13 pm
Time: 10:13 pm
Results for pretrial justice
29 results foundAuthor: 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: 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: 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: Timap for Justice Title: The Socioeconomic Impact of Pretrial Detention in Sierra Leone Summary: In 2011, two Sierra Leonean nongovernmental organizations - Prison Watch Sierra Leone and Timap for Justice, in collaboration with the Global Campaign for Pretrial Justice and UNDP - measured the socioeconomic costs of excessive pretrial detention in Sierra Leone. They randomly surveyed 128 adult pretrial detainees, in three prisons, one in the capital Freetown, and two in the provinces, seeking information on how their detention affected their socioeconomic position. The results, contained in this report, quantify the pernicious and wide-ranging effects of excessive pretrial detention and show how severely pretrial detention damages the socioeconomic development of detainees, their families, and communities Details: New York: Open Society Foundations, 2013. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 17, 2016 at: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/ptd-snapshot-sierra-leone-05232013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Sierra Leone URL: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/ptd-snapshot-sierra-leone-05232013.pdf Shelf Number: 147289 Keywords: Pretrial DetentionPretrial JusticeSocioeconomic Impact |
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: U.S. National Institute of Corrections Title: A Framework for Pretrial Justice: Essential Elements of an Effective Pretrial System and Agency Summary: This document highlights the commitment of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to define and support evidence-based practices that improve decision-making at the pretrial stage of our criminal justice system, enhancing the safety of America's communities and fostering the fair administration of pretrial release and detention. With the release of A Framework for Pretrial Justice: Essential Elements of an Effective Pretrial System and Agency, NIC and its Pretrial Executive Network helps inform the discussion on bail reform and pretrial justice by presenting and defining the fundamentals of an effective pretrial system and the essential elements of a high functioning pretrial services agency. This publication presents and describes these essential elements - as well as the components of an evidence-based framework for improving pretrial outcomes nationwide. Bail determination is one of the most important decisions in criminal justice. Courts that make evidence-based decisions set the following as goals: (1) Protecting community safety; (2) Ensuring a defendant's return to court; (3) Basing release and detention decisions on an individual defendant's risk and the community's norms for liberty; [and] (4) Providing judicial officers with clear, legal options for appropriate pretrial release and detention decisions. A Framework for Pretrial Justice: Essential Elements of an Effective Pretrial System and Agency should serve as a guide for jurisdictions interested in improving their current pretrial systems. By presenting a framework of evidence-based and best practices, NIC supports the equally important concepts of pretrial justice and enhanced public safety in all of America's courts. Details: Washington, DC; NIC, 2017. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2017 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/032831.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/032831.pdf Shelf Number: 146178 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesPretrial DetentionPretrial DiversionPretrial JusticePretrial ReleaseRisk Needs Assessment |
Author: Wheeler, Gerald R. Title: Harris County's Two-Tier Justice System: Longitudinal Study of Effects of Harris County Felony and Misdemeanor Defendants' Legal and Extralegal Attributes on Pretrial Status and Case Outcome Summary: The preponderance of national evidence-based research findings directly links pretrial release status to harsh sentences. The degree to which legal and extralegal courthouse culture violates "evenhandedness" in criminal proceedings in Harris County is reflected in what happens to statistically comparable "bond" versus "detain" defendants in case outcome and sentence. The reviewer may draw his or her own conclusion as to where courthouse actors: prosecutor', magistrates', judges', legal defense attorneys', and commercial bondsmen's individual philosophy of justice, world view and vested interests lie, political alliances formed, this investigation unequivocally demonstrates, the net effect of pretrial justice system in Texas's largest jurisdiction, tilts the scales of justice against the poor. Details: Themis Research, Project Orange Jumpsuit, 2014. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2017 at: https://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Harris%20County%27s%20Two-tier%20Justice%20System%20%28Project%20Orange%20Jumpsuit%29%20-%20Wheeler%20and%20Fry%202014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Harris%20County%27s%20Two-tier%20Justice%20System%20%28Project%20Orange%20Jumpsuit%29%20-%20Wheeler%20and%20Fry%202014.pdf Shelf Number: 146484 Keywords: Pretrial DetentionPretrial JusticePretrial Release |
