The Pretrial Detention Penalty: How Detention Impacts Case Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiffany Bergin ◽  
Stephen Koppel ◽  
Rene Ropac ◽  
Imani Randolph ◽  
Hannah Joseph
Keyword(s):  
Pretrial Detention

APPLICATION FEATURES OF TECHNICAL AND FORENSIC TOOLS BY AN INVESTIGATOR (THE INTERROGATOR) DURING INTERROGATION IN THE PRETRIAL DETENTION CENTER

2020 ◽  
pp. 48-53
Author(s):  
Роман Михайлович Морозов ◽  
Дмитрий Юрьевич Волков
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Detention Center ◽  
Pretrial Detention ◽  
Forensic Tools

Целью статьи было рассмотреть проблемные аспекты тактико-криминалистического применения технических средств при производстве допроса, предложить научно обоснованные рекомендации по их использованию. В статье раскрываются особенности применения технико-криминалистических средств процессуально уполномоченными должностными лицами органов предварительного следствия и дознания при производстве допроса подозреваемых (обвиняемых), в отношении которых избрана мера пресечения в виде заключения под стражу. По результатам проведенных исследований правоприменительной практики и научной литературы авторами раскрываются процессуальные и тактические основания и порядок применения технических средств при производстве допроса на отдельных его этапах, предлагаются решения проблем, связанных с применением технико-криминалистических средств, даются рекомендации по порядку применения отдельных технических средств. Выделяются наиболее целесообразные тактические приемы допроса при применении технических средств фиксации. Авторами предложены изменения в уголовно-процессуальное законодательство по совершенствованию законодательных норм в области применения технических средств при производстве следственных действий. Сформулированные в статье выводы могут быть использованы в правоприменительной практике следователями (дознавателями) при производстве допроса в следственном изоляторе, а также при преподавании отдельных дисциплин: «Уголовный процесс», «Криминалистика», а также специальных курсов (по выбору) уголовно-правового профиля. The purpose of the article was to consider the problematic aspects of the tactical and forensic use of technical means during the interrogation, to offer evidence-based recommendations for their use. The article reveals the features of the use of technical and forensic means by the procedurally authorized officials of the preliminary investigation and inquiry bodies during the interrogation of suspects (accused), in respect of which a preventive measure in the form of detention has been chosen. According to the results of the research of law enforcement practice and scientific literature, the authors reveal the procedural and tactical grounds and the procedure for the use of technical means during the interrogation at its individual stages, offers solutions to problems associated with the use of technical and forensic means, gives some recommendations on the order of application of individual technical means. The most appropriate tactics of interrogation, the use of technical facilities of fixation. The authors propose changes to the criminal procedure legislation to improve the legislative norms in the field of application of technical means in the investigative actions realization. The conclusions formulated in the article can be used in law enforcement practice by investigators (inquirers) during the interrogation in the pretrial detention center, as well as in the teaching of certain disciplines: «Criminal procedure», «Criminalistics», as well as special courses (optional) of criminal law profile.

A French Program to Reduce Pretrial Detention: Contrôle Judiciaire

1980 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierce Gerety
Keyword(s):  
Violent Crime ◽  
Pretrial Detention ◽  
Low Rate

France's comparatively low rate of imprisonment results from a much lower rate of violent crime rather than from the development of alter natives to imprisonment.

Exploring the Minority Threat Hypothesis for Juveniles in Criminal Court

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 418-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven N. Zane
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Multilevel Models ◽  
Ethnic Disparities ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Minority Population ◽  
Pretrial Detention ◽  
Minority Threat ◽  
Criminal Justice Processing ◽  
Two Measures ◽  
Different Populations

In the context of the criminal justice system, the minority threat hypothesis posits that a growing minority population will exacerbate racial and ethnic disparities as those in power seek to establish social control over the threatening population. Decades of research have produced mixed findings, possibly due to the varied approaches to testing this hypothesis as well as the different populations to whom it is applied. To fully explore the racial and ethnic threat hypotheses for an underexamined population—juveniles transferred to criminal court—and an underexamined outcome—pretrial detention—the present article employs a series of multilevel models to test several versions of the hypothesis. Specifically, the article distinguishes between two measures of minority threat—static and dynamic—and two types of threat effects—diffuse and targeted. Findings indicate limited support for the minority threat hypothesis in all forms. Several interpretations are offered, ranging from consideration of the need for more informed measures of threat to a possible need to modify or abandon the minority threat hypothesis in the context of juvenile and criminal justice processing.

