Understanding racial disparities in pretrial detention recommendations to shape policy reform

IF 3.5 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Jennifer Skeem, Lina Montoya, Christopher Lowenkamp
{"title":"Understanding racial disparities in pretrial detention recommendations to shape policy reform","authors":"Jennifer Skeem,&nbsp;Lina Montoya,&nbsp;Christopher Lowenkamp","doi":"10.1111/1745-9133.12620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Research Summary</h3>\n \n <p>Federal pretrial services and probation officers assess defendants and make influential recommendations that defendants be either released or detained, based on their threat to community safety and risk of flight. To inform efforts to reduce disparities in pretrial detention, we examined officers’ decision making about 149,815 defendants across 81 districts. Overall, the probability of a detention recommendation was 34% higher for Black than White defendants. Racial disparities were most pronounced in ambiguous cases that invoked substantial officer discretion—including cases where the defendant had little or no criminal record. Nevertheless, mediation analyses revealed that up to 79% of the racial disparity in detention recommendations operates through institutionalized factors (i.e., pretrial policy) rather than personally mediated factors (e.g., implicit racism or classism). The lion's share of the disparity operates through one institutionalized factor alone: criminal history.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Policy Implications</h3>\n \n <p>This study illustrates an empirical strategy for understanding the pathways through which disparities operate, which is crucial for shaping effective solutions. Providing officers with training and decision guides could reduce personally mediated bias—which is crucial for high discretion cases. However, this study shows that disparities mostly flow through institutionalized bias. So, greater gains may be had by making strategic shifts in policies and their implementation. One promising direction is to corral criminal history by adopting a tight definition that demonstrably predicts violence and failure to appear, and limiting the weight assigned to criminal history versus other predictive factors, when making recommendations. Another promising direction is to adopt risk-based release policies that leverage an existing tool to reduce both detention rates and racial disparities.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47902,"journal":{"name":"Criminology & Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminology & Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12620","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research Summary

Federal pretrial services and probation officers assess defendants and make influential recommendations that defendants be either released or detained, based on their threat to community safety and risk of flight. To inform efforts to reduce disparities in pretrial detention, we examined officers’ decision making about 149,815 defendants across 81 districts. Overall, the probability of a detention recommendation was 34% higher for Black than White defendants. Racial disparities were most pronounced in ambiguous cases that invoked substantial officer discretion—including cases where the defendant had little or no criminal record. Nevertheless, mediation analyses revealed that up to 79% of the racial disparity in detention recommendations operates through institutionalized factors (i.e., pretrial policy) rather than personally mediated factors (e.g., implicit racism or classism). The lion's share of the disparity operates through one institutionalized factor alone: criminal history.

Policy Implications

This study illustrates an empirical strategy for understanding the pathways through which disparities operate, which is crucial for shaping effective solutions. Providing officers with training and decision guides could reduce personally mediated bias—which is crucial for high discretion cases. However, this study shows that disparities mostly flow through institutionalized bias. So, greater gains may be had by making strategic shifts in policies and their implementation. One promising direction is to corral criminal history by adopting a tight definition that demonstrably predicts violence and failure to appear, and limiting the weight assigned to criminal history versus other predictive factors, when making recommendations. Another promising direction is to adopt risk-based release policies that leverage an existing tool to reduce both detention rates and racial disparities.

了解审前拘留建议中的种族差异以制定政策改革
研究摘要联邦审前服务和缓刑官员评估被告,并根据被告对社区安全的威胁和逃跑风险,提出有影响力的建议,释放或拘留被告。为了为减少审前拘留差异的努力提供信息,我们调查了81个地区约149815名被告的警官决策。总体而言,黑人被告被建议拘留的可能性比白人被告高34%。种族差异在援引大量官员自由裁量权的模糊案件中最为明显,包括被告几乎没有或根本没有犯罪记录的案件。然而,调解分析显示,拘留建议中高达79%的种族差异是通过制度化因素(即审前政策)而非个人调解因素(如隐性种族主义或阶级主义)产生的。这种差距的最大部分仅通过一个制度化因素发挥作用:犯罪史。政策含义这项研究展示了一种经验策略,用于理解差异的运作途径,这对制定有效的解决方案至关重要。为官员提供培训和决策指南可以减少个人调解的偏见——这对高度自由裁量权的案件至关重要。然而,这项研究表明,差异主要是通过制度化的偏见产生的。因此,通过在政策及其实施方面进行战略转变,可能会取得更大的成果。一个有希望的方向是通过采用一个严格的定义来收集犯罪史,该定义可以明显地预测暴力和未出现,并在提出建议时限制犯罪史相对于其他预测因素的权重。另一个有希望的方向是采取基于风险的释放政策,利用现有工具来降低拘留率和种族差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Criminology & Public Policy
Criminology & Public Policy CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
6.50%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Criminology & Public Policy is interdisciplinary in nature, devoted to policy discussions of criminology research findings. Focusing on the study of criminal justice policy and practice, the central objective of the journal is to strengthen the role of research findings in the formulation of crime and justice policy by publishing empirically based, policy focused articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信