Pretrial Practices - A Preliminary Look at the Data

• NCJ Number: 82121
• Author(s): D E Pryor; D A Henry
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 28 pages
• Grant Number(s): 79-MU-AX-0033
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice
• Corporate Author: Pretrial Services Resource Ctr
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Pretrial Issues, V 2, N 1 (April 1980)

Annotation

This report examines some assumptions regarding pretrial program practices and describes the existing level of adherence to them in order to assess whether variations in pretrial programs are justifiable and whether problems may exist.

Abstract

Seven diversion and six release assumptions are presented, plus one assumption that relates to both release and diversion program practices. The assumptions are taken from national standards and goals relating to pretrial, including those published by the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies, the American Bar Assocation, and others. Diversion assumptions state that cases should not be diverted that would otherwise have little or no penetration into the criminal justice system, that few automatic exclusions from diversion eligibility should be practiced, that rearrests should not be automatic grounds for termination, etc. Release assumptions support recommendations based on objective factors, an approach to determining eligibility based on local research and periodic reassessment, and other issues. Following each assumption is a brief description of the rationale underlying it, which was based on commentaries included in the published standards and goals. Survey results relevant to each assumption, obtained from interviews with pretrial release and adult diversion programs, are then presented. Findings point to a wide diversity among both release and diversion programs in terms of practices, policies, and philosophies. Only about half of the programs appear to have practices which completely adhere to the assumption addressed. These variations may reflect the extent to which programs have had to realistically adapt their practices to meet local situations. They may also suggest that some programs may be more conservative than necessary in implementing certain practices. Pretrial practitioners may want to take a second look at some of the assumptions/standards themselves. Footnotes and tables are included.