Judicial bond-setting behavior: The perceived nature of the crime may matter more than how serious it is.

Abstract

Whether a criminal defendant will be released on bail or held in jail pretrial is one of the first decisions made in a criminal prosecution. This study examined whether a certain group of defendants is subject to the setting of higher bonds by virtue of the subjectively perceived nature of the offense with which the defendants are charged. We specifically tested whether, despite lower overall rearrest rates, judges are imposing higher bonds on defendants charged with a sex offense than on defendants charged with a nonsex offense of equal statutory offense level. Results showed a statistically significant difference in the bond rates between sex offenders and nonsex offenders, with the mean sex offense bond being set approximately $30,000 higher than the mean nonsex offense bond, despite controlling for level of offense, sex of the defendant, and judge setting the bond amount. Given the high costs of pretrial detention to both the defendant and the state, the utility of empirically based bond setting is discussed.

Ethnic Bias in Judicial Decision Making: Evidence from Criminal Appeals in Kenya

“…A written judgment can be conceived of as the final output of cognitive processes in which a judge uses evidence, legal concepts, and judicial discretion to support their decision (Maroney 2016; Rachlinski and Wistrich 2017; Simon 1998). 4 Our research builds on a robust literature examining how affective framing and cues shape legal reasoning and outcomes (Beattey, Matsuura, and Jeglic 2014; Black et al 2011; Liu and Li 2019; Wistrich, Rachlinski, and Guthrie 2015). Using this lens, we posit that if judges are indeed making decisions based on their implicit biases, such sentiments are likely reflected in their written legal judgments.…”

The misjudgment of criminal responsibility

“…Perhaps the most well studied is the process of jury decision‐making, including studies investigating the role of biases (Daftary‐Kapur, Dumas, & Penrod, ), the role of emotional evidence (Salerno & Bottoms, ), the role of jury and defendant characteristics (Penrod, ), the role of collective deliberation (Nuñez, McCrea, & Culhane, ), and the role of eyewitness testimony (Douglass, Neuschatz, Imrich, & Wilkinson, ; National Academies of Science, ). Studies of judicial decision‐making have investigated bond setting (Beattey, Matsuura, & Jeglic, ) and the role of cognitive biases, generally, as well as racial bias, specifically (Guthrie, Rachlinski, & Wistrich, ; Landsman & Rakos, ). The impact of confessions on juries and law enforcement (Kassin, ; Thompson, Kingree, & Desai, ) and studies of plea‐bargaining decision‐making by prosecutors and defense attorneys (Pezdek & O'Brien, ) have also been reported.…”