IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/jecper/v35y2021i4p49-70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The US Pretrial System: Balancing Individual Rights and Public Interests

Author

Listed:
  • Will Dobbie
  • Crystal S. Yang

Abstract

In this article, we review a growing empirical literature on the effectiveness and fairness of the US pretrial system and discuss its policy implications. Despite the importance of this stage of the criminal legal process, researchers have only recently begun to explore how the pretrial system balances individual rights and public interests. We describe the empirical challenges that have prevented progress in this area and how recent work has made use of new data sources and quasi-experimental approaches to credibly estimate both the individual harms (such as loss of employment or government assistance) and public benefits (such as preventing non-appearance at court and new crimes) of cash bail and pretrial detention. These new data and approaches show that the current pretrial system imposes substantial short- and long-term economic harms on detained defendants in terms of lost earnings and government assistance, while providing little in the way of decreased criminal activity for the public interest. Non-appearances at court do significantly decrease for detained defendants, but the magnitudes cannot justify the economic harms to individuals observed in the data. A second set of studies shows that that the costs of cash bail and pretrial detention are disproportionately borne by Black and Hispanic individuals, giving rise to large and unfair racial differences in cash bail and detention that cannot be explained by underlying differences in pretrial misconduct risk. We then turn to policy implications and describe areas of future work that would enable a deeper understanding of what drives these undesirable outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Will Dobbie & Crystal S. Yang, 2021. "The US Pretrial System: Balancing Individual Rights and Public Interests," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 35(4), pages 49-70, Fall.
  • Handle: RePEc:aea:jecper:v:35:y:2021:i:4:p:49-70
    DOI: 10.1257/jep.35.4.49
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.aeaweb.org/doi/10.1257/jep.35.4.49
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3886/E149942V1
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.aeaweb.org/doi/10.1257/jep.35.4.49.ds
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1257/jep.35.4.49?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Devah Pager, 2003. "The mark of a criminal record," Natural Field Experiments 00319, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Ivan A Canay & Magne Mogstad & Jack Mount, 2024. "On the Use of Outcome Tests for Detecting Bias in Decision Making," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 91(4), pages 2135-2167.
    3. Will Dobbie & Jacob Goldin & Crystal S. Yang, 2018. "The Effects of Pretrial Detention on Conviction, Future Crime, and Employment: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Judges," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(2), pages 201-240, February.
    4. Becker, Gary S, 1993. "Nobel Lecture: The Economic Way of Looking at Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(3), pages 385-409, June.
    5. Nicolás Grau & Damián Vergara, "undated". "A Simple Test for Prejudice in Decision Processes: The Prediction-Based Outcome Test," Working Papers wp493, University of Chile, Department of Economics.
    6. Arpit Gupta & Christopher Hansman & Ethan Frenchman, 2016. "The Heavy Costs of High Bail: Evidence from Judge Randomization," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 471-505.
    7. Amanda Agan & Sonja Starr, 2018. "Ban the Box, Criminal Records, and Racial Discrimination: A Field Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(1), pages 191-235.
    8. Emily Leslie & Nolan G. Pope, 2017. "The Unintended Impact of Pretrial Detention on Case Outcomes: Evidence from New York City Arraignments," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(3), pages 529-557.
    9. Peter Hull, 2021. "What Marginal Outcome Tests Can Tell Us About Racially Biased Decision-Making," NBER Working Papers 28503, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Megan T Stevenson, 2018. "Distortion of Justice: How the Inability to Pay Bail Affects Case Outcomes," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(4), pages 511-542.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Doménech-Pascual, Gabriel & Jiménez, Juan Luis, 2024. "Changes in damages when liability rules change: an empirical study on compensation for the time spent in pretrial detention," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    2. Jason Baron, E. & Jacob, Brian & Ryan, Joseph, 2023. "Pretrial juvenile detention," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    3. Patricio Dom'inguez & Nicol'as Grau & Dami'an Vergara, 2022. "Discrimination Against Immigrants in the Criminal Justice System: Evidence from Pretrial Detentions," Papers 2202.10685, arXiv.org.
