Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:21 pm
Time: 12:21 pm
Results for pretrial detention
85 results foundAuthor: Roos, Mari-Ann Title: Analysis of the Criminal Justice System of Albania: Report by the Fair Trial Development Project Summary: This analysis of the criminal justice system of Albania addresses the following issues: rights during pre-trial detention; rights to an effective defense; two case studies (Revenge for Albania Justice Case and a corruption case); domestic violence and the criminal justice system; transparency and access to information; and efficient trails and witness issues. Details: Tirana, Albania: OSCE, 2006. 245p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2006 Country: Albania URL: Shelf Number: 111760 Keywords: CorruptionDomestic ViolenceDue ProcessPretrial DetentionTrials |
Author: Berry, David Title: The Socioeconomic Impact of Pretrial Detention Summary: Approximately 10 million people per year pass through pretrial detention; many of them will spend months or even years behind bars —without being tried or found guilty. Locking away millions of people who are presumed innocent is a waste of human potential that undermines economic development. The economic effects of excessive pretrial detention — from lost wages to misspent government resources — are documented in this report. The study attempts for the first time to count the full cost of excessive pretrial detention, including lost employment, stunted economic growth, the spread of disease and corruption, and the misuse of state resources. Combining statistics, personal accounts, and recommendations for reform, The Socioeconomic Impact of Pretrial Detention provides empirical arguments against the overuse of pretrial detention. Details: New York: Open Society Foundations, 2011. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2011 at: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/focus/criminal_justice/articles_publications/publications/socioeconomic-impact-detention-20110201/socioeconomic-impact-pretrial-detention-02012011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/focus/criminal_justice/articles_publications/publications/socioeconomic-impact-detention-20110201/socioeconomic-impact-pretrial-detention-02012011.pdf Shelf Number: 121065 Keywords: EconomicsPretrial Detention |
Author: Mamalian, Cynthia A. Title: State of the Science of Pretrial Risk Assessment Summary: The most important decision that is made with respect to a newly arrested defendant is whether to release that defendant into the community while awaiting trial; getting that decision right is critically important for both the defendant and the community at-large. In June 2010, the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) and the Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) convened a meeting of researchers and practitioners to discuss the current state of the science and practice of pretrial justice. This document summarizes the key points that came out of that discussion and what leaders in the field identified as signficant next steps in advancing the administration of pretrial justice, ensuring efficient and effective release and detention decisions for pretrial defendants, managing defendant risk through appropriate and specific conditions of release, and balancing the rights of defendants with community safety. This publication is designed for a wide-ranging audience of criminal justice stakeholders who have questions about pretrial risk assessment and its value to the pretrial justice process. The first section of this publication provides a brief review of the history and current state of pretrial justice. The second section looks at critical issues related to pretrial release, detention, and risk assessment. The third section discusses challenges to implementing evidence-based risk assessment and threats to reliable administration, including time constraints and practicality of the risk assessment instrument, money bail schedules, local capacity, subjective risk assessment, and court culture and judicial behavior. The fourth section of the document outlines methodological challenges associated with the prediction of risk. The final section provides recommendations for research and practice. We discuss high priority research activities, the potential for a universal risk assessment instrument, and the need for training and technical assistance. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Pretrial Justice Institute, 2011. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 22, 2011 at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/PJI_PretrialRiskAssessment.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/PJI_PretrialRiskAssessment.pdf Shelf Number: 121099 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Birk, Moritz Title: Pretrial Detention and Torture: Why Pretrial Detainees Face the Greatest Risk Summary: Torture and other ill-treatment are not aberrations; they are common — even routine in many detention facilities around the world. And while it is often assumed that torture victims are likely to be political prisoners or suspected terrorists, most victims are ordinary people accused of ordinary crimes. In fact, it is pretrial detainees — people who have not been tried or found guilty — who are most at risk of torture. Pretrial Detention and Torture: Why Pretrial Detainees Are Most at Risk looks at the practice of torture in pretrial detention, the systemic factors that leave pretrial detainees so vulnerable, and the safeguards that are needed to prevent this abhorrent practice. By combining policy analysis, first-hand accounts, and recommendations for reform, the report shows why pretrial detainees are so at risk of torture and what can be done to stop it. It argues that torture can be deterred by steps including: holding perpetrators accountable; by refusing to admit evidence gained through torture; by allowing prisoners early access to legal counsel; and providing for independent oversight of detention facilities. Details: New York: Open Society Foundations, 2011. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 30, 2011 at: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/focus/criminal_justice/articles_publications/publications/pretrial-detention-and-torture-20110624/pretrial-detention-and-torture-06222011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/focus/criminal_justice/articles_publications/publications/pretrial-detention-and-torture-20110624/pretrial-detention-and-torture-06222011.pdf Shelf Number: 121927 Keywords: Pretrial DetentionTorture |
Author: Shubik-Richards, Claire Title: Philadelphia's Less Crowded, Less Costly Jails: Taking Stock of a Year of Change and the Challenges That Remain Summary: A new study from The Pew Charitable Trusts’ Philadelphia Research Initiative finds that Philadelphia’s jail population decreased dramatically last year due to reductions among both the number of individuals held pretrial and those held for alleged violations of their probation or parole. Join the Philadelphia Research Initiative for a Webinar to learn more about our latest analysis of the city's inmate population, including the factors that have contributed to its decline, the policies and practices that impact its size and what it means for the city's bottom line. Details: Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia Research Initiative, 2011. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2011 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Philadelphia_Research_Initiative/Philadelphia-Jail-Population.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Philadelphia_Research_Initiative/Philadelphia-Jail-Population.pdf Shelf Number: 122571 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCosts of Criminal JusticeJail OvercrowdingJails (Philadelphia)Pretrial Detention |
Author: Porter, Lindsay Title: Trends in the Use of Remand in Canada Summary: Over the last decade, the composition of Canada’s correctional population has changed, most notably as a result of an increase in the number of adults admitted to custody on remand. Remand is the temporary detention of a person while awaiting trial, sentencing or the commencement of a custodial disposition. According to the Criminal Code, adults and youth can be admitted to remand for a variety of reasons, including to ensure attendance in court, for the protection or safety of the public or to maintain public confidence in the justice system. An increase in the adult remand population can have a number of repercussions on the operations of correctional services. For example, correctional costs can increase as can the challenges for managing the safety and well-being of the remand population. Also, planning correctional space can become increasingly difficult since the length of time an individual spends in remand is not predictable (Johnson, 2003). Using data drawn primarily from the Adult Correctional Services (ACS) Survey, the Youth Custody and Community Services (YCCS) Survey, the Integrated Correctional Services Survey (ICSS) and the Key Indicator Reports (KIR) for Adults and Youth, this Juristat article analyses recent trends in the use of remand in Canada. As the principles and legislation governing detainment differ for adults and youth, separate analyses are presented for each population group. This article makes use of two basic indicators that describe the use of correctional services: the average number or count of individuals in correctional facilities on a daily basis and the number of annual admissions. Admissions are collected each time a person begins any type of custodial or community supervision, and describe and measure the case-flow in correctional agencies over time. The same person can be included several times in the admission counts where the individual moves from one type of legal status to another (e.g., from remand to sentenced custody) or re-enters the system in the same year. It is important to note that the most recent year of data for the average number of those in correctional facilities is 2009/2010 whereas the most recent year of data for annual admissions is 2008/2009. Also, in some cases, not all jurisdictions were able to report complete data. Where this is the case, exclusions are noted. Details: Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Juristat Article: Accessed September 20, 2011 at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11440-eng.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Canada URL: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11440-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 122795 Keywords: Corrections (Canada)Costs of Criminal JusticePretrial DetentionPrisoners |
Author: Open Society Foundations Title: Pretrial Detention and Health: Unintended Consequences, Deadly Results Summary: Pretrial holding facilities in countries with developing and transitional economies often force detainees to live in filthy, over-crowded conditions, where they lack adequate health services. In the worst cases, detainees die; some centers are so bad that innocent people plead guilty just to be transferred to prisons where the conditions might be better. For many pretrial detainees, being locked away in detention centers where tuberculosis, hepatitis C, and HIV are easily contracted can be a death sentence. This paper, aimed at health professionals, presents a review of literature on health conditions and health services in pretrial detention in developing and transitional countries. It takes as its point of departure that the negative health impacts of excessive pretrial detention are an important reason to pursue pretrial justice reform. Its recommendations include calling on health professionals to support monitoring and research efforts on the issues, as well supporting prison health officials and public engagement. Details: New York: Open Society Foundations, 2011. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2011 at: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/articles_publications/publications/ptd-health-20111103/ptd-health-20111103.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/articles_publications/publications/ptd-health-20111103/ptd-health-20111103.pdf Shelf Number: 123311 Keywords: Detention CentersHealth Care, PrisonsPretrial Detention |
Author: United States National Institute of Corrections Title: Assessing Local Pretrial Justice Functions: A Handbook for Providing Technical Assistance Summary: This guide “presents a protocol designed to produce high-quality technical assistance for the front end of the criminal justice system—the pretrial justice stage” (p. iii). Sections contained in this publication are: basic obligations of a technical assistance (TA) provider; preparation for the site visit; conducting the site visit; people who should be interviewed and areas of inquiry; after the site visit; characteristics of effective technical assistance; and logistics of acting as a consulting technical assistance provider. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 2011. 39p. Source: NIC Accession Number 025016: Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2012 at http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025016.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025016.pdf Shelf Number: 124139 Keywords: Pretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: Appleman, Laura I. Title: Justice in the Shadowlands: Pretrial Detention, Punishment, & the Sixth Amendment Summary: In a criminal system that tips heavily to the side of wealth and power, we routinely detain the accused in often horrifying conditions, confined in jails while still maintaining the presumption of innocence. Here, in the rotting jail cells of impoverished defendants, are the Shadowlands of Justice, where the lack of criminal procedure has produced a darkness unrelieved by much scrutiny or concern on the part of the law. This article contends that our current system of pretrial detention lies in shambles, routinely incarcerating the accused in horrifying conditions often far worse than those convicted offenders existing in prisons. Due to these punitive conditions of incarceration, pretrial detainees appear to have a cognizable claim for the denial of their Sixth Amendment jury trial right, which, at its broadest, forbids punishment for any crime unless a cross-section of the offender’s community adjudicates his crime and finds him guilty. This article argues that the spirit of the Sixth Amendment jury trial right might apply to many pretrial detainees, due to both the punishment-like conditions of their incarceration and the unfair procedures surrounding bail grants, denials and revocations. In so arguing, I expose some of the worst abuses of current procedures surrounding bail and jail in both federal and state systems. Additionally, I also propose some much needed reforms in the pretrial release world, including better oversight of the surety bond system, reducing prison overcrowding by increasing electronic bail surveillance and revising the bail hearing procedure to permit a community “bail jury” to help decide the defendant’s danger to the community. Details: Unpublished paper, 2012. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2031196 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2031196 Shelf Number: 124819 Keywords: IncarcerationJailsPretrial DetentionPunishmentSixth Amendment |
Author: Austin, James Title: Florida Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument Summary: Evidence-‐based practices requires the use of validated criteria to assess the risks that pretrial defendants pose of being rearrested on new charges while their cases are pending and of failing to appear (FTA) in court. Florida Statute 903.046 (2) lists the criteria that judicial officers are to take into consideration in making pretrial release decisions. Those criteria include: the nature and circumstances of the offense; the weight of the evidence; the defendant’s family ties, length of time in the community; employment history; financial resources; mental conditions; prior criminal history; prior history of appearance in court; current status on pretrial release, probation, and parole; and the “nature and probability of danger which the defendant’s release poses to the community.” The statute does not provide any guidance on what weight to assign each of these criterion in assessing a defendant’s risk of danger to the community and non-‐ appearance in court. But research has clearly demonstrated that it is possible to sort defendants into categories that accurately reflect the risks they pose to the safety of the community and to appearance in court.2 During 2011, six Florida counties participated in a project to develop a multi-‐county pretrial risk assessment instrument. The six counties are: Alachua, Manatee, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pinellas, and Volusia. The purpose of the instrument is to support pretrial decision making as outlined in state statute. Details: Denver, CO: The JFA Institute, 2012? 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 10, 2012 at: http://www.pretrial.org/Setting%20Bail%20Documents/FL%20Pretrial%20Risk%20Assessment%20Report%20(2012).pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/Setting%20Bail%20Documents/FL%20Pretrial%20Risk%20Assessment%20Report%20(2012).pdf Shelf Number: 124918 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment (Florida) |
Author: Pretrial Justice Institute Title: Rational and Transparent Bail Decision Making: Moving from a Bash-Based to a Risk-Based Process Summary: Between 1990 and 2008, the jail population in the United States doubled from 400,000 inmates to 800,000. During much of this period, crime rates were steadily dropping, falling to levels not seen in decades. The number of defendants held in jail awaiting disposition of their charges drove much of the increase in the jail population. Up until 1996, jail populations were comprised evenly of about 50 percent sentenced and 50 percent pretrial inmates. Beginning in 1996, the number of pretrial inmates grew at a much faster pace than the sentenced inmates. Currently, 61 percent of inmates in local jails have not been convicted, compared to 39 percent who are serving sentences.1 This shift has resulted in a dramatic change in how jails are being used. One major policy shift corresponding with the rise in the pretrial detainee population has been the increase in the use of money bond. When a person is arrested, the court can release the defendant with non-!nancial conditions or set a money bond, which must be posted before the defendant can be released. Existing laws in most states establish a presumption for release on the least restrictive conditions necessary to reasonably assure the safety of the community and the defendant’s appearance in court. Those laws also identify non-!nancial release options as being the least restrictive and money bonds being the most restrictive. Notwithstanding the presumption for release on the least restrictive conditions, historically, money bond has been used in the majority of cases – and its use is on the rise. In 1990, money bonds were being set in 53 percent of felony cases. By 2006, that !gure had jumped to 70 percent.2 As the use of money bonds has gone up, pretrial release rates have gone down. In 1990, 65 percent of felony defendants were released while awaiting trial, compared to 58 percent in 2006.3 Rising jail populations have come at great cost to taxpayers. Between 1982 and 2006, county expenditures on criminal justice grew from $21 billion to $109 billion. County spending on jails alone rose 500 percent over that period.4 A recent analysis by the Florida Sheri"’s Association calculated that in just 30 of Florida’s county jails, taxpayers spend $983,921,079 – or nearly one billion dollars – a year to house just those inmates who are in jail awaiting trial.5 If these !gures were extrapolated nationally, they would be in the tens of billions of dollars. This White Paper takes the position that most of the money spent to house defendants who cannot post a bond is unnecessary to achieve the purposes of bond – to protect the safety of the community while the defendant’s case is pending, and to assure the appearance of the defendant in court. With local jurisdictions laying o" teachers, police o#cers and !re!ghters and cutting back on vital services because they do not have the money to pay them, this waste of money is unconscionable. Aside from the wasteful use of taxpayer dollars, the practice of using money to decide pretrial release has also played a signi!cant role in contributing to the mass incarceration phenomena that has swept the nation for the past three decades. Research dating back 50 years clearly and consistently demonstrates the relationship between being locked up pending trial and subsequent incarceration. The research shows that defendants detained in jail while awaiting trial plead guilty more often, are convicted more often, are sentenced to prison more often, and receive harsher prison sentences than those who are released during the pretrial period. These relationships hold true when controlling for other factors, such as current charge, prior criminal history, and community ties.6 As one of these studies noted, “Although no statistical study can prove causality, the !ndings of this research are fully consistent with the argument that something about detention (awaiting trial) itself leads to harsher outcomes.”7 Regardless of the reasons for the harsher outcomes for those who are detained during the pretrial period, the facts cannot be ignored. There is an enormous amount of unnecessary pretrial detention taking place in this country, and being held in jail awaiting trial in e"ect pre-selects persons for later incarceration. Moreover, the greatest impact of this falls on racial and ethnic minorities, who are the least likely to be able to post money bonds. Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2012. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2012 at: http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/Rational%20and%20Transparent%20Bail%20Decision%20Making.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/Rational%20and%20Transparent%20Bail%20Decision%20Making.pdf Shelf Number: 125168 Keywords: Bail (U.S.)Pretrial DetentionRisk Assessment |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Remand Prisoners: A Thematic Review Summary: At any one time, remand prisoners make up about 15% of the prison population – about 12,000–13,000 prisoners. Women and those from black and minority ethnic and foreign national backgrounds are over-represented within the remand group. In 2010, 17% of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts or tried at the Crown Court were acquitted or not proceeded against, and 25% received a non-custodial sentence. In total, approximately 29,400 prisoners were released after trial. This review examines the experience of young adult and adult remand (unconvicted and convicted unsentenced) prisoners in local prisons against the Inspectorate’s four healthy prison tests: safety, respect, purposeful activity and resettlement. It incorporates findings from survey data and inspection reports for 33 local prisons. Fieldwork was also conducted at five prisons and included focus groups with remand prisoners. Interviews with residential and resettlement managers gave an establishment perspective. We found that remand prisoners enter custody with multiple and complex needs that are equally, if not more, pervasive than among sentenced prisoners. However, despite a long-established principle that remand prisoners – who have not been convicted or sentenced by a court – have rights and entitlements not available to sentenced prisoners, we found that many had a poorer regime, less support and less preparation for release. Remand prisoners are at an increased risk of suicide and self-harm and nearly a quarter (23%) in our survey said they had felt depressed or suicidal when they arrived at prison. Over three-quarters of remand prisoners reported a welfare problem on arrival, and a third or more said they had a drug or mental health problem. Some prisoners in our groups had experienced high levels of stress and anxiety while their trial was in progress and they were uncertain about the outcome. However, in both the survey and focus groups, remand prisoners showed little awareness of support services available at the prison. Although most said they had received an induction, many prisoners in our groups felt that they had been given too much information to absorb at such a turbulent time. The Prison Rules 1999 set out legally binding entitlements for remand prisoners which recognise they have not been convicted or sentenced. However, within Prison Service policy a considerable amount of discretion is permitted to governors on implementing these entitlements. There is also an unresolved disjuncture between the Prison Rules and Prison Service policy, with the latter permitting remand prisoners to share cells with sentenced prisoners if they have consented, and the former appearing to suggest that remand and sentenced prisoners should under no circumstances be required to share a cell. Although sharing residential accommodation and cells with sentenced prisoners was the norm, few in our groups recalled being asked for their consent. Those in our groups felt that staff were unable to distinguish between remand and sentenced prisoners on the wings, and prisoners in our groups and staff we spoke to had limited or no knowledge of their entitlements. The right of remand prisoners to vote had not been facilitated at two of the five prisons visited. Remand prisoners were allowed to wear their own clothes at most establishments, but this was often hindered by complicated and prohibitive processes. Few in our groups knew about the bail information officer at their establishment, and nearly half of remand prisoners in our survey reported difficulties with obtaining bail information. Bail services varied considerably between establishments and in many cases were not visible or active enough to ensure all who needed the support received it. Remand prisoners also reported difficulties in maintaining contact with solicitors, which was mainly due to difficulties accessing phones and affording calls. The video link facility for court appearances was considered a positive development by prisoners in our groups, although they felt more use could be made of it. Remand prisoners are, other than in exceptional circumstances, held within the local prison estate. Many local prisons are large, old buildings within urban locations. This and the transient nature of the local prison population – for example, the average period spent on remand is nine weeks – make it harder to offer a decent and purposeful regime. Remand prisoners reported poorer access than sentenced prisoners to services and an inferior regime. In our survey, over half of unconvicted prisoners said they spent less than four hours out of their cell on a weekday. Although unconvicted prisoners have the right to choose whether to attend work or education, they should all be offered the opportunity to do so. Most in our groups said they wanted to take part in activity as this increased their time out of cell and ability to earn money, but a lack of places and/or the prioritisation of sentenced prisoners meant some were unable to do so. Remand prisoners have certain entitlements for state benefits intended to mitigate the impact of their imprisonment while they are awaiting a verdict (which can, of course establish innocence) or sentence (which may not be custodial). Again, remand prisoners in our groups had little or no awareness of this and there were examples of where they had been misinformed by staff or were excluded from accessing services until sentenced. In our groups, some prisoners said they had lost or relinquished their housing arrangements and faced homelessness on release – in our survey, 39% expected to face housing problems on their release. Some also reported losing employment during their remand period, and of those who had their own businesses, none had received help or been made aware of the entitlement to receive assistance to maintain business activities. Although remand prisoners' welfare needs were assessed on arrival into custody, little was done to follow these up and address identified needs. In the majority of local prisons there was little or no case management or custody planning for remand prisoners. Remand prisoners were initially to be included in the layered offender management model and there were good examples of remand custody planning in prisons piloting it. However, remand prisoners have now been excluded from this process, which continues to leave a gap in their case management. There is also a marked lack of key data collected by the National Offender Management Service on the needs and outcomes for remand prisoners. There has been little focus on the remand population since we published the Unjust Desserts thematic review in 2000, which highlighted similar findings: that remand prisoners have a distinct set of needs and receive poorer provision than sentenced prisoners. Remand prisoners have very similar needs to unsentenced prisoners. They have either not been convicted or are yet to be sentenced and there is a long standing principle that they should be accorded rights and entitlements that are not available to convicted and sentenced prisoners. Yet far from being treated more favourably, this thematic review has shown that they all too often receive less support and help than convicted and sentenced prisoners. The specific circumstances and needs of remanded prisoners need to be much more clearly and consistently recognised, both in policy and operational practice, so that they are held in custody for the shortest time possible and while there are given at least the same support as convicted and sentenced prisoners. This is not just a question of addressing injustice in the treatment of the individuals concerned, but ensuring that costly prison places are not used unnecessarily and that everyone is given the chance to leave prison less likely to commit offences than when they arrived. