How Mental Illness Influences Pretrial Release Decisions for People Charged with Misdemeanors.

Judges generally make pretrial release decisions based on the risk that a defendant will miss court appearances or pose a danger to the community; for criminal cases initiated in state courts, this decision-making is guided by state bail statutes, with judicial discretion within statutory limits. Individuals with mental illnesses may be disproportionately exposed to pretrial detention, exposing them to the psychiatric, medical, and legal consequences of incarceration. The purpose of this literature review was to find out if and how mental illness is related to missed court appearances or rearrest while individuals are awaiting trial. This review identified a limited number of empirical studies examining the association between mental illness and these outcomes. The results of the studies were variable. Although some studies found that mental illness variables predicted failure to appear, the relationship was more prominent for women than men. Substance use and criminal history appear to be more consistent predictors than mental illness. The data on the relationship between mental illness-related variables and rearrest are also mixed. Further research is needed to understand if or how mental illness affects decisions on pretrial detention.

In the most populous counties of the United States, approximately 60% of defendants arrested on a felony charge are released prior to the disposition of their case. Pretrial release in U.S. courts is influenced by the presence of commercial bond agents who provide a service of releasing defendants in exchange for a fee and assurances that defendants will make all court appearances. An arrested defendant can also be released through non-financial means including a release on own recognizance or release through a pretrial monitoring program. Recent studies have shown that commercial bond agents have become the most prevalent form of pretrial release offered to felony defendants in courts located in highly populous jurisdictions. The growth of the commercial bond industry raises questions about the effectiveness of this type of pretrial release in preventing missed court appearances. How do commercial bond agents compare with other forms of pretrial release in ensuring that released defendants make all court appearances and do not become fugitives? Prior research shows commercial bond agents doing better at preventing missed court appearances compared to non-surety release alternatives. Most of this research, however, does not address why surety agents excel at preventing missed court appearances. Defendants released through surety bond might skip court less frequently because they are being monitored more effectively compared to other forms of pretrial release or because surety agents have the capacity to select defendants who are most likely to make their court appearances. This paper engages in a preliminary exploration of whether monitoring practices or selection effects accounts for the efficacy of surety bond by examining defendants released in counties where surety agents are involved in nearly all facets of the pretrial release decision against a set of counties where surety agents play little to no role in pretrial release. Results provide mixed evidence suggesting that both monitoring capacity and selection effects account for the performance of surety agents at getting their clients back to court.

Research summaryThis study provides a rigorous assessment of the public safety benefits of pretrial detention by estimating the criminogenic and punitive effects of spending at least 1 week in pretrial detention across three jail systems in two states. We use a doubly robust difference‐in‐differences design to show that pretrial detention increases the odds for someone to miss a court appearance or be arrested by roughly 50% and increases the odds of convictions by 36%. This evidence was support by a series of supplemental analyses demonstrating that spending more than 1 day and spending more than 3 days in pretrial detention increased the odds of negative pretrial outcomes compared to someone who was booked and released from jail. The findings of this study provide evidence that pretrial detention can be counterproductive to public safety in that it leads to increased likelihood that individuals will miss court and be arrested for new crimes.Policy implicationsJails are a unique criminal justice contact point because they hold individuals at different stages of case processing, including individuals awaiting trial, and those serving shorter sentences or waiting to be transferred to prison. Pretrial release is arguably one of the most consequential decisions in case processing for an individual. Combining our findings with the punitive and collateral effects of time spent in pretrial detention signals a need for policies to identify effective methods of release that maximize liberty, safety, and equity and minimize the criminogenic effects of pretrial detention. Jails are inhabited with pretrial detainees, detention makes outcomes worse for these detainees, and detention does not deliver on public safety as intended. We argue that a more limited and targeted use of pretrial detention is needed and more research attention on alternatives to pretrial detention.

Bail Reform in New York State and other states has been labeled the boogey man blamed anecdotally by law enforcement for the trend of gun and youth violence emerging especially during the COVID epidemic. As a refreshing antidote to popular rhetoric, the book Punishing Poverty-How Bail and Pretrial Detention Fuel Inequalities in the Criminal Justice System by authors Christine S. Scott-Hayward & Henry F. Fradella provides a sober analysis of the history, science, workings and possible reform of the bail system, as an insight into improving access to equal justice. The idea that scientific instruments may be culturally biased creates a dilemma as to whether pretrial detention risk should be determined subjectively by judges or by imperfect algorithms that are proxies for race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Christine S. Scott-Hayward & Henry F. Fradella cautiously recommend moving to a risk-based system of pretrial justice because risk assessments seem to be an imperfect rational alternative to the goals of incentivizing court appearances and protecting public safety. One possible solution is that bail reform should refrain from predicting violence or future court appearances, but should focus objectively on the facts. The law cannot subjectively and futilely try to predict future behavior. In this way, the New York reform, which avoids the prognostication of dangerousness is fair and distinctive. Since bail and pre-trial detention is just one of many unequally administered functions of the criminal justice system, the analysis in this book opens the door for considering wholesale improvements across the system.

