GLOSSARY of TERMS and PHRASES RELATING to BAIL and the PRETRIAL RELEASE OR DETENTION DECISION Copyright © 2015 by the Pretrial Justice Institute

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

GLOSSARY of TERMS and PHRASES RELATING to BAIL and the PRETRIAL RELEASE OR DETENTION DECISION Copyright © 2015 by the Pretrial Justice Institute GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND PHRASES RELATING TO BAIL AND THE PRETRIAL RELEASE OR DETENTION DECISION Copyright © 2015 by the Pretrial Justice Institute. All rights reserved. Gaithersburg, MD Updated July 2015 3 Introduction The complicated nature of various terms and usage that they seem correct even when they phrases relating to bail and pretrial release are misused. For example, the terms “pretrial” or detention can sometimes lead to confusion and “pretrial services” are sometimes used as and misuse of those terms. That, in turn, may short-hand nouns referring to pretrial services lead to unnecessary quibbling and distraction agencies or programs (e.g., “Pretrial wants to from fundamental issues in the administra- eliminate commercial bail bonding.”), instead tion of bail and pretrial justice. Some of this of their proper use as (1) a period of time, and confusion and misuse is quite understand- (2) the actual services provided by the pretrial able. For example, in his Dictionary of Modern services agency or program. Legal Usage, Bryan Garner describes the term “bail” as “a chameleon-hued legal term,” with These predominantly legal terms are difficult strikingly different meanings depending on its enough without any layer of confusion and overall use as either a noun or a verb.1 A term misuse. Accordingly, this glossary of terms and like “habeas corpus,” as another example, has phrases has been written to provide current little meaning to one not fully immersed in the definitions, in context, and with historical legal waters of the American system of justice. references as needed, to clarify a comprehen- How does one sum up a concept like habeas sive set of common terms relating to bail and corpus, when, as the online company Twitter the pretrial release and detention decision. said when explaining its own service in March The authors hope that the glossary will be of 2010, “it’s a whole thing?” used to find consensus on common terms and phrases to avoid needless distractions from the Misuse of terms can be caused by simple lack of important work of making the administration education. That “bail” is used primarily to refer of bail more effective. References to Black’s to amounts of money is likely due only to a lack Law Dictionary (or “Black’s”) are to the Ninth of education for not only the public and the Edition.2 press, but also for some criminal justice prac- titioners. Other terms are often so ingrained in GLOSSARY OF TERMS 1 Adversary System emphasis on this sometimes riveting recitation of “facts” and to the charge filed, to the exclu- Black’s calls it “[a] procedural system, such as sion of other relevant factors used to assess the Anglo American Legal System, involving risk of flight and to public safety. active and unhindered parties contesting with each other to put forth a case before an independent decision maker.” According to American Bar Association (“ABA”) Michael Asimow, “[t]he central precept of the Criminal Justice Standards adversary system is that the sharp clash of The American Bar Association is the 400,000- proofs presented by opposing lawyers, both plus member national association for the legal zealously representing the interests of their profession and those interested in the legal clients, generates the information upon which profession. In 1964, the ABA implemented its a neutral and passive decision maker can “Criminal Justice Standards Project,” which most justly resolve a dispute.”3 It is typically has created and updated best practice stan- contrasted with the inquisitorial system of dards on twenty-three areas in criminal justice. justice, in which the judge controls most of the The Third Edition of the ABA’s Standards pretrial and trial procedures, including framing on Pretrial Release (black letter standards the issues, supervising criminal investigations approved in 2002, commentary approved in and discovery, questioning and cross-exam- 2007) are based on empirically sound social ining witnesses, and summarizing evidence. science research, as well as on fundamental Understanding the adversary system’s impor- legal principles, and have been used by courts, tance at bail is critical, for initiation of adver- legislatures, scholars, and others interested in sary proceedings triggers certain rights, such best practices in the field of pretrial justice. as the right to counsel. In practice, judges comfortable operating in a system in which Appearance Bond they are to oversee two sides in the adversarial see Bail Bond clash of proofs often find that the typical bail hearing is overwhelmingly lopsided, many times operating with no defense counsel, and Appearance Rate instead proceeding with defendants who are see Court Appearance Rate unprepared to argue issues concerning their pretrial release. The adversary system presup- Arraignment poses somewhat equal adversarial opponents, but