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

Abstract

While prior research finds that pretrial detention has downstream consequences for racial inequalities in conviction and sentencing, it is often conceptualized as a discrete event within the criminal justice system. This study instead argues that pretrial detention operates as a racial-ethnic stratification process across time. We assess whether temporal and monetary dimensions of pretrial produce and reinforce racial-ethnic disparities in pretrial and subsequent case outcomes. Results indicate that time and money significantly stratify defendants by race and ethnicity, where bond amounts increase time detained, and that time detained in turn reinforces racial inequalities in conviction and incarceration. Indicative of cumulative understandings of inequality, our study shows how time and money in pretrial detention perpetuate inequalities in the criminal justice system.

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

“…In line with cumulative disadvantage studies finding that earlier decisions have downstream consequences (Kutateladze et al., 2014; Schlesinger, 2007), we find that pretrial detention explains inequality in conviction and jail sentences. Since Black people in Miami‐Dade's criminal justice system are disproportionately pretrial detained, they are disadvantaged in the plea‐bargaining process (Martinez et al., 2019). Although some research has examined the influence of pretrial detention (Schlesinger, 2007), charging (Owens et al., 2017), and plea‐bargaining (Bushway & Piehl, 2007) on disparate case outcomes, more work is needed given that sentencing inequalities reflect the culmination of a series of prior decisions (Fischman & Scanzenbach, 2012; Rehavi & Starr, 2014).…”

“…Scholars have also found that pretrial detention creates inequalities in conviction and sentencing (Jones, 2013; Martinez, Petersen, & Omori, 2019; Schlesinger, 2007; Stevenson, 2016). This pattern is highlighted by the cumulative disadvantage perspective, which suggests that initial disadvantages in early stages produce compounding sentencing disparities (Kutateladze et al., 2014; Omori, 2019; Spohn, 2000; Sutton, 2013; Zatz, 1987, 2000).…”

“…This pattern is highlighted by the cumulative disadvantage perspective, which suggests that initial disadvantages in early stages produce compounding sentencing disparities (Kutateladze et al., 2014; Omori, 2019; Spohn, 2000; Sutton, 2013; Zatz, 1987, 2000). Black and Latino people are disadvantaged in pretrial detention, where judges are more likely to detain them (Demuth, 2003; Demuth & Steffensmeier, 2004; Martinez et al., 2019; Schlesinger, 2005; Spohn, 2008; Wooldredge, 2012) or issue them higher bond amounts (Demuth & Steffensmeier, 2004). Pretrial detention, in turn, results in a greater likelihood of conviction through plea bargaining and in a more severe sentence (Jones, 2013; Schlesinger, 2007; Stevenson, 2016).…”

“…Previous research has found that pretrial detention is used as a coercive tool for securing convictions, leading people to plead to more serious charges (Schlesinger, 2007) or waive their trial rights (Lynch, 2016). In short, because Black and Latino people have an increased chance of being detained pretrial, it operates as a stratifying mechanism, disadvantaging them further in terms of conviction and incarceration (Martinez et al., 2019; Schlesinger, 2007).…”

“…For example, inequality in pretrial detention decisions may stem both from an institutional source (bond schedules and detention policies) and from how judges are implementing decisions (Menefee, 2017). Conviction decisions stem from the power of mandatory minimums and other prosecutorial charging policies (Engen, 2009; Fischman & Scanzenbach, 2012), as well as from the leverage gained through pretrial detention (Jones, 2013; Martinez et al., 2019; Schlesinger, 2007; Stevenson, 2016), implemented through prosecutors (Bushway & Forst, 2013). Sentencing may reflect a blend of sentencing guidelines or scores (Rehavi & Starr, 2014) but also prosecutorial recommendations and judges to impose terms (Bushway & Forst, 2013; Lynch & Omori, 2018).…”