By Jennifer A. Tallon, Olivia Dana, and Elise Jensen 

 Scholars have long contended that crimes involving violence are often ambiguously defined1 and overlooked as a critical driver of mass incarceration. 2 Currently, individuals charged with violent crimes make up nearly a third of pretrial jail populations across the country, and people convicted of violent crimes represent more than half the number of people in state prisons. 3 Policymakers have long grappled with how to enact criminal legal system reforms that reduce incarceration for such charges while also ensuring public safety. Decisions about cases involving violence can be fraught for criminal legal system stakeholders. Both the media and policymakers give them outsized attention—in particular, decisions related to pretrial release and the use of bail—a phenomenon witnessed most recently with the spike in pandemic-era violence in many parts of the country.  Elected officials have the difficult task of balancing public perceptions of the most effective way to address crime with the reality that those strategies might make things worse, while navigating the impact both might have on their electability. 5 Although there is promising evidence that treatment has the potential to reduce recidivism of individuals who commit certain types of violent offenses, policymakers and practitioners must contend with public outcry associated with being “too lenient” in highly publicized cases, the resulting fear-driven and knee-jerk demands for more punitiveness, and perceptions that “nothing works.”6 In contrast, research has demonstrated that status quo approaches emphasizing incarceration may exacerbate defendants’ underlying risk factors and be counterproductive to public safety in the long term. …. Recent sentencing reforms and legislative enactments will now enable prosecutors in some jurisdictions to initiate or support early release for individuals previously convicted of violent crimes who have served lengthy terms of imprisonment.11 But not enough is known about how prosecutors arrive at their decisions or the prevalence of specific practices across different prosecutors’ offices.  The results of our survey clearly show an appetite for new approaches among prosecutors. But they also suggest that how prosecutors think about violence and the goals of prosecution can be rife with paradoxes. ….

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2022. 16p.

By Ronald Wright and Jenny Roberts  

This review collects and critiques the academic literature on criminal defense lawyering, with an emphasis on empirical work. Research on criminal defense attorneys in the United States has traditionally emphasized scarcity of resources: too many people facing criminal charges who are “too poor to pay” for counsel and not enough funding to pay for the constitutionally mandated lawyers. Scholars have focused on the capacity of different delivery systems, such as public defender offices, to change the ultimate outcomes in criminal cases within their tight budgetary constraints. Over the decades, however, theoretical understandings of the defense attorney’s work have expanded to include client interests outside the criminal courtroom, reaching the broader social conditions connected to the alleged criminal act. Researchers have responded by asking a broader range of questions about the effectiveness of defense counsel outside the courtroom and by using improved data to study the effectiveness of lawyers at discrete procedural stages

Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2023. 6:241–64 

By Katherine Hood, Daniel Schneider

  Despite growing interest in bail and pretrial detention among both academic researchers and policymakers, systematic research on pretrial release remains limited. In this article, we examine bail and pretrial release practices across seventy-five large U.S. counties from 1990 to 2009 and look at the contextual correlates of bail regime severity. We find tremendous intra-county variation in bail practices, as well as a nationwide decline in the use of nonfinancial release and doubling of bail amounts during this period. This variation is not accounted for by differences in case composition across jurisdictions or over time. Patterns of bail practices are associated with political, socioeconomic, and demographic factors, however. Implications of these findings for future research on bail and pretrial detention are discussed.  

RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 1,  (February 2019), pp. 126-149

By  Joshua Page, Victoria Piehowski, Joe Soss

  Among the institutions that link criminal justice and inequality in the United States, commercial bail remains one of the most important yet least understood. Each year, the bail industry extracts millions of dollars from lower-income Americans, disproportionately draining resources from poor communities of color. We draw on ethnographic research to explore how the bail system operates as a predatory social process, arguing that gender interacts with class and race to structure resource extraction in this field. Poor women of color are especially subject to bail predation because they are seen within the larger social organization of care as bearing primary responsibility for defendants. Gendered care work and emotional labor are thus central to the field’s logic of practice and to bail industry profits.

RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 5(1): 150–72  

By René Ropac and Michael Rempel

This report examines the impact of New York’s bail reform law on recidivism in New York City. We sought to produce a credible analysis of the impact of releasing people under reform who would have otherwise faced bail or pretrial detention. 

Key Findings:

• Eliminating bail for most misdemeanor and nonviolent felony charges reduced recidivism. There were reductions for any re-arrest (44% vs. 50%) and felony re-arrest (24% vs. 27%) over two years.

• For people remaining legally eligible for bail (most of whom were charged with violent felony offenses), reducing the use of bail through measures such as supervised release expansion or requiring judges to set the least restrictive condition did not affect recidivism in either direction.

• The 2020 amendments targeted a specific subgroup of people whose re-arrest rates had increased under the original reforms.

• Beyond the aforementioned overall takeaways, bail reform had varying recidivism effects depending on people’s charges and recent criminal history.

New York: Data Collaborative for Justice, 2023. 56p.

By Joshua Page and Christine S. Scott-Hayward

In this review of scholarship on bail and pretrial justice in the United States, we analyze how the field of bail operates (and why it operates as it does), focusing on its official and unofficial objectives, core assumptions and values, power dynamics, and technologies. The field, we argue, provides extensive opportunities for generating revenue and containing, controlling, and changing defendants and their families. In pursuit of these objectives, actors consistently generate harms that disproportionately affect low-income people of color and amplify social inequalities. We close with an analysis of political struggles over bail, including current and emerging possibilities for both reformist and radical change. In this, we urge scholars toward sustained engagement with people and organizations in criminalized communities, which pushes scholars to reconsider our preconceptions regarding safety, justice, and the potential for systemic change and opens up new avenues for research and public engagement.

   Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2022. 5:91–113

By Lauren Nickolls

This Library briefing paper provides an overview of police powers to release suspects from custody under investigation and on pre-charge bail. It also discusses the two major reforms that pre-charge bail has undergone in the last decade, first in 2017 and then in 2022.   When the police have arrested and detained a suspect but do not have the evidence to charge them, the suspect must be released. They can be released either on pre-charge bail (also known as police bail), “under investigation” (RUI) or with “no further action”.  

London: UK Parliament, House of Commons Library, 2023. 36p.

By Sandra G. Mayson 

ABSTRACT An unaffordable bail requirement has precisely the same effect as an order of pretrial detention: the accused person is jailed pending trial. It follows as a logical matter that an order requiring an unaffordable bail bond as a condition of release should be subject to the same substantive and procedural protections as an order denying bail altogether. Yet this has not been the practice. This Article lays out the logical and legal case for the proposition that an order that functionally imposes detention must be treated as an order of detention. It addresses counterarguments and complexities, including both empirical and normative ambiguity in the concept of “unaffordable” bail. It explains in practical terms what it would entail for a court system to treat unaffordable bail as a detention order. One hurdle is that both legal and policy standards for pretrial detention are currently in flux. Recognizing unaffordable bail as a detention order foregrounds the question of when pretrial detention is justified. This is the key question the bail reform movement must now confront.  

69 Duke L.J. 1643 (2020)  

By Don Stemen and David Olson

  In response to widely voiced criticism that monetary bail imposes an unfair burden on poor defendants, many of whom remain in jail because they are unable to acquire the money for bail, numerous jurisdictions—cities, counties, and states—have enacted changes in pretrial practices and policy intended to reduce or eliminate the use of bail. Although under long-established practices and policies most defendants required to post bail eventually do so, critics of these reforms contend that they endanger the public by allowing arrestees to remain at liberty while awaiting trial, leading to substantial increases in crime. To assess these arguments, we considered eleven bail-reform jurisdictions to determine the effect, if any, of these policy changes on crime. Violent crime trends after reforms present no clear or obvious pattern in these jurisdictions. In six places, violent crime decreased in the year after reforms. In all these instances, it decreased more than the national average did in that year, or it decreased while the national average increased. In four jurisdictions, violent crime increased while the national average decreased in the same year….

