Pretrial Practices - A Preliminary Look at the Data

• NCJ Number: 73063
• Journal: Pretrial Issues Volume: 2 Issue: 1 Dated: (April 1980) Pages: complete issue
• Author(s): D E Pryor; D A Henry
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 29 pages
• Grant Number(s): 79-MU-AX-0033
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice
• Corporate Author: Pretrial Services Resource Ctr
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This paper examines data on pretrial programs in order to provide a preliminary assessment of such programs; it also describes assumptions based on national standards regarding such programs and explores adherence to the standards.

Abstract

Pretrial release and diversion programs have developed rapidly over the past 20 years. A recent estimate shows that of 121 release and 133 diversion programs exist throughout the United States, although these totals underestimate the scope of pretrial activity nationally. For this paper, the Pretrial Services Resource Center Staff conducted extensive interviews with staff members of the known pretrial release and adult diversion programs in the country. Questions raised covered a wide range of areas such as program procedures, policies, and levels of operation. In addition, findings were analyzed in terms of certain assumptions regarding pretrial program practices. The assumptions were based on national standards and goals relating to pretrial programs. For example, the assumption that rearrests should not be automatic grounds for termination from the program is examined in terms of response data. It is concluded that there is a wide diversity among both release and diversion programs in terms of practices, policies, and philosophies. In many instances, programs differ markedly from standards which have been developed on pretrial practices. Only about 50 percent of the programs appear to have practices which completely adhere to the intent of the 14 assumptions addressed in this review. There are not enough data to draw definitive conclusions, however. Moreover, no value judgments are implied by the stated findings. However, marked differences exist between pretrial standards and actual programs practices in the United States, and further examination and perhaps significant changes are needed. Tables and 12 footnotes are included. (Author abstract modified).