Fewer Prisoners, Less Crime? The Elusive Promise of Algorithms

Early evidence suggests some risk assessment tools offer promise in rationalizing decisions on granting bail without racial bias. But we still need to monitor how judges actually use the algorithms, says a Boston attorney.

Next Monday morning, visit an urban criminal courthouse. Find a seat on a bench, and then watch the call of the arraignment list.

Files will be shuffled. Cases will be called. Knots of lawyers will enter the well of the court and mutter recriminations and excuses. When a case consumes more than two minutes you will see unmistakable signals of impatience from the bench.

Pleas will be entered. Dazed, manacled prisoners—almost all of them young men of color—will have their bails set and their next dates scheduled.

Some of the accused will be released; some will be detained, and stepped back into the cells.

You won’t leave the courthouse thinking that this is a process that needs more dehumanization.

But a substantial number of criminal justice reformers have argued that if the situation of young men facing charges is to be improved, it will be through reducing each accused person who comes before the court to a predictive score that employs mathematically derived algorithms which weigh only risk.

This system of portraiture, known as risk assessment tools, is claimed to simultaneously reduce pretrial detentions, pretrial crime, and failures to appear in court—or at least that was the claim during a euphoric period when the data revolution first poked its head up in the criminal justice system.

We can have fewer prisoners and less crime. It would be, the argument went, a win/win: a silver bullet that offers liberals reduced incarceration rates and conservatives a whopping cost cut.

These confident predictions came under assault pretty quickly. Prosecutors—represented, for example, by Eric Sidall here in The Crime Report—marshaled tales of judges (“The algorithm made me do it!”) who released detainees who then committed blood-curdling crimes.

Other voices raised fears about the danger that risk assessment tools derived from criminal data trails that are saturated with racial bias will themselves aggravate already racially disparate impacts.

ProPublica series analyzed the startling racial biases the authors claim were built into one widely used proprietary instrument. Bernard Harcourt of Columbia University argued that “risk” has become a proxy for race.

A 2016 study by Jennifer Skeem and Christopher Lowenkamp dismissed Harcourt’s warnings as “rhetoric,” but found that on the level of particular factors (such as the criminal history factors) the racial disparities are substantial.

Meanwhile, a variety of risk assessment tools have proliferated: Some are simple checklists; some are elaborate “machine learning” algorithms; some offer transparent calculations; others are proprietary “black boxes.”

Whether or not the challenge of developing a race-neutral risk assessment tool from the race-saturated raw materials we have available can ever be met is an argument I am not statistician enough to join.

But early practical experience seems to show that some efforts, such as the Public Safety Assessment instrument, developed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation and widely adopted, do offer a measure of promise in rationalizing bail decision-making at arraignments without aggravating bias (anyway, on particular measurements of impact).

The Public Safety Assessment (PSA), developed relatively transparently, aims to be an objective procedure that could encourage timid judges to separate the less dangerous from the more dangerous, and to send the less dangerous home under community-based supervision.

At least, this practical experience seems to show that in certain Kentucky jurisdictions where (with a substantial push from the Kentucky legislature) PSA has been operationalized, the hoped-for safety results have been produced—and with no discernible increase in racial disparity in outcomes.

Unfortunately, the same practical experience also shows that those jurisdictions are predominately white and rural, and that there are other Kentucky jurisdictions, predominately minority and urban, where judges have been—despite the legislature’s efforts—gradually moving away from using PSA.

These latter jurisdictions are not producing the same pattern of results.

The judges are usually described as substituting “instinct” or “intuition” for the algorithm. The implication is that they are either simply mobilizing their personal racial stereotypes and biases, or reverting to a primitive traditional system of prophesying risk by opening beasts and fowl and reading their entrails, or crooning to wax idols over fires.

As Malcolm M. Feeley and Jonathan Simon predicted in a 2012 article for Berkeley Law, past decades have seen a paradigm shift in academic and policy circles, and “the language of probability and risk increasingly replaces earlier discourse of diagnosis and retributive punishment.”

A fashion for risk assessment tools was to be expected, they wrote, as everyone tried to “target offenders as an aggregate in place of traditional techniques for individualizing or creating equities.”

But the judges at the sharp end of the system whom you will observe on your courthouse expedition don’t operate in a scholarly laboratory.

