Pretrial Release Policy from North Carolina's Perspective

• NCJ Number: 119949
• Author(s): S H Clarke
• Date Published: 1988
• Length: 46 pages
• Sale Source: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Government; National Institute of Justice/
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

North Carolina statutes on pretrial release and detention are examined, along with concepts, issues, and risks involved in pretrial release; the effectiveness of pretrial release and strategies for improving it; and some options for North Carolina.

Abstract

The number of prisoners in North Carolina jails increased steadily from 1975 through 1986 by about 213 prisoners per year; about 68 percent were being held in pretrial detention in 1986. North Carolina statutes on pretrial release require that arrested defendants be brought before a magistrate or other judicial official without unnecessary delay to determine the legality of their arrest and to determine conditions of pretrial release. The judicial official must impose one of four pretrial release conditions: (1) the defendant signs a written promise to appear; (2) the defendant is placed under the supervision of a person or organization; (3) the defendant signs an unsecured appearance bond; or (4) the defendant signs an appearance bond secured by a cash deposit, mortgage of property, or a surety. Scholars disagree as to whether the U.S. Constitution, whose only relevant provision forbids "excessive bail," creates a right to pretrial release. Other issues concern bail liberalization and associated risk control, the amount of assistance needed by defendants in obtaining pretrial release, making the pretrial release system more effective, notification of released defendants of their obligations, whether postrelease supervision reduces risk, focused supervision, the bond's effectiveness, the bail decisionmaking process, and focused supervision. The efficacy of specialized pretrial release agencies that screen defendants immediately after arrest for release without secured bond and supervise them after release is addressed. In considering options for North Carolina, the author concludes that North Carolina's law allowing variation in local pretrial release policies is well-suited to cautious experimentation with administrative improvements in pretrial release. 37 references.