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: Institute for Land, Work and Citizenship Title: Weaving Justice: Pretrial Prisoners in the City of Sao Paulo Summary: The excessive and arbitrary use of pretrial prison, even though a violation of human rights, still affects millions of people each year. Ignored by those who make policies and those who apply the law, it generates and deepens poverty, slows economic development, spreads diseases, and upsets the Democratic State. Pretrial prisoners may lose their jobs or residences, contract and transmit diseases, receive offers of corruption in exchange for freedom or better prison conditions, and suffer torture and physical/psychological harm which can last beyond their time in prison. The closer to the moment of arrest, the more the case's defense can have a positive impact not only for the person assisted, but also for the criminal justice case phase in general. Examples from various parts of the world reveal that interventions done near the time of arrest can reduce the use of pretrial prison, better the performance of the criminal justice authorities, allow more rational and effective decisions to be made, and elevate the level of responsibility and respect for the democratic state. The current forms of the apparatus for state social control have caused the exponential increase in the number of persons imprisoned, be it those who are awaiting sentencing or those already sentenced. The overcrowding of the prison system - a perfect setting for violation of human rights - is to a great degree caused by a serious problem in the access to justice: the excessive use of pretrial prison, which is the focus of this work. In this context of understanding "access to justice" as the application of rights protected by the State, it is important to identify some of these rights that are officially "protected" by the State, but in reality, are lacking. For instance the right to a fair trial, the fundamental guarantee of the presumption of innocence, and the right to a speedy trial are rarely implemented; in fact, the long amount of time in which they are held in pretrial custody can end up actually resulting in a type of advance payment on a possible sentence. This State policy worsens the already insufficient structure of the criminal justice system, which is unable to provide adequate physical space to these people, nor render juridical action fully alert to the rights of this population. The more direct result of this state option is the formation of tense and violent spaces inside and outside of the prisons. In 2009, the Open Society Institute began the Global Campaign for Pretrial Justice. Projects were initiated in 2010 and conducted simultaneously in various countries around the world, especially in Latin America and Africa, with the goals of promoting alternatives to pretrial imprisonment, increasing access to juridical assistance, increasing the number of public defenders acting at the moment of arrest, and giving incentives for the allocation of resources dedicated to public policies aimed at changes in the penal justice system. In Latin America, various countries such as Argentina, Peru, Mexico, Uruguay, and Colombia are engaged in similar projects. In Brazil, eight organizations conducted different projects and formed a network to study and propose public policies to reduce the negative impacts of pretrial prison for society. Thus, the Institute for Land, Work and Citizenship (ITTC) and the National Catholic Prison Ministry (PCr), with support from the Open Society Foundations (OSF), and through an agreement reached with the Sao Paulo Public Defender's Office (DPESP) , developed the Weaving Justice Project: rethinking pretrial prison, for attending and providing defense for pretrial prisoners recently detained at the Pinheiros Center for Pretrial Detention I (CDP I) and the Sant'Ana Women's Prison (PFS), beginning in June of 2010 and ending in December of 2011. Besides the work of legal intervention, a survey was completed regarding information about the profile of the prisoners assisted and about the judicial cases in which lawyers of the project acted. The present document shows the principal results of this experience. In the first part of the report, the objectives, the context, the methodology, the activities performed and the obstacles concerning the project are presented. The second part contains survey data collected from the questionnaires applied in the prison units, as well as data from the case information collection forms. Next, the report deals with some specific, emblematic cases which bring up important issues for debate. Finally, it presents the conclusions and recommendations made from the experience of this project. Details: Pastoral Carceraria, 2013. 94p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 28, 2017 at: http://carceraria.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Weaving-Justice-report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Brazil URL: http://carceraria.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Weaving-Justice-report.pdf Shelf Number: 146919 Keywords: Pretrial DetentionPretrial Justice |