They have other goals to pursue besides optimizing their risk-prediction compliance rate, and those goals exert constant, steady pressure on release decision-making.

Some of these “goals” are distasteful. A judge who worships the great God, Docket, and believes the folk maxim that “Nobody pleads from the street” will set high bails to extort quick guilty pleas and pare down his or her room list.

Another judge, otherwise unemployable, who needs re-election or re-nomination, will think that the bare possibility that some guy with a low predictive risk score whom he has just released could show up on the front page tomorrow, arrested for a grisly murder, inexorably points to detention as the safe road to continued life on the public payroll.

They are just trying to get through their days.

But the judges are subject to other pressures that most of us hope they will respect.

For example, judges are expected to promote legitimacy and trust in the law.

It isn’t so easy to resist the pull of “individualizing “and “diagnostic” imperatives when you confront people one at a time.

Somehow, “My husband was detained, so he lost his job, and our family was destroyed, but after all, a metronome did it, it was nothing personal” doesn’t seem to be a narrative that will strengthen community respect for the courts.

Rigorously applying the algorithm may cut the error rate in half, from two in six to one in six, but one in six are still Russian roulette odds, and the community knows that if you play Russian roulette all morning (and every morning) and with the whole arraignment list, lots of people get shot.

No judge can forget this community audience, even if the “community” is limited to the judge’s courtroom work group. It is fine for a judge to know whether the re-offense rate for pretrial releases in a particular risk category is eight in ten, but to the judges, their retail decisions seem to be less about finding the real aggregated rate than about whether this guy is one of the eight or one of the two.

Embedded in this challenge is the fact that you can make two distinct errors in dealing with difference.

First, you can take situations that are alike, and treat them as if they are different: detain an African-American defendant and let an identical white defendant go.

Second, you can take things that are very different and treat them as if they are the same: Detain two men with identical scores, and ignore the fact that one of the two has a new job, a young family, a serious illness, and an aggressive treatment program.

A risk assessment instrument at least seems to promise a solution to the first problem: Everyone with the same score can get the same bail.

But it could be that this apparent objectivity simply finesses the question. An arrest record, after all, is an index of the detainee’s activities, but it also a measure of police behavior. If you live in an aggressively policed neighborhood your history may be the same as your white counterpart’s, but your scores can be very different.

And risk assessment approaches are extremely unwieldy when it comes to confronting the second problem. A disciplined sticking-to-the-score requires blinding yourself to a wide range of unconsidered factors that might not be influential in many cases, but could very well be terrifically salient in this one.

This tension between the frontline judge and the backroom programmer is a permanent feature of criminal justice life. The suggested solutions to the dissonance range from effectively eliminating the judges by stripping them of discretion in applying the Risk Assessment scores to eliminating the algorithms themselves.

But the judges aren’t going away, and the algorithms aren’t going away either.

As more cautious commentators seem to recognize, the problem of the judges and the algorithms is simply one more example of the familiar problem of workers and their tools.

If the workers don’t pick up the tools it might be the fault of the workers, but it might also be the fault of the design of the tools.

And it’s more likely that the fault does not lie in either the workers or the tools exclusively but in the relationship between the workers, the tools, and the work. A hammer isn’t very good at driving screws; a screw-driver is very bad at driving nails; some work will require screws, other work, nails.

If you are going to discuss these elements, it usually makes most sense to discuss them together, and from the perspectives of everyone involved.

The work that the workers and their tools are trying to accomplish here is providing safety—safety for everyone: for communities, accused citizens, cops on the streets. A look at the work of safety experts in other fields such as industry, aviation, and medicine provides us with some new directions.

To begin with, those safety experts would argue that this problem can never be permanently “fixed” by weighing aggregate outputs and then tinkering with the assessment tool and extorting perfect compliance from workers. Any “fix” we install will be under immediate attack from its environment.

Among the things that the Kentucky experience indicates is that in courts, as elsewhere, “covert work rules”, workarounds, and “informal drift” will always develop, no matter what the formal requirements imposed from above try to require.

The workers at the sharp end will put aside the tool when it interferes with their perception of what the work requires. Deviations won’t be huge at first; they will be small modifications. But they will quickly become normal.

And today’s small deviation will provide the starting point for tomorrow’s.

What the criminal justice system currently lacks—but can build—is the capacity for discussing why these departures seemed like good ideas. Why did the judge zig, when the risk assessment tool said he or she should have zagged? Was the judge right this time?

