A sign greets people arriving on a Department of Correction bus at Rikers Island.

• The Cost of Discretion Report found that the pretrial decisions made by New York City's 14 most carceral judges resulted in an estimated 580 additional people detained, 154 extra years of pretrial detention, and over $77 million in costs to taxpayers.
• Given links between pretrial detention and increased public safety risks, the report called for enhanced judiciary transparency and increased judge accountability in New York.
• Judges, including retired Appellate Division, First Department Presiding Justice Ronald Acosta, attacked the report, claiming that it intimidated judges, and questioned its methodology.
• Despite attacking the report extensively, the judges fail to contend with its central argument: certain judges undermine public safety by frequently ordering pretrial detention.
• The attacks on the report's methodology are ill-informed and distract from the Report's substantive findings.
• Moreover, scrutiny of public servants, including judges, is not intimidation; it is a critical part of a well-functioning democracy.

Our recent report, "Cost of Discretion," reveals that from 2020 to 2022, the pretrial decisions made by New York City's fourteen most carceral judges resulted in an estimated 580 additional people detained, 154 extra years of pretrial detention, and over $77 million in costs to taxpayers. Given the growing body of research linking pretrial detention to negative impacts on public safety, the report recommends increased transparency for the New York judiciary and greater accountability for its judges.

The report struck a judicial nerve. Acosta, a former high-ranking appellate judge in New York's court system, attacked the study in two op-eds. He was backed by twelve judicial groups, who echoed his objections in a published letter. Collectively, they labeled the study an attempt to "intimidate" judges and "undermine judicial independence," as well as criticized its analysis as "flawed," with Acosta even dubbing it "junk science."

Despite the their numerous accusations, the judges fail to contend with the Report's central argument: certain judges undermine public safety by frequently ordering pretrial detention. For years, New York's judiciary has demonstrated a commitment to pretrial detention: its members have publicly opposed bail reform and have continued to detain a significant number of individuals amid the COVID pandemic and numerous deaths at Rikers Island. This behavior is at odds with a growing body of research finding that pretrial detention is correlated with increased recidivism. Indeed, a recent landmark court decision in California cited this body of research as a basis for ending the use of monetary bail for non-violent crimes in Los Angeles. It should be disconcerting to New Yorkers that certain judges, as well as a former presiding judge of an appellate court, fail to even acknowledge this issue, much less grapple with it.