Author: Redpath, Jean Title: African Innovations in Pre-trial Justice Summary: This review seeks to showcase innovative interventions to reduce pre-trial detention in African countries, so that they may be adapted for use in other low and lower-middle income countries. The majority of pre-trial interventions in African have tended to focus on providing access to paralegal legal advice and assistance to persons already held in pre-trial detention in prisons. The Paralegal Advisory Service Institute (PASI) of Malawi is the archetypal example of an intervention in which paralegal lay workers with specific training provide legal advice and practical assistance to detainees in prisons. PASI's model operates on the premise that paralegals are less expensive than lawyers, yet as good as lawyers, because of their highly specific training on pre-trial issues. The PASI-type intervention reaches those most in need of assistance - persons held in pretrial detention in prisons - and frequently has immediate and profound impact on individuals and their families' lives through securing their release from frequently illegal, arbitrary or unduly lengthy detention. Adaption of the PASI model is however possible. In this review two interventions from Malawi are considered which arise from adaptions of the original PASI model. Both of these aim to prevent prison admissions to pre-trial detention, rather than to target those already in prison. One such adapted intervention from PASI itself seeks to provide early access to legal assistance in police stations and courts, preferably before a court has ordered that a detainee be remanded awaiting trial. The impact of the project includes the sensitisation of police officials to the rights of detainees and to other pathways to release of detainees before trial. The second Malawi intervention uses paralegals to facilitate diversion processes. Diversion processes in developed countries were originally designed for use with children, to redirect the resolution of disputes away from the criminal justice process. While diversion of children from the trial process is a relatively common intervention, diversion of adults is less so. The model being piloted in Malawi by CCJP is innovative in leveraging the influence and authority of traditional leaders in implementing an adult diversion scheme, while bringing together the formal and informal justice systems. The aim is to formalise these processes in law. Other longer-lasting impacts include the sensitisation of influential traditional leaders to the rights of detainees and to alternative methods of managing conflict. While the PASI paralegal model has been replicated to good effect across Africa and other developing regions, paralegals have not yet secured a right of appearance in court in any country in which they operate, and thus they cannot represent detainees in court. The legal assistance paralegals can provide is therefore limited. In response to these constraints, from Zambia has emerged a triage model of paralegal assistance. The triage model being piloted by the Prison Care and Counselling Association (PRISCCA) sees the empowerment of longterm prisoners, under the supervision of trained prison officials, in providing basic advice and assistance to fellow detainees. This is the first level of assistance. The second level of assistance involves roving paralegals providing outside practical assistance, such as tracing sureties, and screening cases to identity those in need of legal representation to identify who can or cannot be assisted without legal representation. Lawyers are the third level of assistance. Those who are in need of legal assistance are referred to lawyers, who are employed on retainer by PRISCCA to provide a set amount of legal representation per month. The triage model ensures that all detainees receive an appropriate level of assistance, according to their situation. As indicated above, paralegals have yet to be granted standing to appear in courts of law. They also tend to suffer from a lack of status and formal voice within criminal justice systems. In addition, variable standards of work by some service providers have affected the reputation of paralegals, and consequently the prospects for the formalisation of their role in national criminal justice systems have also been affected. In response to these issues, the Paralegal Alliance Network was established in Zambia. This network seeks to ensure a coherent voice for all paralegal organisations toward better co-operation in the justice system in Zambia, in setting and maintaining standards for paralegals, and in providing an amplified voice advocating for reform. Such advocacy includes advocacy toward formalisation of their role, including the right to appear in court on behalf of detainees. As a result, Zambia may become the first country to formalise the role of paralegals. Paralegal services are frequently targeted at detainees. Yet families of detainees are