bail hearings often lack that equality. A criminal proceeding at which the defendant is read the charge or charges and asked to Affidavit enter a plea. The essence of the arraignment is the act of pleading (e.g., guilty, not guilty, no A voluntary declaration of facts written down contest) to the formal charge or charges, and and sworn to by the declarant before an officer although an arraignment may be continued or authorized to administer oaths (Black’s). postponed, its goal is to obtain the defendant’s Among other things, affidavits are drafted to plea. The term is sometimes incorrectly used obtain search warrants and to document an to mean the defendant’s “first appearance” officer’s probable cause for making a warrant- or “initial appearance,” but the arraignment less arrest. In the administration of bail, some needn’t be the first appearance. As correctly persons may be tempted to place a greater noted in Black’s and other sources, the law A PUBLICATION OF THE PRETRIAL JUSTICE INSTITUTE 2 regarding arraignments varies from jurisdic- believe that money motivates human action, tion to jurisdiction, and is typically explained and in most state statutes, money amounts are by court rules or statutes governing those forfeited for failure to appear), to date money jurisdictions. has never been empirically related to it – that is, no studies have shown that money works as Arrest Warrant an added incentive to appear for court. Third, the purpose of bail itself has changed over the see Warrant past 100 years from reasonably assuring only court appearance to also reasonably assuring Bail public safety, and research has demonstrated In criminal law, bail is the process of releasing that money is in no way related to keeping a defendant from jail or other governmental people safe. Indeed, this notion is reflected in custody with conditions set to reasonably most state statutes, which routinely disallow assure public safety and court appearance. the forfeiture of money for breaches in public “Bail” is perhaps one of the most misused terms safety. Fourth, money bail does not reflect in the field, primarily because bail has grown the criminal justice trend, since the 1960s, from the process of delivering the defendant to to make use of own recognizance or personal someone else, who would personally stand in recognizance bonds with no secured financial for the accused if he or she did not appear for conditions. And finally, in most jurisdictions court, to presently being largely equated with monetary conditions of release have been sums of money. It is now clear that, whatever overshadowed by the numerous nonfinancial pure system of “standing in” for a particular conditions designed to further bail’s overall defendant to face the consequences of non- purpose to provide a process for release while appearance in court may have existed in the reasonably assuring court appearance and early Middle Ages, that system was quickly public safety. replaced with paying for that non-appearance first with goods (because standardized coin Garner has correctly noted the multiple defini- money remained relatively rare in Anglo Saxon tions of bail that have evolved over time, most Britain until the Eighth and Ninth Centu- of which presuppose some security in the form ries) and later money. The encroachment of of money.4 For example, besides being defined money into the process of bail has since been as the security agreed upon, bail was also once unrelenting. And, unfortunately to this day, defined as a person who acts as a surety for a the terms “money” and “bail” have also been debt, and was often used in sentences such as, joined in an unholy linguistic alliance. “The bail is supposed to have custody of the defendant.”5 However, because much has been This coupling of money and bail is troubling for learned over the last century about money at several reasons. First, while money bail may bail (including its deleterious effect on the have made sense in the Anglo Saxon criminal concept of pretrial justice), and because the justice system – comprised of monetary penal- very purpose of bail has also changed to include ties for nearly all bailable offenses – the logic notions of public safety in addition to court eroded once those monetary penalties were appearance (preceding a new era of release largely replaced with corporal punishment and on nonfinancial conditions), defining the term imprisonment. Second, while perhaps logi- “bail” as an amount of money, as many state cally related to court appearance (many people legislatures, criminal justice practitioners, GLOSSARY OF TERMS 3 newspapers, and members of the public do, is pledge or a promise, which can include release flawed. Thus, a new definition of the term is without money),10 have enacted statutory defi- warranted. nitions to recognize bail as something more than simply money. Moreover, some states, Bail as a process of release is the only defini- such as Alaska,11a Florida,11b Connecticut,11c tion that: (1) effectuates American notions of and Wisconsin,11d have constitutions explicitly liberty from even colonial times; (2) acknowl- incorporating the word “release” into their edges the rationales for state deviations from right to bail provisions.