    4. Rademakers, Robbert & van Hoorn, André, 2022. "How Racial Measures Affect the Estimation of Racial Inequality," MPRA Paper 121770, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:6:p:1176-1207 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:6:p:1176-1207 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Bharti, Nitin Kumar & Roy, Sutanuka, 2023. "The early origins of judicial stringency in bail decisions: Evidence from early childhood exposure to Hindu-Muslim riots in India," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    4. Shroff, Ravi & Vamvourellis, Konstantinos, 2022. "Pretrial release judgments and decision fatigue," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117579, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. David Arnold & Will Dobbie & Peter Hull, 2022. "Measuring Racial Discrimination in Bail Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(9), pages 2992-3038, September.
    6. Johannes W. Ligtenberg & Tiemen Woutersen, 2024. "Multidimensional clustering in judge designs," Papers 2406.09473, arXiv.org.
    7. Amanda Agan & Matthew Freedman & Emily Owens, 2021. "Is Your Lawyer a Lemon? Incentives and Selection in the Public Provision of Criminal Defense," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 103(2), pages 294-309, May.
    8. Jason Baron, E. & Jacob, Brian & Ryan, Joseph, 2023. "Pretrial juvenile detention," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    9. Patricio Dom'inguez & Nicol'as Grau & Dami'an Vergara, 2022. "Discrimination Against Immigrants in the Criminal Justice System: Evidence from Pretrial Detentions," Papers 2202.10685, arXiv.org.
    10. Joshua Grossman & Julian Nyarko & Sharad Goel, 2023. "Racial bias as a multi‐stage, multi‐actor problem: An analysis of pretrial detention," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 86-133, March.
    11. Megan T Stevenson, 2018. "Distortion of Justice: How the Inability to Pay Bail Affects Case Outcomes," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(4), pages 511-542.
    12. Pekkurnaz, Didem, 2023. "Causal effect of obesity on the probability of employment in women in Turkey," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    13. Albright, Alex, 2022. "No Money Bail, No Problems? Trade-offs in a Pretrial Automatic Release Program," SocArXiv 42pbz, Center for Open Science.
    14. Sabia, Joseph J. & Dave, Dhaval & Alotaibi, Fawaz & Rees, Daniel I., 2024. "The effects of recreational marijuana laws on drug use and crime," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    15. Carl Lieberman & Elizabeth Luh & Michael Mueller-Smith, 2023. "Criminal court fees, earnings, and expenditures: A multi-state RD analysis of survey and administrative data," Working Papers 23-06, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    16. William Arbour & Steeve Marchand, 2022. "Parole, Recidivism, and the Role of Supervised Transition," Working Papers tecipa-725, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    17. Elsa Augustine & Johanna Lacoe & Steven Raphael & Alissa Skog, 2022. "The Impact of Felony Diversion in San Francisco," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(3), pages 683-709, June.
    18. Nicolás Grau & Gonzalo Marivil & Jorge Rivera, 2019. "The Effect of Pretrial Detention on Labor Market Outcomes," Working Papers wp488, University of Chile, Department of Economics.
    19. Doménech-Pascual, Gabriel & Jiménez, Juan Luis, 2024. "Changes in damages when liability rules change: an empirical study on compensation for the time spent in pretrial detention," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    20. Campbell, Christopher M. & Labrecque, Ryan M. & Weinerman, Michael & Sanchagrin, Ken, 2020. "Gauging detention dosage: Assessing the impact of pretrial detention on sentencing outcomes using propensity score modeling," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    21. St. Louis, Stacie, 2022. "Bail denied or bail too high? Disentangling cumulative disadvantage by pretrial detention type," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    22. Angela Zhou & Andrew Koo & Nathan Kallus & Rene Ropac & Richard Peterson & Stephen Koppel & Tiffany Bergin, 2021. "An Empirical Evaluation of the Impact of New York's Bail Reform on Crime Using Synthetic Controls," Papers 2111.08664, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • J15 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Minorities, Races, Indigenous Peoples, and Immigrants; Non-labor Discrimination
    • K14 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Criminal Law
    • K42 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aea:jecper:v:35:y:2021:i:4:p:49-70. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.