often well-placed to assist their detained family members, if they are empowered with sufficient information, regarding bail, sureties and the like. By providing empowerment through legal education to families, the Resource Oriented Development Initiative (RODI) in Kenya helps families secure the release of detainees. An associated rehabilitation and re-integration arm of the project aims to assist detainees in re-entering society and avoiding future detention and provides them with enterprise development and life skills. Systematic monitoring of prisons and places of detention is a key method of preventing human rights abuses, such as arbitrary prolonged detention and torture. Where statemandated institutions are failing to fulfil this role, civil society organisations may embark on monitoring by agreement with the state. In Mozambique, the Human Rights League (Liga) conducts regular prison monitoring which leads to the identification of cases for legal representation, results in reports which help to shape the human rights environment, and informs strategic litigation which in turn improves the policy environment relating to pretrial detention. These activities by Liga have led to permanent change in the pre-trial legislative framework. Ultimately assisting the state in improving the operation of the criminal justice system is necessary when criminal justice problems are systemic. In Liberia, Prison Fellowship Liberia (PFL) paralegals, and Justice and Peace Commission (JPC) lawyers work together with government in an intervention which has multiple entry points, but which seeks to identify and resolve systemic problems while providing emergency relief through expedited court processes. The close co-operation ensures long term impact through the implementation of systemic change. All of these organisations, through their interventions, bring something new to the pre-trial arena. It is hoped that by documenting their models, lessons can be drawn which may inform the development of future successful interventions in other contexts. Details: Cape Town: University of Western Cape, Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative, 2015. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 11, 2017 at: http://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/Innovations.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Africa URL: http://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/Innovations.pdf Shelf Number: 147214 Keywords: Legal AidLegal Assistance to the PoorParalegalsPretrial DetentionPretrial InterventionPretrial Justice |
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: Butkovitz, Alan Title: Economic Impacts of Cash Bail on the City of Philadelphia. An analysis of the Direct and Indirect Impacts of Cash Bail City of Philadelphia Summary: Why should the City of Philadelphia be concerned about this issue? The City of Philadelphia, by eliminating the cash bail system, could save the city over $75 million annually and provide a viable alternative to jail for a significant number of those arrested in Philadelphia in a given year. Since 2015, Philadelphia jail populations have declined almost 20 percent, from 8,301 in January 2015 to 6,820 in June 2017.1 This is the lowest population since 1999. 2 Much of this decline can be attributed to the implementation of various MacArthur Initiatives launched by the City since 2015. Notwithstanding, of the nearly 6,700 men and women still incarcerated in Philadelphia, three in every ten are held pre-trial because they cannot afford the cash bail. Of those, one in three are held on less than $5,000, of which the City will ultimately retain only $1,500. According to Pew Charitable Trust's Philadelphia Research Initiative, more than half remain for longer than 30 days. Sometimes exceeding 180 days, the direct costs of incarceration can exceed $20,700 for a single bed. Findings. Cash bail can be reduced or eliminated at a substantial cost savings to the City of Philadelphia. Major cities across the U.S. are looking at innovative ways to manage pretrial defendants, balancing the need to ensure justice is served and maintaining public safety, while evaluating the long-term impacts of incarceration and correction of the offender. Research has found current systems can cause more damage on the incarcerated and their families than benefit, whereas alternatives may be just as effective, yet provide better futures for those in the criminal justice system. This report examines the economic implications of the cash bail system by comparing both the direct and indirect costs of incarceration against cash bail alternatives. This report examines cost implications, underscoring the problem's severity and need for reform Details: Philadelphia: City of Philadelphia, Office of the Controller, 2017. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 7, 2017 at: http://www.philadelphiacontroller.org/publications/CashBail_FinalReport.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.philadelphiacontroller.org/publications/CashBail_FinalReport.pdf Shelf Number: 148050 Keywords: Bail Pretrial JusticePretrial Release |