New York: Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation , 2023. 23p.

By  Ilya Klauzner

A program designed to keep young people out of remand significantly reduces the likelihood of custody. However, its limited reach means very few young people receive this assistance. The NSW Bail Assistance Line is an after-hours helpline that assists young people who are likely to be remanded by police gain access to bail.  Young people can be connected with accommodation, transport and other support services to help them satisfy the conditions of a bail order. A new evaluation by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research considers the number of young people helped by this program and how placement impacts the likelihood of incarceration and reoffending. The study found that the number of young people receiving bail through the Bail Assistance Line is low.   In the first half of 2019, the Bail Assistance Line placed 51 young people; or 9.4% of the 542 cases that were bail denied by police or placed by the Bail Assistance Line.  While the number of placements is low, the number of bail placements through the service has in fact more than doubled over the 8 years from 2011. Young people helped by the Bail Assistance Line are more likely to be female, non-Aboriginal defendants with shorter criminal histories. Services are strongly concentrated in urban areas and Greater Sydney. While reach is low, the study found positive outcomes for those assisted.  In particular, in the six months after the bail decision, young people placed by the Bail Assistance Line were 16% less likely to be incarcerated. According to Jackie Fitzgerald, Executive Director at BOCSAR, “Expanding the Bail Assistance Line has the potential to increase the number of young people placed on bail. However, the impact depends on police engaging the Bail Assistance Line earlier in the bail process and police willingness to consider varying a young person’s bail determination.”

Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Crime and Justice Bulletin No. CJB237. 2021. 32p.

By Min-Taec Kim

The aim of this study is to estimate the causal impact of appearing via audio-visual link (AVL) on the likelihood of being granted bail. Audio-visual link describes the video conferencing equipment to facilitate court appearances without the defendant being physically present. To estimate the impact of appearing via AVL on bail outcomes, we compare individuals who have their first court bail hearing via AVL at two NSW Correctional Centres, Amber Laurel and Surry Hills, between Jan 2018 and Feb 2020 with similar individuals over the same period. The credibility of the estimates hinge on two factors:
1) The extent to which we have observed and modelled the factors that influence the bail decision of the magistrate, and 2) The extent to which the allocation of AVL is ‘as good as random’ after controlling for all observed factors. Three statistical approaches (logistic regression, Mixed effects regression and a generalised random forest) are used to adjust for the observed differences between these two groups and estimate the causal impact of appearing via AVL.

Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR), Crime and Justice Bulletin No. CJB235. 2021. 40p.

By The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

This report examines current approaches to reforming the pre-trial and bail systems in the U.S. criminal justice system. The report reveals that between 1970 and 2015, there was a 433% increase in the number of individuals who have been detained pre-trial, and pre-trial detainees represent a larger proportion of the total incarcerated population.

Washington, USCCR, 2022. 281p.

By The  U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,  Kentucky Advisory Committee

The Kentucky Advisory Committee (“Committee”) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights examined the pretrial detention and bail process in Kentucky. The Committee’s work focused on the impacts and uses of cash bail—that is, the money an individual must pay to secure their release from detention pretrial—in the state. As part of the inquiry, the Committee heard testimony on this topic from a diverse group of panelists during public meetings. The use of cash bail is prevalent in Kentucky courts, posing significant challenges to low-income defendants. A study by the Pegasus Institute in 2016 found that over 64,000 nonviolent, nonsexual offenders—70 percent of whom were deemed to be at low to moderate risk for reoffending prior to trial—were detained in Kentucky for an average of 109 days pretrial because they could not afford to pay their bail.1 The Committee heard several key themes throughout their inquiry which evidenced the need for cash bail reform in the state to achieve more equitable and effective public safety outcomes. These key themes included (1) the failure of Kentucky’s pretrial risk assessment tool to reduce pretrial detentions and provide reliable risk assessments; (2) the widely varied conditions of release for similarly situated defendants across the state; and (3) the negative consequences caused by unnecessary pretrial detention of low- to moderate-risk nonviolent and nonsexual alleged offenders. ….