Recommended publications
  • United States V. Salerno: the Bail Reform Act Is Here to Stay
    DePaul Law Review Volume 38 Issue 1 Fall 1988 Article 7 United States v. Salerno: The Bail Reform Act Is Here to Stay Heidi Joy Herman Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Heidi J. Herman, United States v. Salerno: The Bail Reform Act Is Here to Stay, 38 DePaul L. Rev. 165 (1988) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol38/iss1/7 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNITED STATES v. SALERNO: THE BAIL REFORM ACT IS HERE TO STAY INTRODUCTION The passage of the 1984 Bail Reform Act (the "Act")' fundamentally changed the function of bail in the United States criminal law system2 by allowing persons accused of criminal offenses to be held without bail if they are found to present a danger to the community.3 Previously, an accused was denied bail only when a fair adjudication could not be otherwise ensured.4 The Act represented a change in society's attitude towards the concept of bail. An increase in the incidence of crime by persons released on bail pending trial generated fear among the population and this fear served as the impetus for this Act.' The concept of "preventive detention, ' 6 as pretrial incarceration is known, is a controversial issue in the United States courts.7 The Act has repeatedly been challenged as unconstitutional under both the excessive bail clause of the eighth amendment8 and the due process clause of the fifth amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • Compensation Chart by State
    Updated 5/21/18 NQ COMPENSATION STATUTES: A NATIONAL OVERVIEW STATE STATUTE WHEN ELIGIBILITY STANDARD WHO TIME LIMITS MAXIMUM AWARDS OTHER FUTURE CONTRIBUTORY PASSED OF PROOF DECIDES FOR FILING AWARDS CIVIL PROVISIONS LITIGATION AL Ala.Code 1975 § 29-2- 2001 Conviction vacated Not specified State Division of 2 years after Minimum of $50,000 for Not specified Not specified A new felony 150, et seq. or reversed and the Risk Management exoneration or each year of incarceration, conviction will end a charges dismissed and the dismissal Committee on claimant’s right to on grounds Committee on Compensation for compensation consistent with Compensation Wrongful Incarceration can innocence for Wrongful recommend discretionary Incarceration amount in addition to base, but legislature must appropriate any funds CA Cal Penal Code §§ Amended 2000; Pardon for Not specified California Victim 2 years after $140 per day of The Department Not specified Requires the board to 4900 to 4906; § 2006; 2009; innocence or being Compensation judgment of incarceration of Corrections deny a claim if the 2013; 2015; “innocent”; and Government acquittal or and Rehabilitation board finds by a 2017 declaration of Claims Board discharge given, shall assist a preponderance of the factual innocence makes a or after pardon person who is evidence that a claimant recommendation granted, after exonerated as to a pled guilty with the to the legislature release from conviction for specific intent to imprisonment, which he or she is protect another from from release serving a state prosecution for the from custody prison sentence at underlying conviction the time of for which the claimant exoneration with is seeking transitional compensation.
    [Show full text]
  • A Federal Criminal Case Timeline
    A Federal Criminal Case Timeline The following timeline is a very broad overview of the progress of a federal felony case. Many variables can change the speed or course of the case, including settlement negotiations and changes in law. This timeline, however, will hold true in the majority of federal felony cases in the Eastern District of Virginia. Initial appearance: Felony defendants are usually brought to federal court in the custody of federal agents. Usually, the charges against the defendant are in a criminal complaint. The criminal complaint is accompanied by an affidavit that summarizes the evidence against the defendant. At the defendant's first appearance, a defendant appears before a federal magistrate judge. This magistrate judge will preside over the first two or three appearances, but the case will ultimately be referred to a federal district court judge (more on district judges below). The prosecutor appearing for the government is called an "Assistant United States Attorney," or "AUSA." There are no District Attorney's or "DAs" in federal court. The public defender is often called the Assistant Federal Public Defender, or an "AFPD." When a defendant first appears before a magistrate judge, he or she is informed of certain constitutional rights, such as the right to remain silent. The defendant is then asked if her or she can afford counsel. If a defendant cannot afford to hire counsel, he or she is instructed to fill out a financial affidavit. This affidavit is then submitted to the magistrate judge, and, if the defendant qualifies, a public defender or CJA panel counsel is appointed.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court District of New Jersey
    Case 1:15-cv-06644-NLH Document 6 Filed 10/03/16 Page 1 of 42 PageID: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY FINANCIAL CASUALTY & SURETY Civil No. 15-6644(NLH) CO INC., Appellant, OPINION v. STEPHEN C. THAYER, Appellee. APPEARANCES: SAMUEL M. SILVER 2050 ROUTE 27 SUITE 106 BRUNSWICK PLAZA NORTH BRUNSWICK, NJ 08902 On behalf of appellant STEPHEN C. THAYER 1074 BUCKINGHAM DR. WEST DEPTFORD, NJ 08086 Appellee appearing pro se HILLMAN, District Judge Presently before the Court is the appeal by Financial Casualty & Surety Company, Inc. (FCS) of the bankruptcy court’s August 24, 2015 Opinion and Order granting summary judgment in favor of the debtor, Stephen C. Thayer. FCS’s adversary complaint contested the dischargeability of a judgment it obtained against Thayer arising from bail bond forfeitures. For the reasons expressed below, the bankruptcy court’s decision will be reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Case 1:15-cv-06644-NLH Document 6 Filed 10/03/16 Page 2 of 42 PageID: <pageID> BACKGROUND A. Jurisdiction and Standard This Court has jurisdiction over the appeal from the bankruptcy court’s August 24, 2015 Opinion and Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), which provides in relevant part: “The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final judgments, orders and decrees . of bankruptcy judges entered in cases and proceedings referred to the bankruptcy judges under section 157 of this title. An appeal under this subsection shall be taken only to the district court for the judicial district in which the bankruptcy judge is serving.” In reviewing a determination of the bankruptcy court, the district court assesses the bankruptcy court’s legal determinations de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and its exercise of discretion for abuse.