scholarly journals Honoring Innocent Until Proven Guilty

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 41-70
Author(s):  
Stephen Rispoli
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Prison Population ◽  
Good Reason ◽  
Economic Consequences ◽  
Default Rule ◽  
Pretrial Release ◽  
Pretrial Detention ◽  
Law System ◽  
Constitutional Protections ◽  
A Current

Texas’s current prison population consists of far more pretrial detainees than convicted criminals. Despite United States and Texas constitutional protections, the default rule in many jurisdictions, including Texas, detains misdemeanor and non-violent felony defendants unless they can post a monetary bond or get a surety to post the bond for them (“bail bond”) to obtain their release. Most pretrial detainees remain detained due not to their alleged dangerousness, but rather because they simply cannot afford to post bail (or get someone to post it for them). As a result, many pretrial detainees find themselves choosing between hamstringing their financial future or remaining in detention until trial. If Americans are serious about “honoring the presumption of innocence,” we must reform the way that misdemeanor and non-violent felony defendants are treated while awaiting trial. Rather than treat them as guilty and keep them in jail unless they can pay for their release, the standard should be to release them unless there is a very good reason for not doing so. By changing the default option from pretrial detention to pretrial release, many Texas judges will be more pre-disposed to release misdemeanor and non-violent felony defendants on conditions other than the posting of monetary bail. This switch will result in fewer people being detained simply because they cannot afford to be released—which will prevent adverse economic consequences to already disadvantaged citizens. Proposed reform has been discussed for decades. Reforming the bail system in Texas is a current, critical need. This criminal justice issue undermines the public’s faith in our system of justice and detrimentally affects the economic and social status of countless citizens who will ultimately be found not guilty. Doing nothing weakens our overall rule-of-law system and ultimately erodes the foundation upon which our society is built.

scholarly journals The Constitutional Law of Incarceration, Reconfigured

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margo Schlanger
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Mass Incarceration ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Pretrial Detention ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
Eighth Amendment ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Incarcerated Populations ◽  
Lower Courts

103 Cornell L. Rev. 357 (2018)As American incarcerated populations grew starting in the 1970s, so too did court oversight of prisons. In the late 1980s, however, as incarceration continued to boom, federal court oversight shrank. This Article addresses the most central doctrinal limit on oversight of jails and prisons, the Supreme Court’s restrictive reading of the constitutional provisions governing treatment of prisoners — the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause and the Due Process Clause, which regulate, respectively, post-conviction imprisonment and pretrial detention. The Court’s interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s ban of cruel and unusual punishment, in particular, radically undermined prison officials’ accountability for tragedies behind bars — allowing, even encouraging, them to avoid constitutional accountability. And lower courts compounded the error by importing that reading into Due Process doctrine as well. In 2015, in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, a jail use of force case, the Court relied on 1970s precedent, not subsequent caselaw that had placed undue emphasis on the subjective culpability of prison and jail officials as the crucial source of constitutional concern. The Kingsley Court returned to a more appropriate objective analysis. In finding for the plaintiff, the Supreme Court unsettled the law far past Kingsley’s direct factual setting of pretrial detention, expressly inviting post-conviction challenges to restrictive — and incoherent — Eighth Amendment caselaw. The Court rejected not only the defendants’ position, but the logic that underlies 25 years of pro-government outcomes in prisoners’ rights cases. But commentary and developing caselaw since Kingsley has not fully recognized its implications. I argue that both doctrinal logic and justice dictate that constitutional litigation should center on the experience of incarcerated prisoners, rather than the culpability of their keepers. The takeaway of my analysis is that the Constitution is best read to impose governmental liability for harm caused to prisoners — whether pretrial or post-conviction — by unreasonably dangerous conditions of confinement and unjustified uses of force. In this era of mass incarceration, our jails and prisons should not be shielded from accountability by legal standards that lack both doctrinal and normative warrant.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document