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisoners, 2012. 126p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 3, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/thematic-reports-and-research-publications/remand-thematic.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/thematic-reports-and-research-publications/remand-thematic.pdf Shelf Number: 125852 Keywords: Pretrial DetentionRemand Prisoners (U.K.) |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Remand Prisoners: A Thematic Review Summary: At any one time, remand prisoners make up about 15% of the prison population – about 12,000–13,000 prisoners. Women and those from black and minority ethnic and foreign national backgrounds are over-represented within the remand group. In 2010, 17% of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts or tried at the Crown Court were acquitted or not proceeded against, and 25% received a non-custodial sentence. In total, approximately 29,400 prisoners were released after trial. This review examines the experience of young adult and adult remand (unconvicted and convicted unsentenced) prisoners in local prisons against the Inspectorate’s four healthy prison tests: safety, respect, purposeful activity and resettlement. It incorporates findings from survey data and inspection reports for 33 local prisons. Fieldwork was also conducted at five prisons and included focus groups with remand prisoners. Interviews with residential and resettlement managers gave an establishment perspective. We found that remand prisoners enter custody with multiple and complex needs that are equally, if not more, pervasive than among sentenced prisoners. However, despite a longestablished principle that remand prisoners – who have not been convicted or sentenced by a court – have rights and entitlements not available to sentenced prisoners, we found that many had a poorer regime, less support and less preparation for release. Remand prisoners are at an increased risk of suicide and self-harm and nearly a quarter (23%) in our survey said they had felt depressed or suicidal when they arrived at prison. Over threequarters of remand prisoners reported a welfare problem on arrival, and a third or more said they had a drug or mental health problem. Some prisoners in our groups had experienced high levels of stress and anxiety while their trial was in progress and they were uncertain about the outcome. However, in both the survey and focus groups, remand prisoners showed little awareness of support services available at the prison. Although most said they had received an induction, many prisoners in our groups felt that they had been given too much information to absorb at such a turbulent time. The Prison Rules 1999 set out legally binding entitlements for remand prisoners which recognise they have not been convicted or sentenced. However, within Prison Service policy a considerable amount of discretion is permitted to governors on implementing these entitlements. There is also an unresolved disjuncture between the Prison Rules and Prison Service policy, with the latter permitting remand prisoners to share cells with sentenced prisoners if they have consented, and the former appearing to suggest that remand and sentenced prisoners should under no circumstances be required to share a cell. Although sharing residential accommodation and cells with sentenced prisoners was the norm, few in our groups recalled being asked for their consent. Those in our groups felt that staff were unable to distinguish between remand and sentenced prisoners on the wings, and prisoners in our groups and staff we spoke to had limited or no knowledge of their entitlements. The right of remand prisoners to vote had not been facilitated at two of the five prisons visited. Remand prisoners were allowed to wear their own clothes at most establishments, but this was often hindered by complicated and prohibitive processes. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2012. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 10, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/thematic-reports-and-research-publications/remand-thematic.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/thematic-reports-and-research-publications/remand-thematic.pdf Shelf Number: 126290 Keywords: Pretrial DetentionPrisonsRemand Prisoners (U.K.) |
Author: Phillips, Mary T. Title: A Decade of Bail Research in New York City Summary: A decade-long research project examining the bail system in New York City has recently been completed by the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. (CJA). The research was conceived in the context of CJA’s mission of reducing unnecessary pretrial detention, and it continued in the midst of a national debate about the role of bail and the commercial bail bond industry in the criminal justice system. With the publication in 2011 of the last of a series of reports from this research, it is now time to take stock of what we have learned, and to consider how the findings might inform the ongoing public discussion. This final report of the bail project synthesizes the major findings, with the dual objective of making the research results more accessible by gathering them together in one place, while also introducing a level of clarity that is difficult to achieve when disparate findings are viewed only as separate pieces. The bail research began in 2002 with a pilot project to determine the feasibility of collecting data from courtroom observations that would be of use in examining the factors that enter into judges’ decisions to release or set bail for defendants at arraignment. The first published report from that study appeared in 2004. Findings from each phase of the research raised further questions, leading us to expand the study to investigate the part played by the prosecutor in the judge’s bail decision, the role of commercial bonds in bail release, the association between release type and failure to appear (FTA), and the effects of pretrial detention on case outcomes. All together, eight full reports and seven Research Briefs were published between 2004 and 2011 presenting the results of the bail project. They are listed together in a separate section at the beginning of the References, and all are available on CJA’s website at www.nycja.org/research/research.htm. (Two additional unpublished reports, also listed in the References, are not on the website.) Two chapters included here are not based on any of the previously published reports. One of them (Chapter III) situates the New York City bail system within the country as a whole, comparing state bail statutes and presenting nationwide data pertaining to release and bail. This chapter provides essential context — not only for understanding how New York compares in release and detention of pretrial defendants, but also for understanding why national bail reform efforts occasionally focus on conditions that do not apply here. The other chapter with new material (Chapter IV) presents current baseline data on release and bail in New York City, separately for felony and nonfelony cases, including the setting of cash alternatives. The research summarized in Chapters V through VIII used datasets that were compiled between 2002 and 2005. Chapter IV, along with a more detailed table in Appendix B, provides updated data describing release and bail in New York City as of 2010, the most recent year for which data were available. CJA’s concerns about the uses and effects of bail can be traced to the Agency’s origins in the early 1960s. Upon learning that large numbers of impoverished defendants were held in New York City jails awaiting trial — for no other reason than that they lacked money for bail — industrialist Louis Schweitzer established the Vera Foundation in 1961 to address this inequity. The Vera Foundation (now the Vera Institute of Justice) launched the Manhattan Bail Project, in conjunction with the New York University School of Law and the Institute of Judicial Administration, to study the feasibility of release on recognizance (ROR) as an alternative to bail. The Manhattan Bail Project showed that defendants with strong ties to the community would usually return to court without bail, and as a result of that research Vera developed a recommendation system based on objective community-ties information obtained by interviewing defendants. Since that time, the Vera recommendation system has served as a model for pretrial services programs nationwide, and ROR has replaced bail as the dominant form of release in New York. The Vera recommendation system was administered by the NYC Probation Department until 1973, when the Pretrial Services Agency (PTSA) was created to take over its administration. In 1977, PTSA became independent from Vera and was incorporated as the New York City Criminal Justice Agency. From its inception, CJA has been responsible for interviewing virtually every defendant shortly after arrest to collect information that is used to calculate an objective score reflecting the estimated risk of nonappearance. The score provides the basis for assigning a recommendation category, which is provided to the court to assist in the release decision at arraignment. The Agency is constantly reviewing and monitoring its recommendation system, which is described in detail in Appendix A. Data presented in each year’s Annual Report show that the recommendation is effective in persuading judges to release low-risk defendants (Exhibit 12), and — no coincidence — that it is also effective in predicting which defendants are most likely to return to court without bail (Exhibit 18). The system was overhauled in 2003, and a new research project was recently launched to improve its predictive accuracy even further. In spite of the success of the recommendation system in establishing ROR as the primary release type in New York City, judges are not bound by it, and in fact they are required to consider other factors as well. As a result, there are many cases in which the recommendation is not followed. Every year thousands of defendants who were recommended have bail set, and an even larger number who were assigned to the highrisk category are released without bail.1 This observation formed the starting point for the bail project, which began by investigating the question of what — other than the CJA recommendation — influences judicial release and bail decisions. This and related issues addressed by CJA’s bail project have gained in importance as local and national criticism of the system of money bail has grown in recent years. U.S. jails are increasingly filled with pretrial detainees, as release rates drop and reliance on bail rises across the country (Clark 2010). Media and watchdog organizations have begun to put a spotlight on the shortcomings of the bail system in New York City, publicizing the plight of the thousands of New Yorkers “stuck behind bars because they’re too broke to get out,” as the Village Voice put it (Pinto 2012; see also Murphy 2007, Liptak 2008, Fellner 2010, and Eligon 2011a, 2011b). In December 2011 the New York County Lawyers Association held a public forum to discuss the topic.2 On a wider stage, a three-part National Public Radio series in January 2010 introduced the general public to the sad stories of people arrested for minor offenses and jailed for lack of bail money in Lubbock, Texas (Part 1), New York City (Part 2), and Broward County, Florida (Part 3). In the second part of the series, Martin Horn — then New York City Commissioner of Correction — commented on the difficult choice faced by individuals who do not wish to plead guilty and cannot afford bail. “‘Individuals who insist on their innocence and refuse to plead guilty get held,’ according to Horn. ‘But the people who choose to plead guilty get out faster’” (NPR 2010). In the most important development to date, Attorney General Eric Holder, together with the Pretrial Justice Institute, convened a National Symposium On Pretrial Justice on May 31 and June 1, 2011, in Washington, DC. Law enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors, public defenders, victims, elected officials, and pretrial organizations were represented. Calling the pretrial release decision-making process “deeply flawed,” symposium organizers called on participants to help find solutions (PJI 2011b). The symposium harked back to the 1964 conference convened by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to bring attention to the injustice that had so disturbed Louis Schweitzer a few years earlier. Kennedy, like Schweitzer, argued that money should not be the only thing that matters in determining whether a defendant avoids jail while awaiting trial (PJI 2011a; Schnacke, Jones, et al. 2010). The Kennedy conference culminated in the Federal Bail Reform Act of 1966, which led to the increased use of ROR across the country. It remains to be seen what concrete changes will result from the 2011 National Symposium, but a long list of recommendations came out of the proceedings, all of which reflect standards the American Bar Association has endorsed for many years (ABA 2007). The adoption of the recommendations in their entirety by New York would require major changes in the way release and bail decisions are made. We will return to this topic in the concluding chapter of this report, where we present the National Symposium recommendations and discuss what changes would be entailed in bringing New York into compliance. The role of the commercial bail bond industry in the U.S. forms a subtext to the public debate about bail. In some parts of the country (not New York) commercial bonds are nearly synonymous with release on bail, and the local pretrial service agency is responsible for supervising defendants on non-financial, conditional release. The bond industry has responded to this perceived competition for clients by launching an aggressive national campaign to discredit pretrial services agencies and to convince lawmakers and the public that bail bonds are the most effective form of release (see, for example, AIA 2010). In New York City, where the bond industry is relatively weak, it was unclear at the outset if enough bonds are posted here to conduct any meaningful research on their impact. However, the research soon revealed that bonds have regained a foothold in the City, enough to allow us to expand the bail project to include a study that eventually refuted some of the commercial bond industry’s claims. This study would have been much more difficult to do in areas of the country where virtually all bail release is by a commercial bond because it would be impossible to distinguish the impact of the bondsman from the impact of money bail itself. The most important findings from all the studies conducted as part of the bail project are grouped together in four chapters, addressing judicial decision making (Chapter V), bail release (Chapter VI), effects of release type on failure to appear (Chapter VII), and effects of pretrial detention on case outcomes (Chapter VIII). Most chapters summarize the findings from more than one report, and the order in which the research findings are discussed here is not necessarily the same order in which they were originally published. Many details, additional analyses, and discussions that were omitted here are included in the original reports. The reader is also referred to the original reports for full descriptions of the manual data collection procedures used to supplement data from the CJA database. Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc., 2012. 171p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed September 13, 2012 at: http://www.cjareports.org/reports/DecadeBailResearch.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjareports.org/reports/DecadeBailResearch.pdf Shelf Number: 126322 Keywords: Bail (New York City)Pretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: International Bar Association. Human Rights Institute Title: One in Five: The crisis in Brazil’s prisons and criminal justice system Summary: The number of prisoners and pre-trial detainees in Brazil is rising rapidly and there is widespread agreement that the current criminal justice and penal system is dysfunctional. In November 2009, the National Council of Justice announced that out of the cases it has reviewed so far, one in five pre-trial detainees have been imprisoned irregularly, which suggest that the nationwide problem is extremely serious. The Brazilian criminal justice and penal system has been the subject of numerous expert reports denouncing its failings, and there have also been ad hoc attempts to deal with different aspects of its problems. The system also appears to violate Brazil’s own laws and constitutional provisions for the protection of human rights. While formally committing itself to extensive protection of the rights of its citizens, the Brazilian Government claims that hostility to the concept amongst its own officials and a large section of the public is one of the key impediments to criminal justice reform. The first section of this report provides a summary overview of numerous recent reports and studies by UN monitoring bodies as well as international and national human rights organisations into the violations of rights that are being perpetrated by and in the Brazilian penal system. The overall trend within the Brazilian criminal justice system is to sentence more defendants to prison than are being released, which has overwhelmed the capacity of the already overcrowded penal system – this looks set to continue. A huge backlog of cases has built up leading to increasing delays in the court system, and over 80 per cent of prisoners cannot afford a lawyer. Many people are imprisoned irregularly, spend years in pre-trial detention or remain in prison after the expiry of their sentence due to bureaucratic incompetence or systemic failings. Severe overcrowding, poor sanitary conditions, gang violence and riots blight the prison system, where ill-treatment, including beatings and torture, are commonplace. Although the government has announced several reforms to tackle the problems identified, in practical terms little has changed over the last decade. This suggests that the failings are deep-rooted and systemic, so need to be addressed in a holistic way. The second section of this report describes the formal protection of human rights in the Brazilian criminal justice system, but also explains why these guarantees remain largely on paper. An understanding of why the Brazilian state appears to violate so many of the human rights that its own laws and Constitution guarantee requires some description of the historical political context in which the relationship between them developed. This took on a critical importance during the transition from dictatorship to democracy and its legacy continues to strongly influence Brazilian society and politics, with many Brazilians associating the transition to democracy with the large increase in violent crime that has occurred in the country. The third section focuses on the institutions constitutionally mandated to protect human rights within the Brazilian criminal justice system. While Brazil’s current Constitution and many of its laws provide extensive protection, the institutions charged with upholding these rights often fail to do so. This may be because many of these corporatist institutions remain largely unreformed from the dictatorship era and have sought to shield themselves from democratic scrutiny and control. The final section describes some of the local initiatives that have been undertaken to bring justice closer to the people in Brazil. An effective reform strategy must deal with the issue of criminal justice reform comprehensively. The problems regarding access to justice in pre-trial detention cannot be treated in isolation from the context of the crisis in the Brazilian criminal justice system, and the broader problem of tackling crime in society. Focusing on trying to fix one specific area, through new laws or the creation of new institutions, could make the current situation worse by adding fresh layers of bureaucracy and confusion to an already dysfunctional system. This report argues that more effort needs to be put into making the existing parts of the system work better together and encouraging the development of incremental, community-led and home-grown reform. Defensoria Pública is the body constitutionally-mandated to provide free legal assistance to those who need it, and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute strongly endorses the repeated calls that have been made for this to be strengthened. There are also a variety of other groups attempting to develop responses to the current crisis within their criminal justice system. Supporting their creative ingenuity to ‘find a way around the obstacles that exist’ (jeitinho brasileiro) should be an essential part of the reform process. Details: London: International Bar Association, 2010. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2013 at: http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=D4CBAA59-1F9B-41B0-92CA-1B964AC29AC9 Year: 2010 Country: Brazil URL: http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=D4CBAA59-1F9B-41B0-92CA-1B964AC29AC9 Shelf Number: 129494 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice Systems (Brazil)Pretrial DetentionPrisonersPrisons |
Author: Edwards, Louise Title: Pre-Trial Justice in Africa: An Overview of the Use of Arrest and Detention, and Conditions of Detention Summary: Arbitrary arrest and detention, and poor conditions of pre-trial detention are prevalent but underexamined areas of criminal justice practice and reform. Approximately 43.3% of detainees across Africa are pre-trial detainees, with statistics ranging from 7.9% of the total prison population in Namibia, to 88.7% in Libya. These statistics are unlikely to include detainees in police detention facilities, and may therefore be significantly higher. Pre-trial detainees often exist in the shadows of the criminal justice system, as their detention and treatment are not generally subject to the same levels of judicial and other oversight as sentenced prisoners. Overall, pre-trial detainees experience poorer outcomes than sentenced prisoners in relation to conditions of detention, the risk of torture and other ill-treatment, susceptibility to corruption, and experience conditions of detention that do not accord with the rights to life, humane treatment and the inherent dignity of the person. Pre-trial detention has a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable and marginalised, with pre-trial detainees more likely to be poor and without means to afford legal assistance or to post bail or bond. The over-use of pre-trial detention, and conditions of detention that do not accord with basic minimum standards, undermines the rule of law, wastes public resources and endangers public health. This study provides an overview of the challenges to achieving a rights-based approach to the use of arrest and detention by the police across Africa. It sets out the general principles of international law in relation to the procedural safeguards for arrest and detention and minimum standards for conditions of detention, and examines whether, and why, reports of arbitrary arrest and detention, and poor conditions of detention in police facilities persist across the African continent. The paper is structured as follows: - Part A: Introduction and methodology - Part B: The use of arrest - Part C: The use of pre-trial detention in police custody - Part D: Conditions of detention in police facilities - Part E: Conclusion and recommendations. The report concludes with a number of recommendations aimed at promoting a rights-based approach to arrest and detention. Specifically, it proposes that the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) use its mandate to 'formulate and lay down principles and rules' in relation to human rights to adopt a dedicated set of guidelines on pre-trial detention that promotes the implementation of a rights-based approach to arrest and detention across the continent. Details: Mowbray, South Africa: African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum, 2013. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: APCOF Policy Paper no. 7: Accessed October 28, 2013 at: http://www.apcof.org/files/8412_Pretrial_TrialJustice_Overview_in_Africa.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Africa URL: http://www.apcof.org/files/8412_Pretrial_TrialJustice_Overview_in_Africa.pdf Shelf Number: 131497 Keywords: Arrest and ApprehensionHuman RightsPretrial DetentionPrison Prisoners |
Author: Vetter, Stephanie J. Title: The Delivery of Pretrial Justice in Rural Areas: A Guide for Rural County Officials Summary: This guide from the Pretrial Justice Institute and the National Association of Counties is intended to assist elected officials seeking to enhance existing or develop new pretrial justice practices in rural areas. By identifying the characteristics, strengths, and challenges in rural jurisdictions and combining these factors with the lessons and experiences of urban, suburban, and rural pretrial justice programs, national standards, and best practices, this guide offers a set of recommendations to enhance local policies and practices within the context of rural settings. Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute & National Association of Counties, 2013. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 17, 2014 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Delivery-of-Pretrial-Justice-in-Rural-Areas-A-Guide-for-Rural-County-Officials.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Delivery-of-Pretrial-Justice-in-Rural-Areas-A-Guide-for-Rural-County-Officials.pdf Shelf Number: 132484 Keywords: Bail Pretrial DetentionPretrial Justice Pretrial Release Rural Areas |