Washington DC: USCCR, 2021. 16p.

Edited by  Anna Nylund • Kaijus Ervasti • Lin Adrian

• Provides access to twelve unique studies by researches from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden that were previously not accessible in English

• Gives a research-based insight into different areas of mediation such as family mediation, criminal mediation and court-connected civil mediation

• Offers a sound foundation for implementation of mediation legislation and programs

Cham: Springer Nature, 2018. 268p.

By John William Wertheimer

Race and the Law in South Carolina carefully reconstructs the social history behind six legal disputes heard in the South Carolina courts between the 1840s and the 1940s. The book uses these case studies to probe the complex relationship between race and the law in the American South during a century that included slavery, Reconstruction, and Jim Crow. Throughout most of the period covered in the book, the South Carolina legal system obsessively drew racial lines, always to the detriment of nonwhite people. Occasionally, however, the legal system also provided a public forum—perhaps the region’s best—within which racism could openly be challenged. The book emphasizes how dramatically the degree of legal oppressiveness experienced by Black South Carolinians varied during the century under study, based largely on the degree of Black access to political and legal power. During the era of slavery, both enslaved and nominally “free” Black South Carolinians suffered extreme legal disenfranchisement. They had no political voice and precious little access to legal redress. They could not vote, serve in public office, sit on juries, or testify in court against whites. There were no Black lawyers. Black South Carolinians had essentially no claims-making ability, resulting, unsurprisingly, in a deeply oppressive, thoroughly racialized system. Most of these antebellum legal disenfranchisements were overturned during the post-Civil War era of Reconstruction. In the wake of abolition, Reconstruction-era reformers in South Carolina erased one racial distinction after another from state law. For a time, Black men voted and Black jurors sat in rough proportion to their share of the state’s population. ……

Amherst, MA: Amherst College Press, 2023.  346p.

By Ram Subramanian, Leon Digard, Melvin Washington II, and Stephanie Sorage 

There are concerns about plea bargaining’s coercive nature, its role in encouraging the forfeiture of procedural protections, and its role in fueling mass incarceration. In order to provide an accessible summary of existing research, the Vera Institute of Justice, with support from the Safety and Justice Challenge, examined the small but growing body of empirical studies that has developed around plea bargaining. The result is a mix of complicated, nuanced, and sometimes contradictory research findings.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2020. 72p.

By The American Bar Association. Criminal Justice Section and Thea Johnson

The Plea Bargain Task Force formed in 2019 to address persistent criticisms of the plea bargain system in the United States.1 Plea bargaining has become the primary way to resolve criminal cases. Indeed, some jurisdictions have not had a criminal trial in many years, resolving all their cases through negotiated resolutions.2 For this reason, a critical examination of the modern plea system is necessary and important. This Report comes after three years of work, during which the Task Force collected and reviewed testimony from experts in the field and those impacted by the plea system, scholarly and legal reports on plea bargaining, state and federal rules of criminal procedure, and other materials. What has become clear from this process is that plea bargaining is not one monolithic practice. It looks different depending on whether one is in state or federal court, a rural jurisdiction with few lawyers or an urban center with large prosecution and public defender offices. Even within the same courthouse, informal practices may differ between courtrooms and attorneys. Although these variations pose a challenge for the development of any one-size-fits-all set of recommendations to reform plea bargaining practices, this Report identifies and addresses numerous concerns with plea bargaining that are common to a wide variety of jurisdictions. The Report then provides guidance to jurisdictions on how to meet those challenges while also promoting justice, transparency, and fairness. There are many purported benefits of plea bargaining in the current criminal justice system. Nearly all jurisdictions have limited resources and plea bargaining provides a mechanism to efficiently resolve cases. ..