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of Bail and Pretrial Detention
    ECONOMIC ANALYSIS | DECEMBER 2018 The Economics of Bail and Pretrial Detention Patrick Liu, Ryan Nunn, and Jay Shambaugh i The Hamilton Project • Brookings ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Lauren Bauer, Jennifer Doleac, Alex Tabarrok, Emily Weisburst, and Crystal Yang for insightful feedback, as well as Yared Lingo, Jimmy O’Donnell, and Areeb Siddiqui for excellent research assistance. MISSION STATEMENT The Hamilton Project seeks to advance America’s promise of opportunity, prosperity, and growth. The Project’s economic strategy reflects a judgment that long-term prosperity is best achieved by fostering economic growth and broad participation in that growth, by enhancing individual economic security, and by embracing a role for effective government in making needed public investments. We believe that today’s increasingly competitive global economy requires public policy ideas commensurate with the challenges of the 21st century. Our strategy calls for combining increased public investments in key growth-enhancing areas, a secure social safety net, and fiscal discipline. In that framework, the Project puts forward innovative proposals from leading economic thinkers — based on credible evidence and experience, not ideology or doctrine — to introduce new and effective policy options into the national debate. The Project is named after Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s first treasury secretary, who laid the foundation for the modern American economy. Consistent with the guiding principles of the Project, Hamilton stood for sound fiscal policy, believed
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Sentencing: the Basics
    Federal Sentencing: The Basics UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION United States Sentencing Commission www.ussc.govOne Columbus Circle, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 _____________________________________________________________________________ Jointly prepared in August 2015 by the Office of General Counsel and the Office of Education and Sentencing Practice Disclaimer : This document provided by the Commission’s staff is offered to assist in understanding and applying the sentencing guidelines and related federal statutes and rules of procedure. The information in this document does not necessarily represent the official position of the Commission, and it should not be considered definitive or comprehensive. The information in this document is not binding upon the Commission, courts, or the parties in any case. Federal Sentencing: The Basics TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 I. The Evolution of Federal Sentencing Since the 1980s ........................................................................................ 1 II. Overview of the Federal Sentencing Process .............................................................................................................. 5 A. Guilty Pleas and Plea Bargains .....................................................................................................................................5 B. Presentence Interview
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 Is No Excuse for Suspicionless Searches of Electronic Devices at the Border by Blaine H
    COVID-19 Is No Excuse for Suspicionless Searches of Electronic Devices at the Border By Blaine H. Evanson, Daniel R. Adler, and William F. Cole June 19, 2020 The coronavirus is not in your phone. Why travelers’ electronic devices without a warrant should it be used to justify border searches? supported by probable cause, or even without reasonablesuspicion that the traveler has been For the last four years, the U.S. border has exposed to COVID-19 or has violated related been a flashpoint for bitter public policy public health measures. disputes over immigration, the character of the country’s sovereignty, and the nature Such a breathtaking claim of unbounded and extent of constitutionally guaranteed investigatory authority would hardly be civil liberties. Many of these border- unprecedented for CBP. To the contrary, related disputes have receded from public it would be of a piece with CBP’s policy of consciousness as a result of 2020’s trifecta conducting suspicionless searches of electronic Blaine H. Evanson Partner of a presidential impeachment, a global devices—CBP already conducts tens of health pandemic, and racial tension over thousands of such searches every year. And policing. Yet as the country begins to emerge CBP would not be the only law enforcement from COVID-19 lockdowns, America’s agency to sift through digital data in an effort international borders are likely to resurface to trace the spread of COVID-19. State and as a key battleground for civil libertarians local law enforcement authorities have been and law enforcement officials. The cause? trawling through social media posts to arrest The “border search exception,” a little- travelers for violations of social distancing known loophole to the Fourth Amendment’s orders.