Developing an understanding of the roots of these choices can be (as safety and quality experts going back to W. Edwards Deming would argue) a key weapon in avoiding future mistakes.

We can never know whether a “false positive” detention decision was an error, because we can never prove that the detainee if released would not have offended. But we can know that the decision was a “variation” and track its sources. Was this a “special cause variation” traceable to the aberrant personality of a particular judge? (God knows, they’re out there.)

Or was it a “common cause variation” a natural result of the system (and the tools) that we have been employing?

This is the kind of analysis that programs like the Sentinel Events Initiative demonstration projects about to be launched by the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Assistance can begin to offer. The SEI program, due to begin January 1, with technical assistance from the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, will explore the local development of non-blaming, all-stakeholders, reviews of events (not of individual performances) with the goal of enhancing “forward-looking accountability” in 20-25 volunteer jurisdictions.

The “thick data” that illuminates the tension between the algorithm and the judge can be generated. The judges who have to make the decisions, the programmers who have to refine the tools, the sheriff who holds the detained, the probation officer who supervises the released, and the community that has to trust both the process and the results can all be included.

james doyle

James Doyle

We can mobilize a feedback loop that delivers more than algorithms simply “leaning in” to listen to themselves.

What we need here is not a search for a “silver bullet,” but a commitment to an ongoing practice of critically addressing the hard work of living in the world and making it safe.

James Doyle is a Boston defense lawyer and author, and a frequent contributor to The Crime Report. He has advised in the development of the Sentinel Events Initiative of the National Institute of Justice. The opinions expressed here are his own. He welcomes readers’ comments.

from https://thecrimereport.org

U.S. Gets ‘Abysmal’ Grade on Pretrial Justice

The first baseline measurement of pretrial justice across the U.S. has found most states to be failing, with a few “promising” exceptions, according to the Pretrial Justice Institute.

The first baseline measurement of pretrial justice across the U.S. has found most states to be failing, with a few “promising” exceptions, according to a national advocacy group.

In a study released Wednesday by the Pretrial Justice Institute, authors measured the rates of pretrial detention, use of available risk assessment tools, and the status of money bail systems in every state.

“Needless” incarceration before trail is the primary cause for states’ failing grades: according to PJI’s findings, two thirds of the current U.S. jail population has not yet been to trail.

At the forefront of pretrial justice reform are Washington D.C., where 92 percent of those arrested are released pretrial and no one is detained for inability to pay; and New Jersey, which implemented statewide pretrial services earlier this year, resulting in a 15 percent reduction of pretrial detainees within the first six months.

The report also highlights legislative advances made by Alaska, Arizona, California, Indiana, Maryland, and New Mexico in the area of pretrial justice reform.

While the number of jurisdictions using risk assessment tools has more than doubled in the past four years, authors note that the increase is driven by “a few states and densely populated jurisdictions,” adding that “evidence-based pretrial assessments show that most people released before trial will appear in court and not be arrested on new charges pending trial.”

See also: Risk Assessment: The Devil’s in the Details

The study used money bail as its final measure because “financial conditions play such a large role in needlessly detaining people and giving us a false sense of safety,” according to the authors. New Jersey is the only state to have eliminated money bail, so this is where the U.S. pretrial justice score hovers closest to zero: only 3% of Americans live in a jurisdiction that has eliminated cash bail.

“As long as pretrial systems use money as a condition of pretrial release,” concludes the report, “poor and working class people will remain behind bars while those who are wealthy go home, regardless of their likelihood of pretrial success. This is a fundamental injustice.”

See also: Bail Reform: Why Judges Should Reject ‘Risk Assessment’

This summary was prepared by Victoria Mckenzie, Deputy Editor of The Crime Report. Readers’ comments are welcome.

from https://thecrimereport.org

Wage Disparity Fuels High Female Pretrial Detention Rate: Report

According to a joint report released by the Prison Policy Initiative and the ACLU, 60% of women in jail have not been convicted of a crime and are awaiting trial.

A study by the Prison Policy Initiative and the ACLU’s Campaign for Smart Justice provides a detailed analysis of women’s incarceration in the United States, highlighting in particular the role of wage disparity in high pretrial detention rates for women.

