U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Report of the Connecticut Pretrial Commission to the General Assembly, 1980

NCJ Number
79843
Date Published
1980
Length
57 pages
Annotation
This report for 1980 offers proposals to the Connecticut Legislature to streamline criminal pretrial procedures in Connecticut, to reduce some of the strain on the State's judicial and correctional systems, and to deliver pretrial services in a more even handed, cost-effective manner.
Abstract
The Connecticut Pretrial Commission's recommendations are aimed at bringing increased efficiency and accountability to the pretrial process. The commission scrutinized Connecticut's pretrial programs and procedures in order to answer two questions. The first is whether decisions made at the pretrial level are based on sound criteria which are applied uniformly throughout the State, and if not, how uniformity can be achieved. The second is how criminal justice resources can be mobilized in the most cost-effective manner at the pretrial level to achieve the greatest impact at the earliest point in the justice system. It is recommended that the bail commission be restructured to insure that release decisions are made according to the same criteria statewide, that high levels of professionalism and accountability are maintained by bail commission staff, and that the bail commission becomes a more effective information-gathering arm of the courts. The pretrial commission also recommends that the 10 percent bail alternative be available to all misdemeanants and class D felons who request it, unless the court states its reasons for denying the request. Finally, the pretrial commission recommends that the revitalized bail commission take the initiative in achieving cost-effective delivery of pretrial services by establishing liaisons with other criminal justice and social service agencies and by revising the release interview process to permit early identification of needs which can be channeled to existing public or private agencies. Footnotes are given. Tables are appended. (Author summary modified)