    [Show full text]
  • Episode Fourteen: Legal Process Hello, and Welcome to the Death
    Episode Fourteen: Legal Process Hello, and welcome to the Death Penalty Information Center’s podcast exploring issues related to capital punishment. In this edition, we will discuss the legal process in death penalty trials and appeals. How is a death penalty trial different from other trials? There are several differences between death penalty trials and traditional criminal proceedings. In most criminal cases, there is a single trial in which the jury determines whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. If the jury returns a verdict of guilty, the judge then determines the sentence. However, death penalty cases are divided into two separate trials. In the first trial, juries weigh the evidence of the crime to determine guilt or innocence. If the jury decides that the defendant is guilty, there is a second trial to determine the sentence. At the sentencing phase of the trial, jurors usually have only two options: life in prison without the possibility of parole, or a death sentence. During this sentencing trial, juries are asked to weigh aggravating factors presented by the prosecution against mitigating factors presented by the defense. How is a jury chosen for a death penalty trial? Like all criminal cases, the jury in a death penalty trial is chosen from a pool of potential jurors through a process called voir dire. The legal counsel for both the prosecution and defense have an opportunity to submit questions to determine any possible bias in the case. However, because the jury determines the sentence in capital trials, those juries must also be “death qualified,” that is, able to impose the death penalty in at least some cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Pretrial Detention and Bail Megan Stevenson* and Sandra G
    Pretrial Detention and Bail Megan Stevenson* and Sandra G. Mayson† Our current pretrial system imposes high costs on both the people who are detained pretrial and the taxpayers who foot the bill. These costs have prompted a surge of bail reform around the country. Reformers seek to reduce pretrial detention rates, as well as racial and socioeconomic disparities in the pretrial system, while simultaneously improving appearance rates and reducing pretrial crime. The current state of pretrial practice suggests that there is ample room for improvement. Bail hearings are often cursory, taking little time to evaluate a defendant’s risks, needs, or ability to pay. Money-bail practices lead to high rates of detention even among misdemeanor defendants and those who pose no serious risk of crime or flight. Infrequent evaluation means that the judges and magistrates who set bail have little information about how their bail-setting practices affect detention, appearance, and crime rates. Practical and low-cost interventions, such as court reminder systems, are underutilized. To promote lasting reform, this chapter identifies pretrial strategies that are both within the state’s authority and supported by empirical research. These interventions should be designed with input from stakeholders, and carefully evaluated to ensure that the desired improvements are achieved. INTRODUCTION The scope of pretrial detention in the United States is vast. Pretrial detainees account for two-thirds of jail inmates and 95% of the growth in the jail population over the last 20 years.1 There are 11 million jail admissions annually; on any given day, local jails house almost half a million people who are awaiting trial.2 The U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • GUIDE for ARREST, JAIL TIME/DETENTION, TRIAL/HEARING, and SENTENCING STAGES (Guide 1 of 3)
    Guide for Families Experiencing the Criminal Justice System GUIDE FOR ARREST, JAIL TIME/DETENTION, TRIAL/HEARING, AND SENTENCING STAGES (Guide 1 of 3) HTTP://WWW.YOUTH.GOV/COIP Families have unique needs and challenges when a parent is arrested. When this happens, family FAMILIES WILL TALK TO MANY members—including the children—are affected. PEOPLE DURING THESE FOUR This guide is the first in a series of three guides STAGES: that cover a family’s journey as the family goes through the stages of, and copes with, a loved • Lawyer or public defender one’s involvement in the justice system. • Judge and court personnel This guide covers the first four stages in the • Probation officer typical criminal justice process, and the other • Law enforcement two guides cover incarceration and reentry: • Jail or detention facility staff • Arrest (entry into the