Author: Fuller, Doris A. Title: Emptying the 'New Asylums': A Beds Capacity Model to Reduce Mental Illness Behind Bars Summary: In 2016, an estimated 90,000 US jail inmates were pretrial defendants with serious mental illness who had been found incompetent to stand trial (IST). IST services most commonly take place in state hospitals. Most state hospitals maintain waitlists of IST inmates because they do not have enough beds to meet demand. Waits are typically around one month but some are as long as a year. While the inmates wait, typically without treatment, they deteriorate, are often victimized and sometimes die. Emptying the ;New Asylums': A Beds Capacity Model to Reduce Mental Illness Behind Bars reports the findings of a mathematical model built to project whether relatively modest selected changes to the status quo could break this logjam. Data from five sample states were used to model the effect of three specific changes. Eight recommendations for state and federal lawmakers are proposed in response to the findings. Top Takeaway Relatively small changes in common policy and practice could dramatically reduce pretrial bed waits and the mass incarceration of individuals with serious mental illness. Fast Facts The following examples illustrate what the model found based on 2016 data from the sample states (Florida, Maine, New Jersey, Texas, Wisconsin). In Florida, diverting two mentally ill offenders per month would reduce the average forensic bed wait in the state by 75%, from an average of 12 days to three days. In Texas, reducing the average hospital stay from 189 days to 186 days would reduce forensic bed waits from an average of two months to three days. In Wisconsin, increasing the number of forensic beds from 70 to 78 beds would reduce waits for competency services from nearly two months to weeks. Behind the Facts Pretrial inmates represent the largest and fastest-growing segment of the US jail population. At least one in five of these defendants is mentally ill. State hospitals reported having 5.5 forensic beds per 100,000 population in 2016. Of these, about half were reserved for patients found not guilty by reason of insanity. This leaves approximately 8,800 psychiatric beds for all other forensic patients, including the 90,000 pretrial detainees. Historically, state hospitals were called "asylums" because they were associated with long-term care and protection. Mental illness is now so prevalent behind bars that jails and prisons are routinely called the "new asylums." Details: Arlington, VA: Treatment Advocacy Center, 2017. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 7, 2017 at: http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/storage/documents/emptying-new-asylums.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/storage/documents/emptying-new-asylums.pdf Shelf Number: 148054 Keywords: Mental Health Services Mentally Ill Inmates Mentally Ill Offenders Pretrial 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: Instituto Terra, Trabalho e Cidadania – ITTC Title: Pre-trial Prisoners Research and juridical intervention report conducted in two Sao Paulo prisons units between 2010-2011 Summary: The problem - One in every three Brazilian prisoners waits in prison for his/her trial, according to the National Penitentiary Department. In 2011 and 2012, the percentage of pre-trial prisoners increased more than the total prison population in Brazil, a population considered the fourth largest in the world. Objectives of the Project The Weaving Justice Project worked in two distinct areas. Firstly, it attempted to guarantee the prisoner immediate access to legal defense, to give orientation to the family, and to help the accused better understand and accompany his/her trial in order to more effectively exercise the constitutional right to defense. Secondly, it sought to show a profile of the people who are imprisoned, to identify the circumstances of their imprisonment, and to evaluate how their situations would have been different if public defenders were present at the moment of their entrance into the prison system. Details: Sao Paulo, Brazil: The Institute, 2013. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 13, 2017 at: http://ittc.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ITTC_digital-ingles-final-1.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Brazil URL: http://ittc.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ITTC_digital-ingles-final-1.pdf Shelf Number: 148161 Keywords: Pretrial DetentionPretrial InmatesPretrial Justice |
