Judicial Discretion in Pretrial Release (From Discretion, Justice, and Democracy, P 31-43, 1985, Carl F Pinkele and William C Louthan, eds. - See NCJ-96653)

• NCJ Number: 96656
• Author(s): F Rhynhart
• Date Published: 1985
• Length: 13 pages
• Sale Source: Iowa State University Press
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This paper reports on an investigation into judicial discretion with respect to bail setting, or pretrial release, in Ohio.

Abstract

The availability of bail is a matter of judicial discretion in some instances, and the amount or nature of bail is subject to official determination in all cases. The alternative uses of bail, including to pressure a defendant to waive the right to an attorney and to secure immediate disposition of a case, reinforce the argument that pretrial release is largely a function of judicial discretion. Contradictions in the theory of bail, and the questionable character of the bail reform business, became the basis for a reform movement in the 1960's. In Ohio in the 1970's, advocates of bail reform sought the release of more defendants, many of whom were indigent, on personal recognizance or dollar-free bail. Although, Rule 46 of the Criminal Code was implemented, giving local trial judges multiple criteria to consider in setting bail, it contained no weighting formula. Analysis of descriptive data reveals that multiple unweighted criteria allows a wide range of behavior within the structural discretion system. Further study indicates that, within this range of structural discretion, judges choose neither to provide uniform decisionmaking nor to meet reformers' hopes. A study of the behavior of 13 trial judges in Ohio indicates that cash bail, and not personal reognizance, is the norm. Finally, the range of low to high bail is shown to be quite high. One table and seven figures are included.