Chicago:: ABA, 2023. 40p.

By Andreea Matei, Lily Robin, Kelly Roberts Freeman, and Leigh Courtney

As we have come to reckon with our nation's overreliance on carceral punishment and the mass incarceration of people of color, particularly Black people, experts are turning to a key system point that is the primary method for resolving most criminal cases: plea bargaining. Plea bargaining involves negotiation between a prosecutor and, often, a defense provider on behalf of their client. Prosecutors hold a lot of discretion over how to proceed regarding plea bargains, including whether to offer a plea agreement, when to do so, and what they wish to offer. Despite the wide use of plea bargaining, little is known about the practice, largely because it happens outside of public view and little is documented by the key actors involved—prosecutors.

In this report, we discuss findings from our exploratory single-site study, in which we used qualitative and quantitative data to answer research questions of interest. Our activities included a policy review; analysis of administrative data from 2018 to 2021; interviews with 11 Philadelphia ADAs, 9 defense providers, and 5 people who accepted pleas; a case file review of 115 cases; and a survey of 65 ADAs. Because prosecutorial discretion in plea bargaining is not well documented in data, the best way to learn about discretion is by speaking with prosecutors; thus, this report focuses primarily on our qualitative findings. We organized our findings by three main topics: policies and goals of plea bargaining, trends in plea offers and outcomes, and decision-making and perceptions of key actors. We end the report with a discussion of policy implications.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 76p.

By  Don Stemen, Beth M. Huebner, Marisa Omori, Elizabeth Webster, Alessandra Early, and Luis Torres

Although guilty pleas are the modal method for criminal case resolution in the US, relatively little attention has been paid to the plea negotiation process. Research suggests that prosecutors drive plea decision-making; however, the decision process is largely hidden and informal. Consequently, little is known about the role that prosecutors and other criminal justice actors play across the process, and even less is known about how these mechanisms have changed over time, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unpacking these plea negotiation decisions are especially key to understanding racial and ethnic disparities in criminal case processing.

Funded as part of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation's Safety and Justice Challenge Research Consortium, the current study considers guilty plea negotiation processes and outcomes in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, and St. Louis County, Missouri. Both offices are currently led by reform-oriented attorneys, are are medium-sized offices serving urban and suburban jurisdictions. Over the long tenure of elected District Attorney John Chisholm in Milwaukee, the office has implemented innovative prosecution models such as community prosecution units and diversion programs. In St Louis, recently elected District Attorney Wesley Bell is the first Black person to hold the office, and he ran on a platform of ensuring equity in the system and reducing mass incarceration. The goal of the study is to explore how prosecutors and other court actors approach and make decisions surrounding the plea negotiation process, in addition to investigating the factors that affect plea outcomes. The data used in this report include narratives from interviews with and surveys of local stakeholders including prosecutors, public defenders, judges, private attorneys, and system-involved persons. The report also centers on administrative data collected through agencies' case management systems for criminal cases filed in Milwaukee and St. Louis Counties through 2020.

Safety and Justice Challenge, 2022. 49p.

By Brittany Friedman and Mary Pattillo
  Monetary sanctions mandated in state statutes include fines, fees, restitution, and other legal costs imposed on persons convicted of crimes and other legal violations. Drawing on content analysis of current legislative statutes in Illinois pertaining to monetary sanctions, we ask three questions: What are defendants expected to pay for and why? What accommodations exist for defendants’ poverty? What are the consequences for nonpayment? We find that neoliberal logics of personal responsibility and carceral expansion suffuse these laws, establishing a basis for transferring public costs onto criminal defendants, offering little relief for poverty, and supporting severe additional penalties for unpaid debt. Statutory inequality legally authorizes further impoverishment of the poor, thereby increasing inequality. Major related organizing and advocacy work, however, has created an opening for significant changes toward greater fairness.  

  RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 5(1): 173–96.