Prevalence of Serious Mental Illness Among Jail Inmates

This study estimated current prevalence rates of serious mental illness among adult male and female inmates in five jails during two time periods (four jails in each period). During two data collection phases (2002-2003 and 2005-2006), recently admitted inmates at two jails in Maryland and three jails in New York were selected to receive the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). Selection was based on systematic sampling of data from a brief screen for symptoms of mental illness that was used at admission for all inmates. The SCID was administered to a total of 822 inmates-358 during phase I and 464 during phase II. To determine the current (past-month) prevalence of serious mental illness (defined as major depressive disorder; depressive disorder not otherwise specified; bipolar disorder I, II, and not otherwise specified; schizophrenia spectrum disorder; schizoaffective disorder; schizophreniform disorder; brief psychotic disorder; delusional disorder; and psychotic disorder not otherwise specified), interview data were weighted against strata constructed from the screening samples for male and female inmates by jail and study phase. Across jails and study phases the rate of current serious mental illness for male inmates was 14.5% (asymmetric 95% confidence interval [CI]=11.0%-18.9%) and for female inmates it was 31.0% (asymmetric CI=21.7%-42.1%). The estimates in this study have profound implications in terms of resource allocation for treatment in jails and in community-based settings for individuals with mental illness who are involved in the justice system.

This column describes federal and state laws to restrict access to firearms among people with mental illness. The contribution to public safety of these laws is likely to be small because only 3%-5% of violent acts are attributable to serious mental illness, and most do not involve guns. The categories of persons with mental illnesses targeted by the laws may not be at higher risk of violence than other subgroups in this population. The laws may deter people from seeking treatment for fear of losing the right to possess firearms and may reinforce stereotypes of persons with mental illnesses as dangerous.

New Models of Collaboration Between Criminal Justice and Mental Health Systems

Objective-This retrospective cohort study examined the association between co-occurring serious mental illness and substance use disorders and parole revocation among inmates from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the nation's largest state prison system. Methods-The study population included all 8,149 inmates who were released under parole supervision between September 1, 2006, and November 31, 2006.An electronic database was used to identify inmates whose parole was revoked within 12 months of their release.The independent risk of parole revocation attributable to psychiatric disorders, substance use disorders, and other covariates was assessed with logistic regression analysis.Results-Parolees with a dual diagnosis of a major psychiatric disorder (major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or other psychotic disorder) and a substance use disorder had a substantially increased risk of having their parole revoked because of either a technical violation (adjusted odds ratio [OR]=1.7,95% confidence interval [CI]=1.4-2.4) or commission of a new criminal offense (OR=2.8,95% CI=1.7-4.5) in the 12 months after their release.However, parolees with a diagnosis of either a major psychiatric disorder alone or a substance use disorder alone demonstrated no such increased risk.Conclusions-These findings highlight the need for future investigations of specific social, behavioral, and other factors that underlie higher rates of parole revocation among individuals with co-occurring serious mental illness and substance use disorders.Over the past four decades the widespread deinstitutionalization of persons with serious mental illness (1-3), the increase in drug-related arrests (4,5), and the reduction of community-based mental health care (1,2) have resulted in a substantial overrepresentation of persons with serious mental illness in the U.S. correctional system (1,2,6).Approximately 10% to 20% of U.S. prison inmates are estimated to have an axis I major mental disorder of thought or mood, such as major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia (7-12).Moreover, a majority of inmates with serious mental illness have a comorbid substance use disorder (7,(12)(13)(14)(15).A number of investigations have examined predictors of recidivism among released inmates (16)(17)(18)(19).Although results of these studies-conducted throughout a variety of criminal justice