Author: New Jersey Commission of Investigation Title: Inside Out: Questionable and Abusive Practices in New Jersey's Bail-Bond Industry Summary: Bail is a central element of the criminal justice system. Enshrined as a constitutional right, it is intended to strike a balance between shielding criminal defendants from excessive pretrial detention while simultaneously holding them accountable to attend required court proceedings. The accused may gain release by posting cash and/or property directly with the court or by paying a percentage of the total bail for a surety bond through a licensed commercial bail-bond agency. Much is at stake in maintaining the integrity of a properly functioning bail process, including public safety, the credibility of law enforcement and judicial institutions and the appropriate administration of justice. Against that backdrop, the State Commission of Investigation examined the bail-bond system in New Jersey and found it highly prone to subversion by unscrupulous and improper practices that make a mockery of the public trust. Operating in the shadows of poor government oversight, the system is dominated by an amalgam of private entrepreneurs who profit from the process but are subject to weak controls easily manipulated or ignored with little or no consequence. The Commission found instances in which bail-bond agencies are operated by unlicensed individuals, some with extensive criminal records. These include former agents who forfeited bail licenses or registrations for engaging in illegal or improper activity but returned to the business using various subterfuges. In some cases, these unlicensed agents have been operating in the industry for years, continuing to engage in the same abuses that led to their expulsion in the first place. The investigation also revealed that bail agents, seeking an edge on their competitors, often make arrangements that have the practical effect of circumventing and undercutting court-imposed bail set by judges. Out of view of the court, some agents routinely cut deals that enable clients to get out of jail for the cash equivalent of as little as 1 percent or less of the total bail - a down payment substantially below the standard bond "premium" of 10 percent. The remaining premium balance is then owed by installment over time with no effective guarantee that it will ever be paid. This means that a criminal defendant held on $50,000 bail for a serious offense can gain immediate release for as little as a few hundred dollars, far less than the standard premium of $5,000. Beyond subverting judicial intent - and doing so with no transparency - these arrangements put dangerous offenders back on the street for minimal cash and make it nearly impossible for prosecutors to verify the true source of the bail funds. Perhaps most disturbing is that bail agencies have come to rely heavily on accused criminals in the form of county jail inmates to drum up business and gain customers - a practice that, strikingly, is not a crime here as in other states. Indeed, the Commission found that in New Jersey it is quite common - and has been for years in some instances - for bail-bond agents to recruit prisoners as freelance subcontractors acting at their behest and to offer cash and other incentives to those who steer new clients to them. These arrangements, sometimes initiated via flyers mailed directly to inmates, are maintained through the jail telephone system with agents openly striking deals with those who agree to serve as "runners" behind bars. This occurs even though it is a regulatory violation for non-licensed individuals to solicit bail and despite the fact that both parties to such conversations are on notice that their phone traffic may be monitored and recorded by jail authorities. Commission investigators reviewed scores of such recordings obtained from 14 county jails - more than half of all county correctional facilities in the State - and found clear evidence of this practice virtually across the entire sample spectrum. This investigation, in part, was an outgrowth of the Commission's examination of the impact on New Jersey's state prison system of the burgeoning population of inmates linked to organized criminal street gangs. The findings in that matter included widespread evidence that gang-affiliated and other inmates have found ways to exploit various state prison operating systems, including the prison phone system, in order to communicate and deal with criminal cohorts on the outside. In one such ploy, known as a "three-way call," an inmate places a call to one individual, who then surreptitiously forwards the call or otherwise connects the inmate to one or more other parties whose phone numbers and identities remain hidden. The county jail system is vulnerable to similar abuse because three-way calls are a key element of the rewards package offered by bail agents to inmates who do their bidding. Exacerbating these questionable and improper business practices and outright abuses is a diminished and archaic government regulatory apparatus that treats New Jersey's bail system like a bureaucratic afterthought. Even though bail is an inextricable component of the criminal justice system, regulation of bail-bond agencies, agent licensing and other aspects of the business is housed within the state Department of Banking and Insurance (DOBI). This is so because elements of the insurance industry underwrite the risk and financial exposure assumed by bail agents when they issue bonds, thus accepting responsibility for the full amount of bail if a client absconds. Oversight of bail, however, has long been a lower-tier priority at DOBI, and few resources are devoted to it. Apart from lax oversight, there is little in the way of effective deterrence against unscrupulous activity because the laws and regulations that govern the bail-bond process are weak, and violations carry minimal penalties. Furthermore, the Commission found instances in which fines imposed by DOBI against violators went uncollected. The Commission also found that New Jersey's counties collectively are failing every year to capture tens of millions of dollars in forfeited bails they are legally entitled and empowered to recover after defendants fail to appear for required judicial proceedings. Despite guidelines issued by the Office of the Attorney General a decade ago to tighten procedures and improve the recovery rate, bail forfeitures typically are negotiated and settled for pennies on the dollar. In 2004 and, again, in 2007, the Office of the State Auditor noted persistent inconsistency in the use and application of these forfeiture guidelines, resulting in significant and widespread recovery-rate disparities among the various counties. Such disparities prevail to this day. Details: Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Commission of Investigation, 2014. 82p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2014 at: http://www.nj.gov/sci/pdf/BailReportSmall.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.nj.gov/sci/pdf/BailReportSmall.pdf Shelf Number: 132596 Keywords: BailPretrial Detention |
Author: Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Education Trust Title: Set Up to Fail: Bail and the Revolving Door of Pre-trial Detention Summary: On any given day in 2012/2013, approximately 25,000 people were detained in Canada's provincial jails. Over half of them were in pre-trial custody - legally innocent and waiting for their trial or a determination of their bail. Canada's jails have not always looked like this. The remand rate has nearly tripled in the past 30 years, and 2005 marked the first time in Canadian history that our provincial institutions were primarily being used to detain people prior to any finding of guilt, rather than after they had been convicted and sentenced. While questions remain about what is driving the rise in pre-trial detention, it is clear that it is not a response to increasing crime. Canada's overall crime rate has been declining for at least 20 years. The violent crime rate is at its lowest rate since 1987. In 2012, property offences and other non-violent Criminal Code offences, such as breaching court orders or mischief, accounted for four-fifths (79%) of police-reported crime. The law governing bail aims to safeguard individual liberty, the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial by putting in place a strong presumption of release and only imposing restrictions on liberty or detaining a person where absolutely necessary. Not only does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter") guarantee our right to liberty, but it specifically enshrines a constitutional right to reasonable bail. In many courts across the country, however, the bail system is operating in a manner that is contrary to the spirit - and, at times, the letter - of the law. Legally innocent individuals are processed through a bail system that is chaotic and unnecessarily risk-averse and that disproportionately penalizes - and frequently criminalizes - poverty, addiction and mental illness. Canadian bail courts regularly impose abstinence requirements on those addicted to alcohol or drugs, residency conditions on the homeless, strict check-in requirements in difficult to access locations, no-contact conditions between family members, and rigid curfews that interfere with employment and daily life. Numerous and restrictive conditions, imposed for considerable periods of time, are setting people up to fail - and failing to comply with a bail condition is a criminal offence, even if the underlying behaviour is not otherwise a crime. Details: Toronto: Canadian Civil Liberties Association, 2014. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 6, 2014 at: http://ccla.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Set-up-to-fail-FINAL.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://ccla.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Set-up-to-fail-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 132909 Keywords: Bail (Canada)Criminal CourtsPretrial Detention |
Author: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Rapporteurship on the Rights of Persons Deprives of Liberty Title: Report on the Use of Pretrial Detention in the Americas Summary: For more than a decade, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the IACHR", "the Inter-American Commission" or "the Commission") has considered the arbitrary and illegal use of pretrial detention a chronic problem in many countries of the region. In its recent Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, the IACHR listed the excessive use of pretrial detention among the most serious and widespread problems in the region and noted that this dysfunctionality in criminal justice systems is in turn the cause of other problems such as overcrowding and the failure to separate detainees awaiting trial from the convicted. Along with other structural problems linked to the respect for and the guarantee of the rights of persons deprived of liberty, this situation has also been systematically identified in the Americas by United Nations monitoring mechanisms, whose mandate includes safeguarding the human rights of persons under criminal prosecution and/or deprived of liberty, such as: the Human Rights Committee (HRC), the Committee against Torture (CAT), the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT), the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) and the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (SRT). Similarly, other qualified actors such as the United Nations Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (ILANUD), have deemed that "[e]specially serious within the issue of the accelerated increase of prison populations is the case of prisoners awaiting trial"; therefore, "the region must continue its efforts to maintain more prudent levels of unconvicted prisoners." The Report on the High Level Expert Group Meeting on the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the treatment of prisoners, which was held in Santo Domingo, laid out some of the common causes at the regional level for the high proportion of prisoners awaiting trial, such as delays in bringing criminal defendants to trial, the absence of adequate legal advice, the influence of public opinion and the "tendency for prosecutors and judges to order that those awaiting trial should be held in detention, rather than making other arrangements for pre-trial supervision in the community." The excessive use of pretrial detention in the Americas has also been acknowledged by other bodies of the Organization of American States (OAS), such as at the Third Meeting of Officials Responsible for Penitentiary and Prison Policies, where reference was made to the "excessive use of preventive detention," and it was estimated that in the region "more than 40% of the prison population is on pretrial detention". The foregoing situation exists in spite of binding international norms that are very clear in recognizing the presumption of innocence and the exceptional nature of pretrial detention; the broad recognition of these rights at the constitutional level in the region; and the political will expressed at the highest level by the States twenty years ago in the framework of the Summits of the Americas, where governments made the commitment to "[t]ake the necessary steps to remedy inhumane conditions in prisons and to minimize the number of pretrial detainees" (The Miami Plan of Action, 1994). In this context, the Inter-American Commission considers that the excessive use of pretrial detention runs contrary to the very essence of the democratic rule of law, and that implementing this measure as a form of expeditious justice that results in a kind of anticipated sentence is flagrantly contrary to the provisions of the American Convention and Declaration, and the principles from which the Charter of the Organization of American States has drawn inspiration. Moreover, the use of pretrial detention is an important measure of the quality of the administration of justice and, as such, has a direct bearing on the quality of democracy. The IACHR recognizes the duty of States to maintain public order and protect all persons under their jurisdiction from crime and violence. Nonetheless, the Commission reiterates the longstanding principle enshrined in the Inter-American system that "irrespective of the nature or gravity of the crime prosecuted, the investigation of the facts and the eventual trial of specific persons should be carried out within the limits and according to the procedures that permit public safety to be preserved, with full respect for the human rights." Additionally, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "the Inter-American Court" or "the Court") has held that "[t]he concept of rights and freedoms as well as that of their guarantees cannot be divorced from the system of values and principles that inspire it. In a democratic society, the rights and freedoms inherent in the human person, the guarantees applicable to them and the rule of law form a triad. Each component thereof defines itself, complements and depends on the others for its meaning." As is covered in depth in this report, excessive use of pretrial detention is a complex problem caused by a variety of factors, such as: issues of legal design, structural deficiencies in administration of justice systems, interferences with judicial independence and deeply rooted tendencies in judicial culture and practice. Details: Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 6, 2014 at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/pdl/reports/pdfs/Report-PD-2013-en.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/pdl/reports/pdfs/Report-PD-2013-en.pdf Shelf Number: 132910 Keywords: Criminal ProcedureHuman Rights AbusesPretrial DetentionPreventive DetentionPrisoners |
Author: Deaton, Janice Title: Detention Without Charge: The Use of Arraigo for Criminal Investigations in Mexico Summary: Justice in Mexico is pleased to announce the publication of Detained Without Charge, a special report provides a detailed assessment of the use of arraigo as a prosecutorial mechanism in Mexico, as national and international organizations have increasingly questioned the practice. Evidence collected for this report suggests that detention without charge is a poor substitute for due process protections that help to ensure the integrity and legitimacy of police and prosecutorial investigations. Arraigo, is a form of preventive detention that allows for imprisonment without formal charges for up to 80 days. This investigative tool is presently authorized under Article 16 of the Mexican Constitution as amended in the 2008 reforms that underpin Mexico's ongoing transition to adversarial criminal justice. Among the key findings of this report we find: - 3,166 arraigos were requested by prosecutors from December 2006 through December 2012, of which 2,939 were granted by judicial authority; thus, only 277 requests were denied. Overall, from 2007 to 2012 the percentage of arraigos denied by the judicial authority was just 7%, which indicates that once the prosecutor submitted its request to the judicial authority, 13 out of 14 suspects were detained under arraigo. Of those 13, at least seven were held for more than the initially granted 40-day period. Statements from Mexican authorities suggest that only 3.2% of all arraigos from 2011 to 2012 led to a conviction, meaning that the margin of error could be more than 95%. - Preventive and administrative detentions refer to detention without charge, and are contrary to basic human rights law and specific international conventions, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the American Convention on Human Rights. - Because of the arbitrary nature of detention and prevalence of torture and other human rights violations under arraigo, it has received criticism and grabbed the international attention of numerous human rights organizations and bodies, from the United Nations to Amnesty International, and domestically from Mexico's National Human Rights Commission to the Mexican Commission of the Defense and Promotion for Human Rights, among many others. - Reports by the United Nations and other national and international organizations have found patterns of violations under arraigo, including denial of counsel, torture, and being held incommunicado. - The length and reasonableness of detention, access to counsel, judicial access, torture, and/or right to habeas corpus are all issues raised by human rights advocates and international organizations about the practice of arraigo. - Mexico is not the only country that applies a regime of preventive detention. Other countries, especially under the flag of "preventing terrorism," have developed their own forms of detention with certain similarities, but evident differences from arraigo. Examples are the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Israel, among others. -The authors recommend that the use of arraigo be eliminated and prohibited by the constitution, or at a minimum that major modifications be made to provide some measure of protection of the fundamental rights of individuals detained without charge. Details: San Diego: Justice in Mexico, Department of Political Science & International Relations, University of San Diego, 2015. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 5, 2015 at: https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/150112_ARRAIGO_Final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Mexico URL: https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/150112_ARRAIGO_Final.pdf Shelf Number: 134547 Keywords: Human Rights AbusesPretrial DetentionPreventive Detention (Mexico) |
Author: Subramanian, Ram Title: Incarceration's Front Door: The Misuse of Jails in America Summary: Local jails, which exist in nearly every town and city in America, are built to hold people deemed too dangerous to release pending trial or at high risk of flight. This, however, is no longer primarily what jails do or whom they hold, as people too poor to post bail languish there and racial disparities disproportionately impact communities of color. This report reviews existing research and data to take a deeper look at our nation's misuse of local jails and to determine how we arrived at this point. It also highlights jurisdictions that have taken steps to mitigate negative consequences, all with the aim of informing local policymakers and their constituents who are interested in in reducing recidivism, improving public safety, and promoting stronger, healthier communities. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2015. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2015 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/incarcerations-front-door-report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/incarcerations-front-door-report.pdf Shelf Number: 134589 Keywords: Jails (U.S.)Pretrial DetentionPreventive DetentionRacial Disparities |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Montana Title: Locked in the Past: Montana's Jails in Crisis Summary: Despite heralding itself as a champion of freedom and human liberty, the United States has the second highest incarceration rate in the world, taking second only to the African nation of Seychelles. Of the incarcerated, statistics suggest that as many as 38% are being held in county detention centers and many of those inmates are held pre-trial. These pre-trial prisoners-an estimated 21.6% of all incarcerated Americans-are detained before guilt is proven in a court of law, weakening the proud American axiom that our citizens are "innocent until proven guilty." Problematically, many county detention centers lack adequate funding and struggle to effectively manage the incarcerated. The impacts these often-deplorable conditions can have on individuals and society as a whole are extremely far reaching. Neglect in county detention centers, coupled with a prevalence of mental illness, leads to a high rate of recidivism, which turns the justice system into a revolving door that is a blight on county, state, and federal budgets. Incarceration rates have started to decrease for the first time in decades, albeit at a glacial pace. The reduction of the incarceration rate is largely fueled by the financial realities and burdens of housing an historic number of prisoners at local, state, and federal levels. County detention centers play a unique role in this process in that they often house people on the front-end of the criminal justice system, such as pretrial detention, and can thus be addressed with different measures than state or federal prisons. County detention centers can improve through coercion, such as litigation, or through collaboration between entities with shared goals. The American Civil Liberties Union of Montana (ACLU) is eager to work with counties to improve detention center conditions, streamline local criminal justice policies, and help make counties more effective at screening, prosecuting, and housing the accused and convicted at local levels. The ACLU of Montana has worked collaboratively with counties throughout the state. For example, the ACLU helped Custer County officials come to grips with their deplorable and antiquated facility by passing a successful bond measure to renovate its facilities. The ACLU is currently working with Lewis & Clark County to assess options for pretrial release and other options for reducing their chronically over crowded facility. The ACLU of Montana is working statewide on substantive criminal justice reform that will allow the courts to respond to the unique needs of the accused on a path to rehabilitation, rather than warehousing them in county detention centers. The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive overview that identifies conditions of confinement in county detention centers throughout Montana and provide recommendations regarding how we might improve those conditions. The study utilized a three-prong methodology, including touring jails, interviewing administrators and prisoners, and sending a mixed-method questionnaire to all jail inmates in the state. We identified several overarching trends, including: - Overuse of solitary confinement for individuals with mental illness - Inadequate numbers of detention staff - Lack of access to fresh air - Lack of access to natural light and exercise - Inadequate medical and mental health care - Overcrowding - Lack of basic necessities such as underwear, socks, and bras - Unconstitutional prohibitions on visitation from minors and non-family members - Lack of access to law libraries - Inadequate or unworkable grievance procedures - Sub-par physical plant issues Details: Helena, MT: ACLU of Montana, 2015. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 4, 2015 at: http://aclumontana.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-ACLU-Jail-Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://aclumontana.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-ACLU-Jail-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 134754 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional InstitutionsDetention CentersJail OvercrowdingJails (Montana)Pretrial Detention |
Author: Illinois. Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts Title: Circuit Court of Cook County Pretrial Operational Review Summary: For decades, the highly publicized issue of jail over-crowding has plagued Cook County. Through the years, experts have examined Cook County's pretrial and bond court operations, studied crime statistical data, and recorded remedies, some of which resulted in operational, environmental, programmatic, and policy changes with varying effects. From the point of arrest through the pretrial and bond court process, there is a critical dilemma that persists: whether to allow the defendant to remain in the community and continue to work and attend school, or to detain the defendant and alleviate any risk of failing to appear or committing another crime while awaiting trial. Ultimately, judicial discretion determines such decisions based upon the facts presented to the judge during bond court. The Illinois Pretrial Services Act provides the legal framework for this process. In practice, it has become largely aspirational, rather than a model for everyday procedure. Under the Act, pretrial services would provide a pivotal function in collecting and verifying information to be used by the judge to determine bond and release conditions, and in providing post-release supervision as a means to respond to non-compliance with court conditions while awaiting trial. In 2013, Cook County pretrial services staff conducted 24,977 interviews/assessments and conducted 7,164 intakes on defendants ordered to pretrial supervision as reported through monthly statistical reports submitted to the Administrative Office. Unfortunately, however, the reliance upon the work of pretrial services is generally dismissed or minimized because of a lack of confidence in the credibility of the risk assessment and community living information. During this operational review, it was evident that much of the information obtained by pretrial services officers was not verified, so the response from stakeholders and judges was understandable. Though a series of technological, managerial, interpersonal, and operational factors were substantiated during the review process and described in this document, there is no single group, program or "fix" that accounts for the fracture of the process. Notwithstanding, while there was non-reliance upon the risk assessment and other information and a limited number of cases placed under pretrial supervision, this was juxtaposed by judges overwhelmingly voicing support for pretrial services personnel and the need for the program. Further, collection of statistical reports and other data has been cumbersome and inconsistent due to antiquated technology, unfamiliarity with the scope of data collected by respective stakeholder groups, absence of a coordinated data sharing process, and to a degree, data request protocols. Therefore, the data presented in this report is limited to that reported to the Administrative Office through the Adult Probation Department monthly statistical pretrial reports, data reported by the Cook County Circuit Court Clerk as contained in the Annual Statistical Reports to the Supreme Court, and publications prepared by Loyola University professor/researcher on the jail population for the Cook County Sheriff's Reentry Council Research Bulletin. Data requests submitted to the Circuit Clerk's office, Pretrial Services and the Sheriff's department have been submitted by the Administrative Office and are pending. While the impetus to conduct this review was a request by Chief Judge Evans for the funding of additional pretrial positions, such consideration must also be accompanied by systemic change. The two must not be separate. Unless there is a commitment amongst stakeholders to delve into these issues, reach consensus of resolutions and act to implement collaborative organizational and operational policies and practices in the pretrial and the bond court process, strictly adding positions will be minimally effective. While challenges exist, this is also a time of great opportunity. Many positive partnerships and activities are underway in Cook County that foster institutionalizing change and favorable outcomes. These include the Cook County Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems Committee (CCICJIS) and the plan to move from a paper-based to electronic systems of data exchange and sharing among stakeholders; the joint meetings of Cook County elected officials that are fleshing out issues and solutions to the process; the planned evaluation of the bond court process that will provide baseline performance data in Central Bond Court (CBC); and the Administrative Office's initiative, in conjunction with a notable national research team, to validate a statewide pretrial risk assessment tool. Details: Chicago, IL: Illinois Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, 2014. 138p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2015 at: https://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Reports/Pretrial/Pretrial_Operational_Review_Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Reports/Pretrial/Pretrial_Operational_Review_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 134952 Keywords: Bail BondsCourts (U.S.)Judicial DiscretionPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleasePretrial Services (Illinois)Risk Assessment |
