The Imposition of Pretrial Conditions on Released Federal Defendants: The Overuse of Conditions Without Providing Any Measurable Benefits

Abstract

In the federal system, defendants placed on pretrial release may have multiple conditions imposed on them which are aimed at ensuring court appearances and maintaining public safety. In general, little is known about the number of conditions imposed on released federal defendants, the extent to which conditions are associated with pretrial risk, and the potential of these conditions to maximize court appearances and minimize pretrial crime. This study seeks to address these issues by examining the imposition of pretrial conditions on 223,260 released federal defendants. The results show that defendants received an average of about nine conditions and that the association between conditions and a defendant’s pretrial risk classification was relatively modest. The results also show conditions having no significant relationship with reductions in the likelihood of pretrial crime or missed court appearances; however, the probability of being revoked increases with the number of conditions imposed.

Keywords

risk assessment criminal justice system recidivism assessment decision-making

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Bar Association. (2007). ABA standards for criminal justice (Pretrial release, 3rd ed.).

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315721279

Austin

(2017). The presumption for detention statute’s relationship to release rates. Federal Probation, 81(2), 52–63.

Baber

(2010). Results-based framework for post-conviction supervision recidivism analysis. Federal Probation, 74(3), 5–10.

Bail Reform Act of 1966. Pub. L. 89-465, 80 Stat. 214 (1966).

Bail Reform Act of 1984. Pub. L. 94-473, 98 Stat. 1976 (1984).

Bechtel

Holsinger

A. M.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Warren

(2017). A meta-analytic review of pretrial research: Risk assessment, bond type, and interventions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(2), 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-016-9367-1

Browne

Strong

(2022). Pretrial release and misconduct in federal district courts, fiscal years 2011 – 2018. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Cadigan

T. P.

(1991). Electronic monitoring in federal pretrial release. Federal Probation, 55, 26–30.

10.

Cadigan

T. P.

Johnson

J. L.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

(2012). The re-validation of the federal pretrial services risk assessment (PTRA). Federal Probation, 76(2), 3–9.

11.

Cadigan

T. P.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

(2011). Implementing risk assessment in the federal pretrial system. Federal Probation, 75(2), 30–34.

12.

Carr

J. G.

(2017). Why pretrial release really matters. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 29(4), 217–220. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2017.29.4.217

13.

Clarke

S. H.

(1988). Pretrial release: Concepts, issues, and strategies for improvement. Research in Corrections, 1(3), 1–42.

14.

Cohen

T. H.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

(2019). Revalidation of the federal PTRA: Testing the PTRA for predictive biases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(2), 234–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818810315

15.

Cohen

T. H.

Reaves

B. A.

(2007). Pretrial release of felony defendants in state courts. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

16.

Cooprider

K. W.

Kerby

(1990). A practical application of electronic monitoring at the pretrial state. Federal Probation, 54, 28–35.

17.

Desmarais

Singh

(2013). Risk assessment instruments validated and implemented in correctional settings in the United States. Council of State Governments Justice Center.

18.

Dobbie

Goldin

Yang

(2018). The effects of pre-trial detention on conviction, future crime, and employment: Evidence from randomly assigned judges. The American Economic Review, 108(2), 201–240. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20161503

19.

Gibson

Harris

Waters

Genthon

Hamilton

Robinson

(2022). Court statistics project. National Center for State Courts.

20.

Goldkamp

J. S.

(1985). Danger and detention: A second generation of bail reform. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 76(1), 1–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/1143353

21.

Goldkamp

J. S.

White

M. D.

(2006). Restoring accountability in pretrial release: The Philadelphia pretrial release supervision experiments. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(2), 143–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-006-9001-1

22.

Government Accountability Office. (1978). Report to Congress: The federal bail process fosters inequities.

23.

Grattet

Lin

(2016). Supervision intensity and parole outcomes: A competing risks approach to criminal and technical parole violations. Justice Quarterly, 33(4), 565–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2014.932001

24.

Gupta

Hansman

Frenchman

(2016). The heavy costs of high bail: Evidence from judge randomization. The Journal of Legal Studies, 45(2), 471–505. https://doi.org/10.1086/688907

25.

Heaton

Mayson

S. G.

Stevenson

(2017). The downstream consequences of misdemeanor pretrial detention. Stanford Law Review, 69(3), 711–794. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2809840

26.

Helland

Tabarrok

(2004). The fugitive: Evidence on public versus private law enforcement from bail jumping. The Journal of Law & Economics, 47(1), 93–122. https://doi.org/10.1086/378694

27.

Hilbe

(2009). Logistic regression models. CRC Press. http://doi.org/10.1201/9781420075779

28.

Hyatt

J. M.

Barnes

G. C.

(2017). An experimental evaluation of the impact of intensive supervision on the recidivism of high-risk probationers. Crime and Delinquency, 63(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128714555757

29.

Levin

(2007). Examining the efficacy of pretrial conditions, sanctions, and screening with the state court processing statistics data series. Pretrial Justice Institute.

30.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Latessa

E. J.

Holsinger

A. M.

(2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128705281747

31.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

VanNostrand

Holsinger

(2013). Investigating the impact of pretrial detention on sentencing outcomes. Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

32.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Whetzel

(2009). The development of an actuarial risk assessment instrument for U.S. Pretrial Services. Federal Probation, 73(2), 33–36.

33.

Mahoney

Beaudin

Carver

Ryan

Hoffman

(2001). Pretrial services programs: Responsibilities and potential. National Institute of Justice.

34.

Mamalian

C. A.

(2011). State of the science of pretrial risk assessment. Bureau of Justice Assistance.

35.

Maxfield

M. G.

Baumer

T. L.

(1992). Pretrial home detention with electronic monitoring: A nonexperimental salvage evaluation. Evaluation Review, 16(3), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X9201600306

36.

Padgett

K. G.

Bales

W. D.

Blomberg

T. G.

(2006). Under surveillance: An empirical test of the effectiveness and consequences of electronic monitoring. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(1), 61–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00102.x

37.

Petersilia

Turner

(1990). Comparing intensive and regular supervision for high-risk probationers: Early results from an experiment in California. Crime and Delinquency, 36(1), 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128790036001007

38.

Pretrial Justice Institute. (2009). 2009—Survey of pretrial services programs. Bureau of Justice Assistance.

39.

Pretrial Justice Institute. (2012). Using technology to enhance pretrial services: Current applications and future possibilities. Bureau of Justice Assistance.

40.

Pretrial Services Act of 1982. Pub. L. 97-267, 96 Stat.1136 (1982).

41.

Release or detention of a defendant pending trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (1984).

42.

Rice

M. E.

Harris

G. T.

(2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 615–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7

43.

Tonry

Lynch

(1996). Intermediate sanctions. Crime and Justice, 20, 99–144. http://doi.org/10.1086/449242

44.

Turner

Petersilia

Deschenes

E. P.

(1992). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole (ISP) for drug offenders. Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 539–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128792038004009

45.

VanNostrand

Keebler

(2009). Pretrial risk assessment in the federal court. Federal Probation, 73(2), 3–29.

46.

VanNostrand

Rose

K. J.

Weibrecht

(2011). State of the science of pretrial release recommendations and supervision. Pretrial Justice Institute.

47.

Visher

C. A.

(1992). Pretrial drug testing: Panacea or pandora’s box? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 521(1), 112–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716292521001007