Author: Tallon, Jennifer A. Title: Creating Off-Ramps: A National Review of Police-Led Diversion Programs Summary: In recent years there has been growing interest in pretrial justice reform in the US, including the infusion of evidence-based practices into bail and release decisions, decriminalization of nonserious offenses, and the expansion of pretrial diversion programs for misdemeanants, drug-involved defendants, and mentally-ill defendants (Pretrial Justice Institute 2011). The use of early pretrial diversion is particular appealing as a response to misdemeanor crime, given the potential to conserve scarce resources and refocus attention on more serious cases, while also reducing the exposure of defendants facing low-level charges to the traditional justice system. Currently, pretrial diversion programs fall into two main categories: pre-booking ("police-led") diversion and post-booking diversion, typically led by prosecutors or courts (e.g., see Camiletti 2010). While less common than diversion at the post-booking prosecutorial stage, police-led diversion nonetheless represents an important development. There are several distinct advantages to police-led diversion programs. In particular, because these programs keep individuals out of court in the first place, they may be particularly beneficial to the system in terms of conserving resources and to the defendant in mitigating the collateral consequences of system involvement, including exposure to a conviction or incarceration. Police-led diversion programs in the United States typically fall into one of three categories: (1) diversion of mentally-ill defendants (i.e., Crisis Intervention Teams ("CIT") programs), (2) diversion of juveniles, or (3) adult diversion programs for first-time or low-level defendants. Previous research and evaluation work is mostly available for the CIT model and select programs focusing on low-level defendants. This report presents the results from a comprehensive descriptive study of police-led diversion in the United States, including programs targeting mentally-ill individuals, juveniles, and low-level or first-time adult defendants. The purpose of this study, funded by the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office of the Department of Justice, is to produce a portrait of these programs, exploring why they were created, how they work, and how they vary. This study is not an impact evaluation; we did not test whether specific types of programs or one program in a particular site reduce collateral consequences, reduce recidivism, or achieve other quantifiable outcomes. The study proceeded in two phases. First, we identified common themes and critical issues influencing the development and implementation of police-led diversion programs and used this information to construct a national survey. The survey was sent to a representative sample of law enforcement agencies across the country. Second, we conducted site visits to eight agencies in seven states, including in-depth interviews with a wide range of professionals who work in or with the diversion program. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2016. 153p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 19, 2018 at: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Creating%20Off-Ramps%20A%20National%20Review%20of%20Police-Led%20Diversion%20Programs.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Creating%20Off-Ramps%20A%20National%20Review%20of%20Police-Led%20Diversion%20Programs.pdf Shelf Number: 148873 Keywords: Diversion Programs Juvenile Diversion Policing Pretrial Justice |
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: Pelvin, Holly Title: Doing Uncertain Time: Understanding the Experiences of Punishment in Pre-trial Custody Summary: On any given day in Ontario's provincial prisons, there are more legally innocent people in prison than there are sentenced prisoners. Yet, little is known about the experiences of these prisoners and the challenges they pose for correctional institutions. I seek to fill this gap by drawing on in-depth interviews with 120 pre-trial detainees (60 men and 60 women) and 40 staff at four maximum-security facilities in Ontario. My analysis focuses on the three temporal dimensions distinctive to what is known as pre-trial custody or 'remand imprisonment' that have been neglected by prior research: experiences of arrest and police custody, making bail and court appearances, and daily life on remand. My findings indicate that this process inflicts a series of state-sanctioned harms on legally innocent prisoners. Much of the harm of this experience can be traced back to the fact that the criminal justice system is ignorant of or unconcerned with the human costs of this process. Police, acting under their authority to arrest, can apprehend and hold an individual, and have no legal obligation to allow a personal phone call so that arrangements about their lives can be made. Court appearances typically require some advance preparation; yet remand prisoners in Ontario must grapple with an outdated phone system that permits collect-calls to landlines but not cellular devices, leaving many unable to contact lawyers or loved ones, and seriously limiting their ability to prepare for court. Daily life in these facilities is characterized by uncertainty for both prisoners and staff, who must grapple with whatever challenges come their way in the form of an unpredictable flow of new admissions. In this thesis, I argue that disruption and uncertainty are unique features of pre-trial imprisonment and I examine the costs of these on the individuals confined to and working inside these facilities. Details: Toronto: University of Toronto, Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies, 2017. 