Pretrial risk assessment instruments are used in many jurisdictions to inform decisions regarding pretrial release and conditions. Many are concerned that the use of pretrial risk assessment instruments may be contributing to worsened, not improved, pretrial outcomes, including increased rates of pretrial detention and exacerbated racial disparities in pretrial decisions. These concerns have led prominent organizations to reverse their position on the role of pretrial risk assessment instruments in pretrial system change. Reforms that centered on their use have been rolled back or have failed to be implemented in the first place. However, the scientific evidence behind these concerns is lacking. Instead, the findings of rigorous research show that the results of pretrial risk assessment instruments demonstrate good accuracy in predicting new criminal activity, including violent crime, during the pretrial period, even when there are differences between groups defined by race and ethnicity. Furthermore, the scientific evidence suggests they can be an effective strategy to help achieve pretrial system change, including reducing pretrial detention for people of color and white people, alike, when their results are actually used to inform decision-making. In this article, we review the scientific evidence in relation to three primary critiques of pretrial risk assessment instruments, namely, that their results have poor accuracy and are racially biased and that their use increases pretrial detention rates. We also provide recommendations for addressing these critiques to ensure that their use supports, rather than detracts from, the goals of pretrial reform and articulates an agenda for future research.

Reducing the pretrial detention population has been a cornerstone of movements to end mass incarceration. Across many US cities, there are ongoing public debates on policies that would end pretrial detention due to the inability to afford bail, with some raising concerns that doing so would increase community violence. To evaluate changes in firearm violence after New Jersey's 2017 bail reform policy that eliminated financial barriers to avoiding pretrial detention. This case-control study used synthetic control methods to examine changes in firearm mortality and combined fatal and nonfatal shootings in New Jersey (2014-2019). New Jersey was chosen because it was one of the first states to systematically implement cash bail reform. Outcomes in New Jersey were compared with a weighted combination of 36 states that did not implement any kind of reform to pretrial detention during the study period. Data were analyzed from April 2023 to March 2024. Implementation of New Jersey's cash bail reform law in 2017. Quarterly rates of fatal and nonfatal firearm assault injuries and firearm self-harm injuries per 100 000 people. Although New Jersey's pretrial detention population dramatically decreased under bail reform, the study did not find evidence of increases in overall firearm mortality (average treatment effect on the treated, -0.26 deaths per 100 000) or gun violence (average treatment effect on the treated, -0.24 deaths per 100 000), or within racialized groups during the postpolicy period. Incarceration and gun violence are major public health problems impacting racially and economically marginalized groups. Cash bail reform may be an important tool for reducing pretrial detention and advancing health equity without exacerbating community violence.

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 present research examined homelessness, race/ethnicity, and pretrial detention in the plea bargaining process. We predicted that homelessness, Hispanic ethnicity, and pretrial detention would be positively associated with unfavorable plea bargaining outcomes. We coded defendant characteristics and plea bargaining variables for a random sample (N = 500) of criminal cases from 2016 in Santa Cruz County, California. We analyzed the associations between these variables using binary logistic and ordinal regressions. Homeless defendants were much more likely to be held in pretrial detention (odds ratio [OR] = 5.05), less likely to post bail (OR = 0.17), more likely to accept a "credit for time served" plea offer (OR = 2.26), more likely to have cases dismissed as part of a plea bargain (OR = 5.63), and more likely to receive a longer custodial sentence (OR = 2.60) than housed defendants. Defendants who did not post bail received longer custodial sentences than those who did (OR = 3.40), and pretrial detention mediated the relationship between homelessness and longer custodial sentences. White-versus-Hispanic comparisons were not statistically significant. Homelessness and pretrial detention were associated with significant adverse effects on plea-bargained case outcomes. Findings regarding homeless defendants suggest that they have divergent enough experiences from other defendants to make them a distinct defendant population whose specific experiences warrant further study. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Ireland has a comparatively low pre-trial detention rate by European standards, at around 14 pre-trial detainees per 100,000 population. This article seeks to explore one factor which may explain a lower use of pre-trial detention in Ireland: its legal culture. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with judges, prosecution lawyers, defence lawyers and probation staff, the article finds that the constitutional protection of the right to bail (the key alternative to pre-trial detention in Ireland), an enduring legal tradition which historically prohibited the use of a risk of offending ground, and shared views and assumptions about the objectives of pre-trial detention hearings amongst judges, prosecution and defence lawyers, have influenced how such actors engage in the decision-making process about the use of pre-trial detention. The article argues that more attention needs to be given to the role of legal culture to examine why detention rates differ across Europe.

Anticonvulsant Treatment for Psychiatric and Seizure Indications Among Youths