Although numerous quantitative studies have linked pretrial detention to increased conviction rates, the precise mechanisms linking these decisions remain unclear. Qualitative studies shed light on these processes, revealing that many detainees plead guilty quickly to escape the pains of detention, including poor confinement conditions, strained work or family relations, and “dead time.” Moreover, these pressures to plead are often exacerbated by uncertain detention length, time-sensitive “exploding” plea deals, and temporal discounting. Utilizing data on felony defendants from large urban counties between 1990 and 2004, we assess whether pretrial detention accelerates the pace of guilty pleas. Survival analyses indicate that pretrial detainees plead guilty 2.86 times faster than released defendants do, suggesting that pretrial detention is a powerful prosecutorial tool. Moreover, local resources affect case processing time in ways that are consistent with the courtroom workgroup perspective. Implications for public policies and future research are discussed.
AbbottA. (2004). Methods of discovery: Heuristics for the social sciences. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
2.
AcockA. C. (2013). A gentle introduction to Stata (3rd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
3.
AlbonettiC. A.HepburnJ. R. (1996). Prosecutorial discretion to defer criminalization: The effects of defendant’s ascribed and achieved status characteristics. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 12, 63-81. doi:10.1007/BF02354471
4.
BaughmanS. B. (2017). Costs of pretrial detention. Boston University Law Review, 97, 1-30.
5.
BaumerE. P. (2013). Reassessing and redirecting research on race and sentencing. Justice Quarterly, 30, 231-261. doi:10.1080/07418825.2012.682602
6.
BibasS. (2004). Plea bargaining outside the shadow of trial. Harvard Law Review, 117, 2463-2547.
7.
BibasS. (2012). The machinery of criminal justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8.
BoruchowitzR. C.BrinkM. N.DiminoM. (2009). Minor crimes, massive waste: The terrible toll of America’s broken misdemeanor courts. Washington, DC: National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
9.
Box-SteffensmeierJ. M.JonesB. S. (2004). Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BrunsonR. K.MillerJ. (2006). Gender, race, and urban policing: The experience of African American youths. Gender & Society, 20, 531-552. doi:10.1177/0891243206287727
11.
BrunsonR. K.WeitzerR. (2009). Police relations with Black and White youths in different urban neighborhoods. Urban Affairs Review, 44, 858-885.
12.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2010). Felony sentences in state courts, 2006—Statistical tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fssc06st.pdf
CaldwellH. M. (2011). Coercive plea bargaining: The unrecognized scourge of the justice system. Catholic University Law Review, 61, 63-96.
15.
ChengK. K. (2012). Pressures to plead guilty: Factors affecting plea decisions in Hong Kong’s magistrates’ courts. British Journal of Criminology, 53, 257-275.
16.
ChurchT. (1982). The “old and the new” conventional wisdom of court delay. The Justice System Journal, 7, 395-412.
17.
ChurchT. (1985). Examining local legal culture. Law & Social Inquiry, 10, 449-510.
18.
ChurchT.CarlsonA.LeeJ. L.TanT. (1978). Justice delayed: The pace of litigation in urban trial courts. State Court Journal, 2(4), 3-8.
19.
ClevesM.GouldW.GutierrezR.MarchenkoY. (2016). An introduction to survival analysis using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
20.
CseteJ. (2010). Consequences of injustice: Pre-trial detention and health. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 6(2), 47-58.
21.
Daftary-KapurT.ZottoliT. M. (2014). A first look at the plea deal experiences of juveniles tried in adult court. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13, 323-336.
22.
DidwaniaS. H. (2018). The immediate consequences of pretrial detention: Evidence from federal criminal cases (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2809818). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2809818
23.
DobbieW.GoldinJ.YangC. S. (2018). The effects of pretrial detention on conviction, future crime, and employment: Evidence from randomly assigned judges. The American Economic Review, 108, 201-240. doi:10.1257/aer.20161503
EdkinsV. A.DervanL. E. (2018). Freedom now or a future later: Pitting the lasting implications of collateral consequences against pretrial detention in decisions to plead guilty. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24, 204-215.
26.
EuvrardE.LeclercC. (2017). Pre-trial detention and guilty pleas: Inducement or coercion?Punishment & Society, 19, 525-542.
27.
FlemmingR. B.NardulliP. F.EisensteinJ. (1987). The timing of justice in felony trial courts. Law & Policy, 9, 179-206.
FreemanS.SeymourM. (2010). “Just waiting”: The nature and effect of uncertainty on young people in remand custody in Ireland. Youth Justice, 10, 126-142.
30.
GuptaA.HansmanC.FrenchmanE. (2016). The heavy costs of high bail: Evidence from judge randomization. The Journal of Legal Studies, 45, 471-505. doi:10.1086/688907
31.
HeatonP.MaysonS. G.StevensonM. (2017). The downstream consequences of misdemeanor pretrial detention. Stanford Law Review, 69, 711. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2809840
JohnsonB. D. (2006). The multilevel context of criminal sentencing: Integrating judge-and county-level influences. Criminology, 44, 259-298.
35.
JonesC. E. (2013). “Give us free”: Addressing racial disparities in bail determinations. New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 16, 919-962.
36.
KelloughG.WortleyS. (2002). Remand for plea: Bail decisions and plea bargaining as commensurate decisions. British Journal of Criminology, 42, 186-210.
37.
KimJ.ChauhanP.LuO.PattenM.SmithS. S. (2018). Unpacking pretrial detention: An examination of patterns and predictors of readmissions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29, 663-687. doi:10.1177/0887403418760372
38.