280p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed March 26, 2018 at: https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/80896/3/Pelvin_Holly_201711_PhD_thesis.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Canada URL: https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/80896/3/Pelvin_Holly_201711_PhD_thesis.pdf Shelf Number: 149575 Keywords: Pretrial DetaineesPretrial 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: Doerner, John Title: Cuyahoga County, Ohio: Booking Process & Pretrial Services: Final Report Summary: The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office contracted with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to study how the members of the criminal justice system can work together to improve the speed, efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness of the County's pretrial process. The NCSC also procured the services of the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) for additional support. The study focused on understanding the current pretrial practices in the County and planning for a Central Booking Facility in the Cuyahoga County Jail that could, if necessary, operate on a 24 hour, 7 day per week basis and encompass all appropriate processes from the arrestee's arrival at the jail to a judicial decision regarding either pretrial detention or release. This report addresses current pretrial decision-making procedures and various aspects of developing the central booking facility, including location and space planning within the existing County Jail structure; sequencing and target time-frames for processes and programs; and the next steps toward implementing central booking. A Project Steering Committee, made up of a broad cross-section of criminal justice system stakeholder agencies1 , provided general oversight for this project. Project Overview The primary urban center and county seat of Cuyahoga County, Ohio is the City of Cleveland. In addition to the City of Cleveland, the metropolitan area includes many suburban municipalities. The Court of Common Pleas is the general jurisdiction court which is responsible for hearing all felony criminal cases; the thirteen municipal courts2 have responsibility for hearing all misdemeanor cases and conducting probable cause/initial bond hearings for all felony cases arising within their respective jurisdictions. The focus of this project was to assess the feasibility of establishing a central booking operation while improving the process by which arrestees are booked in the Cuyahoga County and City of Cleveland (City) jails and release or detain decisions are made in the courts. Details: Denver, CO: National Center for State Courts, 2015. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 7, 2018 at: http://prosecutor.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_prosecutor/en-US/Cuyahoga%20Central%20Booking%20-%20Final%20Report%20Dec%202015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://prosecutor.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_prosecutor/en-US/Cuyahoga%20Central%20Booking%20-%20Final%20Report%20Dec%202015.pdf Shelf Number: 150083 Keywords: Pretrial ArraignmentPretrial DetentionPretrial Justice |
Author: Daniels, Flozell, Jr. Title: From Bondage to Bail Bonds: Putting a Price on Freedom in New Orleans Summary: Bail in Louisiana was once a system that enforced a constitutional right to be free after arrest and before a determination of guilt or innocence. Over time, it has been transformed into a money bail system in which that freedom is conditioned on the ability to pay money up front. What was originally designed as a right to pretrial freedom has become a means of control and extracting money from people who are arrested, and jailing those who cannot pay. The money bail system takes $6.4 million from New Orleans families each year, with over $1 million going to the court, $227,000 to each of three other agencies (the sheriff, district attorney, and public defender offices), and $4.7 million to commercial bail bond companies.1 For those whose families cannot afford to pay the price of pretrial freedom, the non-financial costs are even greater. Many poor and low income people stay in jail until their cases are resolved, regardless of the seriousness of the charges or the likely outcome of the case. In fact, most arrests and detention do not lead to a conviction with a sentence of incarceration; most plead guilty and are sentenced to probation or to the time they've already served before conviction. As a result, the only incarceration most people end up serving is the pretrial detention they suffer because of the requirement that they pay to gain their freedom, despite being legally innocent. Once their cases are resolved, most are released. The length of this money-based detention can be devastating. Those who cannot afford to pay bail stay in jail nearly four months while facing a felony charge and nearly one month for a municipal or state misdemeanor charge until their case is resolved. Even those who were able to pay bail were jailed an average of 11 days for a felony and three days for a misdemeanor before being freed. More than 500 people were in jail on any given day in 2015 for no other reason than that