Since 2014, the Prison Policy Initiative has quantified the number of people incarcerated in the United States, and calculated the breakdown of people held by each correctional system by offense in an annual Whole Pie: Mass Incarceration report.

Overall, there are currently 219,000 women incarcerated in the United States. Incarcerated women are nearly evenly split between state prisons and local jails – 99,000 and 96,000, respectively. State prison systems hold twice as many people as jails when looking at the total incarcerated population.

According to the report, drug and property offenses make up more than half (about 120,000) of the offenses for which women are incarcerated, and violent offenses make up about a quarter (about 54,000).

The authors also found that more than a quarter of women who are behind bars have not yet had a trial. Moreover, 60% of women in jail have not been convicted of a crime and are awaiting trial.

Prison Policy Initiative’s Legal Director Aleks Kajstura believes that the lower income of incarcerated women, relative to incarcerated men, contributes to this data. A previous study by the Prison Policy Initiative found that women who could not make bail had an annual median income of just $11,071. Among those women, Black women had a median annual income of only $9,083 (just 20% that of a white non-incarcerated man). Bail is typically set around $10,000.

However even after conviction, about a quarter of women are held in jails, compared to about 10% of all people incarcerated with a conviction.

Kajstura adds that this figure is troubling, given that over half of all women in U.S. prisons – and 80% of women in jails – are mothers. This makes children susceptible to issues associated with parental incarceration.

A previous report from the Prison Policy Initiative also found that women in jails are more likely to suffer from mental health problems and experience serious psychological distress than either women in prisons or men in either correctional setting.

Furthermore, the “Whole Pie” of incarceration only represents 16% of the roughly 1.4 million women under correctional supervision (75% probation, 9% parole), in contrast to the general incarcerated population where about a third of those under correctional control are in prisons and jails.

According to the report, the unrealistic conditions set by probation undermine its goal of keeping people away from incarceration. Steep fees and meetings with probation officers are standard requirements of the probation system. However, women who cannot afford those fees, babysitters/daycare, or transportation often violate the conditions of probation and are returned to jail.

While more data is needed, this report addresses the policy changes needed to end mass incarceration while considering the unique factors affecting women.

The full report can be read here. This summary was prepared by TCR news intern Brian Edsall. Readers’ comments are welcome.

from https://thecrimereport.org

Is Crime Predictable?

In Philip K. Dick’s “Minority Report,” criminals could be identified before they committed a crime. Computer-generated risk algorithms used by courts to determine whether individuals should be released ahead of trial have brought us a step closer to that world–and our challenge is to use them responsibly, says a George Mason University professor.

Should the increased use of computer-generated risk algorithms to determine criminal justice outcomes be cause for concern or celebration?

This is a hard question to answer, but not for the reasons most people think.

Judges around the country are using computer-generated algorithms to predict the likelihood that a person will commit crime in the future. They use these predictions to help determine pretrial custody, sentence length, prison security-level, probation, parole, and post-release supervision.

Proponents argue that by replacing the ad-hoc and subjective assessments of judges with sophisticated risk assessment instruments, we can reduce incarceration without affecting public safety.

Critics respond that they don’t want to live in a “Minority Report” state where people are punished for crimes before they are committed—particularly if risk assessments are biased against blacks.

Which side is right?

Should the increased use of computer-generated risk algorithms to determine criminal justice outcomes be cause for concern or celebration? This is a hard question to answer, but not for the reasons most people think.

It’s hard to answer because there is no single answer: The impacts that risk assessments have in practice depend crucially on how they are implemented.

Risk assessments are tools—no more and no less. They can be used to increase incarceration or decrease incarceration. They can be used to increase racial disparities or decrease disparities.

They can be used to direct “high risk” people towards support and services or to punish them more harshly.They can be implemented in such a broad set of ways that thinking about them monolithically just doesn’t make sense.

Take bail reform, for example.

Bail reform is one of the most active areas of change in criminal justice right now, and risk assessments have been a key part of many reform efforts. The idea behind the current bail reform movement is that pretrial custody decisions should be made on the basis of risk, not resources.

Instead of conditioning pretrial release on the ability to pay bail—which discriminates against the poor—reformers argue that pretrial release should be determined by a defendant’s risk of crime or flight.

Traditionally, risk of crime or flight was evaluated informally by a judge. Now, many jurisdictions are providing judges with computer-generated risk scores to help them decide whether the defendant can be safely released.These risk scores take into account factors like criminal history, age and sometimes even socio-economic characteristics like employment or stable housing.

One of the more popular pretrial risk assessment instruments, called the PSA, was developed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation in 2013 and has since been adopted in some thirty jurisdictions as well as three entire states. The results have been mixed.

New Jersey has seen a dramatic decline in its pretrial detention rate: the number of people detained pretrial has dropped by about a third since the PSA was adopted in January. Lucas County which hosts the low-income city of Toledo, Ohio, has actually seen an increase in the pretrial detention rate since the PSA was adopted.

And a recent report suggests that Chicago judges have been largely ignoring the PSA. Why such different results in different places?  It’s too soon to say for sure, but there are a number of details related to implementation that could make all the difference.

For one, determining what level of risk should be considered “high” is a subjective determination.

In fact, there is little consensus on this issue: depending on the instrument and the jurisdiction, a high risk classification can correspond with a probability of re-arrest that’s as low as 10% or as high as 42%. 

Editor’s Note: For a critical view on the validity of risk-assessment tools, see Eric Siddall’s Viewpoint in TCR, Aug. 25, 2017.

With the PSA, jurisdictions can decide themselves where to set the cutoff points between a low, moderate, and high risk ranking.

These groupings are important, because many jurisdictions also adopt specific recommendations for each risk classification. For example, New Jersey uses a decision-making framework that recommends pretrial detention only for defendants with the highest risk scores: this has been defined so as to include only about 5% of arrestees.

In Mecklenberg County, another PSA site, generally only defendants who are ranked “low” or “below-average” on their risk score are recommended for release without secured monetary bond, making it less likely that risk assessment will increase release rates very much.

The impact that risk assessments have in practice will also depend on the extent to which judges use them. In most jurisdictions, judges are given the final say, and if they do not want to follow the recommendations associated with the risk assessment they don’t have to.

recent survey showed that only a small minority of judges thought that risk assessments were better at predicting future crime than judges.

If judges are skeptical, what would them motivate them? They will be more likely to use the risk assessment if they are incentivized to do so; for example, if deviating from the recommendations requires a detailed written reason for doing so.

Or, if there is a system of accountability where their actions are tracked and monitored. Finally, it’s always possible to implement risk assessment in a way that doesn’t involve judicial discretion at all.

Kentucky, a leader in the use of pretrial risk assessments, recently revised its procedures so that all low and moderate risk defendants facing non-serious charges are automatically released immediately after booking.

As for racial disparities, we know very little about how these have been impacted by the adoption of risk assessment. But what little we do know suggests that implementation details are important.In a recent study, I found that pretrial risk assessment in Kentucky benefited white defendants more than black, but this was solely because judges in the predominantly-white rural counties followed the recommendations of the risk assessment more than judges in the more racially mixed urban counties.

In other words, the increased racial disparities brought on by risk assessment were caused by regional trends in use, not by the bias of the instrument.This pattern might have been reversed if training, monitoring, and accountability in urban areas were higher.

Furthermore, risk assessment is more likely to reduce racial disparities if it is used to replace monetary bail. Since black defendants tend to have lower incomes, they tend to be less able to afford bail than white defendants.

One study shows that half the race gap in pretrial detention is explained by race differences in the likelihood of posting a given bond amount.

Megan Stevenson

We already live in a “Minority Report” state: the practice of grounding criminal justice decisions on predictions about future crime has been around a long time. The recent shift towards adopting risk assessment tools simply formalizes this process—and in doing so, provides an opportunity to shape what this process looks like.

Instead of embracing risk assessment wholeheartedly or condemning it without reserve, reformers should ask whether there is a particular implementation design by which risk assessment could advance the much-needed goals of reform.

Megan T. Stevenson is an economist and Assistant Professor of Law at George Mason University. She welcomes comments from readers.

from https://thecrimereport.org

Correcting America’s Bail Crisis Isn’t Out of Reach

On any given day, there are about 450,000 people in jail who haven’t been convicted of anything–at an estimated cost to taxpayers of $38 million a day. These men and women sit in jail because they don’t have the money to get out. It’s time to change the system.

On any given day in the United States there are about 450,000 people in jail who have not been convicted of anything. According to the Pretrial Justice Institute, they cost taxpayers about $38 million a day.