Author: Guidry, Sarah R. Title: A Blueprint for Criminal Justice Policy Solutions in Harris County Summary: On any given day, Texas county jails house approximately 65,000 people. More than half of these individuals are typically awaiting trial, not yet having been convicted. Many others are misdemeanants or serving terms for nonviolent offenses. And sadly, some individuals have repeatedly returned to jail, trapped in a continuous cycle of recidivism, unprepared for a life outside of the criminal justice system without access to post-release treatment and programming. As more and more individuals are incarcerated or otherwise involved in the criminal justice system, the fiscal and human costs increase: Individuals with criminal records have difficulty finding stable employment and housing, leading to re-offending; the expenses associated with managing bloated jail populations can be extensive; and public safety and health are likewise compromised when crowded jails fail to meet the needs of incoming and exiting individuals. Despite being home to the largest jail in Texas (and third largest in the United States), Harris County has nonetheless struggled with jail overcrowding for the past four decades. In 1974, a group of inmates filed a lawsuit against the Sheriff and County Commissioners that challenged the conditions of their confinement; it culminated in a federal court order condemning the overcrowded conditions in the Harris County jail, and it provided jurisdiction to the federal court to ensure steps were taken to bring the conditions of the jail within constitutionally protected standards. For nearly two decades, that court wielded its oversight power heavily, frequently intervening to prevent conditions at the Harris County jail from deteriorating further. And yet, following the termination of the court's oversight in the mid-1990's, the Harris County jail population once again swelled. By the late 2000's, Harris County's jail population was exceeding the design capacity of the jail facilities by almost 2,000 inmates and exceeding the target figure for safe operation of the jail by more than 2,400 inmates. The large number of inmates forced the County to outsource approximately 1,000 inmates each month to jail facilities in Louisiana; additionally, the County housed approximately 2,100 inmates in jail facilities in other Texas counties. Unsafe and unsanitary crowding conditions prompted new federal oversight in the form of a 2008 investigation by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). Facing a county budget burdened by the fiscal costs associated with such a large number of jail inmates, the Harris County Commissioners Court contracted with the Justice Management Institute (JMI) to conduct a study on improving the County's criminal justice system and addressing the County's jail crowding problem. The release of the JMI report in 2009 and the ongoing DOJ investigation inspired the formation of the Harris County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (HCCJCC), a panel of county officials and stakeholders, as the first step in a concerted effort to solve the County's jail population issues. Since then, various strategies have been implemented to address specialized populations, including those with substance abuse and mental health problems who too frequently end up behind bars. The County has implemented emergency response teams that provide assistance to those in mental health crisis, and District Attorney Devon Anderson has implemented a policy in regard to nonviolent individuals charged with a low-level drug offense who have a history of drug or alcohol dependency; rather than sentencing the person under 12.44(a), the defendant is offered intensive rehabilitation with community supervision to address the addiction issue. Additionally, in October 2014, District Attorney Anderson's office initiated the First Chance Intervention Program, a pilot diversion program offered to first-time offenders who would otherwise be charged with Class B possession of marijuana (2 ounces or less). Harris County Probation Director Teresa May has worked ardently with judges to drastically reduce technical violations among those being supervised, and Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia has expanded the use of legally permitted "good time" credit for eligible jail inmates who exhibit positive behavior. We are now seeing a reduction in Harris County's jail population, which has been below its operating capacity since October 2011. Sustaining that initial success would prove difficult, however, and an influx of inmates in the fall of 2013 nearly drove the jail population over its operating capacity. Similar influxes have, at times, necessitated Harris County to make requests to the Texas Commission on Jail Standards for additional jail beds through temporary variances (See Appendix 1). Absent further jail population reduction strategies, more variances may become necessary in the future, and further county resources may be expended on confinement. Those costs are not insubstantial. In fiscal year 2013, following a rise in the County's jail population, taxpayers spent nearly a half-million dollars per day operating the jail. Harris County stakeholders - including law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, jailers, County Commissioners, county budget staff, and treatment providers - must collaborate to deliver cost-savings to county taxpayers through jail population management strategies and through a more public health response to drug use and mental illness. Ultimately, where possible, low-risk, nonviolent individuals should be diverted and handled outside of already overburdened court and jail systems, rather than forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for their pretrial detention and later confinement; meanwhile, those who are exiting jail should have access to post-release assistance to stay on the right path. Smart-on-crime strategies can ensure that funds needed for social services and programs are not unnecessarily diverted to criminal justice oversight. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2015. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 14, 2015 at: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/publications/Blueprint%20for%20Criminal%20Justice%20Policy%20Solutions%202015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/publications/Blueprint%20for%20Criminal%20Justice%20Policy%20Solutions%202015.pdf Shelf Number: 135637 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice SystemsDrug Abuse TreatmentDrug OffendersGood Time CreditsInmatesJail OvercrowdingJailsPretrial Detention |
Author: Levin, Marc Title: Bringing Balance to Pretrial Proceedings: Solutions for Early Representation of Indigent Defendants Summary: Key Points - Defendants in cases that could result in jail time are constitutionally entitled to legal representation if they cannot afford it. - The conditions set at the initial hearing, including posting a money bond, often determine whether defendants are able to obtain release prior to trial, but typically indigent defendants are not represented by counsel until at least several days later. - Making representation available earlier in the pretrial process could provide greater balance in pretrial proceedings. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, Center for Effective Justice, 2015. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective PP17-2015: Accessed May 20, 2015 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/PP-Solutions-for-Early-Representation-of-Indigent-Defendants.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/PP-Solutions-for-Early-Representation-of-Indigent-Defendants.pdf Shelf Number: 135720 Keywords: Indigent DefenseLegal AidPretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: Ortiz, Natalie Rose Title: County Jails at a Crossroads: An Examination of the Jail Population and Pretrial Release Summary: County governments provide essential services to create healthy, safe, vibrant and economically resilient communities. Maintaining safe and secure communities is one of the most important functions of county governments. Most counties are involved in almost every aspect of law enforcement and crime prevention, including policing, judicial and legal services and corrections. Counties own 87 percent of all jails in the United States through which they provide supervision, detention and other correctional services to more than 700,000 persons in an effort to protect public safety and reduce recidivism. Effective jail management along with fair justice system policies and practices results in strategic management of the jail population and prudent county spending on the corrections system. One way to effectively manage the jail population is to improve the pretrial release process. Pretrial policies and practices involve defendants awaiting resolution to their case. Using the results of a 2015 NACo survey of county jails, an examination of the pretrial population in jail and policies impacting pretrial release in county jails finds: THE MAJORITY OF THE CONFINED COUNTY JAIL POPULATION IS PRETRIAL AND LOW RISK. Two-thirds of the confined population in county jails is pretrial and the proportion reaches three-quarters in almost half of county jails. This trend is more pronounced in jails located in small counties - with less than 50,000 residents - and medium-sized counties - with populations between 50,000 and 250,000 residents. Forty (40) percent of responding county jails use a validated risk assessment at booking. Most often, these jails identify a majority of their confined jail population as low risk. Because these tools are used at booking, when defendants are admitted to jail after arrest, jails are identifying most of their pretrial population as low risk. COUNTY JAILS ARE CAUGHT BETWEEN COURTS' DECISION-MAKING AND INCREASES IN THE JAIL POPULATION AND JAIL COSTS. Pretrial release decision-making is a product of the court. Understanding the impact of courts' decision-making, especially during pretrial, on the jail population is important for counties with rapidly rising jail populations and costs. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the jail population increased by 20 percent between 2000 and 2012 with the pretrial population comprising a rising share, while county corrections costs soared by 74 percent. Forty-four (44) percent of responding county jails to the 2015 NACo survey report that managing jail costs is one of their top challenges. Reducing the jail population - especially the number of people with mental illnesses - is a priority for almost three quarters of responding jails. More than 65 percent of county jails report that their county boards are willing to collaborate on reducing the jail population and jail costs. Counties can act as conveners, bringing together the court and jail to discuss and implement strategies that may effectively address the pretrial population in jail. SOME COUNTY JAILS SUPERVISE PRETRIAL DETAINEES OUTSIDE OF CONFINEMENT. A third of responding county jails to the 2015 NACo survey release pretrial detainees from custody and supervise them in the community through different types of community based programs, depending on the needs of the detainees. These programs may be focused specifically on pretrial supervision - where the type of supervision used varies on a case-by-case basis - or deal with both pretrial and convicted populations through health treatment, electronic monitoring, home arrest and work release. Most county jails have more than one type of program. Pretrial supervision programs focus overwhelmingly on the pretrial population (95 percent of their population), followed by physical health care and behavioral health treatment programs in which close to half of the supervised population is pretrial. Overall, few pretrial detainees are placed in these programs. Only 28 percent of the detainees released by respondent jails in 2014 were pretrial. The county jail programs that supervise pretrial persons are just one part of the larger county pretrial system that includes formal pretrial services agencies that provide information on defendants to judges for the pretrial release decision; policies that force release pretrial detainees when the jail population reaches a certain capacity; and bond review practices. County jails are at a crossroads, confronting increasing pressure on their physical capacity and rising jail costs, while lacking the decision-making for pretrial release. The courts decide who is released pretrial, affecting the size of county jail population and, consequently, jail costs. Reducing the jail population and costs is a priority for jail administrators and county boards. Some counties fund programs that would release pretrial detainees from confinement and supervise them in the community, but the pretrial population accounts for a small share of who is released and supervised in the community. Through coordination and collaboration across the county justice system, counties are in a strong position to lead the way in pretrial release, developing strategies and leveraging resources that assist in managing the county jail population and safeguarding public safety. Details: Washington, DC: National Association of Counties, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2015 at: http://www.naco.org/resources/county-jails-crossroads Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.naco.org/resources/county-jails-crossroads Shelf Number: 136139 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCosts of CorrectionsJail AdministrationJail PopulationJailsOffender SupervisionPretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: Tafoya, Sonya M. Title: Pretrial Detention and Jail Capacity in California Summary: California's persistently overcrowded jails are facing additional challenges now that public safety realignment has shifted many lower-level offenders from state prisons to county supervision. Jail capacity challenges are prompting a reconsideration of California's heavy reliance on holding unsentenced defendants in jail pending trial - known as pretrial detention. The legal rationale for pretrial detention is to ensure court appearances and preserve public safety. But California's high rates of pretrial detention have not been associated with lower rates of failure to appear or lower levels of felony rearrests. This report concludes that pretrial services programs - if properly implemented and embraced by the courts, probation, and the jails - could address jail overcrowding and improve the efficiency, equitability, and transparency of pretrial release decision making. Details: San Francisco: Public policy Institute of California, 2015. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2015 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_715STR.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_715STR.pdf Shelf Number: 136337 Keywords: JailsPretrial DetentionPretrial Services |
Author: New Zealand. Law Commission. Title: Alternative pre-trial and trial processes : possible reforms Summary: This project arose from the Commission's recommendation in their Report, Disclosure to Court of Defendants' Previous Convictions, Similar Offending, and Bad Character (R103, 2008). The Commission recommended that Government should undertake an inquiry into whether the present adversarial trial process should be modified or replaced with an alternative model, with particular reference to cases involving sexual violence. In 2012, the Commission completed a preliminary review of the use of alternative pre-trial and trial processes for criminal offending, with a specific focus on sex offences. The Commission published Issues Paper 30 and received a large number of submissions from the public. The project was then put on hold by the Minister Responsible for the Law Commission at the time. In late 2014, the project was reactivated on request of the current Minister of Justice. The terms of reference for the project have not changed. Details: Wellington: New Zealand Law Commission, 2012. 117p. Source: Internet Resource: Law Commission issues paper, 2012, no. 30: Accessed August 10, 2015 at: http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/projectAvailableFormats/NZLC%20IP30.pdf Year: 2015 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/projectAvailableFormats/NZLC%20IP30.pdf Shelf Number: 136373 Keywords: Criminal CourtsPretrial DetentionSex OffendersSexual Violence |
Author: Jones, Alexander Title: Exploring the Potential for Pretrial Innovation in Massachusetts Summary: Reducing the number of inmates awaiting trial in jail through data-informed decision-making is one of the most promising innovations that Justice Reinvestment presents. Housing, feeding, and providing security for detainees is expensive, and there are also large collateral consequences. The defendant will likely lose their job, their housing, and perhaps even their children if a jail stay is required. While incarcerated awaiting trial, few detainees receive services they may urgently need to address underlying problems. Recognizing that resources can be better spent elsewhere, a number of states are moving aggressively to keep low-risk defendants out of jail. States in the lead on adopting new pretrial procedures have been able to reduce their jail populations because they were holding a large number of defendants who did not present a danger or flight risk; these detainees were simply too poor to afford bail. In addition to lowering jail populations, improvements to the pretrial process have the potential to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in incarceration. Research has shown that pretrial detention is harmful to mounting a defense, and that more low-income and minority defendants are forced to await trial in jail because they cannot post the money required for their release. While data limitations make it difficult to determine how many low-risk defendants are awaiting trial in Massachusetts jails, the growth of the state's pretrial population at a time when arrest rates are falling is an indicator that the pretrial process may be operating inefficiently. Between 2008 and 2013, the number of arrests in Massachusetts fell by 10 percent; in contrast, the state's pretrial jail population rose by nearly 13 percent. The disparity is even larger when contrasted with the drop in the number of defendants sentenced annually to serve terms in state prisons and county Houses of Correction, which has fallen by 22 percent since 2008. This policy brief provides a short primer on the pretrial process in Massachusetts, highlights critical issues that suggest there are opportunities to improve the system, and offers an action plan for pretrial innovation in Massachusetts. Details: Boston: Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://massinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/bail.brief_.3.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://massinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/bail.brief_.3.pdf Shelf Number: 136925 Keywords: BailJailsJustice ReinvestmentPretrial DetentionRisk Assessment |
Author: Irish Penal Reform Trust Title: Bail and Remand Summary: This Position Paper examines both the adult and juvenile schemes relating to bail and remand in Ireland, and examines the special rights which apply to people detained on remand in prison. IPRT believes any reform of domestic bail law requires careful consideration of applicable due process principles, constitutional implications and international human rights obligations, both universal and regional. The paper should be read alongside the IPRT Submission on General Scheme of the Bail Bill 2015 (Sept 2015). Details: Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: IPRT Position Paper 11: Accessed November 24, 2015 at: http://www.iprt.ie/files/IPRT_Position_Paper_11_on_Bail_and_Remand_sml.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Ireland URL: http://www.iprt.ie/files/IPRT_Position_Paper_11_on_Bail_and_Remand_sml.pdf Shelf Number: 137318 Keywords: Bail Pretrial Detention |
Author: San Mateo County (California) Title: Can an Electronic Monitoring Program for Pre-Trial Detainees Help to Reduce Jail Overcrowding? Summary: The Maguire Correctional Facility (men's jail) located in Redwood City is populated beyond its State-rated capacity, and has been for many years. Since it appears that the jail facilities will continue to be overcrowded for the foreseeable future, the Grand Jury questioned whether electronic monitoring devices are being used for pre-trial detainees (PTDs) and if electronic monitoring devices can be used to alleviate overcrowding in our jail. From 2002 to 2007 approximately 50 percent of the male jail population consisted of pre-trial detainees. The other 50 percent were individuals who had received a trial or pled guilty and were serving a prescribed sentence. Since 2008, this ratio has steadily changed, with pre-trial detainees reaching about 76% of the jail population in 2011. The Grand Jury looked at the alternatives offered to this growing population of untried, unsentenced individuals to determine if there were opportunities to reduce the number of inmates awaiting trial. A potential alternative to serving time in jail awaiting trial is to release carefully selected persons into an Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP). The Grand Jury found that utilizing electronic monitoring devices for pre-trial detainees is not part of the current classification process in San Mateo County, no EMP exists for pre-trial detainees, and consequently no persons awaiting trial wear an electronic monitoring device. Several of those interviewed acknowledge that electronic monitoring devices for specific individuals could be a useful tool in reducing jail populations. Expanding EMP efforts to the pre-trial detainee population would require some investment in staff and training, as well as modification of eligibility guidelines. This investment could be partially or wholly offset by cost savings in reducing jail headcount. The Grand Jury found that significant daily cost savings of approximately $100 per inmate/per day are available if selected pre-trial detainees are released into an EMP. The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff's Office do the following: 1) conduct an objective analysis and issue a report regarding the feasibility of an EMP for selected pre-trial detainees; 2) should the objective analysis and the results of the report indicate that an EMP for selected pre-trial detainees be feasible, prepare an implementation plan to expand EMP for pre-trial detainees for full implementation within 12 months. The objective analysis would include a review of best-practices in adjoining counties and statewide to evaluate the impact and usefulness of electronic monitoring and its effect on the jail population. It would also include the introduction of a risk assessment tool, such as the Virginia Risk Assessment, for determining defendant eligibility for EMP for pre-trial detainees. Implementing a non-jail confinement program for some classes of pre-trial detainees could be an important contribution to addressing overcrowded conditions in the men's jail in San Mateo County at a cost savings to the taxpayer. Details: San Mateo, CA: San Mateo County, 2012. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2016 at: https://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2011/emp.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2011/emp.pdf Shelf Number: 137927 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of CorrectionsElectronic MonitoringJailsPretrial DetentionPrison Overcrowding |
Author: Pierce-Danford, Kristy Title: Creating an Effective Pretrial Program: A Toolkit for Practitioners Summary: These are times of significant change for county jails and justice systems. Public Safety Realignment, the 2011 law that shifted management of people convicted of certain nonviolent, non-serious, non-sex offenses from state prisons and parole to county jails and probation, has had a major impact. More individuals are being sentenced to county jail instead of state prison, including people who violate conditions of their parole. Some county jails face limited capacity or strained resources. Combined with ongoing county budget challenges, more than ever, local leaders need effective strategies to safely manage their justice populations and reduce costs at the same time. On average, more than 60 percent of those in local jails in California are awaiting trial. They are being detained "pretrial" while their case goes through criminal proceedings. There are models of pretrial diversion and supervision programs that can effectively manage these individuals in a community setting. Reducing the number of pretrial detainees in jails or the length of their stay can conserve considerable resources and allow the jail to meet other public safety needs. In a post-Realignment California, assessing pretrial program options is both an opportunity and a necessity. Fortunately, pretrial program models have evolved considerably in recent decades, and there is evidence to show that they can be more successful than the money bail system at ensuring public safety and court appearance. There are many evidence-based options available to communities seeking to implement or strengthen pretrial programs. There is not one "correct" model for pretrial programs, and they can be successfully administered through the courts, probation departments, sheriff departments, county administration, independent agencies or any combination of these. Many counties are now exploring such programs, asking critical questions about whom among those awaiting trial needs to be in jail and who can be managed successfully in the community. This toolkit offers guidance to county officials on how to develop and operate these programs at the local level, building upon available literature on effective pretrial policies and practices. Specifically, officials will find: - Key information about the legal framework and national standards for pretrial programs; - How to implement a pretrial risk assessment; - Pretrial diversion and supervision advice; - How to assess your current system; and - Recommendations on using data to measure and enhance pretrial programs. Details: Oakland, CA: Californians for Safety and Justice, 2013. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 23, 2016 at: http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/211/9f/a/223/CSJ_pretrial_toolkit.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/211/9f/a/223/CSJ_pretrial_toolkit.pdf Shelf Number: 137944 Keywords: BailJailsPretrial DetentionPretrial DiversionPretrial InterventionsPretrial ReleasePretrial SupervisionRisk Assessment |
