Ecological Contributors to Disparities in Bond Amounts and Pretrial Detention

Abstract

Pretrial dispositions have been receiving greater attention in the literature on extralegal disparities in criminal case processing. We examined the relevance of areas in which crimes are committed for court decisions regarding bond amounts and whether suspects are ultimately detained prior to trial. A random sample of 2,677 persons charged with felony crimes committed in 820 blocks of a major urban U.S. jurisdiction was examined, with separate analyses of property, violent, and drug offenses. Defendants were more likely to be held in jail prior to trial when crimes were committed in more disadvantaged neighborhoods (higher percentages of female-headed households, vacant residences, renters, and African Americans). However, the odds of pretrial detention were also higher for defendants accused of crimes in less disadvantaged neighborhoods relative to their own. Evidence favors neighborhood composition as an important contributor to disparities in pretrial detention beyond individual factors such as a defendant’s race.

Institutionalizing inequality in the courts: Decomposing racial and ethnic disparities in detention, conviction, and sentencing*

“…Moreover, single‐locale studies also enable us to examine local practices in a more contextualized manner and identify general mechanisms of inequality that could be applied to other places (Lynch et al., 2013). For these reasons, single‐jurisdiction studies have been increasingly used in sentencing research (Johnson & Larroulet, 2019; King & Johnson, 2016; Kutateladze, 2018; Kutateladze et al., 2016; Leiber & Blowers, 2003; McCoy et al., 2012; Metcalfe & Chiricos, 2018; Owens et al., 2017; Wooldredge et al., 2016). Our findings about criminal history (King;, 2019; Owens et al., 2017), pretrial detention (Martinez et al., 2019; Schlesinger, 2007), charging (Owens et al., 2017; Rehavi & Starr, 2014), and economic marginalization (Mustard, 2001) explaining inequality in court outcomes comport with prior studies.…”

“…Ray (2019) further differentiated between macro‐level institutional structures, such as the racialized laws of the state, with meso‐level organizational structures, such as individual criminal justice systems and their ability to create and implement policies. Thus, racial inequality may occur through formal laws stemming from the state, such as mandatory minimums (Farrell, 2003; Ulmer et al., 2007) and sentencing enhancements (Schlesinger, 2011), or through formal policies or informal practices set by organizations, such as bail setting based on bond schedules (Allen, 2016; Demuth & Steffensmeier, 2004; Wooldredge, Frank, & Goulette, 2016) or prosecutorial charging policies (Vera Institute of Justice, 2018). In this study, we consider how legal and case factors, reflecting charging practices, the use of criminal history, and pretrial detention might reflect inequalities institutionalized through a blend of state and organizational sources.…”

Time, Money, and Punishment: Institutional Racial-Ethnic Inequalities in Pretrial Detention and Case Outcomes

“…For example, economically marginalized defendants may be detained for increased time in part because of their assigned bond amounts, but also because of their SES. Given the evidence of harsher pretrial outcomes among Black and Latinx defendants (Demuth & Steffensmeier, 2004; Sacks et al, 2015; Wooldredge et al, 2017), a similar pattern may play out over time and result in cumulative disadvantages in pretrial detention. Although time detained pretrial is not an explicit decision made by court actors, nor is it directly determined via institutional tools, detention time represents a structural component through which we can see the reinforcement and growth of racial inequality in the criminal justice system.…”

Neighborhood Context and the Pretrial Process: Do Defendants Face Adverse Outcomes Due to Their Home Address?

“…1 For example, as there are greater criminal opportunities in socially disorganized neighborhoods (e.g., Shaw & McKay, 1942), court actors may consider the neighborhood as a risk factor in determining defendants’ likelihood of reoffending. Moreover, court actors may deem defendants from a socially disorganized neighborhood more dangerous (Kutateladze et al, 2014; Wooldredge et al, 2016). Alternatively, court actors may treat defendants who reside in socially organized communities more harshly as they are perceived to threaten the social order within affluent communities (J.…”