Those 450,000 people have been charged with a crime, and all—except for a small percentage facing life in prison—have a right to be free. These men and women sit in jail because they do not have the money to get out, pending trial.

Bail is an age-old tool that allows judges to release defendants pending trial by requiring them to post a certain amount of money as a way of ensuring they’ll return to court. To make bail, defendants post collateral, pay the amount in cash or get a bail piece—insurance policy—from a bail bond company, which typically charges a 10 percent fee.

Let’s do the math.  Mr. Smith gets arrested for assault.  The court sets his bail at $1,500.  The bail bond company needs $150 to post Smith’s bail.  Smith doesn’t have it, so he sits in jail for 75 days awaiting trial.  Smith pleads guilty and is sentenced to time served and released.

Because Mr. Smith didn’t have $150, taxpayers shelled out $85 a day for a whopping $6,375.

Bail serves two purposes: To guarantee that defendants appear for court; and to protect the public from those who are a potential threat.  Proponents of cash bail say the money to post bail often comes from family members, and serves as a deterrent to fleeing.

Bail is not punitive. Although violent crime rates are at historic lows, the Trump Justice Department has made violent crime a top priority.  Attorney General Jeff Sessions would do well to be smart, as well as tough, on crime.  A first step might be setting aside funds for states who commit to reexamining pretrial detention.

A recent study in Maryland found that people arrested in the state from 2011 to 2015 paid combined bail premiums of more than $256 million. Those who use the services of a bail bond company do not get back any of the money paid.  More than 25 percent of that money was paid by people who were acquitted or never faced trial.

Last fall, Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh told members of the House of Delegates that judges and court commissioners must take into account the accused’s ability to pay before setting bail. According to the Baltimore Sun, Frosh said that if bail is out of reach for a defendant, the courts would find that unconstitutional.

Two years ago, New Jersey voters changed the state constitution to implement a new bail system that focused on expanding assessments of defendants to determine whether they should be released.  The New Jersey Bail Reform and Speedy Trial Act went into effect in January.  The new law will rely on a computerized risk assessment tool to make bail decision and is expected to reduce costs and significantly reduce the state’s jail population.

In New York City, Mayor William de Blasio earmarked $17.8 million to supervise 3,000 defendants in the community who are awaiting trial. The “supervised release” initiative permits judges to release defendants to a supervisory program that allows defendants to remain at home with their families and continue working while awaiting trial.

Those awaiting trial represent 63 percent of the total jail population.  Less than four out of 10 men and women sitting in county and local jails are actually serving a sentence. Those sitting in jail not serving a sentence drain about $14 billion a year from public coffers.

America’s bail system has become a central issue in the fight to reverse mass incarceration. According to NBC News, in courthouses, statehouses and ballot boxes across the country, civil rights lawyers and progressive policymakers are working to curb the practice of demanding money in exchange for freedom before trial.

“The nation needs to reform its bail system. But it’s not as simple as saying, ‘Eliminate cash bail,’ ” Kevin Burke, a Minnesota district judge and past president of the American Judges, Association told Stateline.

According to Burke, judges only get a few minutes to assess a defendant’s case, and often judges set bail without knowing the full circumstances.

“The fear (they have) is ‘I’m going to let somebody go and they’re going to go out and do something terrible, or they won’t come back, so I’ll set bail,.’”  Burke said.

The current bail system denies freedom to thousands of people who are presumed innocent but are financially challenged. Those who sit in jail are at risk of losing their jobs, their homes, and their families.

Certainly, it’s unfair to incarcerate someone merely because they cannot afford bail. It is equally unfair to every man and woman in America to spend about $1 trillion, according to the Pretrial Justice Institute on pretrial incarceration, which amounts to about six percent of the Gross Domestic Product.

According to the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the use of bail has exploded in the past two decades, driving a 59 percent rise in the number of un-convicted jail inmates.

Matthew T. Mangino

Correcting America’s bail crisis is not out of reach.  This isn’t about being tough on crime.  It’s about being fair.  For some, even a nominal bond is out of reach. When an accused has no money, $1,500 might as well be $150,000.

For taxpayers the issue is just as compelling.

If the cost of pretrial detention could be cut in half, taxpayers could save $7 billion a year. In these challenging economic times those dollars are difficult to ignore.

.Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner’s Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino. He welcomes readers’ comments.

 

 

 

from http://thecrimereport.org