they could not afford to pay cash or purchase a bail bond. There are also enormous costs to the city's taxpayers, who pay more than $6 million each year to subsidize the cost of unnecessarily jailing these 500 people. People who are arrested in New Orleans are often poor-85 percent are too poor to hire a lawyer. They are also disproportionately black; black people are arrested at two and a half times the rate of white people. Fully 84 percent of the $6.3 million paid in money bail is paid by black people. Worse yet, black people are less likely to be able to pay the price set for their freedom; average income for black households is $25,324 while for white households it is $67,884.9 Consequently, most of the people in the jail-87 percent-are black. The money bail system intrinsically harms those least able to afford it, whether by extracting scarce dollars or jailing those with insufficient dollars to pay. Black people, whether subject to implicit biases or by virtue of being economically disadvantaged, suffer the greatest harm. New Orleans has led all U.S. cities in jailing its people. Why does a majorityblack city pursue policies and practices that lead to the jailing of black people at starkly higher rates than people of other races? Why does this city-300 years old, half of that post-emancipation-continue to exact the heavy human toll of conditioning freedom on the ability to pay the price set? One place to look for answers is in the historical practices of exploitation of people of color, driven or sanctioned by the state, that trade on the fiction of black dangerousness and criminality to extract revenue and exert control. This essay examines the extent to which money bail in New Orleans is a descendant of slavery and subsequent practices of racial exploitation. It describes bail and related practices across the city's 300-year history, identifying echoes in the present-day regime of money bail. It then explains the processes and costs of modern money bail. Finally, it presents some ways in which the city has been moving to a less harmful criminal legal system and offers models from jurisdictions that have rejected money-based detention as inconsistent with the core principle of innocent until proven guilty. Details: New Orleans: The Data Center, 2018. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2018 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/gnocdc/reports/Daniels_bondage_to_bail_bonds.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/gnocdc/reports/Daniels_bondage_to_bail_bonds.pdf Shelf Number: 150194 Keywords: Bail BondsPovertyPretrial JusticePretrial ReleaseRacial Disparities |
Author: Donnelly, Neil Title: Evaluation of the Bail Assessment Officer (BAO) Intervention Summary: Aim: To determine whether the Bail Assessment Officer (BAO) intervention which was piloted in Central and Parramatta local courts in late 2016 had an impact on the proportion of defendants being granted bail at first court appearance and/ or reducing time spent in custody. Method: The impact of the BAO intervention on bail refusal and time spent in custody was assessed using a two-by-two design; with group (BAO intervention vs. control) and time (pre-intervention period vs. post-intervention period) as the two factors. The treatment group consisted of custody-based defendants from two local courts (Central and Parramatta) where the BAO intervention was operating. The control group consisted of defendants appearing at three local courts (Burwood, Campbelltown and Fairfield) where the BAO intervention was not operating. The pre-intervention period was SeptemberDecember 2015 and the post-intervention period was September-December 2016. Outcomes compared in the analysis were percentage of defendants granted bail at first court appearance, mean bail refused days and mean time on remand. Results: There was no significant change from pre-intervention to post-intervention in the percentage of defendants granted bail at first court appearance or the mean number of bail refused days or days on remand for defendants appearing in the BAO intervention courts. Similar results were also evident for defendants appearing in the control group courts and held even after controlling for a wide range of covariates. Conclusion: There is no evidence from this aggregate-level analysis that the BAO intervention had an impact on the granting of bail at first appearance, bail refused days or time on remand. However, a rigorous assessment of program effectiveness was precluded because of the lack of clear, objective eligibility criteria for program entry and limited recording of essential program data. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research; 2018. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice No. 209: Accessed July 9, 2018 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/2018-Report-Evaluation-of-the-Bail-Assessment-Officer-intervention-CJB209.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/2018-Report-Evaluation-of-the-Bail-Assessment-Officer-intervention-CJB209.pdf Shelf Number: 150792 Keywords: Bail Pretrial JusticeRemand Risk Assessment |
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 |