Author: Bechtel, Kristin Title: A Meta-Analytic Review of Pretrial Research: Risk Assessment, Bond Type, and Interventions Summary: This study makes an attempt to aggregate, via meta-analysis, what we currently know about pretrial decision making and jurisdictions' responses to the pretrial population. This meta-analysis began with an exhaustive search for pretrial research which may have revealed the most prominent finding - that being a distinct lack of research that utilizes any amount of methodological rigor. We identified a large number of studies that met our most general criteria (i.e., research about pretrial decision making) but mainly dealt with legal and/or philosophical issues regarding pretrial detention and due process. Studies that utilized empirical data and strong methodological designs were distinctly lacking. Of the studies that could be included, effect sizes were generated that may show some promise for court notification programs, pretrial supervision practices, and the potential effect of restrictive bond schedules. However, strong conclusions cannot be made as the quality of the pretrial research, overall, is weak at best. The findings of this study hold several policy implications for the field of pretrial research and practice. First, future research studies in the field of pretrial need to focus on methodological quality and rigor. Second, it appears that some conditions of release may be related to a defendant's likelihood of failure to appear. Third, it appears that none of the conditions of release reviewed in this study are related to a defendant's likelihood of re-arrest while on pretrial release. Finally, it is recommended that the field of pretrial develop a sound research agenda and execute that plan with rigor, transparency, and an approach that favors the continued cumulation of knowledge. Details: Unpublished Paper, 2016. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2741635 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2741635 Shelf Number: 134249 Keywords: BailDecision-MakingPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Council of Economic Advisors Title: Fines, Fees, and Bail: Payments in the Criminal Justice System That Disproportionately Impact the Poor Summary: Much of public discussion about the need for criminal justice system reform has focused on the dramatic growth in the size of the incarcerated population, as the number of Americans behind bars is now approximately 2.2 million. At the same time, concerns are growing about the expanding use of monetary penalties, which disproportionately impact poor defendants and offenders. Crime imposes real costs on society in terms of both the harm done to victims and in resources that must be allocated to policing, prosecution and incarceration. Increases in criminal justice spending have put a strain on local criminal justice budgets and led to the broader use of fine penalties and itemized criminal justice fees in an effort to support budgets. However, this practice places large burdens on poor offenders who are unable to pay criminal justice debts and, because many offenders assigned monetary penalties fall into this category, has largely been ineffective in raising revenues. Similarly, the growing use of fixed bail bonds as a condition for pretrial release has contributed to growth in jail populations, and often results in localities detaining the poorest rather than the most dangerous defendants. In this brief, we examine three common types of monetary payments in the criminal justice system: - Fines are monetary punishments for infractions, misdemeanors or felonies. Fines are intended to deter crime, punish offenders, and compensate victims for losses. - Fees are itemized payments for court activities, supervision, or incarceration charged to defendants determined guilty of infractions, misdemeanors or felonies. Fee collections are intended to support operational costs in the criminal justice system and may also be used to compensate victims for losses. Fees may also have a punitive and deterrent purpose, but are not designed to cater to specific offense categories. - Bail is a bond payment for a defendant's release from jail prior to court proceedings, and the majority of a bail payment is returned to a defendant after case disposition. Bail payments are intended to incentivize defendants to appear at court and, in some cases, to reduce the criminal risk of returning a defendant to the community. Details: Washington, DC: Council of Economic Advisors, 2015. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Brief: Accessed April 5, 2016 at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/1215_cea_fine_fee_bail_issue_brief.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/1215_cea_fine_fee_bail_issue_brief.pdf Shelf Number: 138562 Keywords: BailBail BondCourt FeesFinesPretrial Detention |
Author: Gilman, Denise Title: To Loose the Bonds: The Deceptive Promise of Freedom from Pre-Trial Immigration Detention Summary: Each year, the United States government detains more than 60,000 migrants who are eligible for release during immigration court proceedings that will determine their right to stay in the United States. Detention or release should be adjudicated through custody determination, or bond, proceedings focused on the question of whether a migrant poses a flight risk or danger to the community. Yet, because the proceedings skip the critical inquiry into the need for detention before setting monetary bond requirements for release that are difficult to fulfill, freedom remains elusive. Custody determination proceedings are a cornerstone in the U.S. immigration detention edifice but have received scarce attention. Furthermore, the public debate on mass incarceration, which could meaningfully inform the discussion, generally ignores the reality of expansive immigration detention, including for pre-trial detainees who might be released. This Article takes up the task of critiquing the role and functioning of immigration custody determination proceedings, in part by joining together the conversations taking place in the immigration and criminal pre-trial realms. In this Article, I assert that immigration custody determination proceedings fail to preserve and protect the constitutional presumption of liberty applicable to all persons facing detention without a criminal conviction. The proceedings result in automatic detention without meaningful individualized consideration or review. Furthermore, they adopt elements from the criminal pre-trial system that are ill-suited to the immigration setting while failing to incorporate lessons learned in the criminal justice setting. Important considerations in the criminal justice context, such as the inadvisability of emphasizing monetary bond, do not make their way into immigration custody determination proceedings, with negative results for liberty. Given these realities, the Article both proposes normative changes to immigration custody determination proceedings and calls for additional research in order to rationalize the process. These reforms would realign the system with the limited purposes of immigration detention in order to protect liberty and avoid the significant human and societal costs associated with detaining individuals who might safely be released. Details: Austin, TX: University of Texas School of Law, 2016. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2737416 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2737416 Shelf Number: 138632 Keywords: Immigrant Detention Immigration Mass Incarceration Pretrial Detention |
Author: Stevenson, Megan Title: Distortion of Justice: How the Inability to Pay Bail Affects Case Outcomes Summary: Instrumenting for detention status with the bail-setting propensities of rotating magistrates I find that pretrial detention leads to a 13% increase in the likelihood of being convicted, an effect explained by an increase in guilty pleas among defendants who otherwise would have been acquitted or had their charges dropped. On average, those detained will be liable for $128 more in court fees and will receive incarceration sentences that are almost five months longer. Effects can be seen in both misdemeanor and felony cases, across age and race, and appear particularly large for first or second time arrestees. Case types where evidence tends to be weaker also show pronounced effects: a 30% increase in pleading guilty and an additional 18 months in the incarceration sentence. While previous research has shown correlations between pretrial detention and unfavorable case outcomes, this paper is the first to use a quasi-experimental research design to show that the relationship is causal. Details: Philadelphia: Quattrone Center- University of Pennsylvania Law School, 2016. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 13, 2016 at: https://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/mstevens/workingpapers/Distortion-of-Justice-April-2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/mstevens/workingpapers/Distortion-of-Justice-April-2016.pdf Shelf Number: 139014 Keywords: Bail Pretrial Detention |
Author: Gupta, Arpit Title: The Heavy Costs of High Bail: Evidence from Judge Randomization Summary: Roughly 450,000 people are detained awaiting trial on any given day, typically because bail has not been posted. Using a large sample of criminal cases in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, we analyze the consequences of bail assessment and pretrial detentions by exploiting the variation in bail setting tendencies among randomly assigned bail judges. Our estimates suggest that the assignment of money bail leads to a 6 percentage point rise in the likelihood of pleading guilty, and a 4 percentage point rise in recidivism. We also find evidence for racial bias in bail setting. Our results highlight the importance of credit constraints in shaping defendant judicial outcomes and point to important fairness considerations in the institutional design of pretrial detention programs. Details: New York: Columbia University, 2016. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Columbia Law and Economics Working Paper No. 531 : Accessed May 18, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2774453 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2774453 Shelf Number: 139095 Keywords: Bail Pretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: Chicago Appleseed Title: Pre-Trial Delay and Length of Stay in Cook County Jail: Observations and Recommendations from the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice Summary: From 2007 to 2011, felony case filings in the Cook County Circuit Court fell by 17% and Cook County jail admissions dropped by 26%. Despite these shrinking caseloads and jail admissions, Cook County's average daily jail population decreased by just 9%. Why? People are staying in the jail for longer. And since the vast majority of people in jail are awaiting trial, it's reasonable to look to the pretrial process for sources of delay. From 2007 to 2011, the overall average length of stay increased 6.2 days, from 47.9 to 54.1 days in jail. Even small increases in average length of stay can significantly drive up the average daily jail population. This additional 6.2 days translates to a total of 454,888 additional jail bed days or, in other words, 1,246 additional inmates in the jail's average daily population. This report analyzes the pretrial process in search of causes and solutions to increasing pretrial detention. It draws on jail and court data analysis as well as stakeholder interviews and research literature. We describe the types of offenses and outcomes associated with longer jail stays, and describe how delay affects the justice system. In general, we find no "smoking gun" causing lengthier pretrial detention. Rather, there are a variety of issues that interact to create needless and costly delays. And while all stakeholders share responsibility for these issues, we recommend proven strategies for judges to promote a speedy and fair pretrial process. Details: Chicago: Chicago Appleseed, 2013. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: http://www.chicagoappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/CAFFJ-Pre-Trial-Delay-and-Length-of-Stay-Final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.chicagoappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/CAFFJ-Pre-Trial-Delay-and-Length-of-Stay-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 139350 Keywords: Case ProcessingJailsPretrial Detention |
Author: Olson, David E. Title: Population Dynamics and the Characteristics of Inmates in the Cook County Jail Summary: HIGHLIGHTS - The average daily population of the Cook County Jail in 2011 was 8,896, but ranged from an average of 8,514 during March to 9,199 in November (page 2). - Despite a 25.9% decrease in admissions between 2007 and 2011 (page 3), as a result of lengths of stay in the Cook County Jail increasing 13.0% (page 7), the jail's average daily population fell by only 9.5% from 2007 to 2011. - The characteristics of those admitted to the Cook County Jail in 2011 continued to consist primarily of African-American (66.9%) males (86.5%) between the ages of 21 and 30 (36%), from Chicago's south and west sides (page 4). - The current charges against those admitted to the Cook County Jail were distributed across all general crime categories, with violent crimes accounting for 28.7% of all admissions, followed by drug-law violations (26.9%), property offenses (17.9%), driving-related offenses, including DUI (15.4%), and other offenses. Almost one out of every 7 inmates (12.7%) admitted to the jail were charged with domestic battery (page 5). - The majority of those admitted to the Cook County Jail are pre-trial detainees, which are admitted with either an amount of bail necessary for their release or an order of "no bond," meaning they cannot be released on bail. Among those admitted in 2011, 20% had bail amounts of $6,000 or less, with 77% of these detainees being able to post the necessarily bail The remaining 23% stayed in jail until their case was disposed of (page 6). Details: Chicago: Cook County Sheriff's Reentry Council, 2012. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 9, 2016 at: http://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=criminaljustice_facpubs Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=criminaljustice_facpubs Shelf Number: 139351 Keywords: Inmate CharacteristicsJail InmatesJailsPretrial Detention |
Author: Rabuy, Bernadette Title: Detaining the Poor: How money bail perpetuates an endless cycle of poverty and jail time Summary: In addition to the 1.6 million people incarcerated in federal and state prisons, there are 646,000 people locked up in more than 3,000 local jails throughout the U.S. Seventy percent of these people in local jails are being held pretrial - meaning they have not yet been convicted of a crime and are legally presumed innocent. One reason that the unconvicted population in the U.S. is so large is because our country largely has a system of money bail, in which the constitutional principle of innocent until proven guilty only really applies to the well off. With money bail, a defendant is required to pay a certain amount of money as a pledged guarantee he will attend future court hearings.4 If he is unable to come up with the money either personally5 or through a commercial bail bondsman,6 he can be incarcerated from his arrest until his case is resolved or dismissed in court. Details: Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, 2016. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 10, 2016 at: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/DetainingThePoor.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/DetainingThePoor.pdf Shelf Number: 139359 Keywords: BailPovertyPretrial Detention |
Author: Latessa, Edward J. Title: The Ohio Risk Assessment System Misdemeanor Assessment Tool (ORAS-MAT) and Misdemeanor Screening Tool (ORAS-MST) Summary: In 2006, the University of Cincinnati (UC) Center for Criminal Justice Research (CCJR), in partnership with the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC), developed the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS), a system designed to assess risk, need, and responsivity factors of offenders at each stage in the criminal justice system (see Latessa, Smith, Lemke, Makarios, & Lowenkamp, 2009). The ORAS is comprised of five validated risk assessment instruments: 1) Pretrial Tool (PAT), 2) Community Supervision Tool (CST), 3) Prison Intake Tool (PIT), 4) Reentry Tool (RT), and 5) Supplemental Reentry Tool (SRT)1, as well as two screening tools: 1) Community Supervision Screening Tool (CSST) and 2) Prison Intake Screening Tool (PST). Since its' inception, the ORAS has been implemented across the state and is used in municipal and common pleas courts, community based correctional facilities (CBCFs), and ODRC institutions. Details: Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research, 2014. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 11, 2016 at: https://ext.dps.state.oh.us/OCCS/Pages/Public/Reports/ORAS%20MAT%20report%20%20occs%20version.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://ext.dps.state.oh.us/OCCS/Pages/Public/Reports/ORAS%20MAT%20report%20%20occs%20version.pdf Shelf Number: 139392 Keywords: Community SupervisionMisdemeanorsOffender Risk AssessmentPretrial DetentionPretrial SupervisionPrisoner ReentryRisk Assessment |
Author: Heaton, Paul Title: The Downstream Consequences of Misdemeanor Pretrial Detention Summary: In misdemeanor cases, pretrial detention poses a particular problem because it may induce otherwise innocent defendants to plead guilty in order to exit jail, potentially creating widespread error in case adjudication. While practitioners have long recognized this possibility, empirical evidence on the downstream impacts of pretrial detention on misdemeanor defendants and their cases remains limited. This Article uses detailed data on hundreds of thousands of misdemeanor cases resolved in Harris County, Texas - the third largest county in the U.S. - to measure the effects of pretrial detention on case outcomes and future crime. We find that detained defendants are 25% more likely than similarly situated releases to plead guilty, 43% more likely to be sentenced to jail, and receive jail sentences that are more than twice as long on average. Furthermore, those detained pretrial are more likely to commit future crime, suggesting that detention may have a criminogenic effect. These differences persist even after fully controlling for the initial bail amount as well as detailed offense, demographic, and criminal history characteristics. Use of more limited sets of controls, as in prior research, overstates the adverse impacts of detention. A quasi-experimental analysis based upon case timing confirms that these differences likely reflect the casual effect of detention. These results raise important constitutional questions, and suggest that Harris County could save millions of dollars a year, increase public safety, and reduce wrongful convictions with better pretrial release policy. Details: Philadelphia: Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice, 2016. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 22, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2809840 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2809840 Shelf Number: 139791 Keywords: BailGuilty PleasPretrial DetentionRecidivismWrongful Convictions |
Author: Mayson, Sandra G. Title: Dangerous Defendants Summary: Bail reform is underway - but it is proceeding on shaky ground. The reform model, which deploys actuarial risk assessment to identify "high-risk" defendants, assumes that the state has the prerogative to detain or control dangerous defendants. This assumption is not new. But it is anomalous. In general, we do not permit the state to restrain sane, responsible adults solely to stop them from committing hypothetical future crimes, even those who are high-risk. The reform movement's focus on danger thus crystallizes a fundamental question about pretrial policy: What justifies the state in restraining defendants for dangerousness before trial if we would prohibit the same restraint for equally dangerous members of the public? Although there is an extensive literature on preventive detention, neither the Supreme Court nor prior scholarship has focused on this comparative question. This Article endeavors to answer it. It makes the first effort to articulate and evaluate potential justifications for subjecting defendants to restraint that we would forbid for non-defendants who pose an equal risk. The Article explores doctrinal, deontological and instrumentalist justifications, but ultimately rejects them. It contends that pretrial restraint for dangerousness can only be justified at the risk threshold where we would authorize equivalent restraint of a member of the population at large. Communities, policymakers and courts should therefore determine what they believe this threshold to be, then ensure that pretrial risk assessment and management are tailored to it. Details: Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, School of Law, 2016. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 16-30 : Accessed August 30, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2826600 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2826600 Shelf Number: 140086 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Holsinger, Alexander M. Title: Exploring the Relationship Between Time in Pretrial Detention and Four Outcomes Summary: An increasing amount of attention has been paid to the pretrial phase of justice case processing both in research and policy. In particular, the issue of if, when, and how to use pretrial detention (jail time before a case is resolved with guilt or innocence) has been under a great deal of scrutiny. While the study of pretrial detention and its potential effects on case processing and outcome is not new (see for example Rankin, 1964; Tribe, 1971), emerging research has undertaken a more granular analysis of what effect pretrial detention - even short amounts - may have on other outcomes besides findings of guilt or innocence, and/or sentences to incarceration (as opposed to a community-based sanction) and for how long someone is sentenced to incarceration in some form. Shortly after arrest (and in turn shortly after being booked into a jail, most commonly at the county administrative level) several justice decisions are made. Most jurisdictions have some form of a standardized information collection procedure that gathers basic yet relevant data such as demographic factors and criminal history factors (most often involving the check of an automated database of some form). Likewise, at some point shortly after case initiation, the decision whether or not to assign bail is made and, if bail is assigned, how much. In recent years the use of some form of an actuarial (objective, research- based) risk assessment that determines the relative likelihood of various things like failure to appear is applied as well that will inform several decisions, both immediately and potentially later on. And all these broad factors - criminal history, bail, actuarial risk to flee - and others work toward influencing the decision regarding whether or not someone should remain in jail until their case is resolved (which in some instances can take several weeks if not months), or, if they should be allowed to remain in the community (Abrams & Rohlfs, 2011; Demuth, 2003; Myers, 2009). As noted above some of the original research examined pretrial detention through the lens of the effect that it may have on case outcome (Rankin, 1964). Consider, for example, the fact that someone who is detained pretrial is unable to have easy access to defense counsel, is unable to discuss their situation with witnesses and other potential social support, and is, by definition, cut off from the vast majority of their lives. These effects of pretrial detention and others may increase the likelihood that someone is unable to mount an adequate defense, thereby increasing the likelihood of conviction, and in turn a sentence to a secure facility. These effects may hold regardless of whether a person is actually guilty or innocent, in fact (Williams, 2003; Wald, 1964; Spohn, 2009). While the cumulative disadvantage of pretrial detention (Spohn, 2009; Schlesinger, 2007) has been well documented regarding the potential effect on case outcome, there is value in taking a closer look at other ways in which that disadvantage may accumulate. Put another way, aside from the negative effects noted above (increase likelihood of conviction, increase likelihood of sentencing to a secure as opposed to a community- based sanction upon a finding of guilt), how might the potentially negative effects of pretrial detention manifest themselves in other ways? As mentioned above, through the denial of liberty and freedom, pretrial detention has an effect on things like access to defense counsel and other resources that can affect case outcome. However, pretrial detention may hold other implications for several other harbingers of adult functionality, which may affect an individual's life in other ways, thereby having further reaching impacts that in turn make serial involvement with the criminal justice system more likely. Details: Boston: Crime and Justice Institute, 2016. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 3, 2016 at: http://www.crj.org/page/-/publications/Exploring%20Pretrial%20Detention.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.crj.org/page/-/publications/Exploring%20Pretrial%20Detention.pdf Shelf Number: 140156 Keywords: Pretrial DetentionRecidivismRisk Assessment |
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: Jetzer, Keri-Anne Title: Jail Bookings in Washington State Summary: The terms "jail" and "prison" are often used interchangeably, yet there are big differences between them. Prisons are built to hold dangerous offenders with longer sentences (366 days or more in Washington state) and provide some rehabilitative programming. Jails, on the other hand, offer more short-term confinement (365 days or fewer). Jails also hold people pretrial, pre-conviction and pre-sentencing. They hold those who are being picked up from other sources, such as federal agencies, mental health agencies and other jails. Community custody violators from the Washington State Department of Corrections may complete 'swift and certain' sanction time in a jail. Another difference is that, in Washington, prisons are operated by the state while jails are operated by the counties. In fact, Washington is one of 17 states that has no formal oversight of its jails. In 2000, the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs proposed a centralized jail booking and reporting system. Its study of the jail systems in the state resulted in the centrally located Jail Booking and Reporting System (JBRS). While much of the local jail data are uploaded into JBRS, there is little standardization related to the input or coding of the data being entered by jail staff. The number of jail bookings has slowly decreased during the four-year period. The decreases were small between 2010 and 2012 at 6 percent per year. The increase in 2013 was also small (2 percent). While there appears to be a downward trend, none of the changes were found to be statistically significant. Data received for calendar year 2014 was only for January to September. Those bookings totaled 204,940 for the nine months. The bookings between October-December in 2010 through 2013 represented 23 to 24 percent of the annual totals. If this trend were to continue in 2014, the yearly total is estimated to be about 243,400 bookings, or 5 percent less than the 2013 total. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, 2016. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 14, 2016 at: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/researchbriefs/2016/brief078.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/researchbriefs/2016/brief078.pdf Shelf Number: 141129 Keywords: Jail Inmates Jails Pretrial Detention |
