This article examines some policy concerns associated with implementing supervised pretrial release programs that have the least restrictive conditions necessary to protect the community and ensure defendants do not flee before trial. Responding to a literature critiquing traditional pretrial treatment of defendants, jurisdictions have augmented the standard bail/no bail dichotomy to allow release under supervision. Critics argue that this innovation can lead to net widening (forcing supervision on defendants who might have made release-on-recognizance in the original system), overintrusive monitoring, loss of confidentiality of information secured from defendants in intense pretrial interviews, and an overextensive role for relatively unaccountable private organizations in the supervision process. Analyzing these concerns is a prerequisite for structuring programs with minimal problems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Austin J..The effectiveness of supervised pretrial release.Crime and delinquency. 1985;31 (October): 519-537
2.
Austin J.,Krisberg B..Wider, stronger and different nets.Journal of research in crime and delinquency. 1981;18 (January): 165-196
3.
BeaumontB.1990Personal interview with general secretary, NAPO, July 31.
4.
Burney E.J.P.: Magistrate, court and community. London: Hutchinson; 1979:
5.
CameronJ.1990Oh no, not bail schemes again. West Midlands Probation Service Bulletin, (June): 3–4.
6.
Chayet E.,Coyle E.,Shapiro C.A descriptive evaluation of supervised pre-trial release programs in New Jersey: Middlesex and Essex Counties. Newark, New Jersey: Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice; 1988:
7.
Clarke S.,Freeman J.,Koch G..Bail risk: A multivariate analysis.Journal of legal studies. 1976;5 (June): 341-386
8.
Contact supervision program. New York: Criminal Justice Agency; 1991a:
9.
Semi-annual report: First half of 1991. New York City: Criminal Justice Agency; 1991b:
10.
Cromwell P.,Rios O..Bond supervision: Implementing the Federal Bail Reform Act.Federal Probation. 1974;38 (December): 30-34
11.
Esteves A..Electronic incarceration in Massachusetts: A critical Analysis.Social Justice. 1990;17 (Winter): 76-105
12.
FraserA.1988Treatment Seen as Jail Alternative. Schenectady Gazette (October 25).
13.
Freed D.,Wald P.Bail in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice; 1964:
14.
Goldkamp J.,Gottfredson M.Policy guidelines for bail: An experiment in court reform. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1985:
15.
Henry D..Pretrial services: Today and yesterday.Federal Probation. 1991;55 (Junc): 54-62
16.
Kolderie T..Two different concepts of privatization.Public administration review. 1986;46 (July/August): 285-291
17.
Moe R..Exploring the limits of privatization.Public administration review. 1987;47 (November/December): 453-460
18.
Nagel I..The legal/extra-legal controversy: judicial decisions in pretrial release.Law and society review. 1983;17 (3): 481-516
19.
PallesenT.1991aBias accused in supervised jail releases. Palm Beach Post (June 3): 1A.
20.
PallesenT.1991b “Gut” instinct guides decision for jail release. Palm Beach Post. (June 3): 6A. People v. Brown 438 N.Y.S. 955.
21.
Perry F.Information for the court. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1974:
22.
Petersilia J..When probation becomes more dreaded than prison.Federal probation. 1990;54 (March): 23-27
23.
Pratt J.,Bray K..Bail hostels — alternatives to custody.British journal of criminology. 1985;25:160-171
24.
Roberts K..Confidentiality of pretrial services under the Speedy Trial Act.Yale law journal. 1977;86 (January): 513-537
25.
Salomon L..Rethinking public management: third-party government and the changing forms of government action.Public Policy. 1981;29 (Summer): 255-275
26.
SanchezK.1991Personal letter from pretrial services specialist, administrative office of U.S. courts (January 3).
27.
Schachter H..Bail interviewing: a case study of a cross-national policy transfer.International criminal justice review. 1991;1:21-34
28.
Schlesinger S..Bail reform: protecting the community and the accused.Harvard journal of law and public policy. 1986;9:173-202
29.
SmithG.1990Personal interview with chief probation officer, Inner London probation service (July 23).
30.
Pretrial release program standards. Albany, New York: New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives; 1988:
31.
SviridoffM.1986Bail bonds and cash alternatives: the influence of “discounts” on bail making in New York City. Justice system journal, (Fall): 131–147.
32.
Thomas W.Bail reform in America. Berkeley, California: University of California Press; 1976:
33.
Integrating drug testing into a pretrial services system. Washington D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance; 1993:
34.
Pretrial release of felony defendants. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice; 1994:
35.
Twenty-five year report, 1961–1986. New York: Vera Institute of Justice; 1986:
36.
Preliminary report on the establishment of the Nassau Bail Bond Agency. New York: Vera Institute of Justice; 1989:
