Pretrial Intervention in New Jersey

• NCJ Number: 74803
• Author(s): J A Rank
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 166 pages
• Sale Source: National Technical Information Service
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: University of Pennsylvania - masters thesis.

Annotation

The New Jersey Pretrial Intervention Program is examined to determine the extent to which it accomplishes its goals; general information, program objectives, legal issues, a survey of county programs, and recommendations are included.

Abstract

The goals of the New Jersey Pretrial Intervention program have been recognized by the courts as rehabilitation and expeditious processing of the criminal calendars. The program has grown from a single project primarily devoted to solving employment-related problems of minor offenders to a statewide system of projects which treat a multitude of problems. New Jersey has based its program on court rule, rather than prosecutorial discretion or legislative enactment, and this has resulted in some friction between the judiciary and other branches of government. In addition, although the New Jersey supreme court has attempted to attain a degree of uniformity among the different county programs, here are still many important areas of dissimilarity. The most significant area is that of eligibility; some programs accept applications from all offenders, while others have both announced and unannounced restrictions on who may apply. Also, it does not appear that any New Jersey program routinely follows successful participants to validly determine a rate of recidivism, a vital criterion to the determination of program success. Considering the nature of the offender who is accepted into the pretrial program, the type and cost of rehabilitative services he would have received under preexisting procedures, and the type and cost of the rehabilitative services he receives under the pretrial programs, it is apparent that costs of the criminal justice system are increased rather than decreased as a result of the current pretrial intervention program. During fiscal year 1976 less than 1 percent of the total number of ofenders processed by the courts were disposed of through pretrial intervention. The program should adopt the goal and structure of its predecessors and become a component of prosecutorial rather than court discretion. An appendix and 275 reference notes are included in the thesis. (Author abstract modified).