Academic journal article Federal Probation

The Presumption for Detention Statute's Relationship to Release Rates

Academic journal article Federal Probation

The Presumption for Detention Statute's Relationship to Release Rates

Article excerpt

SINCE 1984, THE pretrial detention rate for federal defendants has been steadily increasing. Recent work has aimed to address why the detention rate continues to rise and if there may be alternatives that could slow or reverse this trend. The presumption for detention statute, which assumes that defendants charged with certain offenses should be detained, has been identified as one potential factor contributing to the rising detention rate. Therefore, in this article I examine the relationship between the presence of the presumption and release rates. I will also examine the effect, if any, of the presumption on the release recommendations made by pretrial services officers. Finally, I will compare outcomes-defined as rates of failures to appear, rearrests, or technical violations resulting in revocation of bond-for presumption and non-presumption cases.

Historical Background

For almost 200 years, the federal bail system was premised on a defendant's right to bail for all non-capital offenses if the defendant could post sufficient sureties (Schnacke, Jones, & Brooker, 2010). In other words, all defendants were entitled to release, but release was based on a defendants financial resources, leaving indigent defendants with few alternatives. Eventually, this disparity led to the passage of the Bail Reform Act of 1966 [18 U.S.C. § 414151 (repealed)]. The purpose of the act was "to revise the practices relating to bail to assure that all persons, regardless of their financial status, shall not needlessly be detained pending their appearance to answer charges, to testify, or pending appeal, when detention serves neither the ends of justice nor the public interest." [18 U.S.C. § 4141-51 (repealed)] To accomplish this goal, the act restricted the use of financial bonds in favor of pretrial release conditions (Lotze et al., 1999). Furthermore, the Bail Reform Act of 1966 limited a judicial officer's determination to the question of nonappearance for court hearings-and not other issues such as danger to the community-stating that "any person charged with an offense [...] be ordered released pending trial [...] unless the officer determines [... ] that such a release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required." [18 U.S.C. § 4141-51 (repealed)].

The movement for bail reform continued throughout the 1960s and 1970s, with special interest in how judicial officers could obtain the information they needed about defendants prior to making release recommendations (GAO, 1978). In response, Congress passed the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, which among other things allowed for the creation of 10 pretrial "demonstration" districts (Hughes & Henkel, 2015). The mission of these districts was twofold: They were to increase the number of defendants released on bail while also reducing crime in the community (Hughes & Henkel, 2015). To fulfill this mandate, pretrial agencies were charged with interviewing newly arrested defendants for background and biographical information, verifying this information by contacting family or friends, and preparing a report for the court with a recommendation regarding bail (Hughes & Henkel, 2015). Should the defendant be released during the pretrial period, a pretrial services officer (PSO) would be responsible for supervising them in the community (Schnacke, Jones, & Brooker, 2010).

During this time, there was also growing concern about judicial officers' lack of discretion to consider a defendant's dangerousness when making a release decision. In response, the Attorney General's Office (OAG) established a Task Force on Violent Crime that produced a final report on August 17, 1981 (US DOJ, 1981). The report made a number of sweeping recommendations for many aspects of the criminal justice system, including the existing bail system. In their report, the task force recommended that the Bail Reform Act of 1966 be amended to include the following (not exhaustive) recommendations:

Permit courts to deny bail to persons who are found by clear and convincing evidence to present a danger to particular persons or the community. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.