system) • Jail or detention case worker • Jail Time/Detention (prosecution • Child welfare (in some cases) and pretrial services) • Hearing/Trial (adjudication) Families can use the worksheet on the last page of this guide to keep track of • Sentencing (before incarceration) important names, phone numbers, and • Incarceration (Guide 2) e-mail addresses. • Reentry (Guide 3) This guide starts with descriptions and definitions guide. The questions are designed to help of the stages to help families understand the families and caregivers anticipate and respond to legal terms and processes. Having a better thoughts and concerns their children may have. understanding may help families feel less The tips offer suggestions to help caregivers overwhelmed. It may also help families know support and care for the children of parents who what to expect and what will happen next.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Procedure in Perspective Kit Kinports
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 98 Article 3 Issue 1 Fall Fall 2007 Criminal Procedure in Perspective Kit Kinports Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Kit Kinports, Criminal Procedure in Perspective, 98 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 71 (2007-2008) This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/07/9801-0071 THE JOURNALOF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol, 98, No. I Copyright 0 2008 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN PERSPECTIVE KIT KINPORTS* This Article attempts to situate the Supreme Court's constitutional criminal procedure jurisprudence in the academic debates surrounding the reasonable person standard, in particular, the extent to which objective standards should incorporate a particular individual's subjective characteristics. Analyzing the Supreme Court's search and seizure and confessions opinions, Ifind that the Court shifts opportunisticallyfrom case to case between subjective and objective tests, and between whose point of view-the police officer's or the defendant's-it views as controlling. Moreover, these deviations cannot be explained either by the principles the Court claims underlie the various constitutionalprovisions at issue or by the attributes of subjective and objective tests themselves. The Article then centers on the one Supreme Court opinion in this area to address the question of "subjective" objective standards, Yarborough v.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Radical” Notion of the Presumption of Innocence
    EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE POLICY THE “RADICAL” MAY 2020 Tracey Meares, NOTION OF THE Justice Collaboratory, Yale University Arthur Rizer, PRESUMPTION R Street Institute OF INNOCENCE The Square One Project aims to incubate new thinking on our response to crime, promote more effective strategies, and contribute to a new narrative of justice in America. Learn more about the Square One Project at squareonejustice.org The Executive Session was created with support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as part of the Safety and Justice Challenge, which seeks to reduce over-incarceration by changing the way America thinks about and uses jails. 04 08 14 INTRODUCTION THE CURRENT STATE OF WHY DOES THE PRETRIAL DETENTION PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE MATTER? 18 24 29 THE IMPACT OF WHEN IS PRETRIAL WHERE DO WE GO FROM PRETRIAL DETENTION DETENTION HERE? ALTERNATIVES APPROPRIATE? TO AND SAFEGUARDS AROUND PRETRIAL DETENTION 33 35 37 CONCLUSION ENDNOTES REFERENCES 41 41 42 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AUTHOR NOTE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE POLICY 04 THE ‘RADICAL’ NOTION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE “It was the smell of [] death, it was the death of a person’s hope, it was the death of a person’s ability to live the American dream.” That is how Dr. Nneka Jones Tapia described the Cook County Jail where she served as the institution’s warden (from May 2015 to March 2018). This is where we must begin. EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE POLICY 05 THE ‘RADICAL’ NOTION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE Any discussion of pretrial detention must Let’s not forget that Kalief Browder spent acknowledge that we subject citizens— three years of his life in Rikers, held on presumed innocent of the crimes with probable cause that he had stolen a backpack which they are charged—to something containing money, a credit card, and an iPod that resembles death.
    [Show full text]