Author: Harvard Law School. Criminal Justice Policy Program Title: Moving Beyond Money: A Primer on Bail Reform Summary: Bail reform presents a historic challenge – and also an opportunity. Bail is historically a tool meant to allow courts to minimize the intrusion on a defendant's liberty while helping to assure appearance at trial. It is one mechanism available to administer the pretrial process. Yet in courtrooms around the country, judges use the blunt instrument of secured money bail to ensure that certain defendants are detained prior to their trial. Money bail prevents many indigent defendants from leaving jail while their cases are pending. In many jurisdictions, this has led to an indefensible state of affairs: too many people jailed unnecessarily, with their economic status often defining pretrial outcomes. Money bail is often imposed arbitrarily and can result in unjustified inequalities. When pretrial detention depends on whether someone can afford to pay a cash bond, two otherwise similar pretrial defendants will face vastly different outcomes based merely on their wealth. These disparities can have spiraling consequences since even short periods of pretrial detention can upend a person’s employment, housing, or child custody. Being jailed pretrial can also undercut a defendant’s ability to mount an effective defense. As these outcomes accumulate in individual cases, improper use of money bail can accelerate unnecessarily high rates of incarceration and deepen disparities based on wealth and race throughout the criminal justice system. Detaining unconvicted defendants because they lack the wealth to afford a cash bond also violates the Constitution. A recent wave of advocacy has created national momentum for fundamentally rethinking how pretrial decision-making operates. Litigation across the country has resulted in the bail systems of several jurisdictions being declared unconstitutional, destabilizing well-established practices and focusing the attention of policymakers on the problems resulting from money bail. Increasing media attention to the unjust consequences of money bail has intensified scrutiny of existing practice. All of this builds on sustained attention from experts and advocacy groups who have long called for fundamental reform of cash bail.3 As policymakers across the political spectrum seek to end the era of mass incarceration,4 reforming pretrial administration has emerged as a critical way to slow down the flow of people into the criminal justice system. This primer on bail reform seeks to guide policymakers and advocates in identifying reforms and tailoring those reforms to their jurisdiction. In this introductory section, it outlines the basic legal architecture of pretrial decision-making, including constitutional principles that structure how bail may operate. Section II describes some of the critical safeguards that should be in place in jurisdictions that maintain a role for money bail. Where money bail is part of a jurisdiction’s pretrial system, it must be incorporated into a framework that seeks to minimize pretrial detention, ensures that people are not detained because they are too poor to afford a cash bond amount, allows for individualized pretrial determinations, and effectively regulates the commercial bail bond industry. Section III addresses the legal and policy considerations relevant to eliminating the use of money bail. It describes leading reform strategies, highlights competing policy considerations implicated by these strategies, and elaborates constitutional principles that should guide policy reform. It focuses on a set of reforms that many advocates have advanced as a way to move to a “riskbased” system of pretrial decision-making. In particular, it focuses on three aspects of such a system: the expanded use of pretrial services agencies and the tools those agencies employ to supervise pretrial defendants in the community; actuarial risk assessment instruments, which provide judges with a quantitative model for forecasting the risk that particular defendants will fail to appear for trial or will commit a serious crime during the pretrial period; and the limited use of preventive detention. This primer does not prescribe a one-size-fits-all package of pretrial reforms. Indeed, some of the potential reforms raise knotty legal and policy questions. Answering those questions will require jurisdictions to assess local circumstances and needs and make fundamental judgments among competing policy values in order to craft appropriate policies. While this primer does not propose a uniform model of bail reform, it can guide advocates and policymakers through the considerations that should structure a reform strategy. It aims to help translate growing momentum for bail reform into on-the ground change by providing policymakers and advocates with guidance on what alternatives are available and how they might be implemented. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law School, 2016. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2016 at: http://cjpp.law.harvard.edu/assets/FINAL-Primer-on-Bail-Reform.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://cjpp.law.harvard.edu/assets/FINAL-Primer-on-Bail-Reform.pdf Shelf Number: 147310 Keywords: BailCriminal Justice ReformPretrial Detention |
Author: Tiry, Emily Title: Road Map to Pretrial Reforms: Profile Analysis of New Hampshire's Pretrial Defendant Population Summary: This report details an effort in New Hampshire to adopt evidence-based policy and practice for pretrial release decision-making. Many states have introduced changes to improve pretrial release decision-making in recent decades. As the first step toward implementing pretrial reforms in New Hampshire, the current study examines the characteristics of the pretrial defendant population, identifies data gaps and limitations, and presents a road map for developing a validated pretrial risk assessment tool. The population analysis findings suggest that the pretrial defendant population in New Hampshire is largely demographically homogenous across counties, but counties vary in their charging, bail-setting, and data collection practices. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2016. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: http://www.urban.org/research/publication/road-map-pretrial-reforms/view/full_report Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/research/publication/road-map-pretrial-reforms/view/full_report Shelf Number: 144886 Keywords: BailCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Fair Trials International Title: A Measure of Last Resort? The practice of pre-trial detention decision making in the EU Summary: 1. Pre-trial detention (depriving suspects and accused people of their liberty before the conclusion of a criminal case) is intended to be an exceptional measure, only to be used as necessary and proportionate and in compliance with the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty. Its use is only acceptable as a measure of last resort, in very limited circumstances. Unfortunately, in the EU as around the world, these strict limitations are not always respected. 2. The EU is facing a long-standing crisis in prison overcrowding that threatens to undermine mutual trust and the functioning and legality of mutual recognition instruments like the European Arrest Warrant. Overcrowding, and the rights violations it causes, is driven in part by excessive use of pre-trial detention, in contravention of regional and international standards. The European Commission and Parliament have, for the past five years, repeatedly recognised the need for improved standards of pre-trial detention. Recent decisions from the Court of Justice of the European Union have again pushed the need for regional legislation to the fore. 3. Given the concern expressed about excessive use of pre-trial detention in the EU, there is a surprising lack of information on the practical operation of procedural rules designed to ensure that detention is only used when strictly legal and necessary. In order to gain a realistic view of problems in practice on which to develop targeted national and regional solutions, Fair Trials has coordinated research in ten EU Member States (England and Wales, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, and Spain) to analyse the practice of pre-trial detention decision-making and the use of alternatives to detention. The research consisted of legal and statistical analysis, hearing monitoring, case-file reviews, a survey of defence lawyers, and qualitative interviews with prosecutors and judges, resulting in detailed reports. This report provides a high-level overview of the research and analysis from an EU regional perspective..." Details: London: Fair Trials, 2016. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 23, 2016 at: https://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/A-Measure-of-Last-Resort-Full-Version.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: https://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/A-Measure-of-Last-Resort-Full-Version.pdf Shelf Number: 144813 Keywords: Detention Human Rights Abuses Imprisonment Pretrial Detention |
Author: Fazekas, Tamas Title: The Practice of Pre-Trial Detention: Monitoring Alternatives and Judicial decision-Making Summary: During the past few years, pre-trial detainees have made up almost one-third of the prison population in Hungary, contributing to the overcrowding of the penitentiary system, which, according to a 2015 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), constitutes a structural problem in Hungary. For over half a decade until 2013, the number of pre-trial detainees in Hungary had increased constantly. However, since 2014, significant positive developments have been detected in the statistical data: there has been a reduction of around 20% in the number of cases in which pretrial detention is ordered, corresponding to a decrease in the number of prosecutorial motions aimed at ordering this coercive measure. This decrease in the use of pre-trial detention does not, however, guarantee that judicial decisions and indeed the decision-making process as a whole are consistently compliant with standards established by the higher Hungarian judicial forums, the ECtHR and relevant European Union (EU) legislation. The research project "The Practice of Pre-trial Detention: Monitoring Alternatives and Judicial Decision-making", funded by the EU, was conducted in 10 different EU Member States in 2014–2015, in Hungary by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee. The project’s research results presented below are based on (i) a desk-research, (ii) a survey conducted among 31 defence counsels, (iii) review of the case files of 116 defendants convicted primarily for robbery, (iv) interviews with five prosecutors, and (vi) written responses provided by 10 judges to a standard set of questions. An overview of the results of the research is as follows: 1. Decision-making procedure The presence of a defence lawyer is optional at judicial hearings on pre-trial detention and in fact ex officio appointed lawyers rarely appear at the hearing. Where they are present, their level of activity is often low. While the reasons for this were not identified through the research, such situations jeopardise the effectiveness of the suspect’s defence. 45% of lawyers surveyed explained that they have only 30 minutes or less with access to the case file in which to prepare for the hearing. While the amendments of the Hungarian Code of Criminal Procedure aimed at transposing Article 7 of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (Right to Information Directive) have brought along substantial improvement in the defence’s access to evidence related to pre-trial detention, the practice of authorities can pose significant obstacles to the effective exercise of this right. 2. The substance of decisions Pre-trial detention was ordered in the vast majority of cases observed and reviewed. The most common reasons for ordering pre-trial detention were the risk of absconding, interfering with the course of justice and the risk of reoffending. The reasons given by judges for ordering pre-trial detention are often abstract and not specific to the case, repeating the prosecutorial motions requesting a pre-trial detention order. The analysis of the data supports a long-standing complaint of defence counsels, namely that courts seem to pay no or little attention to the arguments put forth by the defence: in the sample, judges referred to the evidence or arguments of the prosecution in 92.4% of the decisions, and only in 50% did they refer to the arguments of the defence. In violation of ECtHR-standards, the risk of absconding is often established solely or primarily on the basis of the gravity of the offence and the prospective punishment. The courts also tend to attribute great relevance to circumstances that, according to the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, may not serve as decisive factors. The Hungarian Helsinki Committee encountered a number of decisions in the case files that referred to the risk of interfering with the course of justice on the basis of very abstract arguments and often in phases of the procedure when such risks are minuscule or non-existent (after the closing of the investigation and, in one case, even after the delivery of the first instance judgment). With regard to the risk of reoffending, court decisions referring to convictions that took place long before the suspected perpetration of the offence serving as the basis of the actual proceeding, or convictions of completely different nature, as well as the substantiation of detention with nothing but the lack of regular income were encountered, in contradiction with ECtHR jurisprudence. 3. Use of alternatives to detention Statistical data show that existing alternatives to pre-trial detention (house arrest, etc.) are heavily underused. Interviews with judges and prosecutors seem to support defence counsels’ perception that there is little confidence in alternatives, and that this has not changed significantly with the introduction of electronic tagging in 2013. 4. Review of pre-trial detention The statistical analysis of further decisions on pre-trial detention (prolonging, upholding or reviewing pre-trial detention) provides evidence for the continuous lack of tailored reasoning for the ongoing deprivation of liberty. The concerns raised above in relation to the substance of initial pre-trial detention decisions also apply to these further decisions. In relation to appeals against pre-trial detention, second instance courts deciding on pre-trial detention never meet the defendant in person, which may be a violation of the ECtHR standards. In addition, it sometimes takes a very long time to deliver the second instance decisions, which is a violation of the obligation to proceed with adequate speed in cases where the defendant is deprived of his/her liberty. The research shows that investigating authorities often do not conduct more efficient investigations when cases involve a detainee. These instances result in a number of cases in which the length of detention violates the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and Hungarian law. In addition, the elimination of the statutory upper limit of pre-trial detention in some cases gives the dangerous message that the legislator is willing to accept serious delays in procedures even when the defendants are deprived of their liberty. Recommendations The conclusions of the research indicate that the practice of pre-trial detention decision-making in Hungary falls short of the ECtHR standards in a number of areas. In light of these findings, the main recommendations are the following: The presence of defence counsel at hearings related to pre-trial detention should be made mandatory, and a deadline for notifying the defence counsel about the hearings related to pre-trial detention should be established, which ensures that defence counsel can participate in the hearing. The legal amendment that allows for unlimited periods for pre-trial detention in certain cases should be abolished and fair time limits imposed. Various legislative steps seem desirable with the purpose of guaranteeing the reasonable length of pre-trial detention. E.g. judges should be authorised to terminate pre-trial detention on the basis of the authorities’ failure to conduct the proceeding in a fast track manner if the suspect is detained. In order to ensure unrestricted access to the case files, the respective legal provisions should be further amended to ensure the effective implementation of the Right to Information Directive. Alternatives to pre-trial detention should be used more often. The underuse of these should be examined by one of the jurisprudence-analysis groups established by the president of the highest judicial forum. Reasoning of pre-trial detention orders at all levels could be improved by respective judicial and prosecutorial training, including information on the related ECtHR case-law to ensure ECtHR standards are applied when making decisions related to pre-trial detention. The law should be amended to ensure that appeal decisions in the pre-trial detention context can or in certain cases must only be taken after an oral hearing. Legislative reform should further impose deadlines to ensure that second instance decisions are delivered within an adequate time-frame. Details: Budapest: Hungarian Helsinki Committee, 2015. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 23, 2016 at: http://www.helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/PTD_country_report_Hungary_HHC_2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Hungary URL: http://www.helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/PTD_country_report_Hungary_HHC_2015.pdf Shelf Number: 147810 Keywords: Judicial Decision MakingPretrial DetentionProsecutors |
Author: Maryland. Office of the Public Defender Title: The High Cost of Bail: How Maryland's Reliance on Money Bail Jails the Poor and Costs the Community Millions Summary: In Maryland, District Court commissioners and judges routinely require defendants to post bail in order to be released before trial. In practice, this system jails the poor and allows the rich to go free. Multiple studies, in Maryland and across the United States, have demonstrated that the key factor in the incarceration of people awaiting trial is not the risk they pose to society, or their risk of failing to appear in court, but simply whether they have enough money to pay bail. Even more, studies show that the widespread use of "secured bail" which requires payment or security, such as a property title, posted directly to the court, or posting of corporate bond to obtain release - causes new crime, coerces convictions, and has little or no impact on defendants' return to court. Relying on these studies and legal analysis, the United States Department of Justice, former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, and the American Bar Association, among others, have all concluded that a pretrial detention system that jails people because they are too poor to pay bail is irrational and unconstitutional. Details: Baltimore: Maryland Office of the Public Defender, 2016. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2017 at: http://www.opd.state.md.us/Portals/0/Downloads/High%20Cost%20of%20Bail.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.opd.state.md.us/Portals/0/Downloads/High%20Cost%20of%20Bail.pdf Shelf Number: 150554 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: Cape, Ed Title: The Practice of Pre-trial Detention in England and Wales: Research Report Summary: This study of pre-trial detention (PTD) decision-making in England and Wales is part of a 10 country study funded by the European Commission, and managed by Fair Trials. The authors conducted a defence lawyer survey, observed PTD hearings, examined CPS files, and interviewed judges, magistrates and Crown prosecutors, between November 2014 and June 2015. The information obtained provides important insights into the way in which PTD is regulated and how that works in practice, and the authors make a number of significant recommendations designed to improve the decision-making process and reduce the inappropriate use of PTD. Details: Brighton, UK: University of the West of England, Centre for Legal Research, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2017 at: https://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/Country-Report-England-and-Wales-MASTER-Final-PRINT.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/Country-Report-England-and-Wales-MASTER-Final-PRINT.pdf Shelf Number: 140679 Keywords: Pretrial Detention Pretrial Release Risk Assessment |
Author: Open Society Foundations Title: Improving Pretrial Justice: The Roles of Lawyers and Paralegals Summary: On any given day, some three million people are held in pretrial detention around the world. Countless millions are unnecessarily arrested and detained by law enforcement agencies annually. Those in pretrial detention are often held in conditions and subject to treatment that is far worse than that experienced by sentenced prisoners. Pretrial detainees—who have not been tried or found guilty—can languish behind bars for years. Some detainees may literally be lost in the system. Early intervention by lawyers and paralegals can have a positive impact on pretrial justice in general and pretrial detention in particular. Examples from across the globe show that early intervention schemes can reduce the use of pretrial detention, improve the performance of criminal justice personnel, lead to more rational and effective decision-making, and increase accountability and respect for the rule of law. Lawyers and paralegals have a central role to play in advising, assisting, and representing individuals at the pretrial stage of the criminal process. Ensuring legal assistance is available at the earliest possible time allows for the most effective use of resources, as cases are dealt with at the front end of the criminal justice system. Helping to ensure that appropriate decisions regarding pretrial detention and release are made early on can reduce the use of pretrial detention. This does not just benefit the individual suspect: there are wider benefits for the administration of justice and the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system as a whole. Early intervention can play a key role in educating the public about their rights, and improving transparency, accountability, and confidence in the criminal justice system. International law requires the provision of state funding for legal advice and representation where this is in the interests of justice and the suspect or defendant does not have sufficient means to pay for it. Legal assistance at the early stages of the criminal process is not only an important right for individuals but, when effectively implemented, also produces significant benefits for criminal justice systems and for social integration: it can save money and resources, reduce the use of pretrial detention, encourage diversion from formal criminal justice processes, reduce torture and corruption, improve the functioning of the criminal justice system, and increase transparency and foster confidence in the rule of law. Fortunately, there are replicable models—from developed and developing countries alike—of effective early intervention schemes involving lawyers and paralegals. Recommendations for governments: • Make available sufficient resources to comply with international and national obligations for the provision of legal advice and assistance at the early stages of the criminal process, in particular for those who do not have sufficient means to pay for it. • Develop structures and mechanisms to make the right to legal advice and assistance practical and effective. In particular, establish a legal aid institution that is independent of government and responsible for making the right to legal advice and assistance practical and effective—particularly at the early stages of the criminal process. • Review and update existing laws and procedures concerning: the right to legal advice and assistance at the early stages of the criminal process; access by lawyers and paralegals to police stations, police interviews, and pretrial detention and prison facilities; the recording of police interviews of suspects and witnesses; representation by paralegals where appropriate; the circumstances in which a defendant should be entitled to pretrial release; maximum periods of detention in police custody and pretrial detention; the maximum length of criminal proceedings and maximum number of adjournments; diversion from formal criminal proceedings; and mechanisms for enforcing them. • Ensure that reliable statistical information is routinely collected on critical aspects of the criminal justice system, including: the number of and reasons for arrests, the numbers of people charged and the nature of the charges, the numbers of people in pretrial detention, the length of detention, and the number of people receiving legal advice and representation. Recommendations for legal aid management organizations, NGOs, and professional legal bodies: • Seek to ensure that governments implement the recommendations set out above. • Identify existing mechanisms and resources for providing legal advice and assistance to suspects and defendants, especially at the early stages of the criminal process, including at police stations. Work with existing stakeholders, including bar associations, NGOs, the judiciary, and other criminal justice personnel, to identify the interventions that are most needed and how they may best be provided. • Map existing and potential sources of funding for the provision of legal advice and assistance and seek to match them with schemes designed to have the greatest impact on pretrial detention and pretrial justice generally. • Recognize the range of functions that can be performed through lawyer and paralegal schemes, including: advice, assistance, and representation to individuals; education and training for suspects, defendants, prisoners, communities, and criminal justice personnel; reform of systems, processes, and criminal justice policies. Consider which functions are likely to be the most effective given the local context. • Consider establishing pilot schemes to test the most appropriate structures and mechanisms for providing legal advice and assistance, with a view to evaluating the costs and demonstrating the financial and other benefits. • Document and disseminate promising practices and information about the financial and other benefits of early intervention by lawyers and paralegals. Details: New York: Open Society Foundations, 2012. 109p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2017 at: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/16820/1/improving-pretrial-justice-20120416.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/16820/1/improving-pretrial-justice-20120416.pdf Shelf Number: 144945 Keywords: BailLegal AidPretrial DetentionPretrial InterventionPretrial ReleasePublic Defenders |
