Justice in the Shadowlands: Pretrial Detention, Punishment, and the Sixth Amendment

Appleman, Laura I

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2031196

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Defendants held in pretrial detention are legally innocent and face a host of challenges when removed from their families, homes, communities, jobs, and society. Examples of this include (a) being held in a dangerous environment with an increased chance of victimization (Appleman, 2012), (b) uninhabitable living conditions due to jail overcrowding (Appleman, 2012; Petteruti & Walsh, 2008), (c) heightened physical and mental health issues (Noonan, 2016; Petteruti & Walsh, 2008; Zeng, 2019), (d) loss of employment (Wiseman, 2013) alongside administrative fees and consequences for missing payments (Appleman, 2012; Diller, 2010), and finally, (e) their children being put into foster care (Petteruti & Walsh, 2008). Moreover, recent research has highlighted that being detained pretrial negatively affects subsequent case outcomes (Dobbie et al, 2018; Goulette et al, 2015; Gupta et al, 2016; Heaton et al, 2017; Leslie & Pope, 2017; Omori, 2019; Schlesinger, 2007; Spohn, 2009; Stevenson, 2018; Sutton, 2013; Wooldredge et al, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neighborhood Context and the Pretrial Process: Do Defendants Face Adverse Outcomes Due to Their Home Address?

Louis

2019

Criminal Justice Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When extralegal factors correlate with differences in bond amount and pretrial detention, justice may be compromised. Prior research has identified disparity related to defendant characteristics, such as income and race. This article offers insight into a less explored source of disparity, neighborhood context, and a particularly disadvantaged population, defendants, or pretrial detainees, unable to afford their bail in court and booked into a county jail. Considering the desire for community safety, the difficulty of predicting dangerousness and court attendance, and the impact of ecological factors on other court outcomes, it is hypothesized that neighborhood context heightens disparity in the pretrial process. Findings support this argument. Offense elements best predict bond amount; however, there exists disparity based on neighborhood characteristics. When assessing the same factors in relation to detention length, bond amount is not significant, but rather individual- and neighborhood-level characteristics. Implications are discussed in light of current bail reform efforts.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neighborhood Context and the Pretrial Process: Do Defendants Face Adverse Outcomes Due to Their Home Address?

Louis

2019

Criminal Justice Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It would be an interesting empirical question to address: Are prosecutors aware of the increased motivation on the part of a detained defendant to plead guilty and would they use this to their advantage? This would be an acknowledgment of the weight that freedom holds (or perhaps the abysmal conditions of local jails; Appleman, 2012) and an acknowledgment that factors beyond those that are legally relevant to the case at hand are entering into plea offers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Freedom now or a future later: Pitting the lasting implications of collateral consequences against pretrial detention in decisions to plead guilty.

Edkins

Dervan

2018

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With a criminal conviction comes numerous restrictions on rights, and often these collateral consequences are not adequately communicated to a defendant accepting a plea deal. The question we posed was whether or not informing individuals of collateral consequences would alter their decisions to plead. Using prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984) and the theory of temporal discounting (Ainslie, 1975), we hypothesized that the delayed nature of collateral consequences—especially if the consequences were competing with overly enticing immediate rewards to accepting a plea deal, namely the ability to be released from pretrial detention—would not have the desired effect of exerting a strong influence on decisions to plead. Across two studies—the first, an exploratory within-subjects design; the second, a more controlled between-subjects design—we found that while actual guilt mattered the most with regard to decisions to plead, pretrial detention also weighed heavy (especially influential in challenging our innocent participants’ steadfastness to hold out for a trial). Collateral consequences did not have as large of an impact, especially if pretrial detention was involved. We also saw that, in general, participants were not opposed to the imposition of most collateral consequences. Future directions for plea bargaining research are discussed.

show abstract

“…Theoretically and empirically, literature indicates this association is related to one of two factors: the desire to escape harsh conditions of confinement, or the consequences of deprivation of liberty in itself. First, even brief periods in jails weigh heavily on detained people, leading them to feel pressure to plead (Appleman, 2012;Bibas, 2004). Second, deprivation of liberty has a coercive effect on many detained people; individuals become consumed with seeking their immediate freedom (Campbell, 2021;Lerman et al, 2022).…”

Section: Impact Of Pretrial Detention On Guilty Pleasmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do the Consequences of Pretrial Detention on Guilty Pleas and Carceral Sentences Vary between Misdemeanor and Felony Cases?

Thomas

2023

CrimRxiv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pretrial detention functions differently depending on why an individual is referred to the legal system. For those charged with misdemeanor offenses, the pretrial process is often the primary punishment, irrespective of guilt or innocence. For those charged with felonies, the primary punishment often comes from the resulting adjudicative sentence. Thus, the consequences of such detention on guilty pleas and carceral sentences could vary starkly between misdemeanors and felonies. This study draws on a unique dataset combining complete individual-level arrest and pretrial incarceration data for all adults arrested in New York City in 2016 and 2017.Using logistic regression and Cox survival models, the study identifies differential impacts of time detained pretrial on downstream consequences. Compared to people detained on felonies, people detained on misdemeanors are more likely to plead guilty, plead faster, and receive a carceral sentence. The article concludes with a discussion of policy implications of these differential pretrial justice regimes

show abstract

Justice in the Shadowlands: Pretrial Detention, Punishment, and the Sixth Amendment

Cited by 8 publications

References 10 publications

Neighborhood Context and the Pretrial Process: Do Defendants Face Adverse Outcomes Due to Their Home Address?

Neighborhood Context and the Pretrial Process: Do Defendants Face Adverse Outcomes Due to Their Home Address?

Freedom now or a future later: Pitting the lasting implications of collateral consequences against pretrial detention in decisions to plead guilty.

How Do the Consequences of Pretrial Detention on Guilty Pleas and Carceral Sentences Vary between Misdemeanor and Felony Cases?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About