Release or Detention Before Trial in Philadelphia (PA) - An Analysis of Factors Determinative of Pretrial Custody

• NCJ Number: 81913
• Author(s): J S Goldkamp
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 85 pages
• Grant Number(s): 76-SS-99-6038
• Sponsoring Agency: National Criminal Justice Information & Statistics Service
• Corporate Author: Hindelang Criminal Justice Research Ctr
• Sale Source: Hindelang Criminal Justice Research Ctr
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Working Paper 12 - Third and final report in a series examining issues in the area of bail and pretrial detention

Annotation

Based on a sample of approximately 8,300 defendants who appeared before the Philadelphia courts between August and November 1975, this study examined factors which influenced the decision to release or detain a defendant.

Abstract

The report reviews problems faced by pretrial detainees and presents a profile of the Philadelphia defendants, comparing them to the local population. The analysis first divided defendants into those who were released by the time 24 hours had elapsed after initial appearance and those who remained in detention after that period. A second measure categorized pretrial custody into defendants released by 24 hours, defendants detained longer than 24 hours but released before the final disposition of their cases, and defendants who were detained thoughout the entire preadjudicatory period. Independent variables included age, race, sex, marital status, weekly income, employment status, criminal charge, prior arrests, and prior convictions. Approximately 25 percent of all defendants in the sample were detained 24 hours after their first appearance. Of those released, nearly two-thirds were released on their own recognizance while about one-third posted 10-percent cash bail. About 12 percent of all defendants were detained throughout the pretrial period. The study found a strong relationship between the amount of cash bail required and the proportion of defendants detained after their first appearance, suggesting that judges reflect their custody preferences through the amount of bail set. Multiple regression analysis indicated that seriousness of the criminal charge and the existence of outstanding warrants accounted for the greatest variance in custody outcomes. Tables, 27 footnotes, and 25 references are included. The appendixes list variables obtained in the Philadelphia data and discuss methods used to code charge seriousness.