« Some notable headlines in wake of state prosecutors' decision to seek death penalty for James Holmes | Main | Perfect retributivism?: Saudi court orders paralysis as punishment for assault that resulted in paralysis »
April 4, 2013
"Pretrial Detention and the Right to Be Monitored"The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper available via SSRN by Samuel Wiseman. Here is the abstract:
The typical academic concern with respect to advancing criminal justice technology, be it wiretaps or surveillance drones, is that there will be too much of it. In the context of pretrial justice, however, we have the opposite problem. Although detention for dangerousness has received far more attention in recent years, a significant number of non-dangerous but impecunious defendants are jailed to ensure their presence at trial due to continued, widespread reliance on a money bail system. Increasingly sophisticated forms of electronic monitoring have the potential to mitigate flight risk at least as well as money bail at a cost to defendants and the state lower than money bail’s necessary concomitant, pretrial detention. But the long, mostly sad history of bail reform efforts suggests that, unlike wiretaps, electronic monitoring in lieu of detention will not be adopted through the political process in many jurisdictions.
This paper develops two related claims. First, in the near term, electronic monitoring will present a superior alternative to money bail for addressing flight risk. In contrast to previous proposals for reducing pretrial detention rates, including increased use of personal recognizance bonds and varying forms of supervision by pretrial services agencies, electronic monitoring has the potential to both reduce fugitive rates (by allowing the defendant to be easily located) and government expenditures (by reducing the number of defendants detained at state expense). Moreover, the usual objections to government monitoring -- the intrusion on individual privacy and the threat of surveillance extending to new segments of society -- have relatively little force in the pretrial context, where detention currently all but extinguishes privacy interests, and the number of criminal defendants is largely independent of the means of preventing flight.
Secondly, despite the potential benefits to defendants and governments, electronic monitoring is not likely to be adopted by legislative or executive action. The commercial bail industry has a significant financial incentive to maintain the status quo, and it has repeatedly blunted previous reform efforts. Thus, although there is a lively debate over the institutions best suited to respond to advances in investigative technology, here the best prospect for meaningful change is clearly the judiciary generally, and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of Excessive Bail more specifically. To achieve this goal, however, the courts will, for the first time, have to develop a meaningful jurisprudence of excessiveness to test the fit between the government’s pretrial goals and the means employed to accomplish them. The paper begins this inquiry, arguing that the text, purpose, and history of the Amendment all support the requirement that the chosen means be, at minimum, not substantially more burdensome than necessary. Under this standard, a money bail system that leads to widespread detention without a corresponding increase in performance or savings cannot survive in the face of a less restrictive technological alternative.
Long-time readers know I am a fan of both the Eighth Amendment and of the potential of technocorrections to reduce the modern incarceration "footprint." I thus find especially intriguing and appealing the notion that the Eighth Amendment might give defendants a right to demand a technocorrections alternative to incarceration in some settings.
April 4, 2013 at 11:00 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Pretrial Detention and the Right to Be Monitored":
I find this very humorous in light of the post a few days ago about how electronic monitoring of parolees does not actually work.
Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Apr 4, 2013 2:41:29 PM
The real reason defense types perceive a "right to be monitored" is that they know full well that the actual meaning of "monitoring" is "no monitoring." But of course they're not about to say so and give away the game.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 4, 2013 4:40:00 PM
I agree with Bill Otis here. Tracking devices are not the panacea of "electronic leashes" that they are marketed out to be. In fact, such devices should only be reserved not as the main component, but as an auxiliary component of monitoring that also includes human intervention for those who've been sentenced, and never used unless ordered by a judge during the execution of the sentence. In addition, criminal sanctions against an individual wearing the device should be limited only to the actual criminal activity the offender acts on, and any offense involving the actual monitor be non-criminal in extra charges, but have civil implications.
For pretrial monitoring of alleged offenders, a better system would utilize the opposite of a "halfway house" which would actually be a place where non-convicted, non-violent felony charged individuals could be housed at a much reduced cost. This would also include curfews and other controls that would allow them full access to legal consultation and research not available in jail, but also allow for actual supervisory control at night.
While the intial setup of such as system may entail a lot of paradigm changes, it would be the best of both worlds: Alleged violent offenders can still go through the traditional high- or no-bail pretrial incarceration, while the ones "not likely" to commit another crime would be monitored just as much as those on parole. In addition they would also be allowed to post bail if they want to avoid pretrial monitoring, at least the conditions that aren't imposed by a judge.
Posted by: Eric Knight | Apr 4, 2013 4:58:30 PM