NY Legislators Should Focus on Reducing Pretrial Incarceration
Today, with just over 4% of the world's population, the United States has nearly 20% of the world's pretrial jail population — almost half a million people.
March 25, 2019 at 01:02 PM
5 minute read
New York is now considering landmark bail reform legislation. Proposed reforms would eliminate money bail and would allow judges to detain people before trial in limited circumstances. Ending money bail is important, but on its own it is not enough to achieve a fair and just pretrial system. Reducing pretrial detention must also be a central goal of the legislation. This can be done only through clear limitations on when and how judges can send people to jail pretrial.
In New York and across the country, bail reform is gaining momentum as the public learns how the money bail system discriminates based on wealth and race. Everyone can agree that no pretrial system should treat people differently based on the money in their bank accounts or the color of their skin. But in New York today, rich people accused of crimes can write a check and walk free while they await trial, while those who cannot afford to post bail must languish in jail for months or years until their case is resolved. Money bail disproportionately harms black, Brown and Latinx people accused of crimes who often have less personal and familial wealth than their white counterparts. Implicit and explicit racial biases make those disparities worse. Indeed, recent empirical research has found that money bail is imposed more often on black people than on white people and that black people receive higher bail amounts than white people.
Lawmakers in Albany should remember that the most grievous harm that money bail inflicts is jail. Bail reform is not just about money—it's about mass incarceration. As we detail in our latest report, bail reform legislation should aim to both eliminate money bail and to reduce the number of people incarcerated pretrial.
In recent decades, the pretrial incarceration rate in the United States has skyrocketed beyond all historical and international norms. Courts have increasingly imposed unaffordable money bail that forces defendants to remain in jail until their case is resolved. Today, with just over 4% of the world's population, the United States has nearly 20% of the world's pretrial jail population — almost half a million people.
Pretrial incarceration devastates communities, harms public safety and undermines the rule of law. People jailed pretrial lose their jobs, their homes and custody of their children. Innocent people who are detained pretrial become so desperate to get out of jail that they will plead guilty to crimes that they did not commit in exchange for a sentence of time served. In other words, innocent people who mount a defense and are acquitted can face more jail time than innocent people who plead guilty.
Despite being touted as a means of preventing crime, pretrial detention's relationship to crime is mixed at best. Social science research has found that pretrial detention causally increases someone's propensity to commit a crime in the future. This effect has been found even with jail stays as short as two days. Unless pretrial detention is used carefully and sparingly, the practice undermines public safety by destabilizing people's lives and causing more crime.
Unwarranted pretrial incarceration also betrays our legal system's founding principles. Across the globe, there are governments that determine guilt and mete out punishment without the hassle of trials, defense attorneys, or rules of evidence. But a free society incarcerates people only after they have been convicted of crimes, with rare and carefully limited exceptions. Even children know the legal maxim that people accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty. Pretrial incarceration flips this notion on its head by jailing people before giving them the opportunity to defend themselves and without requiring the government to prove its case. In the rare instances where a defendant is a serious threat to someone's safety, our Constitution requires the government to prove that pretrial detention is necessary at an adversarial hearing with strict procedural safeguards.
New York is poised to enact one of the most transformative bail reform laws in the nation. But if negotiations in Albany result in the current money bail system being replaced with a regime of expansive pretrial incarceration, then lawmakers will have squandered a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reverse the tide of mass incarceration. As lawmakers consider the bold action of eliminating money bail, they must also find the courage to reduce money bail's principal harm: the jailing of people who are presumed innocent.
Brook Hopkins is executive director of the Criminal Justice Policy Program at Harvard Law School and Colin Doyle is a staff attorney.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhy Is It Becoming More Difficult for Businesses to Mandate Arbitration of Employment Disputes?
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250