| NCJ Number: |
44256   |
| |
|
| Title: |
DECISION THEORY AND THE PRE-TRIAL RELEASE DECISION IN CRIMINAL CASES. |
| |
|
| Journal: |
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI LAW REVIEW Volume:31 Issue:5 Dated:(NOVEMBER 1977) Pages:1433-1491 |
| |
|
| Author(s): |
S NAGEL; M NEEF; S S SCHRAMM |
| |
|
| Corporate Author: |
University of Miami
School of Law
United States of America |
| |
|
| Date Published: |
1977 |
| |
|
| Page Count: |
59 |
| |
|
| Sponsoring Agency: |
Ford Foundation
New York, NY 10017
University of Illinois
Urbana, IL 61801
University of Miami
Coral Gables, FL 33124
US Dept of Justice
US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
Washington, DC 20531 |
| |
|
| Format: |
Article |
| |
|
| Language: |
English |
| |
|
| Country: |
United States of America |
| |
|
| Annotation: |
A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK WITHIN WHICH TO ANALYZE THE RELEASE-OR-HOLD AND BOND-SETTING DECISIONS IS PROPOSED IN AN ARTICLE CONCERNED WITH INCONSISTENCY IN PRETRIAL RELEASE DECISIONS. |
| |
|
| Abstract: |
THE PRETRIAL RELEASE DECISION IS ANALYZED FROM A DECISION THEORY PERSPECTIVE, WHICH EMPHASIZES THE POSSIBLE BENEFITS AND COSTS TO ARRAIGNMENT JUDGES AND TO SOCIETY UNDER A VARIETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES. DECISION THEORY INVOLVES THE SELECTION OF THE OPTIMUM DECISION FOR MAXIMIZING BENEFITS IN LIGHT OF THE PROBABLE OCCURRENCE OF UNCERTAIN EVENTS. THE DECISION OPTIONS ARE TO RELEASE ON LOW BOND OR ON THE DEFENDANT'S OWN RECOGNIZANCE, OR TO HOLD ON HIGH BOND OR ON A NONBONDABLE CHARGE. THE KEY UNCERTAIN EVENTS ARE THE DEFENDANT'S APPEARANCE IN COURT AND THE DEFENDANT'S INVOLVEMENT IN A CRIME WHILE RELEASED. IN PRETRIAL RELEASE DECISIONMAKING, ASSUMED GOALS RELATE TO MAXIMIZING THE PROBABILITY THAT THE DEFENDANT WILL APPEAR IN COURT AND THAT HE WILL BE RELEASED PRIOR TO TRIAL, AND MINIMIZING THE COSTS OF REARRESTING BAILJUMPERS, PRETRIAL CRIME INVOLVEMENT, JAIL MAINTENANCE, LOST GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT, AND THE BITTERNESS THAT RESULTS WHEN A JAILED DEFENDANT IS ACQUITTED OR WHEN HIS CASE IS DISMISSED. THE ANALYSIS POINTS UP FACTORS IN DESIGNING POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WILL ENCOURAGE ARRAIGNMENT JUDGES TO BALANCE THEIR CONCERN OVER AVOIDING THE ERRONEOUS RELEASE OF DEFENDANTS WHO WOULD FAIL TO APPEAR IN COURT WILL EQUAL CONCERN OVER THE ERRONEOUS HOLDING OF DEFENDANTS WHO WOULD APPEAR. IT IS NOTED THAT THE CONCEPTS AND METHODS OF DECISION THEORY ARE APPLICABLE TO OTHER CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONS INVOLVING CONTINGENT EVENTS, E.G., THE POLICE OFFICER'S DECISION TO ARREST OR ISSUE A SUMMONS, THE ATTORNEY'S DECISION TO GO TO TRIAL OR ACCEPT AN OUT-OF-COURT SETTLEMENT, THE SENTENCING JUDGE'S DECISION TO INCARCERATE, AND THE PAROLE BOARD'S DECISION TO CONTINUE INCARCERATION. |
| |
|
| Index Term(s): |
Bail/Financial Release; Decisionmaking; Detention; Judicial discretion; Pretrial release |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=44256 |
| |
|
