The Unintended Impact of Pretrial Detention on Case Outcomes: Evidence from New York City Arraignments

Abstract

In the United States, over 400,000 individuals are in jail daily waiting for their criminal cases to be resolved. The majority of detainees are held because they cannot post bail. We estimate the impact of being detained pretrial on the likelihood of being convicted and sentence length using data on nearly a million criminal cases in New York City. Causal effects are identified using variation across arraignment judges in their propensities to detain defendants. We find that being detained increases the probability of conviction by 13 percentage points for felony defendants. Although pretrial detention lowers the probability of rearrest while cases are being adjudicated, this reduction in criminal activity is mostly offset by an increase in recidivism within 2 years after disposition. Higher pretrial detention rates among minority defendants explain 40 percent of the black-white gap in rates of being sentenced to prison and 28 percent of the Hispanic-white gap. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. (US Constitution, Eighth Amendment)

The Effects of Pre-Trial Detention on Conviction, Future Crime, and Employment: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Judges

“…Importantly, however, our paper is the first to shed light on the effects of a criminal conviction and the effects of pre-conviction detention, as opposed to incarceration per se. 6 Our paper is also related to a number of recent papers conducted in parallel to our study that estimate the effects of bail decisions on case decisions (e.g., Gupta, Hansman, and Frenchman 2016;Leslie and Pope 2016;Stevenson 2016;Didwania 2017). Where our outcomes overlap, we find similar results: Stevenson (2016) finds that pretrial detention leads to a 6.6 percentage point increase in the likelihood of being convicted in Philadelphia, with larger effects for first or second time arrestees.…”

“…Where our outcomes overlap, we find similar results: Stevenson (2016) finds that pretrial detention leads to a 6.6 percentage point increase in the likelihood of being convicted in Philadelphia, with larger effects for first or second time arrestees. Gupta, Hansman, and Frenchman (2016) similarly find that the assignment of monetary bail in Philadelphia leads to a 6 percentage point increase in the likelihood of being convicted, with some evidence of higher recidivism following the initial case decision, while Leslie and Pope (2016) show that pretrial detention increases the probability of conviction by 7 to 13 percentage points in New York City. Finally, in the federal system, Didwania (2017) finds that pretrial detention increases a defendant's sentence length and the probability of receiving at least a mandatory minimum sentence.…”

Human Decisions and Machine Predictions*

“…Annualized costs of jailing a person are on the order of $30,000, in addition to other harms from lost freedom, impacts on families, increased chances of a finding of guilt, and declines in future employment (Abrams and Rohlfs, 2011, Dobbie, Goldin, and Yang, 2016, Gupta, Hansman, and Frenchman, 2016, Stevenson, 2016, Leslie and Pope, 2016). …”

Police Discretion and Racial Disparity in Organized Retail Theft Arrests: Evidence from Texas

“…Furthermore, magistrates and prosecutors may rely mostly, or solely, on information in the police report without much review (Phillips & Varano 2008;Holleran et al 2010;Nelson 2013Nelson , 2014. Thus, the category of the arrest charge can affect decisions on pretrial detention and bail, which can lead to punishment before the decision of guilt or innocence takes place (Wald 1964;Frazier et al 1980;Spohn 2008), and influence the eventual disposition of the case (Myers 1982;Heaton et al 2017;Leslie & Pope 2016;Dobbie et al 2017a;Stevenson 2017). Inflating the arrest charge can give a prosecutor an advantage in plea bargaining, and creates incentives for defendants to plead guilty to offenses they did not commit to avoid the possibility of conviction of a more serious crime at trial (Ross 1978;Stuntz 2004;Caldwell 2011;Bushway & Redlich 2012).…”