Pretrial Services Agencies: A Rejoinder
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
Comments
8 responses to “Pretrial Services Agencies: A Rejoinder”
-
Many thanks for this analysis and report. It is helpful in understanding efforts to make sense of a civil approach to criminal justice as compared to the “cuff ‘em and forget ‘em” mentality.
-
First, let me thank you for making sure that you noted that Mr. Sherlock is you colleague. Something we need to get back to in today’s us against them place. Second, you both have facts in your argument that are based on data. Another thing we need to get back to in today’s argumentative world. Third, good work.
Both you and Mr. Sherlock need to continue your written debates and somehow we need to teach our youth how to do so the same when they are opposed to something. They would be less likely to storm the capital or punch someone in the face and more likely to respect differences in opinion as just that – differences. No more, no less.
-
Thanks for taking the time to find the facts and to do an analysis based on them.
Once again Sherlock judgmentally jumped to conclusions without bothering to either establish the facts or to understand that he was comparing apples to oranges before finding them wanting because they were not kumquats.
-
Let’s assess those “costly jail beds”.
What percentage of those released FTA or re-offend? I could not tell from what DCJS told you. Some suspicion of double counting by the Crime Commission?
It was that Commission that reported the pre trial services added no value, not me.
Sounds like DCJS may be contending this version of the operation was a success and the patient died.
Finally, did l read this right that DCJS blames the judges?
You are reporting what DCJS told you, so not your issue, but to some degree what they said appears unserious.
-
Good post, Dick.
-
The study that James S reported on was issued in December 2019, more than 2 1/2 years ago. The study itself considered only offenders charged in a single month (October 2017) more than 2 years prior to that. Dick provided a much deeper analysis of the statistics than the study itself did.
-
A house next to ours is under construction. It’s almost complete. The other night, my better half saw four teens upstairs in a room with lights on. I believe the builder turns on lights nightly. The teens were drinking beer and otherwise partying. I called Wake Forest’s finest. Three squad cars arrived. Apparently, when the kids, who appear to live in the next subdivision, saw the car, they ran out of the house and into a nearby wooded area on the way home.
The police entered the wooded area and flushed out the four kids. Then I saw four civilian vehicles pull up one by one. The parents had to pick up their kids. From the pace and gait of the parents, there was going to be hell to pay.
This seemed like a good approach for the circumstances. Judgment can be used in law enforcement. But what if this had been the second or third time the same time the police had caught the same group of kids?
-
My comment about a possible overlap in the FTA and arrested groups in the Crime Commission was my speculation and did not originate from DCJS. From the Crime Commission report and data, it is not clear whether the two groups are mutually exclusive or whether an offender could be counted in both groups.
The Crime Commission did not report that pretrial services agencies added no value. That was your conclusion based on one chart. However, data in the table on p. 75 of the 2019 Preliminary report demonstrate that the outcomes with defendants supervised by PSAs were better than the outcomes of defendants released on secured bond.
DCJS is not “blaming” judges. I asked the question regarding whether there had been any analysis of how often judge’s release decisions followed the recommendation of the pretrial officer. DCJS provided the data.
I don’t understand your comment about their responses being “unserious”.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.