Author: Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights Title: Pre-Trial Detention in Poland Summary: 1. As of 31 October 2015, 4,356 people remain in prisons as pre-trial detainees in Poland. At the same time, the overall prison population in the country amounts to 72 195. This means that pre-trial detainees constitute 6.0 per cent of all detainees. Even though this percentage seems low and the number of motions for pre-trial detention decreased by almost 30% between 2009- 2014, the research revealed that Poland still faces serious challenges with respect to pre-trial detention. 2. As part of an EU funded project, a common research methodology was applied in 10 EU Member States, with research data gathered through the monitoring of PTD hearings, analysing case files, as well as surveying defence lawyers and interviewing judges and prosecutors. In the course of the Polish research, 4 PTD hearings were observed, 70 case-files analysed, 24 defence lawyers surveyed, and 9 judges and 7 prosecutors interviewed. 3. On 1 July 2015, a fundamental reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure and important changes to the Criminal Code entered into force. The reform introduced an adversarial model of proceedings, which places more emphasis on the activity of prosecutors and lawyers, and leaves the judge as an impartial arbitrator. It is important to view the results of the research in the light of these recent legislative changes, which address several of the identified limitations to the fairness of the proceedings. The key findings regarding the pre-trial detention decision-making in Poland were as follows: 4. Decision-making procedure: According to the law, before applying a preventive measure the court or the prosecutor shall hear the defendant. This means that the defendant has to be present at the first pre-trial detention hearing. This obligation does not, however, extend to other pre-trial detention hearings, which is why the equality of arms may not be secured throughout the whole pre-trial detention proceedings. The research showed that the defendant, if not in hiding or otherwise unavailable to the justice system, is present at the first pre-trial detention hearing. The defendant is not always present at other pre-trial detention hearings, especially if he has been appointed a lawyer. Equally, defendants who do attend hearings are often not represented by a lawyer. Additionally, the defence's preparation of the hearing is sometimes limited by insufficient access to the case files. It should, however, be noted that the regulation on access to case files has recently been changed as a result of legislative changes in the European Union and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, The access has been widened for the defendant. Still, the majority of lawyers surveyed explained that they have 30 minutes or less to prepare for the hearing, with access to the case file. 5. The substance of decisions: Case file research revealed that the risk of the suspect perverting the course of justice, the risk of the suspect absconding and the fact that a severe penalty may be imposed on the suspect are the most commonly used justifications for ordering pre-trial detention. The reasoning given is often formulaic and not tailored to the specific case, repeating the arguments raised by the prosecution. This can be partly explained with the swiftness of the proceedings which limits the time for judges to read the case file and forces them to rely on the evidence provided by the prosecution. However, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure were changed in relation to the content of justifications of pre-trial detention orders. The amendments may contribute to a more careful and diligent judicial consideration of matters that involve pre-trial detention, as judges will be obliged to refer in their justifications directly to the circumstances listed in the new provision. We hope that the explicit designation of the assumed line of reasoning which should accompany judicial resolution of pre-trial detention matters will persuade courts to examine more thoroughly whether a need to apply pre-trial detention actually exists. 6. Use of alternatives to detention: The conducted research and official statistics show that police supervision and money bail are the most commonly used non-custodial, preventive measures. At the same time, the interviewed judges and prosecutors do not perceive noncustodial preventive measures as effective and trustworthy alternatives to pre-trial detention. What is more, case file research and surveys conducted among defence practitioners show that judicial consideration of alternatives to detention is limited to a single-sentence argument that such alternatives would not protect the integrity of the proceedings. 7. Review of pre-trial detention: The success rate of complaints against pre-trial detention orders of regional courts was about 3% in 2014. Defence practitioners surveyed complained of the automatism and superficiality of judicial decisions which lack proper justifications based on the facts of the case and substantiated presumptions, even in cases being reviewed and appealed against. The case files research confirmed the notion that courts of higher instance rarely change the decisions of lower level courts. The decisions of higher level courts often repeat previous decisions. Defence practitioners also commented in the survey that reviews are not frequent enough to take account of changed circumstances of the case or other factors. Preparation of review is often also challenged by the defence's insufficient access to the case file. The majority of lawyers surveyed believe that the proceedings and investigations are not conducted more diligently and effectively because a pre-trial detainee is involved. 8. Recommendations The conclusions of the research indicate that the practice of pre-trial detention decision-making in Poland falls short of the European Court of Human Rights standards in a number of areas. In light of these findings, the main recommendations are the following: a. The legislator should consider clarifying the prerequisites for pre-trial detention contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. b. The legislator should introduce a maximum duration of pre-trial detention. Optionally, the authority to extend the duration of pre-trial detention beyond the limit in exceptional circumstances should be vested in the Supreme Court. c. The legislator should introduce the rule that cases of persons in pre-trial detention should take precedence over other cases on a judge's docket. d. The legislator should introduce a provision on the defendant's obligatory presence at all pre-trial detention hearings. e. The legislator should introduce obligatory legal representation in cases where a prosecutor requests pre-trial detention or alternatives to detention. f. The amounts awarded as compensation in cases of unlawful pre-trial detention should be increased. g. The legislator should consider introducing new preventive measures (home detention and electronic monitoring) into the Code of Criminal Procedure. h. The Institute of Justice could undertake further research on non-custodial preventive measures, including their perception among the representatives of the justice system. i. The Ministry of Justice, the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution and the Prosecutor General should conduct more training on pre-trial detention standards. j. The authorities should ensure effective implementation of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to access to case files and guidance on pre-trial decision-making. k. The authorities should also ensure proper implementation of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Details: Warsaw: Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, 2015. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 10, 2017 at: http://www.hfhr.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/HFHR_PTD_2015_EN.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Poland URL: http://www.hfhr.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/HFHR_PTD_2015_EN.pdf Shelf Number: 144772 Keywords: Criminal DefendantsCriminal ProcedurePretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: Schnacke, Timothy R. Title: "Model" Bail Laws: Re-Drawing the Line Between Pretrial Release and Detention Summary: This paper is designed to help persons craft and justify language articulating who should be released and who should be eligible for detention in a purposeful in-or-out pretrial system through a study of the history of bail, the fundamental legal principles, the pretrial research, and the national standards on pretrial release and detention. It does so, in Part I, by providing the answers to a series of questions that every jurisdiction should be asking before embarking on the task of re-drawing the line between pretrial release and detention. These questions, based on the fundamentals of bail, range from elementary (i.e., "What is bail?") to somewhat complicated (i.e., "How has America traditionally defined 'flight' and how did it struggle with both unintentional and intentional detention for noncapital defendants?") to very practical (i.e., "Can we use the results of actuarial pretrial risk assessment instruments when determining our detention eligibility net?"). In Part II, the paper begins to answer the question, "If we change, to what do we change?" It then introduces three analyses that should be used to assess any proposed model for re-drawing the line between release and detention. In Part III, the paper proposes a "model" process - this author's attempt at purposefully re-drawing the line between release and detention - based on the history, the law, the pretrial research, and the national standards on release and detention, and then, in Part IV, the paper holds the proposed model up to the three analyses. In Part V, the paper operationalizes the concepts from the proposed model into sample templates designed to illustrate how a jurisdiction might phrase certain crucial elements contained in the model. And finally, once this re-drawing of the line between release and detention is done, Part VI of the paper articulates notions that should be a part of any state bail legal scheme in order to make the model provision work. The proposed model can be accepted or rejected by American jurisdictions. Nevertheless, any different model should be subjected to either the same or a more rigorous justification process as is provided in this paper. This paper is likely useful to all persons seeking answers to questions surrounding pretrial justice today. But it should be especially useful to those persons who are taking pen to paper to re-write their laws to determine whom to release and whom to potentially detain pretrial - essentially, to redraw the line between purposeful release and detention. Details: Golden, CO: Center for Legal and Evidence-Based Practices, 2017. 206p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2017 at: http://www.clebp.org/images/04-18-2017_Model_Bail_Laws_CLEPB_.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.clebp.org/images/04-18-2017_Model_Bail_Laws_CLEPB_.pdf Shelf Number: 145149 Keywords: BailBail ReformPretrial DetentionRisk Assessment |
Author: South Africa Department of Correctional Services Title: White Paper on Remand Detention Management in South Africa Summary: This White Paper on Remand Detention seeks to add to the 2005 White Paper on Corrections by dealing with inmates who constitute on average one third of the total population at DCS facilities but who were not adequately catered for in the White Paper on Corrections. An additional number of RDs are accommodated in DSD and SAPS facilities. The responsibility of the DCS for those in remand detention follows a decision by Cabinet in 2009 to deal with the management of awaiting-trial detainees (as remand detainees were previously known) by creating a branch within the DCS for this category of inmates. This required an alignment of existing legislation and policies as remand detainees pose very distinct and unique challenges compared to the population of sentenced offenders. Discussions within the JCPS Cluster as well as with external stakeholders led to the development of a White Paper as well as an amendment to the Correctional Services Act in the form of the Correctional Matters Amendment Act, 2011 (Act No 5 of 2011)(CMAA). The CMAA included a review of the definition of awaiting-trial inmates, wearing of uniform for remand detainees, management of terminally ill inmates, temporary surrendering of detainees to SAPS custody and a determination of the maximum period of detention for which a person could remain in remand detention. The Act was passed on 25 May 2011, which led to a further alignment of the White Paper with the Act. This White Paper communicates the principles that drive the Detention Management of Remand Detainees, drawn from local and international laws, and conclude that remand detention is not punitive, occurs as a result of an order of a court of law, is managed with the highest possible ethical and professional standards, and that detainees have to be informed of their rights and obligations and are separated from sentenced inmates. The principles further state that remand detention requires greater levels of effectiveness and integration in the criminal justice system and that institutions should be subject to oversight and control. Overall, the White Paper is based on the constitutional right that a person charged with a crime is innocent until proven guilty and shall be treated as such. Remand Detention Facilities must therefore allow for the minimal limitation of an individual's rights, while ensuring secure and safe custody. Personnel must be trained in human development, in the rights of persons in the criminal justice system process, and in secure and safe custody. Details: Pretoria: Department of Correctional Services, 2014. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 29, 2017 at: http://www.dcs.gov.za/docs/landing/White%20Paper%20on%20Remand%20Detention%20Management%20in%20South%20Africa.pdf Year: 2014 Country: South Africa URL: http://www.dcs.gov.za/docs/landing/White%20Paper%20on%20Remand%20Detention%20Management%20in%20South%20Africa.pdf Shelf Number: 145204 Keywords: Pretrial DetentionRemand DetentionRisk Assessment |
Author: White, Elise Title: Navigating the Bail Payment System in New York City: Findings and Recommendations Summary: The use of money bail places a significant burden on indigent defendants and their families. When defendants cannot afford bail, research indicates that pretrial detention leads to a range of potentially deleterious outcomes, including an increased likelihood of a criminal conviction (and resulting collateral consequences); jail or prison sentences; and recidivism following release. Even for those who can afford bail, the often confusing and perplexing process of how to pay it adds another level of inconvenience for family members and friends-not to mention the prospect of delays and an increase in the time that defendants spend in pretrial detention. In New York City, bail can be paid at the courthouse following arraignment; at any subsequent court appearance, during visits with attorneys at court; at the Rikers Island jail complex; or at detention centers in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Manhattan. Each of these facilities has its own policies and procedures that are often challenging to navigate, especially during a chaotic and difficult time for defendants' families and friends. In 2014, of the 48,816 disposed criminal cases in New York City in which bail of more than $1.00 was set at arraignment, in only 13.9% (6,798) were family or friends able to successfully navigate the bail payment system at the courts immediately following arraignment. In an additional 12.5% of cases (6,082), family or friends were able to pay bail sometime between the defendant's post-arraignment detention and their second court appearance. In other words, of the 12,880 cases involving family or friends who were capable of posting bail early in case processing (by the second court appearance), close to half (47.3%) of those defendants' family and friends were unable to post bail immediately after arraignment, prior to the defendants' removal from the courthouse. Ultimately, prior to eventual case disposition, bail was posted in 33,847 cases disposed in 2014, demonstrating that a large volume of individuals experiences the bail payment system each year. With funding from the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice (MOCJ), researchers at the Center for Court Innovation examined the current bail payment process both within the courts and at Department of Correction facilities, which include the Rikers Island jail complex and other borough-based detention centers. This report provides the findings, including a set of bail payment system maps and a set of recommendations that might lead to better outcomes. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2014 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Bail%20Payment%20in%20NYC.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Bail%20Payment%20in%20NYC.pdf Shelf Number: 146096 Keywords: BailCriminal DefendantsPretrial Detention |
Author: 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: Muntingh, Lukas Title: Arrested in Africa: An Exploration of the Issues Summary: Recent research and advocacy efforts have drawn attention to the excessive use of and prolonged pre-trial detention in Africa. At any given moment there are roughly 1 million people in Africa's prisons. Far more move through prisons each year. Their stay in prison, regardless of duration, starts with being arrested. Substantially more people are arrested than those who end up in prison for pre-trial detention. Pre-trial detention figures are thus a poor indicator of contact with the criminal justice system. The purpose of arrest and subsequent detention of a suspect is essentially to ensure the attendance of the person in court or for another just cause. The police's powers of arrest are, in theory, curtailed to the extent that the arresting officer must be able to provide reasons for the arrest and continued police detention. Police officials have considerable discretion in executing arrests, especially when arresting without a warrant. This exploratory report focuses on arresting without a warrant and starts off with setting out the legal requirements in this regard by way of a case study. In order to understand current arrest practices, the report provides a brief description of the history of policing in Africa and concludes that much of what was established by the colonial powers has remained intact, emphasising high arrest rates, a social disciplinarian mode of policing, supported by myriad petty offences that justify arrest without a warrant. This combination enables widespread corruption and results in negative perceptions of the police. The report further argues that given the wide discretionary powers of the police to arrest without a warrant, it follows that not all people are at an equal risk of arrest, but rather that it is the poor, powerless and out-groups that are at a higher risk of arrest based on non-judicial factors. The report concludes with a number of recommendations calling for further research, decriminalisation of certain offences and restructuring of the police in African countries. Details: South Africa: Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative, 2015. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2017 at: http://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/Arrested%20in%20Africa%202.pdf/view Year: 2015 Country: Africa URL: http://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/Arrested%20in%20Africa%202.pdf/view Shelf Number: 146606 Keywords: Arrests and ApprehensionsDetentionPretrial Detention |
Author: Ackermann, Marilize Title: Survey of Detention Visiting Mechanisms in Africa Summary: People held in places of detention are at risk of suffering violations of human rights because they are usually detained out of sight and their well-being is not prioritised by states. Domestic and international laws prescribe the procedures through which and conditions under which people may be held in detention. The function of detention oversight institutions is to ensure that state institutions comply with these human rights laws and are held accountable for any non-compliance. In most democracies which embrace the separation of powers, Parliament exercises oversight over the implementation of laws. Ministers and Cabinet are collectively answerable to Parliament for the implementation of and adherence to laws, primarily through the mechanisms of public reports made available to Parliament and the answering of Parliamentary questions, which may lead to the removal from office of ministers or state officials. Because of the particular risks posed by places of detention, traditional Parliamentary oversight has been supplemented by additional institutions exercising detention oversight employing a variety of oversight mechanisms. Some of these have arisen from international law while others are established by domestic laws. Two supra-national international oversight institutions have arisen though the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) and the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (OPCAT): - UNCAT creates the Committee against Torture (CAT), which monitors implementation of UNCAT through four mechanisms: the submission of regular reports by state parties; the considering of individual complaints or communications from individuals claiming that their rights under the Convention have been violated the undertaking of inquiries; and the considering of inter-state complaints. - OPCAT creates the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT), which has a mandate to visit places where persons are deprived of their liberty in the states which are party to OPCAT. In addition, OPCAT requires that states that are party to OPCAT designate or establish an independent "national preventive mechanism" (NPM) for the prevention of torture at domestic level. NPMs need not consist of a single institution, but must have the mandate to inspect places of detention, monitor the treatment of and conditions for detainees and make recommendations regarding the prevention of ill-treatment. NPMs must also publish an annual report. African states which are party to OPCAT have designated existing National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) as their (NPM). The term "National Human Rights Institution" refers to independent state-funded institutions which promote and monitor the effective implementation of international human rights standards at national level and which comply with the Paris Principles. The Paris Principles do not explicitly require NHRIs to have a mandate to visit places of detention; however designation of an NHRI as a state's NPM would require the NHRI to have such a mandate. Regionally, a supra-national oversight institution in the form of the Special Rapporteur on Prisons and Conditions of Detention in Africa has arisen. It has the mandate to visit places of detention. The Committee for the Prevention of Torture in Africa, another regional body, is not strictly an oversight institution but seeks to support the development of national institutions. At national level, there exist detention oversight institutions specifically mandated to oversee places of detention, such as South Africa's Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services. There also exist rights institutions which have broad mandates, such NHRIs and Public Protectors (or Ombudspersons), whose mandates nevertheless may include responsibility for exerting oversight over places of detention. Broader mandates still, such as those of Parliament and the judiciary, may also include obligations to exert oversight over detention. All of these institutions may employ a range of mechanisms in carrying out detention oversight. Monitoring of places of detention through visits is one of the most important methods employed by oversight institutions or institutions which have oversight functions. Other methods may include compulsory reporting systems (for example, on deaths or punishments in custody), and complaints receiving systems. Associated oversight powers accorded to oversight institutions may include the power to make public reports and to: conduct investigations, make recommendations, impose disciplinary proceedings, and refer cases of abuse for prosecution. The extent to which oversight institutions are independent of the state and of the institutions over which they seek to exert oversight varies, as do the mechanisms of oversight and accountability with which they are empowered. This report seeks to describe selected oversight institutions and the oversight mechanisms they have adopted in Africa, in order to better understand detention oversight in Africa. This report also seeks to survey what monitoring and oversight have uncovered regarding conditions of detention in Africa. Details: South Africa: Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative, Community Law Centre, 2013. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 4, 2017 at: http://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/survey-of-detention-visiting-mechanisms-in-africa Year: 2013 Country: Africa URL: http://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/survey-of-detention-visiting-mechanisms-in-africa Shelf Number: 146695 Keywords: Detention CentersHuman Rights AbusesPretrial DetentionPreventive DetentionPrison Visitation |
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: Denman, Kristine Title: Pretrial Detention and Case Processing Measures: A Study of Nine New Mexico Counties Summary: The New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center completed a study of pretrial case processing measures and pretrial detention within nine New Mexico counties. This study addresses multiple objectives. First, this study was intended to explore the feasibility of developing case processing performance measures that are more robust than those currently used. Second, this study is intended to understand the extent of pretrial detention and the factors associated with pretrial detention. Third, we assess the degree to which pretrial detention decisions appear to be accurate. Finally, we explored whether pretrial detention influences case processing and outcomes. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center, 2017. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2017 at: http://isr.unm.edu/reports/2017/pretrial-detention-and-case-processing-measures--a-study-of-nine-new-mexico-counties-.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://isr.unm.edu/reports/2017/pretrial-detention-and-case-processing-measures--a-study-of-nine-new-mexico-counties-.pdf Shelf Number: 147348 Keywords: BailCase ProcessingJailsPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Needs Assessment |
Author: Leslie, Emily Title: The Unintended Impact of Pretrial Detention on Case Outcomes: Evidence from NYC Arraignments Summary: In the United States, over 400,000 individuals are in jail each day waiting for their criminal cases to be resolved. The majority of these individuals are detained pretrial due to the inability to post low levels of bail (less than $3,000). We estimate the impact of being detained pretrial on the likelihood of an individual being convicted or pleading guilty, and their sentence length, using data on nearly a million misdemeanor and felony cases in New York City from 2009 to 2013. Causal e↵ects are identified using variation across arraignment judges in their propensities to detain defendants. We find that being detained increases the probability of conviction by over seven percentage points by causing individuals to plead guilty more often. Because pretrial detention is driven by failure to post bail, these adverse effect disproportionately hurt low-income individuals. Details: Chicago: University of Chicago, 2016. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 19, 2017 at: http://home.uchicago.edu/~npope/pretrial_paper.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://home.uchicago.edu/~npope/pretrial_paper.pdf Shelf Number: 147409 Keywords: BailGuilty PleasIndigent DefendantsPretrial DetentionPretrial Justice |
Author: Rahman, Insha Title: Against the Odds: Experimenting with Alternative Forms of Bail in New York City's Criminal Courts Summary: Statistics show that money bail is unaffordable and out of reach for many New Yorkers. Even though the median bail amount on felony cases in New York City is $5,000 0 and even lower - at $1,000, on misdemeanor cases - over 7,000 people are detained pretrial at Rikers Island and other New York City jails on any given day because they cannot make bail. Under New York law, the use of bail doesn't have to be this burdensome. In setting bail, judges have nine forms to choose from, including "alternative" forms such as partially secured or unsecured bonds, that require little to no upfront payment to secure a person's pretrial release. The traditional practice in the courts, however, is to ignore these options and impose only the two most onerous forms of bail to make: cash bail and insurance company bail bond. The Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) launched a three-month experiment in New York City arraignment courts to examine what would happen if alternative forms of bail were used more often. In what kinds of cases might judges be willing to set these forms of bail? In what amounts? What impact would these alternatives have on a person's ability to make bail? What other pretrial outcomes might be expected? Drawing from a cohort of 99 cases in which an unsecured or partially secured bond was set, these cases were tracked over a nine- to 12-month period to document bail-making, court appearance, pretrial re-arrest, and final case disposition. Interviews were conducted with judges, defenders, and court staff to better understand the results and develop recommendations for improving the use of bail in New York City. The results were promising. Sixty-eight percent of the cohort made bail, and an additional 5 percent were released on recognizance. The use of alternative forms of bail in the cohort was not limited to low-level offenses or certain types of offenses. Approximately 54 percent of cases had a top charge of a felony, and the cohort - felonies and misdemeanors - spanned the gamut from drug possession, larceny, and robbery, to assault, criminal contempt, and weapons possession. Those released had a combined court appearance rate of 88 percent and a rate of pretrial re-arrest for new felony offenses of 8 percent. When released pretrial, the majority of cases resolved in a disposition less serious than the initial top charge at arraignment, with fully one-third ending in dismissal and another 19 percent ending in a noncriminal conviction. Ninety-nine cases out of the thousands where bail is set is a miniscule number in the larger scheme of New York City's bail system, yet this experiment illustrates the possibility of meaningful culture change. The recommendations in this report offer strategies to increase and ease the use of alternative forms of bail: - stakeholders should be educated about them; - the associated paperwork and procedures to set these forms of bail should be simplified; - they should be set routinely as an option in addition to traditional forms of bail; and - when bail is set, it should be done with an individualized inquiry into a person's ability to pay. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2017. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 10, 2017 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/against-the-odds-bail-reform-new-york-city-criminal-courts/legacy_downloads/Against_the_Odds_Bail_report_FINAL3.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/against-the-odds-bail-reform-new-york-city-criminal-courts/legacy_downloads/Against_the_Odds_Bail_report_FINAL3.pdf Shelf Number: 147639 Keywords: BailBail ReformCriminal CourtsPretrial DetentionPretrial Justice |
Author: Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) Title: The State of Pretrial Justice in America Summary: The past five years have witnessed a remarkable growth in support for reforming our nation's pretrial justice system (the portion of criminal justice practice that begins with a person's first contact with law enforcement and ends once any resulting charges are resolved, usually through a plea, a trial, or dismissal). This unprecedented interest emerges from a growing awareness that existing pretrial operations lead to unnecessary detention of poor and working class people - disproportionately people of color - while those with money are able to go free with little or no supervision, regardless of any danger they may present. Current pretrial justice practice is, in short, unfair, unsafe, a waste of public resources, and a significant contributor the nation's widely recognized problem of mass incarceration. There is, of course, no single pretrial justice system in the United States. The structure of criminal justice in this country allows for significant variation from state to state, and even from county to county. This decentralization has its benefits. But it presents challenges to those who would seek systemic improvements. The Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) developed this report card to minimize those challenges. Its foundational premise is that American pretrial practice - in any state or jurisdiction - should be able to maximize liberty among people who are entitled to the presumption of innocence, while also protecting public safety and ensuring effective court operations. This is, after all, an aspiration traced to our founding fathers and beyond, which former Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist eloquently summarized when he wrote, "In our society, liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception." The analysis presented here finds, however, that the state of pretrial justice in America falls far short of Chief Justice Rehnquist's vision. Too many people in the pretrial phase are locked up for days, weeks, and even months, when, according to both law and research, they should be released. Details: Rockville, MD: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2017. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 9, 2017 at: http://media.cleveland.com/plain_dealer_metro/other/State%20of%20Pretrial%20in%20America%20DRAFT-NOT%20FOR%20DISTRIBUTION%20(002)%20(1).pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://media.cleveland.com/plain_dealer_metro/other/State%20of%20Pretrial%20in%20America%20DRAFT-NOT%20FOR%20DISTRIBUTION%20(002)%20(1).pdf Shelf Number: 148100 Keywords: BailPretrial DetentionPretrial JusticeRacial Disparities |
Author: 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: Brooker, Claire M.B. Title: Yakima County, Washington Pretrial Justice System Improvements: Pre- and Post- Implementation Analysis Summary: This report compares the outcomes of Yakima County's pretrial justice system before and after policy makers implemented several system improvements in February 2016. These improvements were made as a result of local policy makers' effort to pursue legal and evidence-based pretrial practices that began before and continued throughout their participation in the Smart Pretrial Demonstration Initiative. Using Yakima County's pretrial justice system vision statement, which reflects the three main goals of the Smart Pretrial Demonstration Initiative, as a benchmark for success, the findings in this report suggest that the improvements made were successful. The post-implementation time period reflects a pretrial justice system that is fairer and is as safe and effective as compared to the pre-implementation time period. There are, however, some areas for further improvement. Overall, though, these analyses indicate that a jurisdiction can reduce pretrial detention and improve racial/ethnic equity by replacing high use of secured money bail with non-financial release conditions guided by actuarial-risk-based decision making, and do so with no harm to public safety or court appearance. Details: Rockville, MD: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2017. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 12, 2018 at: https://justicesystempartners.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2017-Yakima-Pretrial-Pre-Post-Implementation-Study-FINAL-111517.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://justicesystempartners.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2017-Yakima-Pretrial-Pre-Post-Implementation-Study-FINAL-111517.pdf Shelf Number: 149097 Keywords: Bail Criminal Justice Reform Pretrial detentionPretrial 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: Blumauer, Christine Title: Advancing Bail Reform in Maryland: Progress and Possibilities Summary: This report was prepared for the Baltimore City and Prince George's County branches of the NAACP. In 2017, the Maryland Court of Appeals enacted a change in court procedure. The new court rule has substantially changed how the bail system operates in Maryland. This analysis points out (1) a drop of 21% of defendants assigned bail at initial hearings; (2) an increase in defendants held without bail before trial and released on their own recognizance; (3) an increase in the use of unsecured bail; and (4) that those assigned to bail since the change have had bail amounts that are on average 70% lower than in 2015. Less people are being jailed pretrial because they are too poor to pay bail. The for-profit bail industry, which has noted significant profit drops, has criticized the rule change and urged that the traditional bail system be reinstated. This report argues that rather than return the bail system as it was Maryland, policymakers should continue to build upon the successes of the rule change by strengthening alternatives to bail and pretrial detention. Details: Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2018. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 30, 2018 at: http://wws.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/content/Advancing_Bail_Reform_In_Maryland_2018-Feb27_Digital.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://wws.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/content/Advancing_Bail_Reform_In_Maryland_2018-Feb27_Digital.pdf Shelf Number: 149622 Keywords: Bail Pretrial DetentionPretrial Justice |
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: Witmer-Rich, Jonathan Title: Cuyahoga County Bail Task Force: Report and Recommendations Summary: All Cuyahoga County courts should transition from a bail system based on bond schedules, which vary widely from one court to the next, to a centralized, consistent, and comprehensive system of pretrial services initiated immediately after arrest. For most minor offenses, the presumption should be release on personal recognizance. Money bail should not be used to simply detain defendants. Rather than relying on bond schedules, courts should assess each defendant's risk of non-appearance and danger to the community using a uniform risk assessment tool. If money bail is considered, courts should evaluate each defendant's risk of non-appearance and ability to pay, and then tailor money bail accordingly. A more robust and early evaluation of each defendant, using particularized information from a single, uniform database about a defendant's criminal history and pending cases, as well as a risk assessment tool, would give judges better information upon which to make pretrial release decisions. Prompt centralized bail hearings before a judge, with defense counsel present, for all defendants in common pleas and municipal courts throughout the county would facilitate early and improved access to pretrial processes and services designed to reduce the risk of nonappearance and danger to the community. This system would lessen collateral consequences for the accused, such as loss of employment or housing while waiting in jail, and result in significant cost savings to government by reducing unnecessary detention. Details: Cleveland, OH: The Task Force, 2018. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2018 at: https://university.pretrial.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=1a9e6280-dcf9-cf0e-3fe6-554af1258d29&forceDialog=0 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://university.pretrial.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=1a9e6280-dcf9-cf0e-3fe6-554af1258d29&forceDialog=0 Shelf Number: 149713 Keywords: Bail Pretrial DetentionPretrial Justice Pretrial Release Risk Assessment |
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: 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: Levin, Marc Title: Open Roads and Overflowing Jails: Addressing High Rates of Rural Pretrial Incarceration Summary: The axiom that a person is considered innocent of a criminal act until he or she has been proven guilty is a bedrock principle of the American criminal justice system. Yet in many jurisdictions, it appears to have been forgotten. The pretrial population of defendants has significantly increased-particularly in rural areas of the country. Jails in smaller jurisdictions are responsible for an outsized share of jail population growth. Indeed, from 1970 to 2014, jail populations grew by almost sevenfold in small counties but only threefold in large counties. This paper explores why this growth may have occurred and makes numerous recommendations to reduce pretrial populations, particularly in rural America. The first place to start is by reducing the number of offenses carrying the potential for arrest and jail time-the overcriminalization of our society must be reversed. The next step is to restore our historical commitment to individual liberty and the presumption of innocence by following these five guiding principles of pretrial justice policy: - There should be a presumption of pretrial release without conditions or cash bond, grounded in the American maxim that people are innocent until proven guilty. - Conditions of release, if any, should be the least restrictive to ensure public safety and appearance at trial. - Courts-after due process-should have the authority to deny bail in the most serious cases involving highly dangerous defendants after determining that a compelling government interest exists and there are no possible conditions under which the defendant could be released that would reasonably protect public safety and ensure re-appearance. - The burden should be on the state to prove the need for conditions of release or denial of bond in an adversarial proceeding where the accused is present. - Individual judicial consideration should be required for each accused. For a host of reasons, ranging from limited resources to dispersed populations, addressing pretrial incarceration in rural areas is a particularly complex undertaking. Also, there are many moving parts to implementing changes in a deliberate manner that produce sustainable results without unintended consequences. Ultimately, as rural communities across the country take many different paths to addressing the meteoric rise in rural pretrial incarceration over the last few decades, they must not lose sight of the destination: a constitutional system that produces greater public safety with less collateral damage. Key Points - Both the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent demand that pretrial liberty be the norm, and that detention is to be a "carefully limited exception." In practice, this has not been the case. - While prison populations have fallen recently, the nation's jail populations have steadily increased-particularly pretrial detainees. Rural areas, not urbanized ones, are responsible for a disproportionate amount of this growth. - Potential causes for increasing rural pretrial jail populations include a lack of presumption of pretrial release, economic incentives to build unnecessary jail capacity, and rising drug abuse. - Possible solutions for rising pretrial populations include reducing jailable offenses, expanding police diversion, use of validated risk-assessments at intake, and revising state bail laws. Details: Austin: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2018. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 5, 2018 at: https://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/2018-04-RR-Rural-Pretrial-Incarceration-CEJ-Levin-Haugen-1.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/2018-04-RR-Rural-Pretrial-Incarceration-CEJ-Levin-Haugen-1.pdf Shelf Number: 150480 Keywords: Bail Jail Populations Pretrial DetentionPretrial Justice Pretrial Release Risk Assessment Rural Areas |
Author: Civic Federation Title: The Impact of Cook County Bond Court on the Jail Population: A Call for Increased Public Data and Analysis Summary: Across the political spectrum in the United States, there is a growing consensus that too many people are locked up in jail because they do not have the money required for release. Unlike prisons, jails mainly hold individuals who have been arrested and charged with crimes but are not yet tried or convicted. The presumption of innocence-as well as the human, social and financial costs of incarceration-requires that only people who represent a public safety or flight risk should be detained. Under a money bail system, dangerous defendants with access to cash can be released while poor, non-violent defendants remain in jail. A person's detention-or release-should not depend on the ability to pay cash bail. This report examines recent efforts to reduce the number of detainees in Cook County Jail by reforming practices in and around bond court. While many factors affect the size of the jail population, bond court judges play an important role because their decisions help determine whether defendants will be released or held in jail while awaiting trial. In September 2013 the Illinois Supreme Court intervened in an unprecedented way to oversee changes in the bond court operations of Cook County Circuit Court. Between August 2013 and August 2017, the general jail population declined by about 30% from about 10,200 to approximately 7,100. Since the high court's move, the share of defendants ordered to be released without having to pay money upfront increased from approximately 13% to 47% through May 2017. Although these figures appear to show a markedly favorable trend, the unfortunate truth is that they raise more questions than they answer. Due to a lack of public information, it is unclear how much of the decline in the jail population through August 2017 was tied to a reduction in low-level arrests and charges or to changes in bond court practices. It is not known whether there has been any change in the share of released defendants who fail to appear in court or commit new crimes. These kinds of questions are particularly relevant now because of major policy changes that cannot be evaluated without adequate data. In July 2017, the Chief Judge Timothy Evans of the Cook County Circuit Court issued an order that is intended to prevent judges from setting unaffordable money bail amounts. The order took effect on September 18, 2017 for felony cases and is scheduled to apply to misdemeanors as of January 1, 2018. The Chief Judge has said that the share of bond orders requiring upfront cash payment plummeted since the new policy was implemented. According to Sheriff Tom Dart, the jail population dropped by almost 900 in the first month and a half after the order, bringing the total decline since August 2013 to about 39%. The statistical results of the order will be fully reviewed after a year by the Chief Judge's Office, but it remains to be seen whether the evaluation will be made available to the public. Up to this point, the offices of the Chief Judge and Sheriff have closely controlled data about bond court and the jail. The Civic Federation is concerned that such tight control opens public officials to criticism for using data selectively, and not to measure policy effectiveness. This data should instead be viewed as a public resource and released to the maximum extent possible. Cook County should follow the example of other jurisdictions, including New York City, Harris County, Texas and Washington, D.C., in more fully disclosing criminal justice data. This will enable the public to hold government officials accountable and have more informed discussions about criminal justice and the effective use of taxpayer resources. Details: Chicago: Civic Federation, 2017. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2018 at: https://www.civicfed.org/sites/default/files/report_publicsafety2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.civicfed.org/sites/default/files/report_publicsafety2017.pdf Shelf Number: 150534 Keywords: Bail Bonds Jail Inmates Jail Population Jails Pretrial DetentionPretrial Justice Pretrial Release |
Author: Sloan, Carly Will Title: The Effect of Risk Assessment Scores on Judicial Behavior and Defendant Outcomes Summary: The use of risk assessment scores as a means of decreasing pretrial detention for low-risk, primarily poor defendants is increasing rapidly across the United States. Despite this, there is little evidence on how risk assessment scores alter criminal outcomes. Using administrative data from a large county in Texas, we estimate the effect of a risk assessment score policy on judge bond decisions, defendant pretrial detention, and pretrial recidivism. We identify effects by exploiting a large, sudden policy change using a regression discontinuity design. This approach effectively compares defendants booked just before and after the policy change. Results show that adopting a risk assessment score leads to increased release on non-financial bond and decreased pretrial detention. These results appear to be driven by poor defendants. We also find risk assessment scores did not increase violent pretrial recidivism, however there is some suggestive evidence of small increases in non-violent pretrial recidivism. Details: Bonn, Germany: Institute of Labor Economics, 2018. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 18, 2018 at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp11948.html Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://ftp.iza.org/dp11948.pdf Shelf Number: 154069 Keywords: BailBondDefendantsJudicial DiscretionNon-Financial BondPretrial DetentionRecidivismRisk AssessmentTexas |
Author: Stringer, Scott M. Title: The Public Cost of Private Bail: A Proposal to Ban Bail Bonds in NYC Summary: A basic principle of the American justice system is that all people are innocent until proven guilty, and that defendants should not be unnecessarily punished or detained before a finding of guilt. However, the bail system in New York City subjects tens of thousands of people each year to punitive personal and financial costs prior to conviction (or exoneration). In general, after a person is arrested and charged with a crime in New York City, they appear in court and face a judge, who decides whether to release the accused, set bail, or hold the person in custody. In many cases, judges in New York City release the defendant on a simple promise to appear for their next court date. However, when a judge decides to impose money bail conditions, the defendant is likely to spend at least some time in jail - often for the sole reason that they do not have the money needed to post bail immediately and must raise it from friends and family, or must navigate the slow, inefficient commercial bail system. At a time when the City is focused on reducing the jail population in order to close the correctional facilities on Rikers Island, ending a system that results in the unnecessary, unproductive, and expensive detention of people prior to a conviction must be prioritized. In his 2018 State of the State address, Governor Andrew Cuomo endorsed eliminating money bail for all persons charged with a misdemeanor or non-violent felony, while in April 2017 the Independent Commission on New York City Criminal Justice and Incarceration Reform - led by former Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman - recommended prohibiting money bail entirely. These long-term visions are commendable and would end a system that conditions New Yorkers' freedom on their financial capacity. Moving toward this long-term goal should be a high priority for both New York City and New York State. However, achieving this vision will require substantial planning and new funding to ensure that the partial or full elimination of bail does not unintentionally result in a larger pretrial jail population. Without viable alternatives to bail, such as supervised release programs, more defendants, rather than less, could face time in jail as they await the conclusion of their case. As New York moves toward a more equitable criminal justice system, in the near term the City should immediately address one of the most costly and punitive aspects of the justice system: commercial bail bonds. The reliance on exploitative and expensive commercial bail bonds, which have played a growing role in the city's bail system, has been one of the most prominent drivers of inequities in the system. With that goal in mind, this report from New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer documents the role that money bail plays in New York City's criminal justice system and calls for the immediate elimination of commercial bail bonds. The growing role of commercial bonds in the City's bail system has not been previously well understood. Details: New York: New York City Comptroller, Bureau of Policy and Research, 2018. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2019 at: https://comptroller.nyc.gov/wp-content/uploads/documents/The_Public_Cost_of_Private_Bail.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://comptroller.nyc.gov/wp-content/uploads/documents/The_Public_Cost_of_Private_Bail.pdf Shelf Number: 154723 Keywords: Bail Bonds Pretrial DetentionPretrial Justice Pretrial Release |
Author: Castro, Teresa Garcia Title: Pretrial Detention in Latin America: The Disproportionate Impact on Women Deprived of Liberty for Drug Offenses Summary: According to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), the nonexceptional use of pretrial detention is one of the most serious and widespread criminal justice problems affecting Latin American countries. One out of three people awaiting trial in the Americas, which include Canada and the United Sates, are held behind bars and over the last two decades, the number of pretrial detainees in the region has grown by around 60%. One of the leading causes of this increase is the excessive use of pretrial detention for drug-related offenses in Latin America. The disproportionate and prolonged use of pretrial detention undermines the principles of the presumption of innocence, legality, necessity and proportionality. It also greatly contributes to prison overcrowding, and frequently exposes detainees to conditions of ill treatment and/or violence. In some countries, women are more likely to be held as pretrial detainees than men, disproportionately impacting these women and their families. In recent years, some Latin American governments have introduced reforms to reduce the use of pretrial detention. While these reforms are welcome, they have only made a small dent in the problem, and much more can - and should - be done to ensure that pretrial detention is the exception, not the rule. This report provides the most recent data on the use of pretrial detention, looks specifically at its impact on women, and concludes with a series of recommendations to significantly reduce the number of women in pretrial detention in Latin America. Details: Washington, DC: WOLA, Advocacy for Human Rights in the Americas, 2019. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 4, 2019 at: https://www.wola.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Pretrial-detention-in-Latin-America_June-2019.pdf Year: 2019 Country: Latin America URL: https://www.wola.org/analysis/pretrial-detention-in-latin/ Shelf Number: 156174 Keywords: CaribbeanLatin AmericaPretrial DetentionWomen in Prison |