Pretrial risk assessment instruments in practice: The role of judicial discretion in pretrial reform

Abstract

Research Summary

We explored the extent to which the implementation of a pretrial risk assessment instrument (PRAI) corresponded to changes in the pretrial processing of defendants using multiple administrative data sources from a large county in the southeastern United States. Our findings revealed little evidence of reductions in detention lengths or increases in the use of nonfinancial forms of release following the tool's adoption. This was largely attributable to the exercise of judicial discretion, as judges frequently departed from the tool's recommendation using alternatives that were more punitive and often included financial conditions—particularly for Black and Latino defendants. Furthermore, the exercise of discretion was linked to increased rates of pretrial failure.

Policy Implications

PRAIs were adopted on a massive scale with the understanding that they are evidence-based and geared toward efficiently and equitably reducing pretrial populations; however, we are lacking the evaluative work to determine their impacts. Our findings suggest that PRAIs may not only undermine reform efforts, but may worsen disparities, if communities fail to complete the up-front work of discussing their expectations for pretrial decision making, including the conditions under which financial constraints may be justifiable.