Kohler-HausmannI. (2018). Misdemeanorland: Criminal courts and social control in an age of broken windows policing. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
KramerJ. H.UlmerJ. T. (2009). Sentencing guidelines: Lessons from Pennsylvania. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
40.
KutateladzeB.AndiloroN.JohnsonB. D. (2016). Opening Pandora’s box: How does defendant race influence plea bargaining?Justice Quarterly, 33, 398-426. doi:10.1080/07418825.2014.915340
Lara-MillánA.Van CleveN. G. (2017). Interorganizational utility of welfare stigma in the criminal justice system. Criminology, 55, 59-84.
43.
LeeJ. G. (2019). To detain or not to detain? Using propensity scores to examine the relationship between pretrial detention and conviction. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30, 128-152. doi:10.1177/0887403416668016
44.
LevinD. (2009). Pretrial release of Latino defendants in the United States, 1990-2004. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
45.
LuskinM. L.LuskinR. C. (1986). Why so fast, why so slow: Explaining case processing time. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 77, 190-214.
46.
LynchM. (2016). Hard bargains: The coercive power of drug laws in federal court. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
47.
McCoyC. (2005). Plea bargaining as coercion: The trial penalty and plea bargaining reform. Criminal Law Quarterly, 50, 67-107.
48.
McCoyC. (2007). Caleb was right: Pretrial decisions determine mostly everything. Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, 12, 135-149.
49.
MenefeeM. R. (2017). The role of bail and pretrial detention in the reproduction of racial inequalities. Sociology Compass, 12(5), e12576. doi:10.1111/soc4.12576
50.
NaragR. E. (2018). Understanding factors related to prolonged trial of detained defendants in the Philippines. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62, 2461-2487.
OgleM. R.TuranovicJ. J. (2016). Is getting tough with low-risk kids a good idea? The effect of failure to appear detention stays on juvenile recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0887403416682299
53.
OleskiM. S. (1977). The effect of indefinite pretrial incarceration on the anxiety level of an urban jail population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 1006-1008.
54.
OlesonJ. C.LowenkampC. T.CadiganT. P.VanNostrandM.WooldredgeJ. (2016). The effect of pretrial detention on sentencing in two federal districts. Justice Quarterly, 33, 1103-1122. doi:10.1080/07418825.2014.959035
55.
Open Society Foundations. (2011a). Pretrial detention and health: Unintended consequences, deadly results. New York, NY: Author.
56.
Open Society Foundations. (2011b). The socioeconomic impact of pretrial detention. New York, NY: Author
57.
OstromB. J.HansonR. A. (1999). Efficiency, timeliness, and quality: A new perspective from nine state criminal trial courts. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
58.
PelvinH. (2017). Doing uncertain time: Understanding the experiences of punishment in pre-trial custody (Doctoral thesis). University of Toronto, Canada.
59.
PetersenN.LynchM. (2013). Prosecutorial discretion, hidden costs, and the death penalty: The case of Los Angeles County. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102, 1233-1274.
60.
RabinowitzM. (2010). Holding cells: Understanding the collateral consequences of pretrial detentions. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
61.
RedlichA. D.BibasS.EdkinsV. A.MadonS. (2017). The psychology of defendant plea decision making. American Psychologist, 72, 339-352.
62.
RedlichA. D.ShteynbergR. V. (2016). To plead or not to plead: A comparison of juvenile and adult true and false plea decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 611-625.
63.
RedlichA. D.SummersA. (2012). Voluntary, knowing, and intelligent pleas: Understanding the plea inquiry. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18, 626-643.
64.
SacksM.AckermanA. R. (2012). Pretrial detention and guilty pleas: If they cannot afford bail they must be guilty. Criminal Justice Studies, 25, 265-278.
65.
SacksM.AckermanA. R. (2014). Bail and sentencing: Does pretrial detention lead to harsher punishment?Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25, 59-77. doi:10.1177/0887403412461501
66.
SchlesingerT. (2005). Racial and ethnic disparity in pretrial criminal processing. Justice Quarterly, 22, 170-192. doi:10.1080/07418820500088929
67.
SchlesingerT. (2015). Attenuating disparities through four areas of change: Universal release, reimagined policing, eliminated prior records, and funded public defenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 14, 233-246.
68.
StarckeK.BrandM. (2012). Decision making under stress: A selective review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36, 1228-1248. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.02.003
SteadmanH. J.OsherF. C.RobbinsP. C.CaseB.SamuelsS. (2009). Prevalence of serious mental illness among jail inmates. Psychiatric Services, 60, 761-765.
71.
SteffensmeierD.UlmerJ.KramerJ. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, Black, and male. Criminology, 36, 763-798.
UlmerJ. T. (2012). Recent developments and new directions in sentencing research. Justice Quarterly, 29, 1-40. doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.624115
74.
UlmerJ. T.JohnsonB. (2004). Sentencing in context: A multilevel analysis. Criminology, 42, 137-178.
75.
Van CleveN. (2016). Crook county: Racism and injustice in America’s largest criminal court. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
76.
WangX.MearsD. P. (2010a). A multilevel test of minority threat effects on sentencing. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(2), 191-215.
77.
WangX.MearsD. P. (2010b). Examining the direct and interactive effects of changes in racial and ethnic threat on sentencing decisions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(4), 522-557.
78.
WilliamsM. R. (2016). From bail to jail: The effect of jail capacity on bail decisions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 484-497.
79.
WorkM. (2014). Creating constitutional procedure: Frye, Lafler, and Plea bargaining reform. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 104, 457-488.
80.
ZottoliT. M.Daftary-KapurT.WintersG. M.HoganC. (2016). Plea discounts, time pressures, and false-guilty pleas in youth and adults who pleaded guilty to felonies in New York City. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22, 250-259.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
