Advertisement

Evidence about Guidelines

  • John S. Goldkamp
  • Michael R. Gottfredson
  • Peter R. Jones
  • Doris Weiland
Part of the The Plenum Series in Crime and Justice book series (PSIC)

Abstract

The research described in subsequent chapters was predicated on the experience of our earlier work in the Philadelphia Municipal Court.1 Perhaps the most fundamental question underlying the Philadelphia research was whether it would be possible to review and change the exercise of judicial discretion at the bail stage through this voluntary approach. Could the highly discretionary pretrial release decision be made more visible and therefore more accountable to acknowledged policy aims and governing criteria? Could the equity of bail decisions be improved so that similarly situated defendants would be treated more “similarly”? Could bail decisions be made more effective?

Keywords

Public Safety Current Charge Pretrial Detention Actuarial Model Preventive Detention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Goldkamp and Gottfredson (1985); Goldkamp (1987).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    For a full description of the research design and data collection, see Goldkamp et al. (1981).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldkamp (1979).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    For an in-depth discussion of the modeling of ROR and of cash bail, see especially the technical appendices of Goldkamp et al. (1981).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    For a discussion of the advantages and interpretation of a regression employing a dependent variable transformed into its logarithm, see Goldkamp et al. (1981, App. E.).Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    For an in-depth discussion of the modeling of the performance of defendants during pretrial release, see the technical appendixes of Goldkamp et al. (1981).Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Morris and Miller (1985).Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    For a discussion of the experiment, see Goldkamp and Gottfredson (1985).Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    Goldkamp and Gottfredson (1985).Google Scholar
  10. 13.
    The National Institute of Justice funded a broad research program for pretrial release guidelines in 1984 (Grant No. 84-IJ-CX-0056).Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    Of course, this is less remarkable than the increase from 1970 to 1978: Only the District of Columbia had a danger-oriented law in 1970.Google Scholar
  12. 15.
    See, for example, Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (1982); Hunt v. Roth, 648 F.2d 1148 (8th Cir. 1981); Parker v. Roth, 202 Neb. 850, 278 N.W. 2d 106, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 920 (1979); U.S. v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321 (D.C. App. 1981) (en banc), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022 (1982); Schall v. Martin, 104 S.Ct. 2403.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • John S. Goldkamp
    • 1
  • Michael R. Gottfredson
    • 2
  • Peter R. Jones
    • 1
  • Doris Weiland
    • 3
  1. 1.Temple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  3. 3.Crime and Justice Research InstitutePhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations